Um, I Think It's Time for a Thread on WikiLeaks

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed

Because holy moly.

gato busca pleitos (Eazy), Monday, 26 July 2010 04:45 (nine years ago) link

somebody was just saying something

what is it?

janice (surm), Monday, 26 July 2010 04:46 (nine years ago) link

http://bpent.webs.com/YungRoLeak.jpg

buzza, Monday, 26 July 2010 04:53 (nine years ago) link

there was a pretty thorough article in the New Yorker a bit back, very interesting stuff.

bug holocaust (sleeve), Monday, 26 July 2010 06:17 (nine years ago) link

I don't like the way Wikileaks packages and promotes its material. They edited the Reuters photographer video to make it more damning and titled it "Collateral Murder." That seems to contradict their mission to promote transparency and accountability. How can they claim to be the antidote to spin and selective information when their product does the same? They ought to just publish the material and let it speak for itself.

Super Cub, Monday, 26 July 2010 06:38 (nine years ago) link

^^^ Exactly my thoughts after the New Yorker piece. They present themselves as activists with a particular political slant until they get criticised, at which point they throw their hands up and say they were just putting data out there for other people to interpret how they like. Towards the end of the profile, Assange says that he thinks in retrospect he should have gone with the Reuters video's more neutral original title, Permission to Engage, so he's not unaware of this contradiction.

Haunted Clocks For Sale (Dorianlynskey), Monday, 26 July 2010 07:34 (nine years ago) link

--- Subject: Press Conference - WIKILEAKS, Midday, Monday 26 July, at the Frontline Club

Julian Assange of Wikileaks is holding a press conference at noon today at the Frontline Club following the release yesterday of a document set called the Afghan War Diary, an extraordinary compendium of over 91,000 reports covering the war in Afghanistan from 2004 to 2010, described by the Guardian as the biggest intelligence leak in history.

Frontline Club, 13 Norfolk Place, London W2 1JG
---

James Mitchell, Monday, 26 July 2010 08:22 (nine years ago) link

I don't like the way Wikileaks packages and promotes its material. They edited the Reuters photographer video to make it more damning and titled it "Collateral Murder." That seems to contradict their mission to promote transparency and accountability. How can they claim to be the antidote to spin and selective information when their product does the same? They ought to just publish the material and let it speak for itself.

― Super Cub, Monday, July 26, 2010 2:38 AM (3 hours ago)

this is dumb. the unedited video hardly added any context to the killing and it was made clear that there was a "short version" and a "long version" - released simultaneously and on the same page

terry squad (k3vin k.), Monday, 26 July 2010 10:13 (nine years ago) link

i can't remember this so well but the long version was also edited. we did a whole thread about it iirc.

pieter brogel the elder (history mayne), Monday, 26 July 2010 10:16 (nine years ago) link

n e ways i don't have a big problem with them but calling it 'collateral murder' was kind of dumm

pieter brogel the elder (history mayne), Monday, 26 July 2010 10:16 (nine years ago) link

but the main thing with the new leaks is surely that they aren't that surprising?

guardian editorial:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jul/25/afghanistan-war-logs-guardian-editorial

We today learn of nearly 150 incidents in which coalition forces, including British troops, have killed or injured civilians, most of which have never been reported; of hundreds of border clashes between Afghan and Pakistani troops, two armies which are supposed to be allies; of the existence of a special forces unit whose tasks include killing Taliban and al-Qaida leaders; of the slaughter of civilians caught by the Taliban's improvised explosive devices; and of a catalogue of incidents where coalition troops have fired on and killed each other or fellow Afghans under arms.

which parts of this are really new? obviously it provides a lot more detail etc, but "the existence of a special forces unit whose tasks include killing Taliban and al-Qaida leaders" is the kind of thing one would have expected in 2001, let alone today.

pieter brogel the elder (history mayne), Monday, 26 July 2010 10:41 (nine years ago) link

i'm struggling to see what part of the info motivated the whistleblower - it's that kid who's been arrested, right? he said there were "almost criminal political backdealings", does that mean the isi/taliban link? the guardian is a bit dismissive about the intelligence reports on that.

grateful to nick davies for revealing that the leaker used blank cds labelled as lady gaga to smuggle the info out though.

joe, Monday, 26 July 2010 10:54 (nine years ago) link

this seems new:

9.55am: I've just been speaking to Jon Boone, the Guardian's Afghanistan correspondent, about the revelation that the Taliban have acquired deadly surface-to-air missiles (Stingers), which were used to down a Chinook helicopter over Helmand in 2007 , killing seven soliders. Boone told me it was the most significant piece of information in the leaked documents and something that has not been reported previously, as the cause of the Chinook fatalities was covered up:

"It is significant because Stinger missiles were part of the story of how the Russians were beaten in the 1980s [in Afghanistan] and it's always been said that if the insurgents got these weapons it would do immense damage to the counter-insurgency campaign because air power is so significant - it's the power we have that the insurgents don't. My sources always led me to believe they did not have this technology and that it's impossible to get this stuff on the private market. It would be a huge move if a surrounding state had given this technology to the Taliban, even if it hasn't had as much of an impact as anticipated.

"After the Russian withdrawal the main business of the CIA was a Stinger buyback programme . Although they didn't get them all, it was thought that those remaining were ineffective because of flat batteries etc. Maybe some of those old Stingers have been brought back into operation but maybe, more significantly, a neighbouring country has provided these."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/blog/2010/jul/26/afghanistan-war-logs-wikileaks

joe, Monday, 26 July 2010 10:57 (nine years ago) link

Not bigger than the Pentagon Papers, surely? I heard on NPR the stuff isn't even Top Secret. [Val Kilmer gif]

Still, kudos to the heroes who leaked them.

kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Monday, 26 July 2010 15:25 (nine years ago) link

i think it's just on sheer size. pentagon papers = 7000 pages. wikileaks = 90,000 documents. assange was saying at the press conference that wikileaks/guardian/nyt/der spiegel have only gone through a couple of thousand of them so far, so there might be something else to come.

joe, Monday, 26 July 2010 15:31 (nine years ago) link

1. Ask yourself: Why didn’t Wikileaks just publish the Afghanistan war logs and let journalists ‘round the world have at them? Why hand them over to The New York Times, the Guardian and Der Spiegel first? Because as Julien Assange, founder of Wikileaks, explained last October, if a big story is available to everyone equally, journalists will pass on it.

“It’s counterintuitive,” he said then. “You’d think the bigger and more important the document is, the more likely it will be reported on but that’s absolutely not true. It’s about supply and demand. Zero supply equals high demand, it has value. As soon as we release the material, the supply goes to infinity, so the perceived value goes to zero.”

http://journalism.nyu.edu/pubzone/weblogs/pressthink/2010/07/26/wikileaks_afghan.html

Beach Pomade (Adam Bruneau), Monday, 26 July 2010 15:46 (nine years ago) link

i like how he looks like a 'die hard' villain ^_^

http://news.antiwar.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/assange.jpg

am0n, Monday, 26 July 2010 15:52 (nine years ago) link

i can't remember this so well but the long version was also edited. we did a whole thread about it iirc.

― pieter brogel the elder (history mayne), Monday, July 26, 2010 6:16 AM

2010 in Iraq

am0n, Monday, 26 July 2010 15:57 (nine years ago) link

I'm not reading 900 pages much less 90,000 but so far the summaries seem kidna underwhelming/unsurprising

Moshy Star (Shakey Mo Collier), Monday, 26 July 2010 16:00 (nine years ago) link

gets rly good on page 65,340 btw

am0n, Monday, 26 July 2010 16:49 (nine years ago) link

That 'endangering lives' section is the important bit imo. When stuff is secret it's most likely to protect who the source is, not the actual content.

Ismael Klata, Monday, 26 July 2010 21:22 (nine years ago) link

Interesting:

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/opinions/view/opinion/Analysts-Find-Little-New-in-WikiLeaks-Afghan-Docs-4457

― gato busca pleitos (Eazy), Monday, July 26, 2010 5:12 PM (6 hours ago)

the too-cool crypto-conservative "we already suspected most of this stuff already, jeez wikileaks thanks for WASTING MY TIME" coming from a lot of people is...well, not surprising, but sad

terry squad (k3vin k.), Tuesday, 27 July 2010 03:50 (nine years ago) link

how dare they! gg said that it was important

Mordy, Tuesday, 27 July 2010 03:54 (nine years ago) link

ilx's leading conservative weighs in

terry squad (k3vin k.), Tuesday, 27 July 2010 03:57 (nine years ago) link

kevin is right -- just because we "know" that civilian killings etc happen afghanistan doesn't mean that details of actual events of such things going on aren't important

J0rdan S., Tuesday, 27 July 2010 03:57 (nine years ago) link

Man, fucking Mother Jones, so fucking Conservative.

http://motherjones.com/mojo/2010/07/wikileaks-afghan-documents-and-me-source

Mordy, Tuesday, 27 July 2010 03:58 (nine years ago) link

i don't think it's crypto-conservative... just needlessly cynical

J0rdan S., Tuesday, 27 July 2010 03:58 (nine years ago) link

hey k3v, got any other patronizing dictionary definitions to throw my way?

Mordy, Tuesday, 27 July 2010 03:59 (nine years ago) link

i mean that mother jones post boils down to "some murders are more boring than others"

J0rdan S., Tuesday, 27 July 2010 04:00 (nine years ago) link

also i think that what wikileaks does is important, regardless if every single one of their releases doesn't shake the country to its core

J0rdan S., Tuesday, 27 July 2010 04:01 (nine years ago) link

MJ:

I'll keep running through to see if there's anything else of importance. But most of this information is tactical nuts and bolts, devoid of context, and largely useless for a war narrative; what would be far more valuable than this stuff is the strategic/political data: military info that's TOP SECRET or above, which I haven't seen yet; or stuff from the State Department or provincial reconstruction teams (PRTs).

Mordy, Tuesday, 27 July 2010 04:01 (nine years ago) link

often the significance of the act may trump what's actually being leaked

J0rdan S., Tuesday, 27 July 2010 04:02 (nine years ago) link

"this is not important, because tons of military personnel have seen it already"

J0rdan S., Tuesday, 27 July 2010 04:03 (nine years ago) link

I didn't say wikileaks doesn't do important things, just don't think there's much value in calling people cynical crypto-conservatives for disagreeing with you over the value of a particular leak, esp when as far as i can tell k3v doesn't have any particular personal experience in gauging the value of military leaks and deciding whether they are important or not. presumably he read a dude who told him they were important and now i'm ILX's biggest conservative because i'm more skeptical than he is.

Mordy, Tuesday, 27 July 2010 04:03 (nine years ago) link

like i said, i don't agree that it's conservatism -- it might be conservative in the literal, non-political sense of the term, but i don't think ppl for the atlantic or mother jones are, you know, placating the GOP or something

J0rdan S., Tuesday, 27 July 2010 04:05 (nine years ago) link

tbh goofball i haven't even read any analysis of this, just read the NYT articles about an hour ago xp

terry squad (k3vin k.), Tuesday, 27 July 2010 04:08 (nine years ago) link

of course the IMPACT will be minimal, America is still debating Inception

kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 27 July 2010 04:08 (nine years ago) link

so are you

J0rdan S., Tuesday, 27 July 2010 04:09 (nine years ago) link

xp k3v, suggestion for future: when you don't know shit about something don't call people conservatives because they disagree with your one hour old opinion, k?

Mordy, Tuesday, 27 July 2010 04:09 (nine years ago) link

esp when as far as i can tell k3v doesn't have any particular personal experience in gauging the value of military leaks and deciding whether they are important or not.

― Mordy, Tuesday, July 27, 2010 12:03 AM (4 minutes ago)

you're using a different metric for "importance" than i am, you realize.

terry squad (k3vin k.), Tuesday, 27 July 2010 04:10 (nine years ago) link

or 'value', rather

terry squad (k3vin k.), Tuesday, 27 July 2010 04:11 (nine years ago) link

right, i'm using the gauge of whether they bring to light new information we didn't already have, spark discourse that wouldn't exist without them, or have a more undefinable impact -- since we have no idea about the second two yet, we can only evaluate the first, and since i'm not an expert (nor have the time to read all of the leaks myself), i have to rely on heuristics. generally reading analysis from a few different places. you apparently go with whether believing their valuable makes you feel good or not.

Mordy, Tuesday, 27 July 2010 04:13 (nine years ago) link

they're*

Mordy, Tuesday, 27 July 2010 04:13 (nine years ago) link

If a poll is taken within the next week and shows a huge spike in war unpopularity, or something else quantifiable that can possibly be traced back to this leak, I might be willing to say that the leak was important, even without any huge new revelations. My hesitance would be how shitty most polling is and how little they generally can tell us, but that's pretty much the only way you could say that these leaks were somehow "important." Trying to saying so without having that is just making shit up.

Mordy, Tuesday, 27 July 2010 04:16 (nine years ago) link

xp k3v, suggestion for future: when you don't know shit about something don't call people conservatives because they disagree with your one hour old opinion, k?

― Mordy, Tuesday, July 27, 2010 12:09 AM (1 minute ago)

yes, the fact that i haven't served in the military or have had my thoughts on intelligence leaks previously published disqualifies my opinion that disclosing this information is a good thing, regardless of its impact. and i hardly need your view on this to think you're a conservative

xp yeah there's the thing - you wouldn't know it but there's this crazy thing called principle, mine says uncovering secret shit that governments and militaries do is awesome, whether the info is interesting or mundane, whether it 'has an impact' or not

terry squad (k3vin k.), Tuesday, 27 July 2010 04:22 (nine years ago) link

Ah yes, the uncovering secret shit is good principle. I believe Kant wrote about that in his Critique of Practical Reason.

Mordy, Tuesday, 27 July 2010 04:24 (nine years ago) link

If a poll is taken within the next week and shows a huge spike in war unpopularity, or something else quantifiable that can possibly be traced back to this leak, I might be willing to say that the leak was important, even without any huge new revelations. My hesitance would be how shitty most polling is and how little they generally can tell us, but that's pretty much the only way you could say that these leaks were somehow "important." Trying to saying so without having that is just making shit up.

― Mordy, Tuesday, July 27, 2010 12:16 AM (7 minutes ago)

i mean this paragraph just makes me want to vomit. that shit is laaaaaaaame wikileaks, you shouldn't have even published this, fuckin attention whores. way to distract me from more important issues such as what crazy comment rush limbaugh made and what color john mccain's poop was today

terry squad (k3vin k.), Tuesday, 27 July 2010 04:30 (nine years ago) link

Quotation marks of random shit you wrote, how fun!

Mordy, Tuesday, 27 July 2010 04:32 (nine years ago) link

Free availability of information & transparency of government seem bedrock values of any democracy worth the name & that hardly seems like a controversial thing to assert in my opinion - what immediate measurable good is done by these values seems rather beside the point

gross rainbow of haerosmith (underrated aerosmith albums I have loved), Tuesday, 27 July 2010 04:37 (nine years ago) link

otm

J0rdan S., Tuesday, 27 July 2010 04:37 (nine years ago) link

Ah yes, the uncovering secret shit is good principle. I believe Kant wrote about that in his Critique of Practical Reason.

― Mordy, Tuesday, July 27, 2010 12:24 AM (13 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

this is kind of an important value in a liberal democracy isnt it? im on the fence about the intrinsic 'worth' of the information contained in the memos but its hard to argue that their publication is anything but a net good

max, Tuesday, 27 July 2010 04:39 (nine years ago) link

^yes (to aero & max)

terry squad (k3vin k.), Tuesday, 27 July 2010 04:40 (nine years ago) link

First of all, free availability of information & transparency of government are wonderful things to aspire to, but no government has ever practiced it fully, and no political philosopher has ever argued that a State can practice it fully and remain a State. But even putting that aside, k3v has now conflated my argument ("Let's wait and see if these leaks are truly valuable") which this other argument ("Wikileaks is wasting my time"). I already wrote that Wikileaks is a fine thing, even if this isn't the most useful leak. But in k3v's world everybody's political positions have to be the most thoughtlessly knee-jerk opinion on any given issue. There is no space for nuance or consideration, just blindly supporting anything that sounds good to you. It's insane and a total poisoning of any kind of intellectual life. Let's not think about issues on their own, just accept some vague, half-formulated "position," trumpet our own moral superiority, and condemn anyone who might disagree on any point as a crypto-conservative, or just simply a conservative.

Mordy, Tuesday, 27 July 2010 04:40 (nine years ago) link

someone register me a better nemesis than this cargo shorts goof

terry squad (k3vin k.), Tuesday, 27 July 2010 04:41 (nine years ago) link

Like, if we want to talk about the value of a totally free information society, by all means let's have it. But k3v isn't actually interested in any kind of discussion of substance. He just comes up with a talking point and defends it to the death. Maybe we shouldn't be celebrating that.

Mordy, Tuesday, 27 July 2010 04:42 (nine years ago) link

k3v, I think you'll get a new nemesis when you start writing coherently. I certainly won't have any issue with you at that point.

Mordy, Tuesday, 27 July 2010 04:42 (nine years ago) link

He also doesn't argue at all. At the end of every conversation is boils down to some personal reference. He calls me out by my full name, asks me about my personal habits, mentions my WDYLL photo. This is seriously what ILX is gonna defend?

Mordy, Tuesday, 27 July 2010 04:44 (nine years ago) link

kevin is the assange of ilx

J0rdan S., Tuesday, 27 July 2010 04:44 (nine years ago) link

leaking the classified contents of wdyll photos

J0rdan S., Tuesday, 27 July 2010 04:45 (nine years ago) link

He's really just a thoughtless dick tbh.

Mordy, Tuesday, 27 July 2010 04:45 (nine years ago) link

It's insane and a total poisoning of any kind of intellectual life.

for a guy attempting to present a reasoned argument, this sort of hyperbole seems, to put it mildly, counterproductive

gross rainbow of haerosmith (underrated aerosmith albums I have loved), Tuesday, 27 July 2010 04:47 (nine years ago) link

well at least its a more interesting beef than whiney v. deej

max, Tuesday, 27 July 2010 04:47 (nine years ago) link

that said k3v takin shit personal with appearance-related stuff is NAGL & you know it - you're perfectly capable of making your case without being uncool, and given that your case is righteous, I can't see why you'd shoot it in the foot

unless you're drunk, often when I get in "fuck you you fascist" political argts on ile it means I have got into the wine again

gross rainbow of haerosmith (underrated aerosmith albums I have loved), Tuesday, 27 July 2010 04:49 (nine years ago) link

well at least its a more interesting beef than whiney v. deej

to be fair, my cat vs. the arm of the couch is a more interesting beef than whiney vs. deej

gross rainbow of haerosmith (underrated aerosmith albums I have loved), Tuesday, 27 July 2010 04:49 (nine years ago) link

First of all, free availability of information & transparency of government are wonderful things to aspire to, but no government has ever practiced it fully,

but to take it back on topic, how can you in good conscience present such a specious and, yes, conservative argument? "wonderful things to aspire to, but no government has ever practiced it fully" isn't even on topic - the whole point of the various checks & balances in place is to move, push, nudge or force the elected & taxpayer-supported government toward as close to the ideal as possible. that means that every violation of the principles in question -- whether they're "important" or not (but as a governed citizen, I'll be the damn judge of that, and my [or anybody's] "yes it matters" cancels out any and every "naw, never mind") -- should be brought to light as quickly & and publicly as possible. Any case against the value of transparency will need to be made with something better than "well, nobody's perfect": which is a fair summary of what you say in the sentence above. Your sentence concludes

nd no political philosopher has ever argued that a State can practice it fully and remain a State.

which isn't germane to the case, I don't think; this seems like the classic appeal-to-authority, i.e., fallacious reasoning.

The rest of your case is a personal attack, in the process of decrying personal attacks: I don't need to point out the contradiction there.

gross rainbow of haerosmith (underrated aerosmith albums I have loved), Tuesday, 27 July 2010 04:56 (nine years ago) link

I need to go to sleep and not be arguing here but: Presumably we both agree that certain kinds of information should be kept secret from the public (such as information that WikiLeaks currently has and is sitting on because it will put people's lives at risk) and that certain kinds of information should be released (that which will result in meaningful change and helps people's actual lives and does other good quality of life stuff in the world). If you believe in both those categories, then you inevitably have to believe that something can be neither, or a little of both, or any other permutation. And thinking people generally sit down and think about: Was this good? Instead of just broadly applying the principle and coming out with a conclusion without the rest of that discussion. I wasn't just making personal attacks for no reason -- and I certainly wasn't attacking him PERSONALLY. I was attacking the kind of argument he is relying upon; one where we deduct any kind of analysis because it might undermine something we consider a principle. It's the triumph of ideology over thought. And btw, didn't even Morbz write that this leak thing might not be worth anything? If a tree falls in the woods and nobody hears it, does it make a sound? If something is leaked and it has no affect in the world, is it a good thing just because you personally got a release of a warm-feeling chemical into your brain? I guess it was good for you, but let's not over read the value.

Mordy, Tuesday, 27 July 2010 05:02 (nine years ago) link

(And let's not run around calling people crypto-conservatives because they decided to analyze the material themselves and not just rely on their gut to tell them if it's good or not.)

Mordy, Tuesday, 27 July 2010 05:03 (nine years ago) link

People were comparing these leaks to the Pentagon Papers! If the only good they do is they fulfill a personal principle, I think some articles explaining why they weren't that important are in order! I don't think someone trying to put them into a real perspective is somehow furthering the evil conservative agenda.

Mordy, Tuesday, 27 July 2010 05:06 (nine years ago) link

So Julian Assange, hot or not?

I vote hot. What a guy.

mittens, Tuesday, 27 July 2010 05:12 (nine years ago) link

If something leaked and it does not impact the world, yes, it's a good thing, because it perpetuates the free flow of information, which, as I say, is an essential component of a democracy. I'm perfectly open to the idea that democracy is too flawed & perilous a thing to be dragged out for too long, or that its principles are in need of overhaul, but that's because I have Marxist ghosts in my closet, and I suspect that the result of such an overhaul is a state with more power than you really want a state to have. but if the actual principles in play are to be adhered to, then yes, absolutely, the leaking of suppressed information that has no value whatsoever is in itself a good thing, a strike in favor of democracy itself. the system benefits, and it principles are affirmed, when suppressed information is made public.

the only information that I will concede any state organization has the right to keep secret from the public is information that might directly put soldiers in the field in harm's way. troop movements. battlefield positions. how the war was being conducted eight years ago - four years ago - last year? I get to know all that if I want, as long as somebody's willing to publish it.

xpost this is not a personal principle. it is a bedrock principle of our democracy.

gross rainbow of haerosmith (underrated aerosmith albums I have loved), Tuesday, 27 July 2010 05:14 (nine years ago) link

Ok, one more thing I have to say on this topic tonite: When you're a kid, at some point of your life, assuming you're in a situation where you're learning either the ten commandments, or generally ethical imperatives, you might have a question. It says do not kill, but what about if someone is trying to kill you first? Or someone is threatening someone else's life? And then you begin to learn that even the most important ethical decisions have nuance, and situations can shift no matter what the underlying principle is. So hopefully when you're an adult, and you see a WikiLeaks story, you've learnt that things in life are more complicated than, "yay, this sounds like some principle I have," and maybe you think, "I want to learn the details so I can decide whether it is a good thing, a bad thing, or a neutral thing." I have much more respect for the second person than the first.

Mordy, Tuesday, 27 July 2010 05:15 (nine years ago) link

Yeah you are not even arguing in anything like good faith. This is not "some principle I have." Your attempt to characterize it as such is an egregious violation of the most basic tenets of debate, and suggests that your case is weak and you know it. The ethical question that you attempt to invoke - "does the information have value" - was asked before the principle was put in place, and is also not comparable to "is someone trying to kill me." Your desire seems to be to interrogate a couple of principles long ago agreed on by the framers of the founding documents and supported by hundreds of years of tradition. It is incumbent on you to explain why those values need a re-think, not on people who celebrate the exercise of such values to justify their satisfaction.

gross rainbow of haerosmith (underrated aerosmith albums I have loved), Tuesday, 27 July 2010 05:21 (nine years ago) link

yeah and you're alone here it seems in witholding judgment on whether free access to such information is inherently good. it is - the information may not serve everyone's ends, or the government's, but demanding they not be able to control the dialog by dictating what is known and what is not is, like aerosmith says, a bedrock principle of democracy

xp

terry squad (k3vin k.), Tuesday, 27 July 2010 05:24 (nine years ago) link

I don't think I saw this linked, but if it was I'm sorry.

http://www.ted.com/talks/julian_assange_why_the_world_needs_wikileaks.html

Evan, Tuesday, 27 July 2010 05:25 (nine years ago) link

I'm not sure how you can say that the principle of all information should be free is something long ago agreed upon by anyone. Foucault writes that information is an intrinsic piece of power relationships. Inequalities of information have been apart of the United States since its founding. That doesn't mean that information isn't good, just that it isn't unqualifiedly good. As in any other principle, nuance is important. I didn't say that k3v shouldn't believe free information isn't good, just that he should be more willing to examine case by case to see if it fulfills his principles. Surely you don't believe outing Valerie Plame was good, because you recognize that even tho it involved taking secret information and making it public, that was situated in full contexts that undermined some kind of essential principle. I'm just asking that you maintain that ability to think about even things like WikiLeaks, and not to defame people who want to have a more cogent response to a particular leak than, "yay, freedom of information!"

Mordy, Tuesday, 27 July 2010 05:27 (nine years ago) link

Also, you two realize you basically invented this idea about free information being at the bedrock of democracy thing and are running with it now?

Mordy, Tuesday, 27 July 2010 05:28 (nine years ago) link

Like certainly more free information is important in a Democracy than in a totalitarian government, but let's not pretend like information inequalities weren't built into the very foundation of Democracy.

Mordy, Tuesday, 27 July 2010 05:29 (nine years ago) link

Also, you two realize you basically invented this idea about free information being at the bedrock of democracy thing and are running with it now?

seriously how can you be making these claims with a straight face? admit that you are wrong & have been proven wrong. it's the gentlemanly thing to do.

http://www.jmu.edu/madison/gpos225-madison2/bill_of_rights_text.htm

honestly dude. one foucault ref does not make up for claiming that two guys on ilx invented freedom of the press.

gross rainbow of haerosmith (underrated aerosmith albums I have loved), Tuesday, 27 July 2010 05:32 (nine years ago) link

really because it seems obvious to be that access to information by all parties & by people in all levels of political power is essential to a fair debate, and by extension democracy, the thing where everyone gets a say in how things are done

terry squad (k3vin k.), Tuesday, 27 July 2010 05:33 (nine years ago) link

xps

terry squad (k3vin k.), Tuesday, 27 July 2010 05:33 (nine years ago) link

to me*

terry squad (k3vin k.), Tuesday, 27 July 2010 05:33 (nine years ago) link

meant to have an image in that post between lines & here it is

http://www.coloradospringscriminallawyerblog.com/Bill%20Of%20Rights%2012-26-09.jpg

gross rainbow of haerosmith (underrated aerosmith albums I have loved), Tuesday, 27 July 2010 05:33 (nine years ago) link

Now you're just strawmanning me. I treasure the freedom of the press and think WikiLeaks is a good thing. I just don't believe every leak every on a case by case basis is good because of that. Also, you don't believe that either (see Valerie Plane) you just don't want to admit it.

Mordy, Tuesday, 27 July 2010 05:35 (nine years ago) link

Valerie Plane is a person with a right to privacy & with the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, rights placed in jeopardy by the revelation of her identity. These are rights in conflict. You know this already and just want to argue; you know very well that asking "is the information valuable?" isn't germane to any discussion of freedom of the press. whether the information might cause someone to come to harm as a result of its revelation is absolutely a fair question. other questions about whether the information is useful or interesting may be fun parlor games, but the continued exercise of a free press is always worth celebrating.

gross rainbow of haerosmith (underrated aerosmith albums I have loved), Tuesday, 27 July 2010 05:39 (nine years ago) link

And you were not strawmanned. You did indeed state that people here had made up the right of the public to information, which is the freedom of the press; how else does the public get its information? other than the use of our psychic powers I mean.

gross rainbow of haerosmith (underrated aerosmith albums I have loved), Tuesday, 27 July 2010 05:42 (nine years ago) link

it's plame

max, Tuesday, 27 July 2010 05:43 (nine years ago) link

other questions about whether the information is useful or interesting may be fun parlor games, but the continued exercise of a free press is always worth celebrating.

This is the real problem in my eyes. You've totally missed the forest for the trees. The reason why we celebrate a free press is because of how it equals an often inequal power dynamic. It gives information to those who tend to not have it from those who do. It wonderful to have a working press in place because that transaction is an important one. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't actually look when that information is transacted and decide whether it was valuable or not. The only reason for the principle is to have the valuable information! It's not magically worthwhile on its own, and if a particular piece of information doesn't actually affect that power imbalance it's totally legitimate to point it out. That doesn't mean media is bad, or that good information is bad. It just means this particular piece might not be worth something. Far from being a parlor game it's the ONLY game in town.

Mordy, Tuesday, 27 July 2010 05:43 (nine years ago) link

in later iterations of internet English the m was elided, do keep up with the linguistics max

gross rainbow of haerosmith (underrated aerosmith albums I have loved), Tuesday, 27 July 2010 05:44 (nine years ago) link

how else does the public get its information?

http://www.ilxor.com

markers, Tuesday, 27 July 2010 05:44 (nine years ago) link

Thanks max, spelled it right the first time but phone-typoed it the second. And Smithy, I wasn't saying that you invented the free press. If you read that in what I wrote, I apologize. That's much broader than what I intended. What I intended was some kind of total free information principle is an invention. Even Democracy relies on some power imbalance to work (it's built into the very voting system, which remains confidential, and goes to the executive use of power where certain presidential claims to classified information have also been kept). Pretending like the State has no right to classified information is a willful misreading of history, I'd argue.

Mordy, Tuesday, 27 July 2010 05:46 (nine years ago) link

The only reason for the principle is to have the valuable information!

that's a nice thing to think, I guess, but now who's cutting stuff from whole cloth? the reason for the principle is the full exercise of the freedoms available to us as citizens. one of the functions of a free press is to read books that have scenes with people having sex. there isn't any valuable information in those scenes. most such scenes are badly written, repetitive, and debased. and it's still a great thing that people write, publish, and read them. "human freedom" is a perfectly fine principle not in need of nobler principles to help it out.

gross rainbow of haerosmith (underrated aerosmith albums I have loved), Tuesday, 27 July 2010 05:47 (nine years ago) link

I hate to admit this but I kind of have the hots for Assange, what he's doing is pretty amazing and apparently that silver hair happened really suddenly some years back entirely from the stress of what he does!

Gumbercules (Trayce), Tuesday, 27 July 2010 05:48 (nine years ago) link

Now you're conflating two things. One is making public what originated started as private and the other is allowing things into the public discourse. The former exists to correct power imbalances. The second doesn't (unless the State lists the sex book as classified). xp

Mordy, Tuesday, 27 July 2010 05:49 (nine years ago) link

I don't think I saw this linked, but if it was I'm sorry.

http://www.ted.com/talks/julian_assange_why_the_world_needs_wikileaks.html

― Evan, Tuesday, July 27, 2010 1:25 AM (23 minutes ago)

You know he touches on some of the things you're bickering about here^

Evan, Tuesday, 27 July 2010 05:49 (nine years ago) link

Ugh, typoing everything. I really need to sleep, Smith. Maybe someone who is sympathetic to my position can step in, or Smith, since I think I've written plenty, you can just carry on without me. Basically my position: Nuance is good, knee-jerk defense of a leak is silly, people who read a lot = yay, people who are blind ideologues = boo, and my heuristics tell me that this leak is not as valuable as the Pentagon Papers even if WikiLeaks is itself a good project.

Mordy, Tuesday, 27 July 2010 05:50 (nine years ago) link

(and I would respond to your next: we should always err on the side of demanding from the State a defense of its right to classify information, because states have very, very bad records in this regard. "free information" is only a restatement of the freedom of the press; the press presents information; the only restriction on its right to do so are the obvious [harm's way, above].)

gross rainbow of haerosmith (underrated aerosmith albums I have loved), Tuesday, 27 July 2010 05:51 (nine years ago) link

guys mordy reads a lot, if you didn't know

terry squad (k3vin k.), Tuesday, 27 July 2010 05:55 (nine years ago) link

the "value" of the info is not for those with the secrecy to make it secret to determine -- that's the whole point of a "free press" (long before it was a constitutional principle). no earthly power can correctly determine the real value of every text/idea, so best to let it all hang out.

however the "value of the data" qn is pertinent here, cos it is possible to think of specific pieces of gov't info, relating to war, that we can say in retrospect we're glad weren't widely known -- the d-day plans or some such.

but making that distinction throws the afghanistan data out of the ring, imo, it doesn't rise to that level of life or death importance. the ISI hearts the talibs? US troops have killed a lot of civilians? the war is going really fucking badly? this is the essence of the cynical seen-it-all response of a lot of war reporters across the political spectrum. jesus, what did you think was happening over there??

goole, Tuesday, 27 July 2010 05:55 (nine years ago) link

The only reason for the principle is to have the valuable information!

but who's to decide if information is valuable? the point is it's there - you're free to use the information any way you please, or to decide if it's valuable

terry squad (k3vin k.), Tuesday, 27 July 2010 05:57 (nine years ago) link

Ok one more. Not totally true; Press doesn't have a right to privately owned information (patents or copyrights) except in places where exemptions (like fair use) have been made. I'm not a press lawyer but I suspect there are other limitations on that freedom too.

Mordy, Tuesday, 27 July 2010 05:59 (nine years ago) link

(responding to smiths assertion that only harm is configured ok sleep for real now)

Mordy, Tuesday, 27 July 2010 06:00 (nine years ago) link

the point here is that going "what's the big deal about this?" is just useless cynicism

J0rdan S., Tuesday, 27 July 2010 06:01 (nine years ago) link

Gotta agree with k3v, free access to information is a good thing, and what with 21st century warfare and the democratizing powers of the internet, it's an irreversible direction we're all headed in. Ironic that the net wouldn't exist without the military...

As for using intellect rather than emotions, being nuanced and adult about things over childish and knee-jerk, that's great. Maybe instead of using that debate to frame blogosphere & public opinion on the release of this information, we can apply it to what the information actually says. For instance the civilian deaths detailed in these logs tell of a war that is trying to be nuanced and adult and failing miserably.

Beach Pomade (Adam Bruneau), Tuesday, 27 July 2010 06:01 (nine years ago) link

To tell you the truth, the most alarming thing to me was that the NYTimes went to the White House before printing anything.

Beach Pomade (Adam Bruneau), Tuesday, 27 July 2010 06:02 (nine years ago) link

cynicism isn't useless if it's accurate!

the thing is, even at this late date i don't think the public is cynical about this. i am, i read this shit everyday.

goole, Tuesday, 27 July 2010 06:03 (nine years ago) link

Ok, really one last thing: Here's a very specific piece of information I think was destructive in this particular bunch of leaks. Everyone knew that Pakistan was covertly funding rebels in Afghanistan. The US clearly knew, but still wanted to work with them. Maybe they felt working with them would mediate this particular problem, or that maybe the problem was worth ignoring. But now the memos are out there and not only does the US know, and Pakistan knows they know, but it's all in writing and public. I don't know that this is a net good thing. I feel ambiguous about further poisoning the relationship between these two countries. Maybe all information wants to be free, but maybe it's not great all around when certain pieces of information become free.

Mordy, Tuesday, 27 July 2010 06:04 (nine years ago) link

But Mordy, you're now extending the harm question & the private enterprise question further: you're saying "if possible future interests of a government might be impacted, then that's harmful." you do see how this is arguing for the right of the state to censor the press, and how any administration (like say the Bush admin, who made this kind of argument all the time) can then argue "well, this isn't an immediate-need thing, but here, let me construe our desire for state secrecy in such a way that I get to abridge your freedom of speech"? right? I mean that is perilous, perilous stuff.

gross rainbow of haerosmith (underrated aerosmith albums I have loved), Tuesday, 27 July 2010 06:08 (nine years ago) link

i think the logic in mordy's last post is openly ridiculous

J0rdan S., Tuesday, 27 July 2010 06:11 (nine years ago) link

the cynicism - secrecy angle works like this, imo: none of these things should have been secret in the first place. a few details aside these are things that have become known over the past several years -- the cables are all from between 03 and 09 iirc. the press or you or i, or fuxake, our representatives, should be able to call up the pentagon and say "just how shitty is it over there, and what shitty things are we doing?" and the flack would say "real shitty sir" and hand him the folder.

apparently there are a few callsigns or something of some special forces guys that were revealed. that might be the only thing that rises to that level of harm. but everything else? empty works projects? civilians killed by taliban, or by us? supposed missile strikes on helicopters? drug corruption? no, these things are just BAD, but not like the plans to a nuclear reactor or something.

the will to make secret is ultimately the will to alter the public's perception of what's going on.

goole, Tuesday, 27 July 2010 06:11 (nine years ago) link

clearly the onus is not on the press to decide whether or not relations between two governments are going to be hurt at all by the release of information

J0rdan S., Tuesday, 27 July 2010 06:12 (nine years ago) link

pakistani civic culture is so cinematically fucked up i don't think we should make any guesses as to what it will really "mean" over there.

goole, Tuesday, 27 July 2010 06:13 (nine years ago) link

the press or you or i, or fuxake, our representatives,

I thought this said "or fukaxe" and I thought it was like some nonce-name posited person, you know - "or anybody, let's call him 'Fukaxe'" and for a moment there I was like giddily happy

gross rainbow of haerosmith (underrated aerosmith albums I have loved), Tuesday, 27 July 2010 06:14 (nine years ago) link

I don't agree that free information is about correcting power imbalances or right to know or whatever Foucault thinks - free information is only the default because it makes govt work more effectively, in that it means govt can be properly held to account. This might be what you're talking about re power imbalances, but that's dressing it up as high principle needlessly imo.

Free information can be trumped, therefore, if release makes govt work less effectively. It's easy to think of big things where secrecy is better, like troop movements. That's where the info itself needs to be not known. But it's just as important that processes be protected too, even if the info in these bits isn't major in itself, if such processes are a net good. You can't argue that the govt should enter negotiations with an open hand.

More importantly, some of these leaks are reports of meetings that only a very few people were at - i.e. the source's identity is very close to being revealed. Who in Afghanistan now is going to talk to the US if they think this is going to happen to them? The effect of such leaks might well be that information dries up totally and the govt becomes unable to function at all, or at least does so far less effectively.

Ismael Klata, Tuesday, 27 July 2010 06:31 (nine years ago) link

pakistani civic culture is so cinematically fucked up i don't think we should make any guesses as to what it will really "mean" over there.

― goole, Tuesday, July 27, 2010 2:13 AM (22 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

there are about six different centers of power that the us military and the state dept have to deal with anyway so its not super easy to say 'pakistan will react in such and such a way'

max, Tuesday, 27 July 2010 06:38 (nine years ago) link

wash post is being hilariously bitchy about not being on the short list for the leaks:

http://s3.amazonaws.com/data.tumblr.com/tumblr_l67ejsXnvk1qa9bmvo1_1280.png?AWSAccessKeyId=0RYTHV9YYQ4W5Q3HQMG2&Expires=1280299255&Signature=oBDSLQ7p3fC3vrCblT4675Sbw94%3D

max, Tuesday, 27 July 2010 06:41 (nine years ago) link

oh those old things? well we wouldnt have wanted them anyway

max, Tuesday, 27 July 2010 06:41 (nine years ago) link

I don't know that this is a net good thing. I feel ambiguous about further poisoning the relationship between these two countries. Maybe all information wants to be free, but maybe it's not great all around when certain pieces of information become free.

― Mordy, Monday, July 26, 2010 11:04 PM (47 minutes ago) Bookmark

sympathetic to yr position here, but look at it this way: the U.S. fed (a powerful and secretive entity) is the sole possessor of some hypothetical information set. the info will be made avail to the world only on the U.S. government's terms. it is thus what we could call "fully controlled" information. moreover, as no one outside the government has access to it, neither you nor i nor anyone else can say what parts of it should or shouldn't be made available. there's nothing wrong with this hypothetical scenario - so long as we're both comfortable with the fact that the information in question is fully controlled by the entity in question. if we have doubts, however, then this arrangement may become unsatisfactory.

if the information is somehow leaked, then it becomes less fully controlled. it is at this point that other entities become able to say what should or shouldn't have been made available. note that this becomes possible only when at least partial control of the information has wrested from the powerful and secretive entity that ostensibly owns it. i.e., we are only able to make the informed judgment that the info maybe shouldn't have been leaked in the 1st place because it WAS leaked. naturally, the acceptability of such leaks will depend largely on the information in question and your faith in the institutional entities that controlled the info in the 1st place.

which is the always the problem in these cases. we can't know what ought to be known until more is known than someone else is comfortable with. and that's the sense in which all leaks are good leaks - even those that seem to harm us (however you conceive that "us").

a CRASBO is a "criminally related" ASBO (contenderizer), Tuesday, 27 July 2010 07:13 (nine years ago) link

and to think yesterday i was worried that this wasn't getting enough attention from ilx!

joe, Tuesday, 27 July 2010 08:29 (nine years ago) link

There's also a huge grey area in the middle xp, though, where information becomes known with which someone isn't comfortable, but no complaint is made because there's also a harm in drawing attention to it by protesting. Stuff gets leaked every day but, because the material is low-level or there's still some benefit in keeping a poker face, the govt either just gets on with it or else deliberately makes no comment. Condemnations of leaks are actually pretty rare. You get into realms of game theory thinking this way, but I'd guess it's probably safe to assume that a condemnation usually means that significant harm has been caused.

Ismael Klata, Tuesday, 27 July 2010 08:31 (nine years ago) link

For all we know, a lot of the value in these documents might come down to context. A document which reveals that the taliban have weapon X might seem underwhelming because we already know it has weapon X - but the context might reveal a lot of secondary information, like:

- reveals that it had weapon X in 2009
- reveals that weapon X wasn't known about in 2008
- doesn't say anything about weapon Y

They might be significant to someone with more knowledge. Say you're in the taliban purchasing directorate. You negotiate with dealer A to acquire weapon X in 2008. You continue to acquire weapon X from dealers A and B through 2009. On one visit in 2009 dealer A introduces you to dealer C, who sells you weapon Y. If you know these facts, you now know you can trust A and C, but not B. That might be pretty important information, and wikileaks doesn't even know that it's giving it away.

Ismael Klata, Tuesday, 27 July 2010 08:46 (nine years ago) link

When stuff is secret it's most likely to protect who the source is, not the actual content.

oh really? So that's why the US coalition suppresses reports of its soldiers killing Afghans? I suppose you are right, if the soldiers doing the killing could be defined as the source.

The New Dirty Vicar, Tuesday, 27 July 2010 10:04 (nine years ago) link

Aiui a lot of the reports that have been leaked also concern taleban killing civilians - don't understand why they would be kept secret if the purpose was suppression to make the US look good. I don't really understand this aspect of the leaks tbh - there are plenty of reports of civilian casualties, where do they normally come from? I'd assumed it was from regular journalism, but if it's from army briefings I don't understand why they'd report some but not others.

Really, though, I'm just trying to explain why stuff is kept secret when most of it is banal anyway. There are layers of meaning to these things, of which we're only aware of the surface. It's just the nature of that game, and I don't think that non-participants claiming an unrestricted or at least extremely broad right to know in great detail is at all appropriate.

Ismael Klata, Tuesday, 27 July 2010 10:47 (nine years ago) link

can we just go ahead and fully privatize the military then?

tbh you're not doing a great job of explaining besides vague government talking points

terry squad (k3vin k.), Tuesday, 27 July 2010 11:02 (nine years ago) link

So funny that there are so many stories saying "This won't change anything". As if everyone read all 90,000 logs yesterday while looking into the future via a crystal ball.

Beach Pomade (Adam Bruneau), Tuesday, 27 July 2010 14:11 (nine years ago) link

kind of thing wikileaks would have found out the juicy stuff and upfronted it? i guess there could be big surprises. and journalists and politicians should read it, because it will be instructive, and propose alternative strategies, etc. not sure what *could* change at this point, other than individual prosecutions. immediate withdrawal isn't going to happen.

rip MAD MEN on AMC S4 26/07 never forget (history mayne), Tuesday, 27 July 2010 14:22 (nine years ago) link

I don't think that non-participants claiming an unrestricted or at least extremely broad right to know in great detail is at all appropriate.

I pay taxes that help fund these wars, so I would say I'm a participant, as are all US taxpayers.

Beach Pomade (Adam Bruneau), Tuesday, 27 July 2010 14:27 (nine years ago) link

i think there is a case for more openness... but not that case. shd every bit of govt expenditure be made public? kind of a libertarian's dream -- and the UK government is trying to do this precisely in order to undermine the public sector.

rip MAD MEN on AMC S4 26/07 never forget (history mayne), Tuesday, 27 July 2010 14:35 (nine years ago) link

the principle American organ for reporting on a chache of tens of thousands of leaked, formerly secret documents makes the principle line of inquiry the potential effect that the reporting of said documents by such paper will have on the public, as speculated upon by government officials, and how this will in turn affect the actions of these same, speculative officials. In other words, the newspaper asked the government how it would be affected by the way it imagined the public might react to information that the newspaper itself is about to report. (Take a note, Nolan.)

I guess it would be simpler to report the information contained in the document, observe the resultant public reaction and the subsequent government response, and then report on what you've observed, but it wouldn't be nearly so much fun

http://whoisioz.blogspot.com/2010/07/thats-their-plan-travel-into-past-to.html

Beach Pomade (Adam Bruneau), Tuesday, 27 July 2010 14:40 (nine years ago) link

I pay taxes that help fund these wars, so I would say I'm a participant, as are all US taxpayers

I get that, and ultimately it's your collective choice how much transparency you want - but more transparency will likely mean the military you pay for doing its job less well.

Ismael Klata, Tuesday, 27 July 2010 14:48 (nine years ago) link

'Doing its job less' would be just fine.

"It's far from 'lol' you were reared, boy" (darraghmac), Tuesday, 27 July 2010 14:51 (nine years ago) link

^^^^
Especially since "Its job" shouldn't be nearly so . . . proactive?

the penis cream pilot walked free (Phil D.), Tuesday, 27 July 2010 15:02 (nine years ago) link

all you're saying is, we shouldn't gave invaded afghanistan nine years ago -- which is fine, but i don't think there's anything in the leak which will have swayed people either way. i guess it will bolster the argument that nine years ago we should not have invaded, but i don't think there's a gamechanger in there.

rip MAD MEN on AMC S4 26/07 never forget (history mayne), Tuesday, 27 July 2010 15:06 (nine years ago) link

if 'doing it's job' is recklessly killing thousands of civilians with impunity, I'd like them to do that less well

terry squad (k3vin k.), Tuesday, 27 July 2010 16:15 (nine years ago) link

that's not all they're doing in afghanistan.

joe, Tuesday, 27 July 2010 16:16 (nine years ago) link

there were some friendly fire incidents too.

joe, Tuesday, 27 July 2010 16:16 (nine years ago) link

I think it's clear that the idea that they might be held publicly (or criminally) accountable if they do make grave, reckless mistakes would serve as a sort of disincentive to do questionable shit - this is essentially the entire purpose of political transparency

terry squad (k3vin k.), Tuesday, 27 July 2010 16:29 (nine years ago) link

the 'questionable shit' is mostly the war. i dunno, the three papers have not yet pulled out an incident that a) is surprising* or b) demonstrates that they're killing civilians 'with impunity', ie like it's for shiggles.

*maybe more in the US? idk, last week there was a matter-of-fact news item about the propensity of afghan troops to fire indiscriminately on civilians. possibly the embedded journalist was being censored and the british forces are equally reckless, but you get the idea.

rip MAD MEN on AMC S4 26/07 never forget (history mayne), Tuesday, 27 July 2010 16:33 (nine years ago) link

I don't agree that free information is about correcting power imbalances or right to know or whatever Foucault thinks - free information is only the default because it makes govt work more effectively, in that it means govt can be properly held to account. This might be what you're talking about re power imbalances, but that's dressing it up as high principle needlessly imo.

This is precisely what I meant, tho obv Foucault is probably skeptical of the idea that the State simply represents their voters but also represents this formation of power. Btw, I'd like to also point out that Foucault isn't just criticizing power imbalances as some sort of high principle. There are a lot of good reasons to have a powerful State. One of the major issues in the Congo right now is that the State can't get a monopoly on coercive force and so it can't protect its citizens from each other. This is a classical reason to have governance (and is even mentioned in Pirkei Avot in 200BC; "without governance a man will swallow his neighbor alive"), and it's why I'm skeptical of free information as a value without any moderation or mediation. I don't believe that the government should have to give up every secret but the ones that will lead to immediate, quantifiable, and direct harm to their citizens. Surely our government could probably use to give up more information (and have a more robust FOIA), but I don't think that any individual acting with impunity should have the power to decide what information should be secret and what shouldn't. For all of our complaints about how the free press kowtows to Executive Power, they are an important step between full disclosure on every issue and figuring out what needs to remain a secret. Again, I believe our press should probably be more robust, and more willing to bend the lines (tho with the WaPost report on US intel organizations last week it's hard to say they aren't doing their job at all), but that doesn't mean it's a YAY AWESOME THING that random dude beholden to no one legally, ethically, etc can release whatever he wants. It's a thing, and it might be good sometimes (definitely good to give whistle-blowers a forum to safely release important information) and bad sometimes.

Mordy, Tuesday, 27 July 2010 17:21 (nine years ago) link

^ enjoys this guys posts even when i disagree

citizens of a country own the govts information imo.

shd every bit of govt expenditure be made public?

yep

"It's far from 'lol' you were reared, boy" (darraghmac), Tuesday, 27 July 2010 17:25 (nine years ago) link

welfare payments? prescription medication? cost of operations?

rip MAD MEN on AMC S4 26/07 never forget (history mayne), Tuesday, 27 July 2010 17:34 (nine years ago) link

eh it depends on what exactly you mean by "made public". i can imagine a very innocent sunshine proposal coming from a GOP-controlled house to publish the name, salary, race and home address of every single federal employee. but that's a rather florid example i guess.

mordy i just fundamentally disagree here

One of the major issues in the Congo right now is that the State can't get a monopoly on coercive force and so it can't protect its citizens from each other. This is a classical reason to have governance (and is even mentioned in Pirkei Avot in 200BC; "without governance a man will swallow his neighbor alive"), and it's why I'm skeptical of free information as a value without any moderation or mediation.

mainly cos i don't think you can separate the objects of "the state" and "the people". the state is not a mechanism, or a force, or an idea, or an arrow on a flowchart, it is a subset of the people, acting. i'm enough of a libertarian to disagree with the dictum you've quoted -- "governance" is just as often the means by which a man swallows his neighbor.

i'm a little fuzzy on how we got from free inquiry to the monopoly on force, tho

goole, Tuesday, 27 July 2010 17:35 (nine years ago) link

Because information is a kind of power.

Mordy, Tuesday, 27 July 2010 17:37 (nine years ago) link

ah right, now i remember what i was thinking...

look i don't think we ought to react to a huge and embarrassing link like this by saying, oh no, what about the monopoly of force!! this way lies the congo!! i just don't think so.

but that doesn't mean it's a YAY AWESOME THING that random dude beholden to no one legally, ethically, etc can release whatever he wants.

isn't it?

knowing that the veil of secrecy allows you to do shitty things out of public view means... those with the power to make things secret will do shitty things! because they can! the principle of free information IS the principle of restraint of power, it IS the counterweight to the monopoly of force. a few more julian assanges around and the calculus for the political costs of military action start to change.

goole, Tuesday, 27 July 2010 17:48 (nine years ago) link

You can be in favor of free speech as a way of alleviating the worst excesses of political corruption and not be in favor of deinstitutionalized release of classified information. I was in favor of the NYT leaking the Bush administration wiretapping program (and even think they were too conservative about waiting to leak it) because the NYT is responsible to a number of different forces -- their readership, the country they live in, etc. I don't think Assanges is accountable to anyone and tho it seems at the moment that he's a good enough guy (at least making an attempt to keep the most dangerous information out of the public sphere), that doesn't mean I trust him to always make the right decision. Let's say he releases a bunch of destructive material that hurts people literally (many of which would be moderates who are trying to work with the United States) and institutionally (releases information that weakens the US when they come to the bargaining table) -- if you are against the US State having power (which is a real position, but needs to be articulated as such), then this is not a problem. But if you want a powerful State, just one where the corruption is mediated by a free press, then you need to be wary about someone like Assanges.

Mordy, Tuesday, 27 July 2010 18:04 (nine years ago) link

institutionally (releases information that weakens the US when they come to the bargaining table)

go fuck yourself

what if "middlebrow" is pubes? (Matt P), Tuesday, 27 July 2010 18:07 (nine years ago) link

welfare payments? prescription medication? cost of operations?

― rip MAD MEN on AMC S4 26/07 never forget (history mayne), Tuesday, 27 July 2010 17:34 (31 minutes ago)

to individuals? nah. as a set of accounts in total? yeah.

"It's far from 'lol' you were reared, boy" (darraghmac), Tuesday, 27 July 2010 18:07 (nine years ago) link

One thing I'd like to see someone like k3v discuss is to what extent he believes the US State should be powerful. Clearly he believes they've overstepped their bounds (something that I don't argue with) but where would he like to see those boundaries withdrawn? I suspect from his position on Assanges that he hasn't really considered it, or that he is simply articulating an anarchist/libertarian principle of statehood where the government should be so limited that you can drown it in a bathtub (or however Reagan described it). Certainly there are people in countries with competing interests to the US who believe that the US government should be less powerful because that'll create opportunities for them. I don't think this is k3v's position, and he probably believes any government in the world needs to be limited severely. I'm not sure how he plans on implementing that, tho. Presumably someone new will fill whatever gap we leave.

Mordy, Tuesday, 27 July 2010 18:08 (nine years ago) link

ILX: your world government in exile.

Ned Raggett, Tuesday, 27 July 2010 18:09 (nine years ago) link

institutionally (releases information that weakens the US when they come to the bargaining table)

go fuck yourself

Why? Who would you prefer to have more international power? I'm open to suggestions. Not committed to the idea of the US being a world power.

Mordy, Tuesday, 27 July 2010 18:11 (nine years ago) link

mordy are you a hawk y/n?

serious question

"It's far from 'lol' you were reared, boy" (darraghmac), Tuesday, 27 July 2010 18:12 (nine years ago) link

We have this discussion in the newsroom often: what do you do with information? If you've got an alleged rape victim's name, do you release it? There may well be good reasons for doing so. But there's consequences.

balls and adieu (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 27 July 2010 18:12 (nine years ago) link

Oh come on. I haven't agreed with a lot of Mordy's posts here, but it's pretty clear he's just thinking through his positions.

xpost

balls and adieu (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 27 July 2010 18:13 (nine years ago) link

Certainly there are people in countries with competing interests to the US who believe that the US government should be less powerful because that'll create opportunities for them

http://images.smh.com.au/2010/04/06/1290403/st_wikileaks-420x0.jpg

"It's far from 'lol' you were reared, boy" (darraghmac), Tuesday, 27 July 2010 18:14 (nine years ago) link

xp it was actually a serious question ALS, mordy clearly believes in the US Govt's right to assert power beyind its borders and I was wondering how he would define himself wrt to the extent of those beliefs

"It's far from 'lol' you were reared, boy" (darraghmac), Tuesday, 27 July 2010 18:15 (nine years ago) link

How do you define a hawk? I was against the Iraq War from Day One, and I'm against going to war in Iran. I was in favor of a limited war in Afghanistan after Sept 11th, and I think some presence there will be important for awhile even tho I'm against increasing the troop levels. I believe in the Western Civilization project with some caveats, but generally, like Obama, believes history bends towards justice. I'm skeptical of the Event that will topple Capitalism, or State Power, even as I recognize that Capitalism has been hugely alienating and State Power has all sorts of corruptions. I do believe that we should export Democracy, free speech, and other awesome values abroad, tho I think neoconservatives are too focused on using force to do so. I think force is best when it's left implicit (which is arguably an even more neoconservative argument than neoconservatives who I believe don't recognize how the use of force ultimately depletes said force). Ie: It's complicated.

Mordy, Tuesday, 27 July 2010 18:16 (nine years ago) link

I recognize this might be the sticking point: "I believe in the Western Civilization project with some caveats"

Mordy, Tuesday, 27 July 2010 18:17 (nine years ago) link

The UN has authorised the US and others to use force in Afghanistan, I don't think we're talking unilateral projection of force here

Ismael Klata, Tuesday, 27 July 2010 18:18 (nine years ago) link

there's all sorts of weird details that aren't necessarily classified that are neat to find,
(e.g. the process that the FBI goes through in order to name their sting operations
resembles an onion "wacky headlines" pitch meeting.)
Has any weird details like that come out of all these documents?

Philip Nunez, Tuesday, 27 July 2010 18:18 (nine years ago) link

Certainly there are people in countries with competing interests to the US who believe that the US government should be less powerful because that'll create opportunities for them. I don't think this is k3v's position, and he probably believes any government in the world needs to be limited severely. I'm not sure how he plans on implementing that, tho. Presumably someone new will fill whatever gap we leave.

― Mordy, Tuesday, July 27, 2010 7:08 PM (6 minutes ago) Bookmark

yeah i basically agree w. a lot of what mordy is saying

people calling on him to be more and more explicit about where he stands is kinda funny coz i dunno if yalls are being that open

mordy clearly believes in the US Govt's right to assert power beyind its borders

this is kind of what im talking about. where would you draw the line, darragh?

rip MAD MEN on AMC S4 26/07 never forget (history mayne), Tuesday, 27 July 2010 18:19 (nine years ago) link

Ismael, some might argue that the US has undue influence on the UN. If you actually believe this, this is really what we should be discussing since it's the crux of the issue. I think intelligent people can disagree about the amount of influence the US should have on the world, but if that's actually the argument we should have it. It's sneaky to leave it in the background unacknowledged.

Mordy, Tuesday, 27 July 2010 18:20 (nine years ago) link

I do believe that we should export Democracy, free speech, and other awesome values abroad

actually,. i think this might be more of a sticking point tbh

xp- i'm only calling mordy on it, because he's thought and writes about this much more than me tbh mayne, just ppl on net exchanging views

"It's far from 'lol' you were reared, boy" (darraghmac), Tuesday, 27 July 2010 18:21 (nine years ago) link

i'd draw the line at US mainland borders, but then i live in a world where my political POV in these matters need only equate to the level of spies like us tbh

"It's far from 'lol' you were reared, boy" (darraghmac), Tuesday, 27 July 2010 18:23 (nine years ago) link

darraghmac, are you against any intervention abroad?

Mordy, Tuesday, 27 July 2010 18:25 (nine years ago) link

i feel like theres a weird slippage here going on btw these arguments but i dont know if i can put my finger on it

max, Tuesday, 27 July 2010 18:35 (nine years ago) link

yeah i feel like we've swerved away from the thing at issue toward first principles

goole, Tuesday, 27 July 2010 18:37 (nine years ago) link

It's possible to believe that information has nothing to do with power -- I'm assuming it does, because that's just how I'm philosophically trained and what makes sense to me, but that might be the slippage you're sensing. If someone believes it really has nothing to do with the exertion of power then it might be weird to move from discussing whether it's good to release information to discuss whether it's good for the US State to be powerful.

Mordy, Tuesday, 27 July 2010 18:38 (nine years ago) link

(And if someone believes that information doesn't have anything to do with power, then we could be discussing that instead. I think there's a compelling case that information is basically all about power.)

Mordy, Tuesday, 27 July 2010 18:38 (nine years ago) link

Not having a go at all, Mordy xp, don't know why you'd think that. It was more a response to Darragh anyway - his question implied that you're in favour of the US projecting force at will, I was just noting that the UN has authorised it. And the UN is the only international system we've got, except custom, and nearly everyone's signed up to it, so if that *was* the question, Afghanistan's not an example of it.

Ismael Klata, Tuesday, 27 July 2010 18:41 (nine years ago) link

Yeah, I agree with you. I'm just saying that position doesn't preclude the position that US extends too much influence abroad. The UN is an arena for such influences to (hopefully) be mediated through compromise and discourse, but I'm sure there are members of the UN who feel the US has way too much influence in it (certainly anyone who ever tried to condemn Israel only to have the US veto the condemnation). You can believe the UN is the best international system we have and still critique US actions abroad (even if they're authorized by the UN). I just think we should be clear about what we're arguing about.

Mordy, Tuesday, 27 July 2010 18:43 (nine years ago) link

if we were wondering whether this leak would "do" anything, the answer is pretty much no, as far as officialdom is concerned

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/07/julian-assange-is-a-middle-man/60490/

As of Day Three, there has been no appreciable change in the country's relationship with its allies. As the White House has made clear, the details about Pakistani involvement with the Taliban speak for themselves and put pressure on the government. So far, there's nothing in the cables that has taken Congress by surprise ... nothing that has directly implicated the current administration in a prevarication ... nothing about the strategy, really, that hasn't already been shared with the American people through reporting (Dexter Filikins's ouvre, Lara Logan's pieces) or even through official channels. Assange seems largely motivated by the civilian casualty angle, overseas newspapers seem to be fascinated by U.S. counterterrorism squads, and the war supplemental is going to pass Congress.

my favorite crazy person on the internet, spengler, sounds pretty sane here, must say:

http://atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/LG27Df05.html

Who covered up a scandalous arrangement known to everyone with a casual acquaintance of the situation? The answer is the same as in Agatha Christie's 1934 mystery about murder on the Orient Express, that is, everybody: former United States president George W Bush and vice president Dick Cheney, current US President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden, India, China and Iran. They are all terrified of facing a failed state with nuclear weapons, and prefer a functioning but treacherous one.

...

The "everybody" involved in this case seems to exclude whomever actually leaked the documents, presumably some element of the US military, which has to absorb the effect of Pakistan's double game in the region in the form of body bags for enlisted men and shattered reputations for commanders. Like the Rolling Stone magazine interviews that led to the firing of General Stanley McChrystal, the America commander in Afghanistan, the WikiLeaks documents suggest a degree of disaffection of the American military with civilian leaders deeper than anything in living memory.

goole, Tuesday, 27 July 2010 18:43 (nine years ago) link

I do believe that we should export Democracy, free speech, and other awesome values abroad

Don't forget, the NY Times went to the White House first before printing anything about this. The "paradigm of liberalism" according to half the US's political pundits.

Beach Pomade (Adam Bruneau), Tuesday, 27 July 2010 18:44 (nine years ago) link

Speaking of the Times, and of "Does this mean anything", well apparently it does:

“While I’m concerned about the disclosure of sensitive information from the battlefield that could potentially jeopardize individuals or operations, the fact is these documents don’t reveal any issues that haven’t already informed our public debate on Afghanistan,” Mr. Obama said to reporters in the Rose Garden. “Indeed, they point to the same challenges that led me to conduct an extensive review of our policy last fall.”

The president’s comments followed a meeting with Democratic and Republican leaders in Congress in which he urged quick passage of the war funding measure.

But the debate in the House Appropriations Committee revealed a fractured resolve among Democrats on the supplemental spending bill.

Representative David R. Obey, chairman of the Appropriations Committee, intends to vote against the war spending bill before the House on Tuesday, signaling a deepening split in the Democratic Party over the war in the wake of the disclosure of classified documents showing the conflict was not going as well as portrayed.

The break by Mr. Obey, the Wisconsin Democrat ostensibly responsible for the very bill he will oppose, came as fellow liberal Democrats complained that scarce federal dollars were being devoted to Afghanistan at the expense of critical needs at home.

“With all due respect,” said Representative James P. McGovern, Democrat of Massachusetts, “I think we need to do more nation-building here at home.”

http://atwar.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/07/27/democrats-split-on-war-spending-bill/?partner=rss&emc=rss

Beach Pomade (Adam Bruneau), Tuesday, 27 July 2010 18:46 (nine years ago) link

Adam, I think that was responsible actually. What if there was an ID number they were going to run that they hadn't been able to decipher themselves that could've led to someone's death? It seems responsible to go to the White House and say, "Here's this information we have -- do you want to comment and is there anything you can convince us we shouldn't run with?" I'm sure they weren't like, "Give us permission to run this please." Probably the meeting was on the presumption that the NYT would run this material unless otherwise convinced not to.

Mordy, Tuesday, 27 July 2010 18:46 (nine years ago) link

Yes, I mean it was surely responsible. But also here's this "free press" checking with the boss to make sure everything is ok. Also see post-9/11 double standards for torture terminology.

Beach Pomade (Adam Bruneau), Tuesday, 27 July 2010 18:48 (nine years ago) link

I mean, you know how the media works, I assume. The NYT doesn't want to not run the scoop. They're a business, they make money off having a reputation of running big scoops and important information, not off kowtowing to the White House. In the past they may have sacrificed scoops for the sake of future scoops -- like sitting on the wiretapping story, maybe -- or of being too conservative about the danger of particular information, but I doubt they've ever not a run a story for the selfless purpose of helping politicians. Like everyone else they are trying to maximize their power and influence, and sometimes that calculation is wrong. But it's silly to pretend it's not a calculation.

Mordy, Tuesday, 27 July 2010 18:48 (nine years ago) link

Sitting on the wiretapping story may not have been purely for "selflessly helping politicians" but you have to admit it didn't exactly hurt the administration.

Beach Pomade (Adam Bruneau), Tuesday, 27 July 2010 18:51 (nine years ago) link

I don't disagree that sitting on the story was a miscalculation, but why would an editor sit on a career-making (and now iconic story for the NYT in the 2000s like Watergate was for the WaPost) story just because he didn't want to inconvenience the Bush Administration? Maybe he felt it was really a threat to the country. Or maybe he felt that if he ran it, he'd be locked out of other important stories. But I am very skeptical that his decision was, "Bush is good for this country and this story will threaten the election, so I'm going to sit on it." I'm sure that's why Bush wanted him to sit on it, btw! But I believe his own calculation was different (even if equally wrong in the end).

Mordy, Tuesday, 27 July 2010 18:54 (nine years ago) link

I totally agree with you, I'm just saying the end result is the end result, regardless of the intentions involved. I suppose we should try and define an ideal "free press" (since so many different factors can alter the content of the news) but I have to get back to work so I'll have to wait on that...

Beach Pomade (Adam Bruneau), Tuesday, 27 July 2010 18:59 (nine years ago) link

the idea that the u.s.'s position at the bargaining table needs to be protected is repellant and ridiculous. repellant because i'm pretty much dr. morbius about the u.s. government. ridiculous because anything is fair game in negotiating, or the rules are in the game -- why step in and say something needs to be protected when the u.s. govt is going to do everything it can to do exactly that?

knowing that the veil of secrecy allows you to do shitty things out of public view means... those with the power to make things secret will do shitty things! because they can! the principle of free information IS the principle of restraint of power, it IS the counterweight to the monopoly of force. a few more julian assanges around and the calculus for the political costs of military action start to change.

pretty much this^^^

so many x-posts

what if "middlebrow" is pubes? (Matt P), Tuesday, 27 July 2010 18:59 (nine years ago) link

repellant because i'm pretty much dr. morbius about the u.s. government.

Can you explain what this means? Because Dr. Morbz has a very superficial position wrt Democracy + government. He is essentially waiting for a charismatic figure to lift us out of the bonds of history + alienation. You can't exactly argue policy based on that.

Mordy, Tuesday, 27 July 2010 19:01 (nine years ago) link

Like, I also feel the appeal of messianic ahistorical redemption and the moment it comes I'll be thrilled, but until that point we should probably live in this world.

Mordy, Tuesday, 27 July 2010 19:02 (nine years ago) link

i still have no clue what the sides are in this argument

max, Tuesday, 27 July 2010 19:08 (nine years ago) link

that's because there aren't any

"There's no way a Filipino can hold a championship trophy." (HI DERE), Tuesday, 27 July 2010 19:09 (nine years ago) link

where is my totem

max, Tuesday, 27 July 2010 19:12 (nine years ago) link

Well, the original argument was whether you should be happy about any release of information (assuming it doesn't do harm to an individual, acc to Smith, not sure if k3v actually agreed with that) because free information is always a net good. I expressed some skepticism of that and said that while I think information can be good, it can also be bad and each leak should be independently evaluated for its value. It was posited that it was always good because it resolves an imbalance in power between citizens and government, and can help curtail corruption. I don't disagree with either of those things, but I still don't feel like it's a net good because I don't think that imbalance is completely bad. As usual, I think to the extent that any particular action does a good thing in the world it's good, and if it does negative stuff in the world it's negative. Also, we strayed into US power because it seems like some people on the thread are actually very cynical about any expression of US power, in which case revealing any document is probably a net good since it may undermine the State's power and ability to influence. If you are in favor of US State power to some extent (even if you want it mediated) you might be more considerate to the particular information being leaked. That's kinda where we're up to right now. (Oh, and also, k3v believes I'm ILX's token conservative. Of course, this is like I'm a token conservative like Chomsky is a conservative because he doesn't believe in boycotting Israeli universities -- it's definitely more ideological house-cleaning than actually believing I'm a conservative.)

Mordy, Tuesday, 27 July 2010 19:14 (nine years ago) link

ppl only say that free information is always good because ppl are nosy gossips

"There's no way a Filipino can hold a championship trophy." (HI DERE), Tuesday, 27 July 2010 19:15 (nine years ago) link

maybe not a mind blowing point here but wrt the ramifications of possibly life-threatening (eg identifying) intel reaching the public: the military has internal standards for determining, and safeguarding, the degree to which intel is "sensitive". which, to me, means that if STATE SECRETS are headed to the Internet, they probably weren't that secret in the first place.

WL is obv a worthwhile endeavor, to me, and handwringing about whether or not it's gonna tip off Hitler to DDay is top shelf concerntrolling, and far too dismissive of the massive intelligence apparatus that has been bein sneaky for oh like 70 years.

(sorry iphoning this one in)

pies. (gbx), Tuesday, 27 July 2010 19:17 (nine years ago) link

suddenly i have 'spartan' in my head

Scott: Why would I want to know? I ain't a planner, I ain't a thinker. I never wanted to be. You got to set your motherfucker to receive. Listen to me. They don't go through the door, we don't ask why. That's not a cost, it's benefit. Because we get to travel light. They tell me where to go. Tell me what to do when I get there.

goole, Tuesday, 27 July 2010 19:18 (nine years ago) link

I think there's some legitimate concern that some of the information that was leaked is actually life-threatening intel. I think WikiLeaks is being a good person not releasing everything he has and sitting on some of the very life-threatening information. xp

Mordy, Tuesday, 27 July 2010 19:19 (nine years ago) link

wtf? i meant that i think the u.s. govt's primary interest is its own survival and that it doesn't give much of a shit about anything else. why would i care about its position at the bargaining table? pretty sure dr. morbius believes the exact opposite of what you're saying he does but like i don't know who he is and can't put words in his mouth, i was just using it as shorthand for the above.

i just... can't see why this is hard. goole and j0hn otm xxxxposts

what if "middlebrow" is pubes? (Matt P), Tuesday, 27 July 2010 19:21 (nine years ago) link

"free information is always a net good."
I'm not sure anyone truly believes that, purely on the basis of signal:noise problems.

Philip Nunez, Tuesday, 27 July 2010 19:23 (nine years ago) link

Matt, do u believe that the US government can have any positive impact on its citizen's lives, or are you a stone-cold libertarian? How about international intervention? Do you think there's such thing as a righteous war or do you believe the US should be totally neutral in all affairs? (I can't help but feel like you haven't thought your position out very well.)

Mordy, Tuesday, 27 July 2010 19:23 (nine years ago) link

I expressed some skepticism of that and said that while I think information can be good, it can also be bad and each leak should be independently evaluated for its value.

see this is just retarded to me, sorry

what if "middlebrow" is pubes? (Matt P), Tuesday, 27 July 2010 19:23 (nine years ago) link

xp Philip: Reread k3v + j0hn's position! I tried really hard not to strawman it, I believe this is EXACTLY what they believe. And Matt, you just articulated my position exactly.

Mordy, Tuesday, 27 July 2010 19:24 (nine years ago) link

Material cataloguing blunders justifies decision to deploy 30,000 more US troops, US president says

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jul/27/barack-obama-afghan-war-logs1

IMHO this decision is far more life-threatening than any leak.

Beach Pomade (Adam Bruneau), Tuesday, 27 July 2010 19:24 (nine years ago) link

mordy did you ever respond to what goole said here:

i don't think you can separate the objects of "the state" and "the people". the state is not a mechanism, or a force, or an idea, or an arrow on a flowchart, it is a subset of the people, acting. i'm enough of a libertarian to disagree with the dictum you've quoted -- "governance" is just as often the means by which a man swallows his neighbor.

max, Tuesday, 27 July 2010 19:25 (nine years ago) link

No, I haven't, tho I meant to. Essentially I believe that the people create the representative state to represent their issues. But in order to represent them, the State requires a certain amount of power. (They need to be able to prosecute criminals, for instance, in order to protect the people who voted for them, or whatever the issue is -- build roads so you can drive around, etc.) They're not separate, but there is an intentional power imbalance between them. Theoretically we vote for them and then they attain some power from that voting that allows them to act disproportionately to private citizens. This is, as I understand it, the way Democracy is supposed to work.

Mordy, Tuesday, 27 July 2010 19:28 (nine years ago) link

Ie: It's not just a subset of people acting. It's a subset of people acting who have been imbued with uncommon power (monopolies on certain kinds of force, information, power, etc).

Mordy, Tuesday, 27 July 2010 19:29 (nine years ago) link

the thinking is that the bad behavior and fuckups resulted from desperation and mismanagment which resulted from being ignored in favor of the iraq adventure.

pretty typical of democratic foreign policy, i have to admit -- the problem wasn't the fundements of the effort, it's that i wasn't around to do it right...

xps

goole, Tuesday, 27 July 2010 19:29 (nine years ago) link

my 'position' is that having more hard info about what's going on in a war your country is fighting is always a good thing, because your country will naturally want to keep anything related to the shitty ugly things it's doing secret, and the less it's secret, the more people might want to say 'hey, that's shitty and ugly, let's stop it.'

what if "middlebrow" is pubes? (Matt P), Tuesday, 27 July 2010 19:32 (nine years ago) link

assuming, of course, that the people are interested in not being shitty and ugly, which IMO is a massive assumption that is not at all a given

"There's no way a Filipino can hold a championship trophy." (HI DERE), Tuesday, 27 July 2010 19:33 (nine years ago) link

yeah

what if "middlebrow" is pubes? (Matt P), Tuesday, 27 July 2010 19:35 (nine years ago) link

another thing: really, if this argument is just boiling down to "WL should ~consider things~ before releasing intel willy-nilly" v. "WL should release everything all the time!" then it is imo a pretty fucking retarded argument.

of course, WL is going to evaluate whether or not it should release documents. julian whatever is a rational actor, and unless he has a policy of actually just releasing EVERYTHING he's given, then it's safe to say there's some contemplative process at work.

arguing about the ethical framework that might inform WL's decision-making process might help firm up your own, but imo the only question that has any ~stakes~ here is what to ~do~ about wikileaks. which, to me, is a pretty easy one: nothing.

which is to say: i am comfortable with the existence of a website, run by a guy, that leaks intel about what it has maybe arbitrarily deemed "nefarious doings." worrying about whether or not he'll fuck up and get someone killed is, as i said before, major concern trolling. like, wild-eyed, hair-pulling concern-trolling.

because, what's the alternative? shut it down? appoint a govt attache to WL that will say what's ok and what isn't? replace julian whatever with someone who doesn't make Mordy "wary?" what?

when it gets down to brass tacks, the whole WL issue is either a) do something about it (silencing them) or b) do nothing about it.

pies. (gbx), Tuesday, 27 July 2010 19:48 (nine years ago) link

(sorry, i have not read the entire thread, so)

pies. (gbx), Tuesday, 27 July 2010 19:50 (nine years ago) link

Could they be held liable in civil courts by family members of spies, say?

Philip Nunez, Tuesday, 27 July 2010 19:52 (nine years ago) link

what, like wrongful death? due to intel leakage?

pies. (gbx), Tuesday, 27 July 2010 19:54 (nine years ago) link

gbx, I think reasonable people can feel uncomfortable about the situation, hope that it will end up for better than for worse, and be attuned to the issue. if WikiLeaks did release something i felt was really destructive i reserve my right to feel like he should be shutdown. I think that's a really reasonable position.

Mordy, Tuesday, 27 July 2010 19:59 (nine years ago) link

like anything they could ever do would be as destructive as current US policy, yeah right.

bug holocaust (sleeve), Tuesday, 27 July 2010 20:03 (nine years ago) link

knowing that the veil of secrecy allows you to do shitty things out of public view means... those with the power to make things secret will do shitty things! because they can! the principle of free information IS the principle of restraint of power, it IS the counterweight to the monopoly of force. a few more julian assanges around and the calculus for the political costs of military action start to change.

― goole, Tuesday, July 27, 2010 1:48 PM (2 hours ago)

straight fire beautiful post

terry squad (k3vin k.), Tuesday, 27 July 2010 20:15 (nine years ago) link

I don't believe that the government should have to give up every secret but the ones that will lead to immediate, quantifiable, and direct harm to their citizens.

I don't want to be, you know, the kinda of "you side with the Bad Man, ergo you are a Bad Dude" dude like this, ok, but will you concede that it is this reasoning exactly that allowed the previous administration (and the current one, it must be remembered) to withhold information about a network of secret prisons in which unidentified persons have been held, interrogated, and tortured, and probably killed, at taxpayer expense, without accountability to any known authority save the very government that authorized the detention, interrogation, and torture of these prisoners, who are not afforded prisoner of war status nor any legal rights whatsoever? their reasoning for not disclosing this abhorrent policy (and continuing to stonewall on the subject) is this: "if our enemies find out that we are detaining and interrogating people without charge or any recognized international rights, and sometimes torturing them and maybe killing them, our enemies will get all pissed off, and then they might hurt somebody; therefore, nobody has a right to know what we're doing, and, in fact, we have a moral duty to safeguard information about our activities."

Because Dr. Morbz has a very superficial position wrt Democracy + government. He is essentially waiting for a charismatic figure to lift us out of the bonds of history + alienation.

You should be ashamed of yourself for misrepresenting somebody's position so willfully under the guise of providing a fair description of that person's position; Morbius's (otm imo) disgust with the actors in place doesn't mean he is "waiting for a charismatic figure." Despair in current conditions does not imply belief in some later magic solution.

gross rainbow of haerosmith (underrated aerosmith albums I have loved), Tuesday, 27 July 2010 20:16 (nine years ago) link

like anything they could ever do would be as destructive as current US policy, yeah right.

― bug holocaust (sleeve), Tuesday, July 27, 2010 1:03 PM (10 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

that's an unfair distinction though. vast and vastly powerful entities (like government) are far far far more capable of destructive action than small ones (like advocacy groups). in fact, i'd suggest that the casual destruction that large governments necessarily leave in their wake, as the cost of mere existence, necessarily dwarfs the worst that could possibly be accomplished by something like wikileaks.

a CRASBO is a "criminally related" ASBO (contenderizer), Tuesday, 27 July 2010 20:18 (nine years ago) link

i don't really get this thread but yeah, that is an odd characterization of Dr. Morbz's politics, though i don't share them.

xp

horseshoe, Tuesday, 27 July 2010 20:18 (nine years ago) link

knowing that the veil of secrecy allows you to do shitty things out of public view means... those with the power to make things secret will do shitty things! because they can! the principle of free information IS the principle of restraint of power, it IS the counterweight to the monopoly of force. a few more julian assanges around and the calculus for the political costs of military action start to change.

― goole, Tuesday, July 27, 2010 1:48 PM (2 hours ago)

straight fire beautiful post

― terry squad (k3vin k.), Tuesday, July 27, 2010 1:15 PM (3 minutes ago) Bookmark

a CRASBO is a "criminally related" ASBO (contenderizer), Tuesday, 27 July 2010 20:19 (nine years ago) link

Despair in current conditions does not imply belief in some later magic solution.

except that whenever Morbz is pressed for a suggested solution he invariably veers off into "MAGIC!" territory. I think Mordy's OTM tbh.

Moshy Star (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 27 July 2010 20:22 (nine years ago) link

maybe that part is true; don't really see morbz as being invested in a charismatic figure tbh

horseshoe, Tuesday, 27 July 2010 20:23 (nine years ago) link

anyway sorry, p sure that's not what this thread is about

horseshoe, Tuesday, 27 July 2010 20:23 (nine years ago) link

"necessarily dwarfs the worst that could possibly be accomplished by something like wikileaks."

insofar as a strategic leak could alter the outcome of elections, the worst case scenarios are on par with govt.

Philip Nunez, Tuesday, 27 July 2010 20:24 (nine years ago) link

you guys sure have a lot of faith in people

measuring of the waist (HI DERE), Tuesday, 27 July 2010 20:24 (nine years ago) link

xp to shakey: I think what he means by that is that no solution is forthcoming, not that he expects any magic to occur. The accusation that people dissatisfied with the administration are asking for miracles is a popular one, though.

gross rainbow of haerosmith (underrated aerosmith albums I have loved), Tuesday, 27 July 2010 20:25 (nine years ago) link

Destructive to US power, possibly. It seems like a very possible scenario, and as many problems as I have with US governance (stuff like torture, overthrowing democratically elected governments, etc), I'm not so convinced that there's significantly better models out there. I subscribe to the position that Europe is able to curtail many of their military needs because the US has stepped up to that role globally (I first read this in Zizek's new book and later in a few other places), not to mention that different countries have varying historical and even contemporary levels of responsibility (like in the UN). So the question is, assuming US power is limited, who steps up to fill the gap? (To paraphrase Zizek, should our only choice be between American-style civilization and the emerging Chinese authoritarian-capitalist form? If the answer is no, then the only alternative is Europe... But can Europe deliver such a thing?) xp to above

J0hn, I think it's pretty clear that's where his positions lead him. He is not merely dissatisfied but unable to understand how the system itself functions. You have a similar problem -- you've let idealism get in the way of actually understanding how Democracy works. Being idealistic is good, but letting that blind you to the world is silly. The lesson of Watergate wasn't that Presidents had gotten progressively and progressively more corrupt until the contemporary era when they were all bad and so we should go back to the time of honorable men. The lesson of Watergate was that we now have the tools + media infrastructure to expose government corruption. A thoughtful person feels bad about when things don't work in the world and when bad things happen, and then tries to figure out the best way to work within a system to move them. Morbz says that no one can do anything good, everyone is evil and corrupt, and it's not worth playing -- but that something better exists. Except he won't show the steps to get to something better, just his principled feeling that he can. This is not different from the positions of religious people who believe in following a moral, ethical code and that when the Messiah comes, everyone + the world will be transformed.

Mordy, Tuesday, 27 July 2010 20:25 (nine years ago) link

like, my immediate assumption re: a hypothetical disclosure of the American military being complicit in doing bad things to random groups of dark people is that the average American will shrug and go "oh well, it's not here; pass me my cheeseburger"

measuring of the waist (HI DERE), Tuesday, 27 July 2010 20:26 (nine years ago) link

those with the power to make things secret will do shitty things! because they can!

hi dere I'm not sure that this can be fairly described as an example of one person having "a lot of faith in people" but it may be that I'm not clear on what faith means in this context

gross rainbow of haerosmith (underrated aerosmith albums I have loved), Tuesday, 27 July 2010 20:27 (nine years ago) link

can we not discuss people who are not posting to this thread plz

goole, Tuesday, 27 July 2010 20:27 (nine years ago) link

it would be best if we didnt veer into mordys pet theories about dr morbius

max, Tuesday, 27 July 2010 20:28 (nine years ago) link

xp

max, Tuesday, 27 July 2010 20:28 (nine years ago) link

Ok, so apply everything I said to j0hn. It serves as the same critique.

Mordy, Tuesday, 27 July 2010 20:28 (nine years ago) link

Er, Smith. Sorry.

Mordy, Tuesday, 27 July 2010 20:28 (nine years ago) link

oh i like where this is going

goole, Tuesday, 27 July 2010 20:29 (nine years ago) link

I should probably just drop the whole thing.

Mordy, Tuesday, 27 July 2010 20:29 (nine years ago) link

you are assuming that the American people will somehow magically stop being a large group of self-involved xenophobic assholes and care that the government is using the military to hurt people tens of thousands of miles away

like, no one will care unless those people also kill a whole bunch of US military men, in which case the reaction won't be "oh we should pull out of there", it will be "we should thoroughly destroy them"

measuring of the waist (HI DERE), Tuesday, 27 July 2010 20:29 (nine years ago) link

J0hn, I think it's pretty clear that's where his positions lead him.

I want to be clear and open with you about how I feel about this line, and why I think you say it: it means you don't have to answer anything directly from him, or from anybody who persistently expresses total & permanent suspicion of the admin (or of all admins). your position is essentially an elegant ad-hom. It is not at all clear that "that's where his positions lead him"; it would be odd, indeed, for a person whose positions lead him in a clear way to never articulate that position, even once. Your accusation is essentially "you want a Messiah, you just don't know that that's what your positions mean"; what an insulting accusation that is to make, and baseless.

gross rainbow of haerosmith (underrated aerosmith albums I have loved), Tuesday, 27 July 2010 20:29 (nine years ago) link

Ok dude -- how do you feel we should get from here to there?

Mordy, Tuesday, 27 July 2010 20:30 (nine years ago) link

You're right, maybe there's another ahistorical break, but I think my critique is super solid and not ad-hom at all. You are looking to alter the rules of the world but you won't say how we're going to do it.

Mordy, Tuesday, 27 July 2010 20:30 (nine years ago) link

I don't understand how thinking, "Since politics is a dirty business, we shouldn't trust anything our legislators and presidents say" is synonymous with "I have a quixotic, Emerald City vision of what perfect representative democracy looks like."

balls and adieu (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 27 July 2010 20:31 (nine years ago) link

you are assuming that the American people will somehow magically stop being a large group of self-involved xenophobic assholes and care that the government is using the military to hurt people tens of thousands of miles away

oh man you should not get me wrong, I think we are twinned on our actually optimism - I don't think most people will do anything besides eat more pizza & I'll probably be one of the pizza-eating multitude myself - I think I'm maybe a tad less convinced of the total narcissism of the species than you are, but just a tad, and that's just 'cause I like poetry

gross rainbow of haerosmith (underrated aerosmith albums I have loved), Tuesday, 27 July 2010 20:31 (nine years ago) link

it's a nice thought to think that Americans would only be nice and peaceful if they knew THE WHOLE STORY but that is ignoring both the culture of willful ignorance that fuels our society and the smug, authoritarian principles on which our country was founded

measuring of the waist (HI DERE), Tuesday, 27 July 2010 20:32 (nine years ago) link

That's not the synonym, Alfred. The synonym is "Since these politicians are completely corrupt and can't do any good" = "Some other politician will be better, who isn't here right now," = "Who will be coming in the future." If you started with, "I'll work with what I have," then you'd leave in a different direction.

Mordy, Tuesday, 27 July 2010 20:33 (nine years ago) link

Some other politician will be better, who isn't here right now,"

No one here has said this!

balls and adieu (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 27 July 2010 20:34 (nine years ago) link

for fuck's sake Mordy, stop trying to win ILX

measuring of the waist (HI DERE), Tuesday, 27 July 2010 20:34 (nine years ago) link

Ok dude -- how do you feel we should get from here to there?

this question 1) doesn't pertain to the discussion, and is a separate disccusion; 2) doesn't preclude or invalidate even one criticism: "don't complain unless you have a solution!" is woeful management-speak; and 3) is a dishonest conversational move. I don't have any solutions at all, I am just a guy eating a pizza. Do you know what my lack of solutions says qualitatively about any criticism I might make? Nothing whatsoever, that's what. You're advancing the "don't criticize the music unless you can make better music yourself" model of politics. It is absurd, in my opinion, in both spheres.

gross rainbow of haerosmith (underrated aerosmith albums I have loved), Tuesday, 27 July 2010 20:34 (nine years ago) link

I mean, the real critique is, "Great, you're idealistic. Who the fuck cares?" because the idealism as practiced that way has no impact on the world. It's just screaming into the wind, or to ask what the stakes are of that idealism, it's just to look good on a message board. You're not changing the world by saying how bad the US government is, you're just complaining.

Mordy, Tuesday, 27 July 2010 20:35 (nine years ago) link

If you have the time to peruse those exhausting 2008 political threads, you'll find few Obama "stans" – most people said he was the best candidate to come along in their lifetimes, with the talent to keep some longstanding promises. That's not at all the same as thinking there's a magical candidate out there. That's how Republicans think: they're always searching for another Reagan.

balls and adieu (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 27 July 2010 20:35 (nine years ago) link

btw the pizza in my examples is entirely theoretical, there is no pizza where I'm at, much to my dissatisfaction. but maybe I shouldn't complain that there's no pizza here unless I have an idea about how I might go about making one myself.

gross rainbow of haerosmith (underrated aerosmith albums I have loved), Tuesday, 27 July 2010 20:36 (nine years ago) link

That's really what I should post whenever one of these discussions come up. "Yep, morally rightitude on ILX! Rock on!" because clearly any attempt to ever engage that idealism into questions about practical practice are always hunted down for being too conservative.

Mordy, Tuesday, 27 July 2010 20:36 (nine years ago) link

If you have the time to peruse those exhausting 2008 political threads, you'll find few Obama "stans" – most people said he was the best candidate to come along in their lifetimes, with the talent to keep some longstanding promises. That's not at all the same as thinking there's a magical candidate out there.

The problem, actually, with political discourse around here is that other people then flipped that around to say that everyone thinks Obama is infallible and totally the magic n*gger we can believe in, which seriously pisses me off every time I see it.

measuring of the waist (HI DERE), Tuesday, 27 July 2010 20:38 (nine years ago) link

that's how Republicans think: they're always searching for another Reagan.

― balls and adieu (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, July 27, 2010 3:35 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark

long may they search! fred thompson '12

goole, Tuesday, 27 July 2010 20:38 (nine years ago) link

Like, when I'm thinking through these issues, I'm not trying to think through them like a man eating a pizza. Maybe that's the big difference. From the pizza-perspective, it's easy to just take the hardline on any given moral issue. "Should we make all information free? Sure, why the fuck not. Information rocks."

Mordy, Tuesday, 27 July 2010 20:38 (nine years ago) link

I mean, the real critique is, "Great, you're idealistic. Who the fuck cares?" because the idealism as practiced that way has no impact on the world. It's just screaming into the wind, or to ask what the stakes are of that idealism, it's just to look good on a message board. You're not changing the world by saying how bad the US government is, you're just complaining

Yeah but you only use this argument to duck out of defending positions like "it's OK to censor information that might be damaging at some future point to theoretical negotiating interests with unknown parties." It is not "idealism" to call people out on their bullshit; your cries of "idealism," again, are just ad-homs meant to discredit the people making reasonably formed cases against your position.

gross rainbow of haerosmith (underrated aerosmith albums I have loved), Tuesday, 27 July 2010 20:38 (nine years ago) link

oy

max, Tuesday, 27 July 2010 20:39 (nine years ago) link

You're not calling me out on anything tho, Smith. You're just stating that my position doesn't hem to some perfect unconsidered consideration about information. No law will ever be instituted that says, "All information is free." That's not how any of this works. So my trying to figure out what information should be free, shouldn't, why power may require some sorts of information to maintain power, whether that power is good, and to what extent -- that's all thinking through the actual implications. You saying, "the principle is it should be," is reading off the ten commandments.

Mordy, Tuesday, 27 July 2010 20:40 (nine years ago) link

and let's be clear, Mordy. You are taking the hard line, you just don't want to cop to it. Your hard line is "if there is doubt, we must trust the state." That's as pizzariffic as anything else on this thread.

gross rainbow of haerosmith (underrated aerosmith albums I have loved), Tuesday, 27 July 2010 20:40 (nine years ago) link

I didn't say that once.

Mordy, Tuesday, 27 July 2010 20:40 (nine years ago) link

this entire fucking thread is like a textbook definition of people taking hard-line immutable positions, let's not kid ourselves

measuring of the waist (HI DERE), Tuesday, 27 July 2010 20:41 (nine years ago) link

for fuck's sake Mordy, stop trying to win ILX

― measuring of the waist (HI DERE), Tuesday, July 27, 2010 1:34 PM

Mordy, I am personally really sick of you shitting all over every single ILX politics thread with your crypto-fascist bullshit, please stop.

bug holocaust (sleeve), Tuesday, 27 July 2010 20:41 (nine years ago) link

I didn't say that once.

Mordz I think it's pretty clear that's where your positions lead you.

gross rainbow of haerosmith (underrated aerosmith albums I have loved), Tuesday, 27 July 2010 20:42 (nine years ago) link

HI DERE, I disagree. I think that's what the argument has been about from the beginning -- whether you should be taking hard-line immutable positions or not. I think saying WikiLeaks may be good or bad depending on the circumstances is about as mutable as position as can be posited.

Mordy, Tuesday, 27 July 2010 20:42 (nine years ago) link

No law will ever be instituted that says, "All information is free." That's not how any of this works.

It's becoming true whether there is a law or not. It's the long march of information technology towards more and more transparent systems, from being in the hands of only the Pharaoh's private scribes to where we are now.

Beach Pomade (Adam Bruneau), Tuesday, 27 July 2010 20:42 (nine years ago) link

this entire fucking thread is like a textbook definition of people taking hard-line immutable positions, let's not kid ourselves

I'm exempt from this charge because of my impeccable sartorial style tho right? that was my understanding of the ground rules going forward

gross rainbow of haerosmith (underrated aerosmith albums I have loved), Tuesday, 27 July 2010 20:42 (nine years ago) link

Hey sleeve, you're right, I apologize for cluttering the thread with my crypto-fascist bullshit. I'll stop.

Mordy, Tuesday, 27 July 2010 20:43 (nine years ago) link

calling obama 'a pharaoh' is sorta racist dude

iatee, Tuesday, 27 July 2010 20:43 (nine years ago) link

I suspect the american public would be more inspired to action if they found out about bad stuff in strategic doses rather than a constant bombardment of transparency, which would obviously fatigue anyone, and this sort of dynamic is at least recognized by wikileaks, who chose to release their info accordingly.

There was an interesting article on spycraft where the more information any side got, the less reliably they could determine the truth of anything, to the point where it would have been paradoxically better not to engage in espionage at all, and I feel like we are entering a climate where things constantly being leaked do more to obfuscate than clarify, and one in which the right wing is more adept at maneuvering.

Philip Nunez, Tuesday, 27 July 2010 20:43 (nine years ago) link

um just to be very clear here, I am not at all opposed to Mordy arguing his political viewpoint; I am opposed to him inventing positions for other posters in an attempt to shame them away from threads

so, like, please do not quote me if you are looking for backup to bolster your calling someone fascist

measuring of the waist (HI DERE), Tuesday, 27 July 2010 20:44 (nine years ago) link

All this talk of cheeseburgers and pizzas is making me mad-hungry, gents. Shut the fuck up.

balls and adieu (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 27 July 2010 20:44 (nine years ago) link

guys can't we just all agree that pizza/the Beatles are awesome

Moshy Star (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 27 July 2010 20:45 (nine years ago) link

I kind of want to create an I Love Politics board and give it the board description "Shut the fuck up."

measuring of the waist (HI DERE), Tuesday, 27 July 2010 20:45 (nine years ago) link

guys can't we just all agree that pizza/the Beatles are awesome

the beatles suck! ffs shakey. er....

Take my hand, we'll make it I swear (Pashmina), Tuesday, 27 July 2010 20:46 (nine years ago) link

gonna start a political arguments tournament so we can figure out canon politics

iatee, Tuesday, 27 July 2010 20:47 (nine years ago) link

Your hard line is "if there is doubt, we must trust the state."

Isn't this kind of implicit in being a law-abiding citizen, btw?

measuring of the waist (HI DERE), Tuesday, 27 July 2010 20:47 (nine years ago) link

I read "canon politics" as "mushroom pizza."

balls and adieu (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 27 July 2010 20:47 (nine years ago) link

I suspect the american public would be more inspired to action if they found out about bad stuff in strategic doses rather than a constant bombardment of transparency, which would obviously fatigue anyone, and this sort of dynamic is at least recognized by wikileaks, who chose to release their info accordingly.

ok HI DERE I concede your point about people being optimists

until and unless <50% know what real hunger feels like, the American public will not do anything or demand anything no matter what their leaders do. people are motivated largely by self-interest, and their interests are in remaining fed & clothed & entertained.

gross rainbow of haerosmith (underrated aerosmith albums I have loved), Tuesday, 27 July 2010 20:48 (nine years ago) link

Like, if you think the gov't is engaging in shitty activities bankrolled by your tax dollars, yet you continue to pay your taxes, how exactly are you NOT trusting the state?

measuring of the waist (HI DERE), Tuesday, 27 July 2010 20:50 (nine years ago) link

Isn't this kind of implicit in being a law-abiding citizen, btw?

I don't think so - this is a well-aimed question though and I'd have to think about it. My initial response is that "the state" that governs the legal action of citizens in their daily lives is maybe a different entity from the one which discloses, or seeks not to disclose, information about itself. But this seems like a pretty complicated distinction to make, and since I'm posting from the near future, distinctions are blurring for me

gross rainbow of haerosmith (underrated aerosmith albums I have loved), Tuesday, 27 July 2010 20:51 (nine years ago) link

also I think you meant ">50%"

measuring of the waist (HI DERE), Tuesday, 27 July 2010 20:51 (nine years ago) link

Like, if you think the gov't is engaging in shitty activities bankrolled by your tax dollars, yet you continue to pay your taxes, how exactly are you NOT trusting the state?

well let's be plain about that: one pays taxes because they will punish the shit out of you if you don't. I would love to withhold money from the state until it agrees to provide full health care for all, and to fully fund the arts, besides! but they will freeze your bank account if you try that shit, so you gotta walk the straight and narrow. I don't have the stomach to see what the state will do if I get too principled about money they consider theirs.

gross rainbow of haerosmith (underrated aerosmith albums I have loved), Tuesday, 27 July 2010 20:53 (nine years ago) link

no the bracket was pac man trying to eat the fifty percent

gross rainbow of haerosmith (underrated aerosmith albums I have loved), Tuesday, 27 July 2010 20:53 (nine years ago) link

If there's one thing that unites Americans of all political stripes it's a reluctance to pay taxes for shit they don't like.

balls and adieu (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 27 July 2010 20:54 (nine years ago) link

HI DERE, I disagree. I think that's what the argument has been about from the beginning -- whether you should be taking hard-line immutable positions or not. I think saying WikiLeaks may be good or bad depending on the circumstances is about as mutable as position as can be posited.

― Mordy, Tuesday, July 27, 2010 3:42 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark

can't keep up, but:

yeah, it is precisely the mutability here that is so aggravating, since i, for one, AM worried about the possible real-world implications. that is, hypothesizing devastating and sensitive information in the hands of an irresponsible blogger is kind of a neat thought experiment, and one that could prove fruitful if you decided to work through all the ethical implications of publish/don't publish, etc. ESP if you were then going to construct a really complex legal framework for addressing the question of what's censorable and what isn't.

it's just that, here, in the US, the nuance of such a legal framework runs up against the first amendment (as it should)---if the operating principle is "freedom of speech," then any special cases are best tackled ~once they arise~. speech/utterance/intel is far too vast to anticipate.

i guess i see it this way: is it better to worry about WL's loose lips sinking ships ~right now~, before any harm has been done, or is that an issue better tackled once WL has actually done something worthy of real, considered opprobrium? my assessment is that the risks of an operation like WL are far and away outstripped by the possible rewards, at this juncture, and that pre-emptive censorship/penalty as prophylaxis against an impossible-to-imagine security breach is shameful and offensive to what i consider to be actual human rights

pies. (gbx), Tuesday, 27 July 2010 20:55 (nine years ago) link

no the bracket was pac man trying to eat the fifty percent

people will never be motivated to action unless pac-man knows what real hunger feels like

chuck entertainment cheese (crüt), Tuesday, 27 July 2010 20:56 (nine years ago) link

well let's be plain about that: one pays taxes because they will punish the shit out of you if you don't. I would love to withhold money from the state until it agrees to provide full health care for all, and to fully fund the arts, besides! but they will freeze your bank account if you try that shit, so you gotta walk the straight and narrow. I don't have the stomach to see what the state will do if I get too principled about money they consider theirs.

Which leads back to the basic problem; you are fueling the engine you are complaining about and enabling it to continue doing things you disapprove of without any practical consequences because, for almost all of us, personal comfort > principles.

Or, to be more generous in constructing the argument, certain concessions are made on all of our principles because we believe in citizenship, which has the unfortunate side-effect of marginalizing some percentage of legitimate complaint into effective lip service.

measuring of the waist (HI DERE), Tuesday, 27 July 2010 20:57 (nine years ago) link

I mean, the real critique is, "Great, you're idealistic. Who the fuck cares?" because the idealism as practiced that way has no impact on the world. It's just screaming into the wind, or to ask what the stakes are of that idealism, it's just to look good on a message board. You're not changing the world by saying how bad the US government is, you're just complaining.

― Mordy, Tuesday, July 27, 2010 4:35 PM (6 minutes ago)

fuck you. wanting something more than what we have is not "just complaining" - it's the only way to make things better. your banal fascination with power and the way things work leads you to acquiesce to things that even you probably find appalling, and this acquiescence is what allows it to continue. there's no moral high ground to be gained by concluding that what we've got is the best we can hope for

terry squad (k3vin k.), Tuesday, 27 July 2010 20:57 (nine years ago) link

the risks of an operation like WL are far and away outstripped by the possible rewards, at this juncture, and that pre-emptive censorship/penalty as prophylaxis against an impossible-to-imagine security breach is shameful and offensive to what i consider to be actual human rights

beautifully put

gross rainbow of haerosmith (underrated aerosmith albums I have loved), Tuesday, 27 July 2010 20:58 (nine years ago) link

"the American public will not do anything or demand anything no matter what their leaders do."

people are very sensitive to personal cruelty, so leaks of politicians cheating on their cancer-ridden wives could surely prompt action.
If you are smart about leaks, you will tailor the ones you release to hit on a personal level, rather than broad policy violence.
Abu Ghraib seemed very much more about an emotional response to specific acts on specific people in a photograph than a rejection of coercive force.

Philip Nunez, Tuesday, 27 July 2010 20:58 (nine years ago) link

also btw cryptome has been doing this shit for well over a decade, get WITH IT

http cryptome org/

pies. (gbx), Tuesday, 27 July 2010 21:00 (nine years ago) link

Which leads back to the basic problem; you are fueling the engine you are complaining about and enabling it to continue doing things you disapprove of without any practical consequences because, for almost all of us, personal comfort > principles.

Or, to be more generous in constructing the argument, certain concessions are made on all of our principles because we believe in citizenship, which has the unfortunate side-effect of marginalizing some percentage of legitimate complaint into effective lip service.

well yeah - I mean - I think you and I are in complete agreement about this - I'm not clear about what you're disagreeing with me about? one accepts that malfeasance of the state in exchange for the comforts provided by it (or by remaining unmolested by it); are you saying that one's complaints have no weight or force, maybe, because one ("I" being that one for arguments sake) isn't going to take any action? I can dig that I'm just not sure where you're coming to that point from

gross rainbow of haerosmith (underrated aerosmith albums I have loved), Tuesday, 27 July 2010 21:01 (nine years ago) link

It's fun to argue the merits and demerits of whistle-blowing operations/military leaks, but in the end it's futile. It's going to happen, and it's going to happen more and more. No putting Pandora back in the box.

Beach Pomade (Adam Bruneau), Tuesday, 27 July 2010 21:02 (nine years ago) link


Abu Ghraib seemed very much more about an emotional response to specific acts on specific people in a photograph than a rejection of coercive force.

Did Abu Ghraib cause the American public to rise up and demand immediate accountability? There's plenty more Abu Ghraibs I'd guess, and what little we know about them we have to piece together. The people who got prosecuted in that case fit nicely into a "bad apple" paradigm, which silences a narrative-driven public.

gross rainbow of haerosmith (underrated aerosmith albums I have loved), Tuesday, 27 July 2010 21:03 (nine years ago) link

No one revelation may "cause the American public to rise up and demand immediate accountability", but each revelation adds up.

Beach Pomade (Adam Bruneau), Tuesday, 27 July 2010 21:06 (nine years ago) link

I dont think each revelation necessarily adds up. sometimes, they are subtractive. you need to save up the revelations, and organize them in s specific way for maximum effect, or they just further cement cynicism than prompt action.

In fact, you don't even need the revelations to be entirely true. My understanding is that the videos that took down ACORN were bogus in a larger context.

Philip Nunez, Tuesday, 27 July 2010 21:09 (nine years ago) link

well yeah - I mean - I think you and I are in complete agreement about this - I'm not clear about what you're disagreeing with me about? one accepts that malfeasance of the state in exchange for the comforts provided by it (or by remaining unmolested by it); are you saying that one's complaints have no weight or force, maybe, because one ("I" being that one for arguments sake) isn't going to take any action? I can dig that I'm just not sure where you're coming to that point from

I'm not really disagreeing with you or anyone else; I am advancing an argument as to why 75% of the principle-based arguments from both the left and the right are pointless. If you acknowledge yourself as a citizen of the country (the minimum requirement being paying your taxes), you are legitimizing the system in a way that is much, much stronger than verbally decrying it. So much of what we are doing here is posturing; basically, all of these threads are just a release valve to assuage the principles we bruise as a side-effect of being good citizens. As long as that's sufficient, we won't see any changes in the things we don't like.

measuring of the waist (HI DERE), Tuesday, 27 July 2010 21:10 (nine years ago) link

I'm not really disagreeing with you or anyone else; I am advancing an argument as to why 75% of the principle-based arguments from both the left and the right are pointless. If you acknowledge yourself as a citizen of the country (the minimum requirement being paying your taxes), you are legitimizing the system in a way that is much, much stronger than verbally decrying it. So much of what we are doing here is posturing; basically, all of these threads are just a release valve to assuage the principles we bruise as a side-effect of being good citizens. As long as that's sufficient, we won't see any changes in the things we don't like.

I agree with this, with the exception of "posturing," which I think is too harsh a word; I think there's inherent value in the exchange of ideas, or even, as (lol) "sometimes" turns out to be the case, in people just restating positions everybody already knows they hold; I believe in the value of people talking to each other/typing out their ideas/thinkin baout stuff

gross rainbow of haerosmith (underrated aerosmith albums I have loved), Tuesday, 27 July 2010 21:19 (nine years ago) link

btw directly onthread: WNYC has an interview up with assange. I haven't listened to it yet.

http://www.thetakeaway.org/2010/jul/27/julian-assange-chief-wikileaker-joins-takeaway/

bonus, looks like a real edifying comments war developing nicely over there

gross rainbow of haerosmith (underrated aerosmith albums I have loved), Tuesday, 27 July 2010 21:21 (nine years ago) link

I agree with this, with the exception of "posturing," which I think is too harsh a word; I think there's inherent value in the exchange of ideas, or even, as (lol) "sometimes" turns out to be the case, in people just restating positions everybody already knows they hold; I believe in the value of people talking to each other/typing out their ideas/thinkin baout stuff

I don't think you can legitimately call the most recent strain of discourse on this thread "people talking to each other"; it was mostly a bunch of people who all believe the same essential thing stating it in different ways, then insulting and belittling each other for not using the same words.

measuring of the waist (HI DERE), Tuesday, 27 July 2010 21:30 (nine years ago) link

btw the pizza in my examples is entirely theoretical, there is no pizza where I'm at, much to my dissatisfaction.

http://www.stuckinthe80s.com/image.php?productid=16597

"It's far from 'lol' you were reared, boy" (darraghmac), Tuesday, 27 July 2010 21:36 (nine years ago) link

darraghmac, are you against any intervention abroad?

― Mordy, Tuesday, 27 July 2010 18:25 (3 hours ago) Bookmark

sorry to jump back in, especially after mordy's been shouted off the thread, but if by intervention you mean troops pre-emptively on operation grey wild goose on foreign ground then yeah.

"It's far from 'lol' you were reared, boy" (darraghmac), Tuesday, 27 July 2010 21:38 (nine years ago) link

I don't think you can legitimately call the most recent strain of discourse on this thread "people talking to each other"; it was mostly a bunch of people who all believe the same essential thing stating it in different ways, then insulting and belittling each other for not using the same words.

look, in my family, that passed for "people talking to each other"

gross rainbow of haerosmith (underrated aerosmith albums I have loved), Tuesday, 27 July 2010 21:40 (nine years ago) link

"troops pre-emptively on operation grey wild goose on foreign ground then yeah."

operation grey wild goose sounds like fun! wholesome even. not like operation quack attack.

Philip Nunez, Tuesday, 27 July 2010 21:44 (nine years ago) link

Operation Grey Goose, please hit me up: I just got home from work and need a drink.

balls and adieu (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 27 July 2010 21:54 (nine years ago) link

You rang?

http://www.stripohgram.com/bartender.jpg

Ned Raggett, Tuesday, 27 July 2010 21:56 (nine years ago) link

operation grey wild goose

is this like Operation Dumbo Drops Acid

Moshy Star (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 27 July 2010 21:56 (nine years ago) link

I'm not really disagreeing with you or anyone else; I am advancing an argument as to why 75% of the principle-based arguments from both the left and the right are pointless. If you acknowledge yourself as a citizen of the country (the minimum requirement being paying your taxes), you are legitimizing the system in a way that is much, much stronger than verbally decrying it. So much of what we are doing here is posturing; basically, all of these threads are just a release valve to assuage the principles we bruise as a side-effect of being good citizens. As long as that's sufficient, we won't see any changes in the things we don't like.

― measuring of the waist (HI DERE), Tuesday, July 27, 2010 5:10 PM (39 minutes ago)

but surely you're not suggesting that none of us takes political action outside of ilx? that people in this thread don't vote, or write to their representatives, or have conversations with people outside of this message board? i don't get the demonizing of ilx political threads in this case; it's just an extension of what people believe/do irl.

terry squad (k3vin k.), Tuesday, 27 July 2010 22:04 (nine years ago) link

wild grey geese started out as a clever mixnmatch of military gunghoness and a fruitless search in my head, and yknow fuckalotofye tbh if yall don't roll with that

i don't, eh, i have no idea where the grey part came from.

"It's far from 'lol' you were reared, boy" (darraghmac), Tuesday, 27 July 2010 22:12 (nine years ago) link

and i don't agree fully that paying taxes amounts to an endorsement of what they're used for. taxes are what democracy decides to pay for (assuming those being taxed had elected representation present in the debates & votes regarding the taxes) xp

terry squad (k3vin k.), Tuesday, 27 July 2010 22:13 (nine years ago) link

assuming that the representatives were using their vote in accord with the democratic ideal in the interests of their constituents, too, i'd add

"It's far from 'lol' you were reared, boy" (darraghmac), Tuesday, 27 July 2010 22:15 (nine years ago) link

I don't think you can legitimately call the most recent strain of discourse on this thread "people talking to each other"; it was mostly a bunch of people who all believe the same essential thing stating it in different ways, then insulting and belittling each other for not using the same words.

― measuring of the waist (HI DERE), Tuesday, July 27, 2010 5:30 PM (42 minutes ago)

no stop this please, if it's not clear that there were very distinct and disagreeing points of view being debated then i don't know what to tell you. i'm honestly sick of being told that we're all on the same side here, why can't we just get along etc; i'd hope (probably pointlessly) that anyone here on the fence about who the real enemy to progressive change is - the sarah palins or the people who are actually in charge of what's supposed to be the only viable outlet for progressive change we have (the democratic party) - saw that issue in a new light

terry squad (k3vin k.), Tuesday, 27 July 2010 22:22 (nine years ago) link

"who the real enemy to progressive change is - the sarah palins or the people who are actually in charge"
they're both part of a climate of constant campaigning trumping sound governance, so in a broad sense I feel democracy itself is the largest obstacle, and I think where leaks would come into play is which side can more deftly capitalize on them.

I'm kind of surprised that there isn't yet anything in the leaks to spur a high-profiled firing like say, a seemingly innocuous Rolling Stone piece has. Maybe there's more in there to churn through?

Philip Nunez, Tuesday, 27 July 2010 22:34 (nine years ago) link

if the leaker is bradley manning, and presumably he is, then he's already in jail

goole, Tuesday, 27 July 2010 22:36 (nine years ago) link

unless you mean, like, firing the US army

goole, Tuesday, 27 July 2010 22:37 (nine years ago) link

what is there to fire for? what we'll tolerate is clear - killing thousands of women and children is ultimately ok as long as it's not obvious that we directly meant to do so. talk shit about obama or biden? yourefired.jpg

xp

terry squad (k3vin k.), Tuesday, 27 July 2010 22:38 (nine years ago) link

there's no smack talk in however many pages of leaked documents?

Philip Nunez, Tuesday, 27 July 2010 22:39 (nine years ago) link

killing thousands of women and children is ultimately ok as long as it's not obvious that we directly meant to do so.

or as long as it met an approved military objective.

"It's far from 'lol' you were reared, boy" (darraghmac), Tuesday, 27 July 2010 22:40 (nine years ago) link

re: manning, didn't he say there was stuff specifically embarrassing to Hillary Clinton and some yet unheard of diplomatic fiascoes? is wikileaks just sitting on this?

Philip Nunez, Tuesday, 27 July 2010 22:41 (nine years ago) link

if he was transmitting not only defense department cables going to/from the pentagon but also diplomatic cables to/from the state dept, yeah sure it could contain all kinds of shit about Madam Secretary. who knows? wikileaks may be sitting on a lot yeah...

goole, Tuesday, 27 July 2010 22:48 (nine years ago) link

I am long past "why can't we all get along" and well into "shut the fuck up all of you useless blowhards"

measuring of the waist (HI DERE), Tuesday, 27 July 2010 22:51 (nine years ago) link

^ is this really the finger we want on the red button?

"It's far from 'lol' you were reared, boy" (darraghmac), Tuesday, 27 July 2010 22:53 (nine years ago) link

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/27/opinion/27exum.html?_r=1&ref=global

this one's got it all really - starts off with the popular "SIMPSONS DID IT, ASSHOLE", flows nicely into putting-the-troops-in-danger fear mongering, mocks assange for not being pragmatic or subservient enough, lolsy i-actually-served-in-the-military-you-don't-understand-the-nuances-of-war butthurtedness, some tasteful minimizing of civilian casualties, then ends with assailing the 'contemptible' person who leaked the cables

terry squad (k3vin k.), Wednesday, 28 July 2010 03:21 (nine years ago) link

By muddying the waters between journalism and activism, and by throwing his organization into the debate on Afghanistan with little apparent regard for the hard moral choices and dearth of good policy options facing decision-makers, he is being as reckless and destructive as the contemptible soldier or soldiers who leaked the documents in the first place.

lol yeah unlike the Pentagon Papers which in no way conflated journalism & activism

gross rainbow of haerosmith (underrated aerosmith albums I have loved), Wednesday, 28 July 2010 03:38 (nine years ago) link

Does the timing of all this sound suspicious to anyone? Just a few weeks ago there was that huge story w Manning and supposedly 150,000 cables. And now Obama has suddenly announced a planned surge of 30,000, using this very recent new leak for support.

Beach Pomade (Adam Bruneau), Wednesday, 28 July 2010 04:12 (nine years ago) link

hasn't obama justified his previous surge of 30000 troops with this leak, rather than lobbied for another surge? i haven't really read through what he said, but his statement seemed to be contextualising his response so far.

I bowed out when I lost track of what you guys were arguing about, but the start of today's Times front page is basically everything I was trying to say in my posts upthread:

Hundreds of Afghan lives have been put at risk by the leaking of 90,000 intelligence documents because the files identify informants working with NATO forces.

In just two hours of searching the WikiLeaks archive, The Times found the names of dozens of Afghans credited with providing detailed intelligence to US forces. Their villages are given for identification and also, in many cases, their father's name.

...

A senior official at the Afghan Foreign Ministry, who declined to be named(!), said "The leaks certainly have put in real risk and danger the lives and integrity of many Afghans. The US is both morally and legally responsible for any harm that the leaks might cause to the individuals, particularly those who have been named. It will further limit the US/international access to the uncensored views of Afghans."

Must say I'd be surprised if WL has been *that* inept - I assumed it would take a bit of detective work to unmask sources, which WL is obviously unqualified to assess, but according to this maybe not. Nevertheless, I got shouted down because WL causing harm is apparently only an issue with troop movements or once-in-seventy-years secrets like D-Day planning. But then all these guys are only Afghans I guess.

Ismael Klata, Wednesday, 28 July 2010 10:17 (nine years ago) link

you weren't shouted down, people just disagreed that secrecy was "usually" to protect a source. the military is routinely secret and far more of these logs involve protection of military mistakes than protection of sources (ie, nyt finds "dozens" of informants, but there are hundreds of civilian casualty reports). wikileaks shouldn't be censured for hypothetical potential harm but where people can show they've put people at risk, sure, it's fair to criticise them.

But then all these guys are only Afghans I guess.

oh, please.

joe, Wednesday, 28 July 2010 10:44 (nine years ago) link

I find it interesting that the Afghan official says that the US is 'morally and legally responsible' for resultant harm done, not WikiLeaks.

Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 28 July 2010 14:29 (nine years ago) link

well, THEIR intel was compromised

pies. (gbx), Wednesday, 28 July 2010 14:37 (nine years ago) link

If you keep shit secret, you should kind of be responsible for the fallout if it gets leaked.

Matt DC, Wednesday, 28 July 2010 14:37 (nine years ago) link

Afghan official otm - it's the US ship that leaked, tighter ship means Wikileaks never gets hold of the info

gross rainbow of haerosmith (underrated aerosmith albums I have loved), Wednesday, 28 July 2010 14:38 (nine years ago) link

Good points all.

Tim Rutten complains.

Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 28 July 2010 14:38 (nine years ago) link

hey since these cables are from a few years ago, those afghan intel contacts might already be dead. there's always a bright side!

goole, Wednesday, 28 July 2010 14:40 (nine years ago) link

LMK who's responsible for the dead civilians killed in our precision attacks (then Bam can do another press dinner joke about it)

kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 28 July 2010 14:48 (nine years ago) link

get ready for everybody to pile on your Morbz, you know that the actual war is a-ok, it's reporting on it that's unconscionable

gross rainbow of haerosmith (underrated aerosmith albums I have loved), Wednesday, 28 July 2010 14:52 (nine years ago) link

From that NYT op-ed:

Third, the site asserts that the Pentagon employs a secret task force of highly trained commandos charged with capturing or killing insurgent leaders. I suspect that in the eyes of most Americans, using special operations teams to kill terrorists is one of the least controversial ways in which the government spends their tax dollars.

That, folks, is a flawlessly-executed triple axel, getting from "insurgent leaders" to "terrorists" in two sentences. Hey, dickhead, someone fighting to expel the US Army from his or her own country is a lot of things, but none of them is "a terrorist."

the penis cream pilot walked free (Phil D.), Wednesday, 28 July 2010 14:54 (nine years ago) link

fighting to expel the US Army from his or her own country is a lot of things, but none of them is "a terrorist."

depends on their methods imo

"It's far from 'lol' you were reared, boy" (darraghmac), Wednesday, 28 July 2010 14:55 (nine years ago) link

there's no great term for 'em: pretty sure they also want to 'expel' the afghan govt as well as the US army, which *would* make them terrorists (cf deliberate attacks on civilians), but then of course it's an illegitimate govt. (kind of a qed.)

rip MAD MEN on AMC S4 26/07 never forget (history mayne), Wednesday, 28 July 2010 15:07 (nine years ago) link

guys anybody who's against us anywhere ever is a terrorist, do keep up

gross rainbow of haerosmith (underrated aerosmith albums I have loved), Wednesday, 28 July 2010 15:10 (nine years ago) link

It's odd how the word is diverging from 'terror' - the Japanese described the Aussie Greenpeacers who boarded one of their whaling vessels as 'terrorists', and it just sounded ludicrous

Ismael Klata, Wednesday, 28 July 2010 15:14 (nine years ago) link

If this has been posted already, my apologies. the NYT notes its methods

balls and adieu (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 28 July 2010 15:17 (nine years ago) link

the horrorists are gonna sneak in & really cause trouble while everybody's attention is diverted by the terrorists

gross rainbow of haerosmith (underrated aerosmith albums I have loved), Wednesday, 28 July 2010 15:19 (nine years ago) link

Frankly, I'm more scared of the startleists.

the penis cream pilot walked free (Phil D.), Wednesday, 28 July 2010 15:21 (nine years ago) link

hasn't obama justified his previous surge of 30000 troops with this leak, rather than lobbied for another surge?

So he has. I really should've RTFA.

Beach Pomade (Adam Bruneau), Wednesday, 28 July 2010 15:22 (nine years ago) link

mentalists are worse imo

balls and adieu (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 28 July 2010 15:23 (nine years ago) link

xxxp Amis is in agreement aerosmith

peligro, Wednesday, 28 July 2010 15:31 (nine years ago) link

i wonder what wikileaks man's pubes look like

mittens, Thursday, 29 July 2010 00:56 (nine years ago) link

Amis's horrorism doesn't not have enough of the Mummy lighting shit on fire with his heat vision tho

gross rainbow of haerosmith (underrated aerosmith albums I have loved), Thursday, 29 July 2010 02:07 (nine years ago) link

wonder what amis' pubes look like

mittens, Thursday, 29 July 2010 02:09 (nine years ago) link

Holy shit – I thought I'd seen it all. That site is a cloaca.

agree we should kill him, but not for any sense of "he deserves it." He has proven himself our enemy who has done damage to us, ergo, we should kill him. That's all the justification I need.

balls and adieu (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 29 July 2010 18:34 (nine years ago) link

that url looks like an onion creation. er maybe collegehumor.com creation

Philip Nunez, Thursday, 29 July 2010 18:37 (nine years ago) link

lol that site is awesome

goole, Thursday, 29 July 2010 18:39 (nine years ago) link

was there anything politically damaging yet to come out of this recent 'facebook leak'?

Philip Nunez, Thursday, 29 July 2010 19:14 (nine years ago) link

From Admiral Mike Mullen's Twitter:

@thejointstaff Meant what I said: Mr. Assange & his source might already have on their hands the blood of our troops or that of our Afghan partners.

no turkey unless it's a club sandwich (polyphonic), Thursday, 29 July 2010 22:59 (nine years ago) link

ok what the fuck is going on here, with aerosmith's post?

there's an obvious case for leaking, but i think this

http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/politics/international_politics/wikileaks+damage+already+done+says+human+rights+group/3727677

and what ismael posted sort of doesn't really merit a lol censorship post?

rip MAD MEN on AMC S4 26/07 never forget (history mayne), Friday, 30 July 2010 10:42 (nine years ago) link

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jul/30/wikileaks-data-suspected-army-source

So we've gone from "This is isn't anything new/This won't change anything" to "Wikileaks could have blood on its hands" in less than a week. Wonder if Wikileaks is on their way to being named an enemy combatant.

Beach Pomade (Adam Bruneau), Friday, 30 July 2010 15:15 (nine years ago) link

Doesn't even have to be under the targeted assassination regime iirc

"It's far from 'lol' you were reared, boy" (darraghmac), Friday, 30 July 2010 15:20 (nine years ago) link

xp, just pointing out the obvious but you can release information that doesn't give readers a new window into the war and still be responsible for people's deaths by including specific intel that gives away informants names and troop information, obv obv obv.

Mordy, Friday, 30 July 2010 15:37 (nine years ago) link

guns don't kill people, wikileaks do

"It's far from 'lol' you were reared, boy" (darraghmac), Friday, 30 July 2010 15:41 (nine years ago) link

I don't know if you're being facetious, but I think it's okay if people voice concern that apparently WikiLeaks did not redact all the names of sources in the WikiLeaks documents and those sources are, at least acc to Zabihullah Mujahid, going to be killed.

Mordy, Friday, 30 July 2010 15:44 (nine years ago) link

:) I was being a little facetious

"It's far from 'lol' you were reared, boy" (darraghmac), Friday, 30 July 2010 15:47 (nine years ago) link

So we've gone from "This is isn't anything new/This won't change anything" to "Wikileaks could have blood on its hands" in less than a week. Wonder if Wikileaks is on their way to being named an enemy combatant.

Ismael on this thread has always been clear about his concern for the safety of the sources.

gross rainbow of haerosmith (underrated aerosmith albums I have loved), Friday, 30 July 2010 15:48 (nine years ago) link

Thanks. I did start out mostly concerned about the implications for military/policing operations there, because who'd talk on the basis of anything other than 100% confidentiality? At least you can make a coherent argument against that, or that openness is more important, even if I'd consider that naive.

It was only when I read details of a few specific leaks that I realised that actual individuals might be traceable and got gravely concerned. Whatever your position on transparency of govt activities, I don't see how you can be in favour of publishing in that sort of detail and maintain normal human sympathy.

Not for one fucking minute did I think WL would actually be publishing people's names and addresses. I'm horrified by how this is panning out.

Ismael Klata, Friday, 30 July 2010 16:35 (nine years ago) link

TONY JONES: Well, not according to the Pentagon. They're accusing you of revealing the identities of Afghan informants and putting their lives at risk. Afghan's president, Karzai, agrees with that he says 'the breach is extremely irresponsible and shocking.' Your response to those comments.
JULIAN ASSANGE: Well we have yet to see clear evidence of that. I mean the London Times is also making this allegation today and in a quite disingenuous way, for example they mention some informers' names they say they had found and with a headline Afghan informer already dead, but when you actually read the story what you see is in fact that individual that they're mentioning died two years ago.

So there's a little bit of media manipulation occurring here. In terms of the Afghan government, it's in their interests to sort of play up the irresponsible, irresponsibility of the United States that they say has been involved in sort of collecting and permitting this data to release, be released.

Now we contacted the White House as a group before we released this material and asked them to help assist in going through it to make sure that no innocent names came out, and the White House did not accept that request.

http://jotman.blogspot.com/2010/07/white-house-or-wikileaks-to-blame-for.html

Beach Pomade (Adam Bruneau), Friday, 30 July 2010 18:36 (nine years ago) link

We have no reason to doubt that Julian Assange was telling the truth about the request.

Really? None?

Mordy, Friday, 30 July 2010 18:39 (nine years ago) link

I can think of a dozen reasons why to distrust his account (motive - it passes the responsibility for any leak, his account which suggests he was himself trying to cut down on names + stuff and never mentioned collaboration with the White House before, a good reason not to want to speak to the WH; because they were considering trying him under espionage laws, etc, etc) but the primary reason to distrust it is since when would the White House give up an opportunity to censor classified information? If I believe anything about executive power, I believe that the moment someone called to say, "I have a leak, do you want to look over it and tell me what I shouldn't leak," they'll be all over that.

Mordy, Friday, 30 July 2010 18:46 (nine years ago) link

those really aren't reasons not to take his word on that imo - reason not to take his word on it would be "evidence that he is lying"

gross rainbow of haerosmith (underrated aerosmith albums I have loved), Friday, 30 July 2010 18:58 (nine years ago) link

Well, let's say he's no more trustworthy than any other public figure (which Assage is now, whether he likes it or not).

balls and adieu (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 30 July 2010 19:01 (nine years ago) link

Skepticism is good all the time imo. This doesn't pass the smell test. You'd have to believe that the government either a) didn't think a single document in those 90,000 documents (including the 15,000 he himself is sitting on) wouldn't be a risk to anyone, or b) that they felt any risk in all those documents (including the 15,000 he's sitting on) were worth making this guy look like an asshole, or c) that they thought that he'd somehow censor the most dangerous documents all on his own, and only allow a few dangerous documents out that would make him look like an asshole.

I mean, all three possibilities are pretty insane. I think it's more likely Assange felt he could weed out any problems on his own, got in over his head, and now wants to blame the White House for not working with him.

Mordy, Friday, 30 July 2010 19:02 (nine years ago) link

Mind you, if he said, "I wanted to speak to the WH, but because their position on me has been so antagonistic I didn't feel comfortable doing so," I'd be way more receptive to sympathizing -- or at least understanding his POV. But claiming he actually asked the WH to help and they totally ignored him sounds like absolute bunk.

Mordy, Friday, 30 July 2010 19:05 (nine years ago) link

not to me - bureaucracies not returning calls that turn out to be important isn't exactly an unheard-of situation, is it?

gross rainbow of haerosmith (underrated aerosmith albums I have loved), Friday, 30 July 2010 19:12 (nine years ago) link

Here's more of the interview, btw:

JULIAN ASSANGE: Yeah that's right. Not, of course we did not offer them a chance to veto any material, but rather we told them that we were going through a harm minimisation process and offered them the chance to point out names of informers or other innocents who might be harmed and they did not respond to that request which was mediated through the New York Times who was our, acting as the contact for the four media groups involved in this.

http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2010/s2968342.htm

Mordy, Friday, 30 July 2010 19:13 (nine years ago) link

I feel very confident in saying that the NYT did not agree to act as a liaison between between Julian Assange at the White House.

Mordy, Friday, 30 July 2010 19:14 (nine years ago) link

I can completely imagination a brokered negotiation like that going like this: "We need complete yea-or-nea power before we agree to look at what you've got, because if we don't have that and we look at what you've got, people will be able to legitimately claim that we gave our OK to the release of the information." "Well, I'm not going to give you blanket ability to censor, I have the right to publish it; if you would like to look at it and work with me to censor names that might be placed in harm's way, that's what I can do." "We refuse to look at it unless we are given blanket ability to censor/redact" - seems like ass-covering 101

gross rainbow of haerosmith (underrated aerosmith albums I have loved), Friday, 30 July 2010 19:17 (nine years ago) link

He's not even saying that's what happened tho. He's claiming the NYT was representing him at the WH.

Mordy, Friday, 30 July 2010 19:18 (nine years ago) link

So we've gone from "This is isn't anything new/This won't change anything" to "Wikileaks could have blood on its hands" in less than a week. Wonder if Wikileaks is on their way to being named an enemy combatant.

― Beach Pomade (Adam Bruneau), Friday, July 30, 2010 4:15 PM (4 hours ago) Bookmark

this is a complete non sequitur. it's still true that wikileaks didn't uncover much that was really new. they did reveal more detail &c &c -- anyway, that's something to debate which is kind of completely fuckin' separate from the question whether they put lives in danger.

rip MAD MEN on AMC S4 26/07 never forget (history mayne), Friday, 30 July 2010 19:19 (nine years ago) link

i really wonder what the NYT told assange, what the NYT told the WH (if anything), and what the WH told the NYT in response, and what the NYT told assange about that!

there are a few steps there that assange may not really know anything about, even if he's been told one thing or another about it.

goole, Friday, 30 July 2010 19:20 (nine years ago) link

this whole affair seems fucking stupid and counterproductive imho

Master of the Manly Ballad (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 30 July 2010 19:21 (nine years ago) link

well he's claiming several things - I'm not addressing whether the NYT had been talking to him and with the White House, whatever, I don't know. I'm talking about the claim that he had offered the material to the WH. I can conceive of several scenarios in which that would happen and they would refuse to look at it or even answer him in any way once they knew what he was claiming to have, depending on the wording with which he approached them. them having any interaction with him means they run the risk of people reporting "WH complicit in leak." that's clear, isn't it?

gross rainbow of haerosmith (underrated aerosmith albums I have loved), Friday, 30 July 2010 19:21 (nine years ago) link

yeah they wouldn't even touch it or talk to him, no doubt!

forgive the analogy, but it would be as if a thief came back to you and said, ok, which of your wife's earrings would you like back? it'd be harder to claim you were robbed afterward...

goole, Friday, 30 July 2010 19:24 (nine years ago) link

are you being sarcastic - I have a broken sarcasm detector

gross rainbow of haerosmith (underrated aerosmith albums I have loved), Friday, 30 July 2010 19:27 (nine years ago) link

no

goole, Friday, 30 July 2010 19:29 (nine years ago) link

Smithy, imho I think that is silly. It only makes sense if there really are no stakes to this information getting out. First of all, you'd have to think that the government bargaining over leaked items would sound like complicit behavior -- which makes no sense! Of course the government wants to minimize the damage from leaks, that's self-evident, I'd think. Second, you'd have to believe that not only are they afraid meeting with him would look like complicit behavior, but that they think the political fallout from that appearance is worse than compromising informants in Afghanistan, soldiers, the probability of working with anyone ever again (because who would want to work with the US government in Afghanistan if their information is going to be leaked)... essentially this would be one of the most short-sighted decisions in the history of executive power. Unless you believe Obama secretly wants to undermine the war and is just using this as an excuse to do that.

Mordy, Friday, 30 July 2010 19:33 (nine years ago) link

Not to mention, and this comes from my gut, reading the interview it's really hard to see him as a trustworthy figure. He sounds very confused (actually shades of Tommy Wiseau ran through my mind while reading the interview).

Mordy, Friday, 30 July 2010 19:35 (nine years ago) link

TONY JONES: So, how many of the reports that you put on Wikileaks went onto the site without you actually knowing the detail of what was in them?

JULIAN ASSANGE: It's fair to say that only two per cent have been read in precise detail and the rest have been hived off using these classification systems.

Now, I presume what your question is getting to is what, how did we split off the 15,000 that we have not yet released because we think they need further review to understand whether there might be innocent informers' names in there.

So after reviewing several different types of material we saw that it was really these threat reports and then some other classifications that contained information about informers, so those were all hived off.

Mordy, Friday, 30 July 2010 19:36 (nine years ago) link

Mordy OTM

Master of the Manly Ballad (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 30 July 2010 19:36 (nine years ago) link

hived off? what kind of phrase is that?

Master of the Manly Ballad (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 30 July 2010 19:39 (nine years ago) link

How about the CIA memo a year or two ago about how to take down Wikileaks? Why wouldn't they want to let WL shoot themselves in the foot in order to get them out of the way?

Beach Pomade (Adam Bruneau), Friday, 30 July 2010 19:40 (nine years ago) link

First of all, you'd have to think that the government bargaining over leaked items would sound like complicit behavior -- which makes no sense!

You honestly think that if the government had bargained with this guy over this stuff, Fox News et al wouldn't take that info and run all the way down the field with it?

gross rainbow of haerosmith (underrated aerosmith albums I have loved), Friday, 30 July 2010 19:42 (nine years ago) link

Adam, can you link me to an article or copy of that CIA memo? I don't remember seeing it.

Mordy, Friday, 30 July 2010 19:42 (nine years ago) link

every GOP candidate this fall would have (succesfully) used "the Obama administration negotiated with the very people who leaked classified information" - right now, it's WikiLeaks putting soldiers in harm's way. Any cooperation from the admin, of any kind, would have meant "Obama in bed with the guy who leaked sensitive info." NAGL in an election year. obv this is just guessing at how this dude's story might be true (though we'll know soon enough; the NYT should confirm or deny their engagement with him, I'd think, and since he's claiming everyone was in on the process, it should be clear enough) but "our position is we do not return this guy's phone calls no matter what" does not seem like an unlikely scenario to me

gross rainbow of haerosmith (underrated aerosmith albums I have loved), Friday, 30 July 2010 19:44 (nine years ago) link

And Smithy, again, you'd have to believe that a political calculation re: Fox News would trump completely undermining any credibility the US might have among US-sympathetic individuals and communities in Afghanistan. After this, you'd have to be willing to put your life at risk to ever speak to the military in Afghanistan again. This severely undermines US actions in Afghanistan -- putting aside whether that is or isn't a good thing, certainly the Obama administration doesn't think that's a good thing.

Mordy, Friday, 30 July 2010 19:45 (nine years ago) link

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/barrett-brown/cia-state-department-appa_b_512050.html

Apparently that memo was leaked by (lol) Wikileaks. Sounds fishy, yes, and skepticism in the case WL is definitely healthy. But it seems like there's a lot more skepticism towards WL than the US Gov't in these matters.

Beach Pomade (Adam Bruneau), Friday, 30 July 2010 19:46 (nine years ago) link

That's not fair. I'm not believing a US account over a Wikileaks account.

Mordy, Friday, 30 July 2010 19:47 (nine years ago) link

From March NYTimes

To the list of the enemies threatening the security of the United States, the Pentagon has added WikiLeaks.org, a tiny online source of information and documents that governments and corporations around the world would prefer to keep secret.

The Pentagon assessed the danger WikiLeaks.org posed to the Army in a report marked “unauthorized disclosure subject to criminal sanctions.” It concluded that “WikiLeaks.org represents a potential force protection, counterintelligence, OPSEC and INFOSEC threat to the U.S. Army” — or, in plain English, a threat to Army operations and information.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/18/us/18wiki.html?_r=1

Beach Pomade (Adam Bruneau), Friday, 30 July 2010 19:48 (nine years ago) link

LOL and this

Perhaps the most amusing aspect of the Army’s report, to Mr. Assange, was its speculation that WikiLeaks is supported by the Central Intelligence Agency.

Beach Pomade (Adam Bruneau), Friday, 30 July 2010 19:48 (nine years ago) link

Wikileaks has since deleted the file that they claim was leaked by the CIA? http://file.wikileaks.org/file/us-intel-wikileaks.pdf Or maybe moved it? I'd like to read what the memo actually says.

Mordy, Friday, 30 July 2010 19:49 (nine years ago) link

xp to Mords - I don't think any admin thinks there is any matter more important than its party remaining viable in the next election. Lest anybody accuse me of maligning Obama's admin in particular let me be clear, it's not about that. But I do think a sitting admin asks itself "what does this to to us" i.e. the admin's/party's prospects for fall in every instance, and that that is always the first matter of business.

gross rainbow of haerosmith (underrated aerosmith albums I have loved), Friday, 30 July 2010 19:49 (nine years ago) link

you'd have to believe that a political calculation re: Fox News would trump completely undermining any credibility the US might have among US-sympathetic individuals and communities in Afghanistan. After this, you'd have to be willing to put your life at risk to ever speak to the military in Afghanistan again. This severely undermines US actions in Afghanistan -- putting aside whether that is or isn't a good thing, certainly the Obama administration doesn't think that's a good thing.

this is totally OTM. sad you guys think that Obama would rather fuck up this war you guys think he is so fond of - facilitating the deaths of US servicemen, Afghan collaborators, etc. - rather than irritate Fox News. It's not like Fox News is dying for ammo to use against Obama or anything, they just make shit up if they have to!

Master of the Manly Ballad (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 30 July 2010 19:51 (nine years ago) link

I can't find the memo anywhere btw, gonna keep hunting, but this is an excerpt from it I found on a website:

"The identification, exposure, termination of employment, criminal prosecution, legal action against current or former insiders, leakers, or whistleblowers could potentially damage or destroy this center of gravity and deter others considering similar actions from using the WikiLeaks.org Web site'" >> Not allowing Wikileaks to shoot itself in the foot by leaking dangerous info that leads to people dying, but drying out the info at the source.

Mordy, Friday, 30 July 2010 19:52 (nine years ago) link

Ok, found it here, reading now:

http://file.wikileaks.org/file/us-intel-wikileaks.pdf

Mordy, Friday, 30 July 2010 19:53 (nine years ago) link

"Fox News" is shorthand for conservative spin control of the admin actions, and if you think that's not always WAY up front in the admin's mind -- well, then we disagree!

gross rainbow of haerosmith (underrated aerosmith albums I have loved), Friday, 30 July 2010 19:55 (nine years ago) link

I mean feel free to contend that nobody gives a shit about media narrative or that there comes a point at which principles outweigh it, but I mean, evidence seems lacking to me on that q

gross rainbow of haerosmith (underrated aerosmith albums I have loved), Friday, 30 July 2010 19:56 (nine years ago) link

How about the CIA memo a year or two ago about how to take down Wikileaks? Why wouldn't they want to let WL shoot themselves in the foot in order to get them out of the way?

Yeah, so the memo definitely doesn't say this. It's basically about trying to suss out Wikileak sources so that Wikileak's promise of absolutely anonymity is undermined and sources in the future are more wary of leaking information. It's not like a document full of various ways of trying to undermine Wikileaks, it's about trying to plug leak holes in the government (and much of the document is spent trying to figure out what department(s) the leak is coming from by analyzing the leaks that have already come out). It's actually a really interesting read, imo, but is not the kind of intelligence document you hear about once in awhile which airs a bunch of crazy ideas for how to get something done. It's about trying to find who is leaking information to prevent future leaks. After reading it I'm very skeptical that the government would allow him to publish documents that undermine the war effort just to undermine Wikileaks -- even more than I was before reading it. For one, it's logically not sound; they released the document because -- as they write many times -- they feel like Wikileaks undermines the war effort. Why would they let him undermine the war effort so that later on he couldn't undermine it moreso? There's a huge logical fallacy in there.

Mordy, Friday, 30 July 2010 20:01 (nine years ago) link

there are so many advantages (media narrative and otherwise) to the admin looking at this stuff prior to its release - would allow them to redact stuff, would allow them to get an advance idea of where the leak came from, would allow them to coordinate a response ahead of time, would allow them to minimize the damage to operations on the ground in Afghanistan, etc. That you think the administration is SO AFRAID of the rightwing media spin machine that they would overlook all these advantages is just... I dunno, J0hn yr a sharp a guy but I think yr judgment is seriously clouded here. Obama's certainly aware of the media narrative and their need to control it, but they give those idiots ammo EVERY DAY and hardly shy away from controversy. I just don't know what you're basing this judgment on, other than vindictive bitterness.

Master of the Manly Ballad (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 30 July 2010 20:02 (nine years ago) link

Mordy, how have you the time to compose these long posts continuously?

balls and adieu (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 30 July 2010 20:02 (nine years ago) link

Web sites similar to Wikileaks.org will continue to proliferate and will continue to represent a potential force protection, counterintelligence, OPSEC, and INFOSEC threat to the US Army for the foreseeable future. Sensitive or classified information posted to Wikileaks.org could potentially reveal the capabilities and vulnerabilities of US forces, whether stationed in CONUS or deployed overseas.

Mordy, Friday, 30 July 2010 20:02 (nine years ago) link

I'm actually secretly Artificial Intelligence, Alfred.

Mordy, Friday, 30 July 2010 20:03 (nine years ago) link

btw the administration's handled this shrewdly: let the national security guys like Gates and Jones wag their fingers while the Oval Office affects disinterest.

balls and adieu (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 30 July 2010 20:03 (nine years ago) link

lol Shakey "vindictive" - who do I want vengeance on & for what? dude I am doing exactly what you are doing: guessing, thinking out loud. only one of us admits it I guess, you presumably are blessed with great insight. "The administration was in cahoots with the people who released sensitive information" seems a much more serious charge than the day-to-day ammo of taking easily-reparsed positions, etc.

gross rainbow of haerosmith (underrated aerosmith albums I have loved), Friday, 30 July 2010 20:04 (nine years ago) link

I'm actually secretly Artificial Intelligence, Alfred.

this would make me incredibly happy btw

gross rainbow of haerosmith (underrated aerosmith albums I have loved), Friday, 30 July 2010 20:05 (nine years ago) link

I'm more interested in Assange's claim that there are no verified examples of people's names being exposed -- Gates has claimed it, but we can't really trust him on this, and I think the NY Times has made a similar claim. It's either true or not, and it seems silly that Assange is like, "First of all, no one was harmed by what I released, and second of all, the WH didn't work with me to minimize harm." (How would he even know if he's only read 2% of the documents he put online?)

Mordy, Friday, 30 July 2010 20:05 (nine years ago) link

dude I am doing exactly what you are doing: guessing, thinking out loud. only one of us admits it I guess,

I'm always admitting this! This is like my MO on ILX: "I'm just thinking through this shit out loud."

Mordy, Friday, 30 July 2010 20:06 (nine years ago) link

yeah I think it's unconscionable to share data that he himself hasn't gone over btw, like, personally, not his staff of w/e

xp I was talking to Shakey Mo there.

gross rainbow of haerosmith (underrated aerosmith albums I have loved), Friday, 30 July 2010 20:07 (nine years ago) link

"The administration was in cahoots with the people who released sensitive information"

except that this accusation makes absolutely NO FUCKING SENSE? why would Obama want to deliberately undermine his own war effort, one that he has increased troop levels/funding for and gotten support from Republicans on? how does that make any sense whatsoever?

vindictive in the sense that your default position is Obama = wrong

xp

Master of the Manly Ballad (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 30 July 2010 20:07 (nine years ago) link

except that this accusation makes absolutely NO FUCKING SENSE?

it would make every bit of narrative sense if he'd met or spoken with wikileaks in any way, or even acknowledged any contact with them. it would be an easy narrative to spin.

your default position is Obama = wrong

imo that is not being vindictive just realistic lol

gross rainbow of haerosmith (underrated aerosmith albums I have loved), Friday, 30 July 2010 20:09 (nine years ago) link

it would be an easy narrative to spin.

really? please spin it then. cuz its inconceivable to me. explain to me how Obama is in cahoots with an organization who's stated intention is to undermine his war efforts, and how Obama doesn't really want to fight the war in Afghanistan, in fact he's so uninterested in it, all those troop levels/budget increases are just a cover for actually wanting to endanger the lives of American soldiers. let's hear it. get yr Glenn Beck on.

Master of the Manly Ballad (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 30 July 2010 20:11 (nine years ago) link

except that this accusation makes absolutely NO FUCKING SENSE?

just to game out this particular thought experiment -- have you noticed that the accusations don't have to make sense anymore? they just have to feel good to make them!

xps heh

goole, Friday, 30 July 2010 20:11 (nine years ago) link

if you can tie in some socialism and reverse-racism that'd be good too

xp

Master of the Manly Ballad (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 30 July 2010 20:12 (nine years ago) link

umm hi mr. even-more-excitable-than me I already did it the first time I introduced the idea. WL contacts admin, says "we have documents we are going to release - will you go over them and let us know what we can't release? nb we are going to release docs." WH weighs options: 1) go over documents, get concessions, documents are released with a big ol "this information has been vetted by the white house" on 'em 2) let guy hang self with own rope, attack source, minimize any information that might seem damning, etc etc. Latter option: worst anybody can say about WH is "they didn't stop this guy from leaking this stuff." Former option: because you sifted through the information with this guy, anything he revealed is on your head.

how is this even hard to accept as probable, let alone possible?

gross rainbow of haerosmith (underrated aerosmith albums I have loved), Friday, 30 July 2010 20:18 (nine years ago) link

I mean srsly I am not accustomed to being in the position of finding my own stance the more reasonable of any two in play but here we are

gross rainbow of haerosmith (underrated aerosmith albums I have loved), Friday, 30 July 2010 20:19 (nine years ago) link

why would Obama want to deliberately undermine his own war effort, one that he has increased troop levels/funding for and gotten support from Republicans on? how does that make any sense whatsoever?

Actually this recent leak showing how bad the war is going has been cited by the President to back up last year's 30,000 troop surge.

Beach Pomade (Adam Bruneau), Friday, 30 July 2010 20:19 (nine years ago) link

have you noticed that the accusations don't have to make sense anymore? they just have to feel good to make them!

they have to fit the narrative though. so far, there is no "Obama does not care about Afghanistan" narrative. no one on the right is pushing him to commit MORE troops and MORE money and saying he has no intentions of winning. If anything the existing underlying narrative is kinda going the OTHER way - that Obama's getting us into a war that we can't win and it's all pointless (see recent Steele flap). the kind of hypothetical accusations being considered here don't fit any existing narrative about Obama and Afghanistan, they're just nonsensical.

xp

Master of the Manly Ballad (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 30 July 2010 20:21 (nine years ago) link

Two different types of undermining, I think; undermining the war effort by showing that it's going very poorly (a conclusion I'm skeptical of in the first place), and undermining the war effort but scaring off people who would otherwise work with the army but now won't because of fear of losing their lives in another leak.

Mordy, Friday, 30 July 2010 20:21 (nine years ago) link

Steve Coll, an expert on the region and a former senior editor of The Washington Post, said in a New Yorker podcast on Thursday, “my reading of the disclosure of these informants in the context of Taliban-menaced southern Afghanistan is that people named in those documents have a reasonable belief that they are going to get killed, or — actually the way it works with the Taliban is, if they can’t find you, they’ll take your brother instead.”

http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/07/30/taliban-study-wikileaks-to-hunt-informants/

It's gonna be a miracle finding people to work with after this, I think.

Mordy, Friday, 30 July 2010 20:23 (nine years ago) link

highlighting that these cables all come from (i think) 03 - 09 is another "things were sooo much worse under bush amirite" kind of move, but it's not like anyone will believe things are totally different or better now.

goole, Friday, 30 July 2010 20:24 (nine years ago) link

Something that occurred to me -- surely if the administration were worried about looking like they signed off on the leaks, they wouldn't have met with the NYT either, right? But they did go over the info with the NYT and tell them what was an actual risk...

Mordy, Friday, 30 July 2010 22:24 (nine years ago) link

i think aerosmith is right about why the WH would not want to haggle on this. better to be completely hands-off. the position has to be that none of this should be leaked. no room for negotiation there.

not sure why it's surprising that the CIA would want to shut down an organization committed to illegally releasing embarrassing secret info abt the US military/govt/________. obviously it's just terrible, but im trying to think of a state that wouldn't try the same.

rip MAD MEN on AMC S4 26/07 never forget (history mayne), Friday, 30 July 2010 22:32 (nine years ago) link

hm, not a surprise they'd want to shut it down. I'm just skeptical that they decided to shut down an organization because they're afraid it'll harm their war efforts -- and the way they decide to do it is by letting the organization harm their war efforts. Kinda silly. And like I said, WH haggled with the NYT.

Mordy, Friday, 30 July 2010 22:35 (nine years ago) link

Yeah but the Times is a different deal - they are reporting on the release of information; there's a longstanding relationship between them and any admin. The White House, in answering any communication from WikiLeaks, would essentially be validating WL as an organization. Working with the Times - they'll be doing that anyway. If I were the White House, I'd be extremely careful about setting a precedent of "yeah, I know that guy."

gross rainbow of haerosmith (underrated aerosmith albums I have loved), Friday, 30 July 2010 22:42 (nine years ago) link

That you think the administration is SO AFRAID of the rightwing media spin machine that they would overlook all these advantages is just... I dunno, J0hn yr a sharp a guy but I think yr judgment is seriously clouded here.

LOL it took them like 30 seconds to fire Shirley Sherrod just because of Andrew fucking Breitbart.

the penis cream pilot walked free (Phil D.), Friday, 30 July 2010 22:45 (nine years ago) link

Fair enough, but there wasn't a similar downside to firing Shirley Sherrod -- here if they didn't take advantage of a chance to protect sources in Afghanistan they've compromised their war effort. Ok, also -- I just realized we're just repeating the same stuff over and over again, and it's really just conjecture. I assume we'll hear more soon (probably in the NYT).

Mordy, Friday, 30 July 2010 22:50 (nine years ago) link

LOL it took them like 30 seconds to fire Shirley Sherrod just because of Andrew fucking Breitbart.

this was quickly reversed fyi

Master of the Manly Ballad (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 30 July 2010 22:52 (nine years ago) link

and the racism thing is something the WH is WAY more sensitive about in terms of media narrative, much bigger cause for worry for them than "Obama does not want to win the war in Afghanistan" which, again, is not something I have seen anyone anywhere argue.

Master of the Manly Ballad (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 30 July 2010 22:52 (nine years ago) link

yeah I mean I try to avoid saying "if you don't agree with me you aren't seeing things clearly," as strident as I can get, but I mean, it just seems extremely clear that the admin is very, very concerned with & reactive to the media spin on the choices they make, and I don't think it's really obsessive hateful anti-Obama-ism to think that the decisions they make have "how will this play out on TV?" very near the forefront of all their thinking.

gross rainbow of haerosmith (underrated aerosmith albums I have loved), Friday, 30 July 2010 22:55 (nine years ago) link

I just think that yr hypothetical scenario for how it will play on TV is ridiculous

Master of the Manly Ballad (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 30 July 2010 22:59 (nine years ago) link

you're joking, right? have we forgotten the "no talks without preconditions" meme?

terry squad (k3vin k.), Saturday, 31 July 2010 01:51 (nine years ago) link

anyway i have no idea whether actual informants/civilians were named in this - if this is the case, that's a pretty grave fuckup and assange should own up to that. however it doesn't mean he was wrong to release all the other information and doesn't change the issue for me at all

terry squad (k3vin k.), Saturday, 31 July 2010 01:56 (nine years ago) link

you honestly don't think that if the admin had had any communication with a guy who wound up leaking sensitive documents, the spin would be "the white house: in on the spin"

okey dokey, that's "ridiculous," no-one can even imagine such a scenario, yr right

gross rainbow of haerosmith (underrated aerosmith albums I have loved), Saturday, 31 July 2010 01:58 (nine years ago) link

"White House Complicit In Release of Sensitive Data" - only on Mars could we imagine a headline like that following the White House answering mail from the founder of fucking WikiLeaks

gross rainbow of haerosmith (underrated aerosmith albums I have loved), Saturday, 31 July 2010 01:59 (nine years ago) link

Someone please define "war effort" for me. I see that phrase alot. In my most cynical moods, it basically means continuing this war so that sweet money keeps flowing to the military/industrial complex in the midst of a worldwide recession.

Beach Pomade (Adam Bruneau), Saturday, 31 July 2010 02:56 (nine years ago) link

wikileaks volunteer detained at us border for 3 hours

so is this a big deal or just business as usual?

sonderangerbot, Monday, 2 August 2010 21:29 (nine years ago) link

'war effort' sounds more manly and aggro than 'nation building'
wartime accounting is pretty heinous, but has there been any tracking of monies used for development projects under the pretext of war spending?

Philip Nunez, Monday, 2 August 2010 23:11 (nine years ago) link

nothing mind-blowing but i think she and i are coming from the same place: http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2010/08/09/100809taco_talk_davidson

terry squad (k3vin k.), Tuesday, 3 August 2010 01:05 (nine years ago) link

So just to reboot the conversation over here; Can you really consider WikiLeaks a journalism institution? Isn't journalism more than acquiring documents and then releasing them into the public? Don't we expect some context (like a nutt graph at least), some expertise in the area (Assange doesn't have to know anything to accept anonymous documents and then repost them), and also a confirmation that the information is trustworthy? (Assange claims he has a technique to validate whether his information is true or not, but a) we don't know what it is while in journalism we know how relying upon sources works, and b) it's not just about what information is true but also who stands to gain from a particular bit of information, journalistic expertise is not just knowing that something is true, it's knowing why it matters and why the source benefits from it.) In general, it's this last thing that puts me in favor of a bill to protect journalists from subpoenas. Tho there has been a huge increase of using anonymous sources unnecessarily (Shafer has been really good on this beat), any time you use an anonymous source you are entering a relationship with an editor and your journalist institution about that source. A good editor makes sure it's necessary, and makes sure that you aren't just manufacturing sources yourself (and that you've thought through why a particular source needs to remain anonymous). I know this to be true because when I've had to deal with anonymous sources in investigative pieces I've had to have long conversations with editors about why/and to what extent we can use that information. These are all important hallmarks of journalism to me, and things that Assange does not qualify for.

Question: If Assange is a journalist and WikiLeaks is journalism, then what exactly is journalism?

Mordy, Thursday, 5 August 2010 18:38 (nine years ago) link

i dunno if that matters. cynical face on: journalism is corrupt as fuck anyway, in hock to corporate interests blah blah blah. wikileaks happened, and saying it isn'y journalism won't stop the fact that 'in the web 2.o era' leaking s going to be a part of lyfe.

unchill english bro (history mayne), Thursday, 5 August 2010 23:52 (nine years ago) link

so is that an opinion or should I judge your intentions?

Gucci Mane hermeneuticist (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 5 August 2010 23:58 (nine years ago) link

insurance

Honeydew, Friday, 6 August 2010 00:14 (nine years ago) link

i dunno if that matters. cynical face on: journalism is corrupt as fuck anyway, in hock to corporate interests blah blah blah. wikileaks happened, and saying it isn'y journalism won't stop the fact that 'in the web 2.o era' leaking s going to be a part of lyfe.

I'm actually kinda skeptical of this claim. It assumes that there's an infinite supply of leaks and just a lack of locations for those leaks to play out. Leaks will still require people to leak information and those people are rare and arguably the real force behind leaks coming out -- not Web 2.0 websites giving them an opportunity to give out the information. Yes, it could mean that people will be more willing to leak information, but that's arguably because of the radical anonymity, not because it's a transnational server. The bill currently under consideration could also increase leaks since people will feel safer bringing information to traditional media venues. Essentially, I have a hard time hearing the case for why Web 2.0 is going to introduce some radical new form of transparency. It's still a tool, and it'll require people to use it. Maybe people like Pfc. Bradley Manning will be more likely to leak information but a) I'm not convinced he has leaked anything that would indicate that WikiLeaks has "changed the game," and b) people who have the kind of information that leaks facilitate best will continue to use traditional media and not just release tons of documents online.

Mordy, Friday, 6 August 2010 00:54 (nine years ago) link

Leaks will still require people to leak information

this isn't as necessarily true as it used to be! its hard to secure information in "the digital age." especially personal-type information.

max, Friday, 6 August 2010 01:03 (nine years ago) link

Maybe, but WikiLeaks as it currently exists is only a location for people to leak information to.

Mordy, Friday, 6 August 2010 01:04 (nine years ago) link

whats your point

max, Friday, 6 August 2010 01:15 (nine years ago) link

I'm actually kinda skeptical of this claim.

^^ That was basically my point?

Mordy, Friday, 6 August 2010 01:18 (nine years ago) link

Like I've read this (which seems to be the big argument for why WikiLeaks is changing the game): http://journalism.nyu.edu/pubzone/weblogs/pressthink/2010/07/26/wikileaks_afghan.html

If you go to the Wikileaks Twitter profile, next to “location” it says: Everywhere. Which is one of the most striking things about it: the world’s first stateless news organization. I can’t think of any prior examples of that. (Dave Winer in the comments: “The blogosphere is a stateless news organization.”) Wikileaks is organized so that if the crackdown comes in one country, the servers can be switched on in another. This is meant to put it beyond the reach of any government or legal system. That’s what so odd about the White House crying, “They didn’t even contact us!”

Appealing to national traditions of fair play in the conduct of news reporting misunderstands what Wikileaks is about: the release of information without regard for national interest. In media history up to now, the press is free to report on what the powerful wish to keep secret because the laws of a given nation protect it. But Wikileaks is able to report on what the powerful wish to keep secret because the logic of the Internet permits it. This is new. Just as the Internet has no terrestrial address or central office, neither does Wikileaks.

But I'm not clear on the innovation here. It's a paradigm change because a State can't crack down on it if it reports something the State doesn't like? Newspapers often report on things that the State doesn't like. "Because the laws of a given nation protect it," versus "because the logic of the Internet permits it" is an interesting distinction with possible consequences, but it's not like suddenly you can deliver information that you previously couldn't deliver. Is there an example of someone with a leak who actually couldn't get a hearing on the information because the State wouldn't let newspapers report it? There are examples of newspapers holding back on information, or only delivering some of the information -- but WikiLeaks is doing that too! (They still have 15,000 documents they haven't released.) You essentially have to believe that there is a lot of leakable information that the NYT or WaPost refuses to touch that can now go up on WikiLeaks -- except that we haven't seen any leaks like that. Manning couldn't have leaked the "Collateral Murder" to the NYT or NPR or Village Voice Media or the many journalistic upstarts that are dying for a huge scoop? So yes, there's def a change in how these things work, but I haven't seen the case for what that difference actually means to journalism. (Especially since when WikiLeaks decided to leak 90,000 documents who'd they go to to report the information? The NYT, Der Spiegel + the Guardian.)

Mordy, Friday, 6 August 2010 01:35 (nine years ago) link

Is there an example of someone with a leak who actually couldn't get a hearing on the information because the State wouldn't let newspapers report it?

In my opinion, that isn't the relevant point.

There are examples of newspapers holding back on information, or only delivering some of the information

THAT is the point.

My totem animal is a hamburger. (WmC), Friday, 6 August 2010 01:53 (nine years ago) link

But WikiLeaks is doing the same thing -- so I don't see how this is such a huge shift. As long as there's a human being involved willing to take responsibility for the information that is reported there will be things held back.

Mordy, Friday, 6 August 2010 01:58 (nine years ago) link

I think the difference is that traditional newsgathering and news-delivering sources, left and right, hold things back because at the end of the day they're susceptible to economic pressures and political pressures. Those reasons shouldn't enter into any editorial decision. WL will have us believe they're not susceptible to business or political influence, which may or may not be true, but it's a nice idea. There are legit reasons not to release everything they get, like their leaks might put innocents in harm's way. They're already running into that thornbush.

My totem animal is a hamburger. (WmC), Friday, 6 August 2010 02:05 (nine years ago) link

WL will have us believe they're not susceptible to business or political influence, which may or may not be true, but it's a nice idea.

That's the claim I'm really skeptical of. It could be that WL will be subject to new or different economic or political influences than the mainstream US media, but I don't see how they emancipate themselves from economics + politics.

Mordy, Friday, 6 August 2010 02:08 (nine years ago) link

sometimes it takes a few minutes to see the wires in a puppet show

My totem animal is a hamburger. (WmC), Friday, 6 August 2010 02:11 (nine years ago) link

mordy it's rather simple: the government shouldn't get to decide what journalism is. you don't have to include assange and wikileaks in your club if you don't want to, but non-traditional media should still be entitled to the same free press protections that traditional media are afforded, which means the right to protect their sources upon subpoena

terry squad (k3vin k.), Friday, 6 August 2010 02:17 (nine years ago) link

I don't think you've thought that position through, k3v. Can anyone just declare themselves a journalist and then be free of being subpoenaed?

Mordy, Friday, 6 August 2010 02:26 (nine years ago) link

I don't think you've thought that position through, k3v. Can anyone just declare themselves a journalist and then be free of being subpoenaed?

It depends. What do they do that they are defining as journalism? If it's delivering flowers, no. If it involves the dissemination of information via print, television, radio, or other electronic means, maybe.

gross rainbow of haerosmith (underrated aerosmith albums I have loved), Friday, 6 August 2010 02:29 (nine years ago) link

I'm willing to be swayed on this, but I think the reason that we distinguish between journalism and someone who simply disseminates information is because of messy stuff like the public interest. Lots of people could disseminate information via print, television, radio, etc that we might like to subpoena. Arguably under that definition Bradley Manning is a journalist. Maybe you happen to like what Bradley Manning leaked but it doesn't take a huge leap of imagination to think of someone disseminating information to print, television, radio etc that you may want to be subpoena'd. Journalism is, for better or worse (imo for better) an actual institution. Just like doctors have special legal protections that not everyone gets (even if you consider yourself like a doctor but aren't actually), so too should journalists.

Mordy, Friday, 6 August 2010 02:33 (nine years ago) link

Just like doctors have special legal protections that not everyone gets (even if you consider yourself like a doctor but aren't actually), so too should journalists.

Doctors get this through licensure via accredited institutions - there are all manner of legal requirements in place about it, and this is because they provide direct care (and consequently can do direct harm). The notion of making journalism a licensed & accredited profession, while admittedly interesting, is a nonstarter, because any harm occurring because of a reported story is the sole responsibility of the person doing the harm. Seems like black letter law to me: I am not responsible for the actions of others.

gross rainbow of haerosmith (underrated aerosmith albums I have loved), Friday, 6 August 2010 02:37 (nine years ago) link

(On second thought Manning is a bad example because this would really only protect sources and presumably he doesn't have his own source -- but I think the point still stands. Is a journalist anyone who takes information and then repackages it for the public? I can think of a lot of examples where I'd want such a figure subpoenaed. Hell, I think Assange should be subpoenaed re: the leaks since someone released information that put people's lives at risk.)

Mordy, Friday, 6 August 2010 02:38 (nine years ago) link

Like here's a disembodied moral question. If I leak information that leads to someone dying, am I culpable in any way for that death? (If I tell a murderer where he can find his victim, presumably I have culpability.) Generally the journalism institution is in place to mediate those risks such that they can minimize those risks. Even still tho, people's lives are put at risk through leaks (see Plame Affair). Now with a journalism institute, you may decide you want to say, "Ok, I understand some people may not be brought to justice but I believe the press is worth protecting here especially since they'll try to minimize damage." But how about with something like WikiLeaks? Should we really give them carte blanche to publish anything and protect their sources who may be acting out of any number of motives that we might want to prosecute?

Mordy, Friday, 6 August 2010 02:41 (nine years ago) link

Which goes to a question we haven't discussed here yet, which is that radical anonymity is actually contra a free press -- it allows all kinds of interests to use that press to whatever ends they want. One thing journalism is supposed to do is mediate those abuses, give anonymity when they feel it deserves it, etc. But Assange is saying, "No, everyone can be anonymous." The philosophy seems to be that if anything can go in, no one can take advantage. But it's just as easy to say that if anything can go in, everyone can take advantage.

Mordy, Friday, 6 August 2010 02:43 (nine years ago) link

and this is because they provide direct care (and consequently can do direct harm). The notion of making journalism a licensed & accredited profession, while admittedly interesting, is a nonstarter, because any harm occurring because of a reported story is the sole responsibility of the person doing the harm. Seems like black letter law to me: I am not responsible for the actions of others.

I assume I don't need to point out the fallacy here, right?

Mordy, Friday, 6 August 2010 02:46 (nine years ago) link

Like here's a disembodied moral question. If I leak information that leads to someone dying, am I culpable in any way for that death? (If I tell a murderer where he can find his victim, presumably I have culpability.)

you see the HUGE, GAPING difference between these two scenarios, right? (ignoring the fact that you said 'leak' and not 'report',) if someone disseminates information that leads to someone's death, that is a very unfortunate thing, and that person should probably feel shitty about themselves for that. that does not mean he should be held legally accountable; that's the thing about freedom of the press - the government doesn't get to retroactively prosecute someone for exercising his right, even if it indirectly led to someone's death. same way you can't censor books or other speech that the govt thinks may lead to unfortunate public interest consequences. in some warped way it may be safer if rights are taken away, but who wants to live in that kind of society? (i'm not sure what you were going for with the whole moral vs legal binary though - if i say something racist, i should feel like an asshole and deserve to be socially ostracized, but should i be prosecuted for "deliberately injuring another person's dignity", like in south africa? maybe i'm going off on a tangent here)

the second scenario is different - assuming you weren't under duress and told the murderer where the person was, knowing it would lead to murder, you're just an accomplice

terry squad (k3vin k.), Friday, 6 August 2010 03:10 (nine years ago) link

if someone disseminates information that leads to someone's death, that is a very unfortunate thing, and that person should probably feel shitty about themselves for that. that does not mean he should be held legally accountable;

This is an ethically really reprehensible position imo. People should be legally accountable for actions that lead to people dying.

Mordy, Friday, 6 August 2010 03:14 (nine years ago) link

Ie: Your right to freely disseminate information does not trump someone else's right to life.

Mordy, Friday, 6 August 2010 03:15 (nine years ago) link

i mean you also can't assassinate some asshole halfway across the world for advocating the overthrow of the government OH WAIT

terry squad (k3vin k.), Friday, 6 August 2010 03:15 (nine years ago) link

I guess you're claiming that you're entitled to reprehensible ethics because the government does things you don't approve of?

Mordy, Friday, 6 August 2010 03:16 (nine years ago) link

Ie: Your right to freely disseminate information does not trump someone else's right to life.

― Mordy, Thursday, August 5, 2010 11:15 PM (12 seconds ago)

well that's not my position at all, shocker - the way you say it makes it sound like the information was made available for the expressed purpose of this person dying, or provided directly to the people who carried out this hypothetical murder. what i'm talking about is information or speech being expressed and, independently, bad event x happens.

i mean what if a newspaper (or a book) ran an article that detailed how to commit a murder without leaving any trace, and then someone later committed a murder in exactly this fashion? can the government prosecute the journalist or the author of that book for proferring information that likely led to someone dying?

xp well sort of, actually! i'm legally entitled to whatever speech i like, regardless of how it jibes with mordy's ethics. there's a world of difference between condoning behavior and being opposed to the criminalization of the same behavior

terry squad (k3vin k.), Friday, 6 August 2010 03:30 (nine years ago) link

well that's not my position at all, shocker - the way you say it makes it sound like the information was made available for the expressed purpose of this person dying, or provided directly to the people who carried out this hypothetical murder. what i'm talking about is information or speech being expressed and, independently, bad event x happens.

This is really confusing. Is there a case where someone could publish information irresponsibly enough that you'd consider them culpable for someone's death? Say, information that they knew beforehand could lead to a death and then it actually lead to the death? Because you're outlining a case of unintentionally as a way of -- it appears -- eliding the actual issue.

Mordy, Friday, 6 August 2010 03:34 (nine years ago) link

Unintentionality - or something like that. Motiveless publishing. But like, let's say Plame's cover had been blown and she'd actually died (which was a serious concern during the Plame Affair), and let's say it turned out that Novak was well aware of this risk when he published it. You really wouldn't feel he's legally culpable?

Mordy, Friday, 6 August 2010 03:37 (nine years ago) link

i'm guessing here the legal distinction between being an accomplice ("plame is here, go kill her") and just being a motiveless reporter, is that everyone (the public) gets the news at the same time? if i furnish you and you alone with a list of ppl in the witness protection program, then it would not be a stretch to say i'm complicit. if i publish one in the newspaper, then theoretically the protecting agency and any would-be killers are operating with the same set of facts.

otoh, what's tricky with say an afghani informant is that it could be entirely possible that they would be completely ignorant of a WL document naming them, whereas a well-connected organization that's pissed off is likely in tune with this stuff

nb i do not know this to be true, i'm trying to think thru it

pies. (gbx), Friday, 6 August 2010 03:52 (nine years ago) link

mordy it seems worth pointing out that "institution of journalism" youre talking about is just one version of "journalism"--one thats only existed for 60 or 70 years or so and seems primed for some really major changes

max, Friday, 6 August 2010 03:57 (nine years ago) link

I'm definitely interested in talking about the history of the Press, tho maybe not in this thread. But I'd make a much stronger historical reading of Press going back to the 1400s in some kind of printed reportorial form (newspapers, really) that carries with it all those years of ethics and governmental/state/power relationships. Like the idea of it acting as a fourth estate goes back to at least the 18th century.

Mordy, Friday, 6 August 2010 04:02 (nine years ago) link

Which goes to a question we haven't discussed here yet, which is that radical anonymity is actually contra a free press -- it allows all kinds of interests to use that press to whatever ends they want

ok its just when you say things like this its like... im not sure what the alternative is? isnt this always the way "the press" has existed? as tool used by various interests?

max, Friday, 6 August 2010 04:06 (nine years ago) link

Yes, but reporters are conscious and aware of those various interests. That's supposed to be part of their job, analyzing sources and contextualizing their trust-worthiness, value, balance, etc. Assange has no idea who sends him what. It's totally anonymous to him.

Mordy, Friday, 6 August 2010 04:08 (nine years ago) link

see i think thats only really been "the job" of reporters since the 1930s or 40s

max, Friday, 6 August 2010 04:08 (nine years ago) link

not to say its a bad thing

max, Friday, 6 August 2010 04:09 (nine years ago) link

and even when it is "the job" of reporters to be doing all those things its a pretty rare occurrence when they actually do

max, Friday, 6 August 2010 04:09 (nine years ago) link

I don't understand what you mean -- because technically the press has been "unbiased" since the 30s? Reporters have always weighed sources and contextualized their credibility, tho maybe it seemed to hem more to an ideological position? Because I'd just argue that the only thing that has changed is trying to erase ideology, something that really can't be done anyway.

Mordy, Friday, 6 August 2010 04:10 (nine years ago) link

(lol, we should just start a Press History thread... or move it into my awesome new Poly Phi thread!)

Mordy, Friday, 6 August 2010 04:15 (nine years ago) link

well let me turn that around: what makes you think that assange isnt doing the same thing? i.e. weighing sources and contextualizing credibility?

max, Friday, 6 August 2010 04:16 (nine years ago) link

or thats not the best way to put it

max, Friday, 6 August 2010 04:17 (nine years ago) link

what i mean to say is that if we define "weighing sources and contextualizing credibility" broadly enough to include the "reporters" who made up "the press in the 17th 18th 19th centures im not sure how we dont make the category broad enough to include assange

max, Friday, 6 August 2010 04:17 (nine years ago) link

or, from a completely different direction: doesnt the the internet and the "information revolution" and the "democratization" of what the fuck ever change the nature of "context"?

max, Friday, 6 August 2010 04:19 (nine years ago) link

im just spitballing here

max, Friday, 6 August 2010 04:19 (nine years ago) link

i think the nihilism of 'i'll print anything i get and i don't want to know who sent it to me and i don't really care about any kind of danger inherent in it' is new, i guess.

Mordy, Friday, 6 August 2010 04:46 (nine years ago) link

(i guess to verify that it's true, so it's not the absolutely nihilistic position which wouldn't care even if the information is false -- Breitbart territory, maybe?)

Mordy, Friday, 6 August 2010 04:48 (nine years ago) link

i think the nihilism of 'i'll print anything i get and i don't want to know who sent it to me and i don't really care about any kind of danger inherent in it' is new, i guess.

― Mordy, Friday, August 6, 2010 12:46 AM (3 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

i dont think this is new at all

max, Friday, 6 August 2010 04:50 (nine years ago) link

its also not what assange is doing

max, Friday, 6 August 2010 04:50 (nine years ago) link

yeah it pretty much is. don't agree w/ everything mordy is saying, but the core point that assange is an almighty dick, i am fully on board with

unchill english bro (history mayne), Friday, 6 August 2010 08:34 (nine years ago) link

Gotta say the US Gov't has been pretty effective at channeling discourse surrounding the leaks from things like "Hey wait a minute, here's proof that in the midst of cutting social programs across the board due to concerns for the national debt, we're funding our enemies" to "This guy is an almighty dick".

Beach Pomade (Adam Bruneau), Friday, 6 August 2010 14:29 (nine years ago) link

Also LOL @ the Pentagon demanded they "return the secret documents". Has the Pentagon ever used a computer?

http://news.slashdot.org/story/10/08/06/1234225/Pentagon-Demands-Return-of-Leaked-Afghanistan-Documents?from=rss

Beach Pomade (Adam Bruneau), Friday, 6 August 2010 14:32 (nine years ago) link

yeah sure, it's the govt that makes me think he's a dick, dick

unchill english bro (history mayne), Friday, 6 August 2010 14:35 (nine years ago) link

People should be legally accountable for actions that lead to people dying.

so I assume you are against people publishing things that might outrage terrorists, since terrorists often kill people because they have published things the terrorists didn't like

I mean seriously I can dig how freedom of the press is a pretty uncomfortable thing, but your position is basically only compatible with a wholly state-supervised press

gross rainbow of haerosmith (underrated aerosmith albums I have loved), Friday, 6 August 2010 14:35 (nine years ago) link

oh wait - people with the right cards in the brims of their fedoras "weigh" that stuff, as vs. these bad guys who don't even have hats

gross rainbow of haerosmith (underrated aerosmith albums I have loved), Friday, 6 August 2010 14:36 (nine years ago) link

fuck trusting a hat

"It's far from 'loi' you were reared, boy" (darraghmac), Friday, 6 August 2010 14:39 (nine years ago) link

People should be legally accountable for actions that lead to people dying.

All American taxpayers are funding these wars, and have contributed far more than Wikileaks towards people dying. But yeah I think it'd be morally a good thing to do.

Beach Pomade (Adam Bruneau), Friday, 6 August 2010 14:40 (nine years ago) link

I mean seriously I can dig how freedom of the press is a pretty uncomfortable thing, but your position is basically only compatible with a wholly state-supervised press

― gross rainbow of haerosmith (underrated aerosmith albums I have loved), Friday, August 6, 2010 3:35 PM (5 seconds ago) Bookmark

depends where you set limits on the public interest, which is the test in the UK on this kind of thing. if wikileaks illegally obtained information about a private individual and published it, that would not be cool or legal unless it were in the public interest. i basically think this recent leak can be defended as being in the public interest, but the names of informants, hmm, probably not.

anyway, assange has fucked his own petard by making his shit the centre of the story. the idea upthread was that as the NYT/Guardian/German_dudes went through the unfiltered mass of documentation, new shit would come to light. i dunno if that's really paid off. i guess they are in hock to the govt after all.

unchill english bro (history mayne), Friday, 6 August 2010 14:42 (nine years ago) link

yeah it pretty much is. don't agree w/ everything mordy is saying, but the core point that assange is an almighty dick, i am fully on board with

― unchill english bro (history mayne), Friday, August 6, 2010 4:34 AM (7 hours ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

eh, i think assange actually has higher standards of credibility for what hell print than, say, my employer

max, Friday, 6 August 2010 15:36 (nine years ago) link

ho snap

unchill english bro (history mayne), Friday, 6 August 2010 18:20 (nine years ago) link

I WENT THERE

max, Friday, 6 August 2010 18:28 (nine years ago) link

yeah but we're talking about a man who'd juggle bags full of ebola if it got him hits.

strongohulkingtonsghost, Friday, 6 August 2010 18:36 (nine years ago) link

"All American taxpayers are funding these wars, and have contributed far more than Wikileaks towards people dying."
I think wesley snipes is cool and all, but to follow this line of reasoning would lead to tax scofflaws having morally exculpated themselves, which i would like to believe on behalf of wesley snipes, but i get the feeling that most other people not paying taxes are generally either indifferent or in favor of foreigners dying. They simply don't want to pay for the bullets (or any life-saving treatment).

in order to demonstrate wikileaks culpability to be as diffuse as that of an average taxpayer, you'd have to show that wikileaks is about as effective as one. they at least have as much power as any tabloid, so it's not unreasonable to expect at least attempts at tabloid-level legal consequences.

Philip Nunez, Friday, 6 August 2010 18:38 (nine years ago) link

so I assume you are against people publishing things that might outrage terrorists, since terrorists often kill people because they have published things the terrorists didn't like

Smithy, this is intellectually below you. Being irresponsible about information that could lead to someone dying is different than publishing something someone doesn't like and someone dying because of it. Think about it like this: Putting aside the "institution" of journalism (which you're already ready to do under different circumstances) we're talking about people. If I saw something that gets you angry, and you kill someone because of it, we can weigh what culpability I have in what I said. If I use racial rhetoric to inflame you and you kill someone, we understand that there's culpability, and even if I won't be legally prosecuted for murder I may be prosecuted for hate speech. We actually have the most liberal position on hate speech in the world in the United States, but there are lines you can still cross here and get in trouble. But that's one thing, what you could consider indirect culpability. I didn't tell you who to kill (except in the vaguest way), or how to do it, or where to do it. I just got you angry. Ok, that's one thing. Then there's this other thing where the information you provide actually actively leads to someone dying. You didn't inflame passions or encourage murder. You simply gave practical information that could lead to someone dying. Now there's obviously room for disagreement here -- if you publish a technical guide to poisoning someone without getting caught, you might be less responsible than if you out an informant. But this is clearly a different category of behavior than inflaming passions.

Mordy, Friday, 6 August 2010 18:42 (nine years ago) link

If I say* something

Mordy, Friday, 6 August 2010 18:43 (nine years ago) link

see my copy was missing the appendix that had a list of all the people that had ever wronged me in secret

pies. (gbx), Friday, 6 August 2010 19:43 (nine years ago) link

like i am still on the side that is pro-WL here but the anarchist cookbook /= a list of informants, at least w/r/t "someone getting harmed from the release of information"

pies. (gbx), Friday, 6 August 2010 19:44 (nine years ago) link

anyway thank god pennies dropped from buildings don't actually kill ppl and go a few feet into the cement because all of our older siblings would be in jail right now

pies. (gbx), Friday, 6 August 2010 19:46 (nine years ago) link

^^^reads sorta like a perry bible fellowship cartoon now that i think about it

1) hey little brother, if you drop a penny off the top of that skyscraper, you get to make a wish!
2) ~POV of penny, directly towards the hat of a businessman in a fedora
3) little brother dragged away in cuffs, sheet over a bloodied corpse, older bro laffin and laffin

pies. (gbx), Friday, 6 August 2010 19:48 (nine years ago) link

wouldn't it be more like "you drop the penny, I get a wish!", then panel 2 is little bro dropping the penny while older bro closes his eyes and makes the wish, then panel 3 older bro is all "it came true!" while little bro is dragged away

people are for loving (HI DERE), Friday, 6 August 2010 19:51 (nine years ago) link

haha, better

pies. (gbx), Friday, 6 August 2010 19:56 (nine years ago) link

i suppose it WAS your bible fellowship, makes sense you'd be better at this than me

pies. (gbx), Friday, 6 August 2010 19:56 (nine years ago) link

http://canvaspaint.org/30ac.png
i forgot the sheet.

Philip Nunez, Friday, 6 August 2010 20:02 (nine years ago) link

http://reason.com/archives/2010/08/06/julian-assange-wikijournalist

Mordy, Monday, 9 August 2010 23:08 (nine years ago) link

^ linked to from Sullivan, a case against calling Assange a journalist

Mordy, Monday, 9 August 2010 23:08 (nine years ago) link

huh

How could you forget the crazy hooker? (HI DERE), Thursday, 12 August 2010 14:47 (nine years ago) link

Turns out Wikileaks did, in fact, ask the DoD for help in redacting the leaked documents, and DoD refused. Greenwald is, of course, all over it.

a mix of music (Lionel Ritchie) and kicks (my tongue) (Phil D.), Friday, 20 August 2010 20:47 (nine years ago) link

Wiki twitter: "it's just a tabloid + distraction" - http://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/21731365419

StanM, Saturday, 21 August 2010 09:12 (nine years ago) link

Nice bit of character assassination.

James Mitchell, Saturday, 21 August 2010 11:11 (nine years ago) link

Spreading outside of Sweden by now - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-11047025

StanM, Saturday, 21 August 2010 11:16 (nine years ago) link

Pentagon (by the way, there's a mosque in there, did you know?) looking into persecuting WikiLeaks

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704488404575441673460880204.html?mod=WSJEUROPE_hpp_MIDDLEThirdNews

StanM, Saturday, 21 August 2010 12:36 (nine years ago) link

Swedish rape warrant withdrawn http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11049316

StanM, Saturday, 21 August 2010 16:48 (nine years ago) link

Ridiculous. Way to martyr the guy.

Ismael Klata, Saturday, 21 August 2010 16:55 (nine years ago) link

wow this whole thing is like

man

gross rainbow of haerosmith (underrated aerosmith albums I have loved), Saturday, 21 August 2010 17:26 (nine years ago) link

julian assange eats a cheeseburger - http://image3.examiner.com/images/blog/wysiwyg/image/cheeseburger1(1).jpg

k3vin k., Saturday, 21 August 2010 17:27 (nine years ago) link

no wait, julian assange finishes cheeseburger, throws it away - http://www.13dots.com/reddragon/trashcan/final.gif

k3vin k., Saturday, 21 August 2010 17:29 (nine years ago) link

But but... I've heard that Assange eats live puppies!

StanM, Monday, 23 August 2010 16:53 (nine years ago) link

Countdown til "Assange is a Muslim".

Telephoneface (Adam Bruneau), Monday, 23 August 2010 17:38 (nine years ago) link

that's awesome; no one will pay attention tho i bet

k3vin k., Tuesday, 24 August 2010 01:07 (nine years ago) link

All they have to do is say he's an Australian, surely that'll do it right? :D

I used to lurk on some turtle forums (Trayce), Tuesday, 24 August 2010 03:18 (nine years ago) link

haha an article i read today called wikileaks "stockholm-based". maybe that's true, technically

k3vin k., Tuesday, 24 August 2010 03:32 (nine years ago) link

one month passes...

The Pentagon said on Sunday it had a 120-member team prepared to review a massive leak of as many as 500,000 Iraq war documents, which are expected to be released by the WikiLeaks website sometime this month.

Pentagon spokesman Col. Dave Lapan told Reuters the timing of the leak remained unclear but the Defense Department was ready for a document dump as early as Monday or Tuesday, a possibility raised in previous WikiLeaks statements.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE69G19520101017

James Mitchell, Monday, 18 October 2010 13:51 (eight years ago) link

I suppose they will do their usual thing of throwing whistleblowers in jail and trying to shut down Wikileaks, rather than bothering to investigate any of the crimes the documents might expose.

The New Dirty Vicar, Monday, 18 October 2010 16:03 (eight years ago) link

lol

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d_0-KUaQl7k

StanM, Saturday, 23 October 2010 14:31 (eight years ago) link

^^^
I don't understand this either - the NYTimes had an article that was totally about Julian Assange's personal life, I mean the guy just revealed that the US documented 100,000 deaths from the Iraq War and then lied about the fact that they documented those deaths... I mean are the large news outlets trying to smear him?

jeevves, Monday, 25 October 2010 07:56 (eight years ago) link

sex sells, right?

J0rdan S., Monday, 25 October 2010 08:05 (eight years ago) link

also

1. it's a lot easier & more fun for lazy journalists to focus on a rape scandal than to sift through thousands of war documents
2. it makes them feel like they're actually doing a job -- "asking the tough questions" -- rather than having to defer to someone who is doing it for them

J0rdan S., Monday, 25 October 2010 08:07 (eight years ago) link

are the large news outlets trying to smear him?

of course.

sleeve, Monday, 25 October 2010 13:50 (eight years ago) link

it's not really the story, but he is an extremely strange guy. it's not like they are making this stuff up.

caek, Monday, 25 October 2010 13:56 (eight years ago) link

are the large news outlets trying to smear him?

of course.

― sleeve, Monday, October 25, 2010 9:50 AM

wikileaks makes the major news outlets look ineffectual. also what j0rdan said

am0n, Monday, 25 October 2010 14:18 (eight years ago) link

Heh.

raging hetero lifechill (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, 25 October 2010 14:20 (eight years ago) link

apparently what he does it very popular with veteran lefty journalists in the uk at least, who associate his politics with things they like, but the younger ones are a bit more creeped out because they have more direct experience of/dislike for libertarianism through the internet (which is still basically the only place you see it in the uk)

caek, Monday, 25 October 2010 14:27 (eight years ago) link

that interview is so very retarded. focusing on the eclipsing personality of assange and the rape rumours is obviously the perfect way for media to acknowledge the leaks as news without actually talking about them at all

sonderangerbot, Monday, 25 October 2010 14:36 (eight years ago) link

an information dump of half a million documents which are about literally thousands of events is perhaps not the best way to get material covered (this is a point a lot of people who share wikileaks' presumed sympathies have made)

caek, Monday, 25 October 2010 14:42 (eight years ago) link

Yeah, it's always easier to criticize. What would have been a better way then? 5 x 100,000 documents? (the second release would make those same people go "boring!")

StanM, Monday, 25 October 2010 15:06 (eight years ago) link

i haven't read the half million documents yet, so i don't know, but it seems like cooperating with journalists so that synthesised/digested stories are extracted and published in advance of the releases is a good idea PR-wise. if you don't do that then the release itself is the story. the newspapers wl cooperated with on the afghanistan release seem to either not have cooperated this time or not been given the opportunity and at the same time wl is being criticized by amnesty et al. they're not doing it right, and they're leaving gaps for stories about assange being a crank (which like i say, is not a lie).

caek, Monday, 25 October 2010 15:25 (eight years ago) link

this guy is not terribly effective at drawing attention to the issues at hand - he's unable to redirect the debate from being about HIM and his methods to the contents of the documents he releases

the first Asian legislator in our Nevada State Assembly (Shakey Mo Collier), Monday, 25 October 2010 15:40 (eight years ago) link

there's a suspicion among the people i know who've met him that he likes it that way (cyberpunk outfits, think he's morpheus, etc.). it's clear he's got a lot of the personality issues shared by libertarian hacker types (as alluded to in that nyt piece).

it's disingenuous of him to suggest the goal is just freeing information/generating debate. or if that's true, it's pretty unambitious/careless. it seems like he has real political preferences. and given that, it's not ad hominem to find faul with/write features about the figurehead when his M.O. works against generating supporting for those preferences.

caek, Monday, 25 October 2010 16:05 (eight years ago) link

But when the story's about him instead of the revelations it's most distracting.

raging hetero lifechill (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, 25 October 2010 16:11 (eight years ago) link

that's the joke

caek, Monday, 25 October 2010 16:17 (eight years ago) link

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/oct/23/obama-investigate-war-logs-torture

Nowak said it would be up to the Obama administration to launch an "independent and objective" investigation with a view not only to "bring the perpetrators to justice but also to provide the victims with adequate remedy and reparation".

avoyoungdro's number (k3vin k.), Monday, 25 October 2010 20:42 (eight years ago) link

you know, I'm actually kind of psyched about this

O'Donnell and the Brain (HI DERE), Monday, 25 October 2010 20:47 (eight years ago) link

I'm sure there will be a full investigation, along with the indictment of top Bush Administration officials. And there will be fudge and ice cream.

kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 26 October 2010 01:22 (eight years ago) link

Morbs this is one of those brief windows where we can all be psyched about the same thing imo

wait hold up what are we psyched about, other than the leak

avoyoungdro's number (k3vin k.), Tuesday, 26 October 2010 01:36 (eight years ago) link

Clegg said: "We can bemoan how these leaks occurred, but I think the nature of the allegations made are extraordinarily serious. They are distressing to read about and they are very serious. I am assuming the US administration will want to provide its own answer. It's not for us to tell them how to do that."

this is a positive development, people saying "the point isn't 'leak,' it's the information & our responsibility in light of it"

I know it's not the revolution in its full splendor but it'll have to do

The sooner we dismantle the stupid national daydream that war can be some neat and by-the-numbers campaign of justice and fairness, and accept that when we go to war this is what we mean, the better.

Kerm, Tuesday, 26 October 2010 01:40 (eight years ago) link

oh yeah that was a righteous thing to say props to clegg - i have some doubts that the US will heed this call but i'd love to be proven wrong

xp otm i think

avoyoungdro's number (k3vin k.), Tuesday, 26 October 2010 01:42 (eight years ago) link

"But you ARE going to prosecute, right?" Diane Sawyer wanted to know, practically falling on the lap of the DOD apparatchik whom she interviewed on Friday.

raging hetero lifechill (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 26 October 2010 01:42 (eight years ago) link

this guy is not terribly effective at drawing attention to the issues at hand - he's unable to redirect the debate from being about HIM and his methods to the contents of the documents he releases

On purpose or not (from either his or the media's perspective) this is how old media does things and has always done things. This is why we know more about the sex lives of politicians than what they vote for/against.

Thing is, he should be aware of this. And probably is.

Telephoneface (Adam Bruneau), Tuesday, 26 October 2010 03:23 (eight years ago) link

hate to get all morbs, but "i have some doubts that the US will heed this call" is kind of an understatement. this is nick clegg we're talking about.

caek, Tuesday, 26 October 2010 09:59 (eight years ago) link

It's always amazing when the major media outlets latch onto one idea to discredit an anti-war message, without stating its corollary; for example, a newspaper suggesting that "WikiLeaks puts people in danger by releasing names of informants," without also asserting that WikiLeaks is operating precisely because another organization puts people in danger by tacitly condoning torture. So that the message is: the US Gov't behaving outside citizens' best interest does not demand intervention, but WikiLeaks behaving outside -some- citizens' best interest demands intervention. It's amazing the extent to which power is a one-way street.

jeevves, Tuesday, 26 October 2010 10:11 (eight years ago) link

i think most major media outlets criticize torture. they do in the uk. and it isn't amazing that power is a 'one-way street', is it? that's why they call it power. if it were um a two-way street, then it wouldn't be power.

make em say ukhh (history mayne), Tuesday, 26 October 2010 10:14 (eight years ago) link

It's always amazing when the major media outlets latch onto one idea to discredit an anti-war message, without stating its corollary

yeah, what's with all these major media outlets not giving equal time to the pro/anti debate?

caek, Tuesday, 26 October 2010 10:26 (eight years ago) link

Right, but it's what is revealed in the corollary that is so strange. It's like someone saying, "You were accused of, through self-defense, punching a man who mugged you, shot you, and left you for dead in the street, by the man who mugged you, shot you, and left you for dead--don't you know that assault is wrong?"

jeevves, Tuesday, 26 October 2010 10:48 (eight years ago) link

i think most major US media outlets criticize non-US torture.

Fixed that for you. When it comes to, say, what John McCain underwent in POW camp, it's unquestionably torture. When it comes to what Saddam and his regime did to dissidents, or what Iran does to dissidents, it's unquestionably torture. When it's waterboarding al-Zarqawi, it's "Well, is it torture, or just extraordinarily harsh interrogation techniques? And don't the ends justify the means?" And they let Dick Cheney on the air to describe how awesome it is.

Tub Girl Time Machine (Phil D.), Tuesday, 26 October 2010 12:44 (eight years ago) link

And demonstrate with the aid of Barney the Dinosaur.

Mark G, Tuesday, 26 October 2010 12:47 (eight years ago) link

The NYT has had no problem calling torture as they see'em when it involves other countries not America.

raging hetero lifechill (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 26 October 2010 12:58 (eight years ago) link

The sooner we dismantle the stupid national daydream that war can be some neat and by-the-numbers campaign of justice and fairness, and accept that when we go to war this is what we mean, the better.

On the one hand, only idiots believe that stupid national daydream.

On the other hand, we are a nation of idiots.

O'Donnell and the Brain (HI DERE), Tuesday, 26 October 2010 13:44 (eight years ago) link

WikiLeaks should be declared 'enemy combatants', says Fox News contributor

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/oct/26/wikileaks-fox-iraq-war-logs

It was only a matter of time imho.

Telephoneface (Adam Bruneau), Tuesday, 26 October 2010 14:04 (eight years ago) link

oh good, a guardian dot co dot uk article about comments made by a fox news contributor

caek, Tuesday, 26 October 2010 14:07 (eight years ago) link

"WikiLeaks and its leader, a certain Julian Assange"

ledge, Tuesday, 26 October 2010 14:34 (eight years ago) link

Sounds like one of those Damon Wayan malapropisms from In Living Color: "I like this place, it's got a certain julian assange about it."

Tub Girl Time Machine (Phil D.), Tuesday, 26 October 2010 14:35 (eight years ago) link

On the one hand, only idiots believe that stupid national daydream.

Politicians, military leaders, anti-war demonstrators, patriots, journalists, advocates... many of them either believe the myth, claim to believe it, or pay lip service too it. There is a gulf of reality between the rules we claim to fight by and what it takes to win. The honorable warrior/baby killer dichotomy is stupid and naive and yet it pops up all the time.

Kerm, Tuesday, 26 October 2010 16:28 (eight years ago) link

i think i rescind my earlier otm'ing

avoyoungdro's number (k3vin k.), Tuesday, 26 October 2010 17:43 (eight years ago) link

Jonah Goldberg is miffed that Gawker misunderstood his Swiftian irony when he asked "a serious question": why hasn't the CIA murdered Assagne?

sandra lee, gimme your alcohol (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 29 October 2010 21:53 (eight years ago) link

*Assange

sandra lee, gimme your alcohol (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 29 October 2010 21:54 (eight years ago) link

lassagne

max, Friday, 29 October 2010 21:54 (eight years ago) link

two weeks pass...

lol url

StanM, Thursday, 18 November 2010 14:43 (eight years ago) link

U.S. briefs allies on new documents leak: WikiLeaks

The United States has briefed Britain, Australia, Canada, Denmark, Norway and Israel ahead of the expected new release of classified U.S. documents, WikiLeaks said on Thursday, citing local press reports.

The whistle-blowing website said by Twitter that American diplomats briefed government officials of its six allies in advance of the release expected in the next few days.

The next release is expected to include thousands of diplomatic cables reporting corruption allegations against politicians in Russia, Afghanistan and other Central Asian nations, sources familiar with the State Department cables held by WikiLeaks told Reuters on Wednesday.

The allegations are major enough to causee serious embarrassment for foreign governments, the sources said.

need to impressive a girl? (Z S), Friday, 26 November 2010 15:57 (eight years ago) link

The Diplomatic files are going to be released any minute now: http://wlcentral.org/node/358

StanM, Saturday, 27 November 2010 21:25 (eight years ago) link

According to Der Spiegel, just over half of the cables are not subject to classification, 40.5 percent are classified as "confidential" and only six percent or 15,652 dispatches as "secret." 2.5 million U.S. employees have access to SIPRNET material, where these cables originated.

Well, I guess these weren't exactly going to stay hidden for long since top secret america is pretty much this country's biggest growth industry

need to impressive a girl? (Z S), Saturday, 27 November 2010 21:29 (eight years ago) link

The material is supposed to be released tonight (misread that, yesterday), but at the moment, Wikileaks is under attack (denial of service)

http://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/8920530488926208

StanM, Sunday, 28 November 2010 17:26 (eight years ago) link

Except... it's too late.

http://i51.tinypic.com/xcdgg.png

StanM, Sunday, 28 November 2010 17:28 (eight years ago) link

At the start of a series of daily extracts from the US embassy cables - many of which are designated "secret" – the Guardian can disclose that Arab leaders are privately urging an air strike on Iran and that US officials have been instructed to spy on the UN's leadership.

These two revelations alone would be likely to reverberate around the world. But the secret dispatches which were obtained by WikiLeaks, the whistlebowers' website, also reveal Washington's evaluation of many other highly sensitive international issues.

These include a major shift in relations between China and North Korea, Pakistan's growing instability and details of clandestine US efforts to combat al-Qaida in Yemen.

Among scores of other disclosures that are likely to cause uproar, the cables detail:

• Grave fears in Washington and London over the security of Pakistan's nuclear weapons programme

• Alleged links between the Russian government and organised crime.

• Devastating criticism of the UK's military operations in Afghanistan.

• Claims of inappropriate behaviour by a member of the British royal family.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/nov/28/us-embassy-cable-leak-diplomacy-crisis

James Mitchell, Sunday, 28 November 2010 18:42 (eight years ago) link

Alleged links between the Russian government and organised crime.

ooh BREAKING NEWS there damn

rip whiney g weingarten 03/11 never forget (history mayne), Sunday, 28 November 2010 18:44 (eight years ago) link

Could say the same zing about any of those 'revelations' to be honest.

James Mitchell, Sunday, 28 November 2010 18:46 (eight years ago) link

this should make interesting reading. Well i say interesting, you'll probably have to wade through screeds of shite looking for the interesting bits.

rappa ternt sagna (jim in glasgow), Sunday, 28 November 2010 18:47 (eight years ago) link

thank god for journalists eh

calpolaris (nakhchivan), Sunday, 28 November 2010 18:48 (eight years ago) link

Claims of inappropriate behaviour by a member of the British royal family.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=un__imwE3vg

James Mitchell, Sunday, 28 November 2010 18:56 (eight years ago) link

Bargaining to empty the Guantánamo Bay prison: When American diplomats pressed other countries to resettle detainees, they became reluctant players in a State Department version of “Let’s Make a Deal.” Slovenia was told to take a prisoner if it wanted to meet with President Obama, while the island nation of Kiribati was offered incentives worth millions of dollars to take in Chinese Muslim detainees, cables from diplomats recounted. The Americans, meanwhile, suggested that accepting more prisoners would be “a low-cost way for Belgium to attain prominence in Europe.”

Two and a Half Muffins (Eazy), Sunday, 28 November 2010 19:24 (eight years ago) link

American diplomats in Rome reported in 2009 on what their Italian contacts described as an extraordinarily close relationship between Vladimir V. Putin, the Russian prime minister, and Silvio Berlusconi, the Italian prime minister and business magnate, including “lavish gifts,” lucrative energy contracts and a “shadowy” Russian-speaking Italian go-between. They wrote that Mr. Berlusconi “appears increasingly to be the mouthpiece of Putin” in Europe. The diplomats also noted that while Mr. Putin enjoys supremacy over all other public figures in Russia, he is undermined by an unmanageable bureaucracy that often ignores his edicts.

Two and a Half Muffins (Eazy), Sunday, 28 November 2010 19:26 (eight years ago) link

They describe the volatile Libyan leader as rarely without the companionship of “his senior Ukrainian nurse,” described as “a voluptuous blonde."

Two and a Half Muffins (Eazy), Sunday, 28 November 2010 19:27 (eight years ago) link

Even in places far from war zones and international crises, where the stakes for the United States are not as high, curious diplomats can turn out to be accomplished reporters, sending vivid dispatches to deepen the government’s understanding of exotic places.

In a 2006 account, a wide-eyed American diplomat describes the lavish wedding of a well-connected couple in Dagestan, in Russia’s Caucasus, where one guest is the strongman who runs the war-ravaged Russian republic of Chechnya, Ramzan Kadyrov.

The diplomat tells of drunken guests throwing $100 bills at child dancers, and nighttime water-scooter jaunts on the Caspian Sea.

“The dancers probably picked upwards of USD 5000 off the cobblestones,” the diplomat wrote. The host later tells him that Ramzan Kadyrov “had brought the happy couple ‘a five-kilo lump of gold’ as his wedding present.”

look at it, pwn3d, made u look at my peen/vadge (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Sunday, 28 November 2010 19:33 (eight years ago) link

A 22 January 2010 cable was signed off by Elizabeth Pitterle, head of intelligence operations. She thanked the London embassy for its intelligence on Duncan's "friendship with ... William Hague", saying it was "particularly insightful and exceptionally well timed, as analysts are preparing finished products on the Conservative leadership for senior policymakers".

The cable called for further intelligence on "Duncan's relationship with Conservative party leader David Cameron and William Hague", and asked:"What role would Duncan play if the Conservatives form a government? What are Duncan's political ambitions?"

James Mitchell, Sunday, 28 November 2010 19:39 (eight years ago) link

Kadyrov is actually in the Chechen GAPDY tribute band, Grozny Bear.

― Neggin' you crapative (NickB), Monday, 6 September 2010 15:46 (2 months ago)

rouxymuzak (nakhchivan), Sunday, 28 November 2010 19:45 (eight years ago) link

A former hacker, Adrian Lamo, who reported Manning to the US authorities, said the soldier had told him in chat messages that the cables revealed "how the first world exploits the third, in detail".

Let that be a lesson to us all: If you are about to leak hundreds of thousands of secret cables, don't immediately start blabbing about it in detail to a hacker who you conveniently meet at random in an online chat room!

Telephoneface (Adam Bruneau), Sunday, 28 November 2010 20:01 (eight years ago) link

a lot of these seem to lack point and are just leaks of internal documents to show what wikileaks can do

rip whiney g weingarten 03/11 never forget (history mayne), Sunday, 28 November 2010 20:06 (eight years ago) link

there's no 'quality control' tho, wikileaks will release any old shit

i'd be surprised if they haven't been fed fake stuff by ~agencies~ before

rouxymuzak (nakhchivan), Sunday, 28 November 2010 20:10 (eight years ago) link

a lot of these seem to lack point and are just leaks of internal documents to show what wikileaks can do

No doubt this will be official US response in a few weeks after "OMG COUNTLESS LIVES ARE AT STAKE!" has gotten enough media attention.

Telephoneface (Adam Bruneau), Sunday, 28 November 2010 20:10 (eight years ago) link

no doubt the wikileaks bro is some rapey looking motherfucker, sorry i mean, i don't give a shit what the official US response will be, im just trying to call it

rip whiney g weingarten 03/11 never forget (history mayne), Sunday, 28 November 2010 20:12 (eight years ago) link

oh great this again

overtheseas aeroplanes I have flown (k3vin k.), Sunday, 28 November 2010 20:19 (eight years ago) link

yup, it's one more go-round for the fearless libertarians and their noble struggle to make public internal government documents

we're way ahead of you in the UK, where the govt itself is releasing detailed public sector budgets in order to discredit the public sector in the right-wing (is there any other kind?) media

rip whiney g weingarten 03/11 never forget (history mayne), Sunday, 28 November 2010 20:22 (eight years ago) link

uh oh, i've been called a libertarian, i'm super pissed

overtheseas aeroplanes I have flown (k3vin k.), Sunday, 28 November 2010 20:25 (eight years ago) link

hiyyyyek

rouxymuzak (nakhchivan), Sunday, 28 November 2010 20:27 (eight years ago) link

oh great this again

Have you ever considered installing a trolling filter so that you don't have to make snide remarks every time someone writes something you don't like? You might find it freeing.

Mordy, Sunday, 28 November 2010 20:34 (eight years ago) link

I think calling out the gov't on using the "this puts lives at risk" argument (however right they may be) is crucial, and we should never stop doing this so long as we are engaged in Endless War.

Telephoneface (Adam Bruneau), Sunday, 28 November 2010 21:18 (eight years ago) link

huh? we shd call out the govt "however right they may be"?

a lot of this current info dump is only tangentially related to the "Endless War" or however you like to melodramatize it

rip whiney g weingarten 03/11 never forget (history mayne), Sunday, 28 November 2010 21:21 (eight years ago) link

well i agree we shouldn't deny ourselves that agency but i think what adam was getting at was the arbirariness with which the govt trots out that meaningless counter. which yeah, is something to be critical of

i'd kind of like to know how you think "endless war" is a 'melodramatic' term tho - when exactly do you see this ending? maybe "by 2014" i guess lol

overtheseas aeroplanes I have flown (k3vin k.), Sunday, 28 November 2010 21:39 (eight years ago) link

govt trots

Those old Marxism Today bunch get everywhere...

specifically, the word talking (Ned Trifle II), Sunday, 28 November 2010 21:50 (eight years ago) link

http://cablegate.wikileaks.org/index.html
Currently released so far... 219 / 251,287 ?

specifically, the word talking (Ned Trifle II), Sunday, 28 November 2010 21:57 (eight years ago) link

I still don't understand what this leak is supposed to accomplish, other than "look what Wikileaks can do" (history mayne OTM). Isn't diplomacy the best way to avoid "Endless War" and to prevent future ones? How does compromising diplomatic trust in the US (and the countries it deals with on a regular basis) supposed to help that?

At the end of the day, I'm sure that the Saudi king -- the champion of human rights and free speech that he is -- will be the first to admit that carrying out diplomacy completely in the public domain will be the most effective way to bring peace to the Middle East.

NoTimeBeforeTime, Sunday, 28 November 2010 22:00 (eight years ago) link

I don't know what its moral purpose is meant to be anymore. It just seems like reckless posturing more than anything else, and whether the impact of revelation X is positive or negative in the long run isn't even relevant. It's like the Popbitch of geopolitics - juicy gossip dressed up as The Truth.

The baby boomers have defined everything once and for all (Dorianlynskey), Sunday, 28 November 2010 22:07 (eight years ago) link

"other than look what ___ can do" sounds a lot like certain countries' foreign policies.

the best way to prevent misdeeds and corruption is to bring records thereof to the public attention and hold the people involved accountable (lol ok let's not get carried away though). countries and corporations that don't want their misdeeds made public by wikileaks or other whistleblowers shouldn't commit misdeeds or do things they don't want made public (to paraphrase a much-beloved around here writer)

overtheseas aeroplanes I have flown (k3vin k.), Sunday, 28 November 2010 22:23 (eight years ago) link

k3vin OTMFM

StanM, Sunday, 28 November 2010 22:25 (eight years ago) link

also i've no idea how diplomatic relations with the US will be adversely affected considering the US hasn't consented to the release of the cables and in fact has been strongly critical of it

overtheseas aeroplanes I have flown (k3vin k.), Sunday, 28 November 2010 22:26 (eight years ago) link

i think id have a much better relationship with my friends if they knew every single thing id ever said about them to other people. cant see any problem with that. at all.

max, Sunday, 28 November 2010 22:26 (eight years ago) link

"other than look what ___ can do" sounds a lot like certain countries' foreign policies

omg you totally went there

yeah sure, the us went into afghanistan just to show everyone how big its dick was

simple

rip whiney g weingarten 03/11 never forget (history mayne), Sunday, 28 November 2010 22:27 (eight years ago) link

totally the point, great job xp

overtheseas aeroplanes I have flown (k3vin k.), Sunday, 28 November 2010 22:28 (eight years ago) link

a lot of this stuff isn't 'corruption' or 'misdeeds', it's grown-ups talking

rip whiney g weingarten 03/11 never forget (history mayne), Sunday, 28 November 2010 22:28 (eight years ago) link

the state dept has x-opinion about putin? well surely it's everyone's business to know

rip whiney g weingarten 03/11 never forget (history mayne), Sunday, 28 November 2010 22:28 (eight years ago) link

truth to power eh mayne

rouxymuzak (nakhchivan), Sunday, 28 November 2010 22:29 (eight years ago) link

Also, there's no context here.

specifically, the word talking (Ned Trifle II), Sunday, 28 November 2010 22:30 (eight years ago) link

This leak is akin to sending out a private email to your entire address book.

Josh in Chicago, Sunday, 28 November 2010 22:31 (eight years ago) link

What's corrupt about Saudi Arabia and the US discussing how to deal with Iran's nuclear program? What's corrupt about the government trying to find out if the Chinese government is involved in global computer hacking? Yeah, let's "hold China accountable" -- I'm sure that thanks to this heroic leak, the Chinese government will be so embarrassed that they'll voluntarily stop with any cyber-chicanery they might be doing!

NoTimeBeforeTime, Sunday, 28 November 2010 22:31 (eight years ago) link

I found today's revelations unspectacular (exception: first time in years I've come across a reference to Eritrea). But classifying millions of documents because of a fetish for secrecy will lead to an inordinate interest in the trivialities leaked today. Which is to say: I found last July's leaks a lot more interesting than today's.

look at it, pwn3d, made u look at my peen/vadge (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Sunday, 28 November 2010 22:32 (eight years ago) link

max think of it as the irl equivalent of no meta on 77 - mad threads are getting moved

ok cracking myself up now, bbl

overtheseas aeroplanes I have flown (k3vin k.), Sunday, 28 November 2010 22:33 (eight years ago) link

I think it's fascinating to see what the supposedly good guys are doing behind the scenes, makes you wonder what's going on in the "rogue/evil" countries.

StanM, Sunday, 28 November 2010 22:42 (eight years ago) link

Killing guys like Assange?

look at it, pwn3d, made u look at my peen/vadge (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Sunday, 28 November 2010 22:43 (eight years ago) link

i.e. fulfilling Jonah Goldberg's fantasies?

look at it, pwn3d, made u look at my peen/vadge (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Sunday, 28 November 2010 22:43 (eight years ago) link

it's funny we never find out, coz they're probably really lenient with truth-telling journalist types

xp

rip whiney g weingarten 03/11 never forget (history mayne), Sunday, 28 November 2010 22:43 (eight years ago) link

I did find it interesting to learn how hard arab countries are pushing for strikes against Iran. I feel there's probably some value in the public being aware of this?

sonderborg, Sunday, 28 November 2010 22:50 (eight years ago) link

Ho hum

emeni President Ali Abdullah Saleh admits covering up US military strikes on Al-Qaeda in Yemen by claiming they are carried out by Yemeni forces, according to US documents leaked by WikiLeaks.

Two and a Half Muffins (Eazy), Sunday, 28 November 2010 22:50 (eight years ago) link

yeah who knew saudi arabia had beef with iran, huh? major revelaish there.

xp

rip whiney g weingarten 03/11 never forget (history mayne), Sunday, 28 November 2010 22:51 (eight years ago) link

One thing I'll say is that these leaks appear to be a lot more entertaining than those boring war documents. Probably harder to justify leaking, though.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ipr-wS5iBv0 (Princess TamTam), Sunday, 28 November 2010 22:58 (eight years ago) link

just gotta love the post-ironic SS symbol on that seal...

Ignore Me! (Viceroy), Sunday, 28 November 2010 23:39 (eight years ago) link

One thing I'll say is that these leaks appear to be a lot more entertaining than those boring war documents. Probably harder to justify leaking, though.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ipr-wS5iBv0 (Princess TamTam), Sunday, November 28, 2010 5:58 PM (50 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

otm

max, Sunday, 28 November 2010 23:49 (eight years ago) link

ha

rouxymuzak (nakhchivan), Sunday, 28 November 2010 23:50 (eight years ago) link

I'm resolutely against the current wars. Right now, the leaks themselves simply mean another opportunity to criticize these wars. The content of the leaks and whether or not one condones them is more or less irrelevant to me at this moment. Attention has been shifted to US foreign policy and that's good enough for me.

Telephoneface (Adam Bruneau), Sunday, 28 November 2010 23:59 (eight years ago) link

the focus isn't on the wars, though, it's on whatever's juicy. i don't have a big objection to the US being involved in yemen -- obviously torture, avoidable civilian casualties, etc., those i'm against -- but even if i did, i don't see what the leaks do to clinch an argument.

rip whiney g weingarten 03/11 never forget (history mayne), Monday, 29 November 2010 00:12 (eight years ago) link

yr kinda conflicted between deprecation and indignation -- either the information is crap/redundant or dangerous but not conceivably both

rouxymuzak (nakhchivan), Monday, 29 November 2010 00:21 (eight years ago) link

some of it is redundant, some is possibly a bit damaging

rip whiney g weingarten 03/11 never forget (history mayne), Monday, 29 November 2010 00:22 (eight years ago) link

something can useless for making a case against a war (tho Alfred's point is that he doesn't care about making a care against it, just creating awareness -- presumably he believes the case against it has already been made sufficiently and lacks exposure, and maybe he's right) and still be dangerous. for instance a totally meaningless piece of information can blow up into a scandal (a sex scandal is a good example of dangerous useless information) or a person's identity could be exposed and endanger them despite containing meaningless information.

Mordy, Monday, 29 November 2010 00:26 (eight years ago) link

guardian going hot and heavy with this lot anyway

rouxymuzak (nakhchivan), Monday, 29 November 2010 00:27 (eight years ago) link

Timothy Garton Ash: A banquet of secrets

rouxymuzak (nakhchivan), Monday, 29 November 2010 00:27 (eight years ago) link

the focus isn't on the wars, though, it's on whatever's juicy. i don't have a big objection to the US being involved in yemen -- obviously torture, avoidable civilian casualties, etc., those i'm against -- but even if i did, i don't see what the leaks do to clinch an argument.

― rip whiney g weingarten 03/11 never forget (history mayne), Sunday, November 28, 2010 7:12 PM (14 minutes ago)

they're informative, dude. they don't have to be one or the other

overtheseas aeroplanes I have flown (k3vin k.), Monday, 29 November 2010 00:27 (eight years ago) link

The info published in today's NYT is the kind of color I love to read about in biographies but looks, well, harmless to those of us not in the national security establishment.

look at it, pwn3d, made u look at my peen/vadge (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, 29 November 2010 00:28 (eight years ago) link

there's so much of this stuff

i guess some ppl have probably skimmed through all of the last lot by now, but a lot of it must remain pretty obscure

i wonder about the iraq/afghanistan stuff.....even if names of informants etc are removed, whether they can still be understood contextually etc

rouxymuzak (nakhchivan), Monday, 29 November 2010 00:32 (eight years ago) link

yr kinda conflicted between deprecation and indignation -- either the information is crap/redundant or dangerous but not conceivably both

― rouxymuzak (nakhchivan), Sunday, November 28, 2010 7:21 PM (6 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

eh i think the thing about diplomacy is that cables like CAN be both? like there can be common-but-unacknowledged truths abt int'l relations that if openly acknowledged could lead to some... well, maybe not dangerous, but awkward sitautions. "dangerous" is a funny word--i feel a little weirded out by it--i just think this is one of those irritating situations where i dont see how this helps anything, not really even our knowledge of the situation. (i guess i was heartened to see the administration putting its weight behind getting the gitmo detainees off cuba?)

all that being said i still support in principle the idea of a "transparent" or at least "more transparent" gov't. just dont think anyone should be going around touting this leak as anything but evidence that diplomats are doing their "jobs" such as they are.

max, Monday, 29 November 2010 00:32 (eight years ago) link

it "helps" me be entertained too i guess. i dig this kind of insidery gossip shit.

max, Monday, 29 November 2010 00:33 (eight years ago) link

not referring to informant stuff there xp

rather the headlines stuff here, like is it dangerous that arab connivance wrt iran is publicized?

rouxymuzak (nakhchivan), Monday, 29 November 2010 00:35 (eight years ago) link

it "helps" me be entertained too i guess. i dig this kind of insidery gossip shit.

― max, Monday, 29 November 2010 00:33 (2 minutes ago)

that make u a ______

rouxymuzak (nakhchivan), Monday, 29 November 2010 00:36 (eight years ago) link

feel like the 'massive info dump' is still a retarded media strategy

im sure there are impt nuggets that get lost in the white noise

rip whiney g weingarten 03/11 never forget (history mayne), Monday, 29 November 2010 00:39 (eight years ago) link

rather the headlines stuff here, like is it dangerous that arab connivance wrt iran is publicized?

― rouxymuzak (nakhchivan), Sunday, November 28, 2010 7:35 PM (2 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

nah--tbh i dont know enough about int'l relations to really say but i can conceive of a situation where, say, everyone "knows" gov't x is behind an attack on gov't y but cant "openly acknowledge" it for strategic reasons--if these cables leak and show that the us gov't is openly acknowledging it, it can damage that relationship, undermine the strategy, etc. "dangerous" again i dunno. but.

max, Monday, 29 November 2010 00:40 (eight years ago) link

im sure there are impt nuggets that get lost in the white noise

― rip whiney g weingarten 03/11 never forget (history mayne), Monday, 29 November 2010 00:39 (38 seconds ago)

the signature of this is the insane about of detail really being prohibitive even for dozens of journalists to sift through and cross-reference

rouxymuzak (nakhchivan), Monday, 29 November 2010 00:41 (eight years ago) link

obv in web 2.br0 utopia, esp in an organization called 'wikileaks', citizen journalists would do this unpaid, but, um, well

rip whiney g weingarten 03/11 never forget (history mayne), Monday, 29 November 2010 00:42 (eight years ago) link

i'd agree that wikileaks is a bit dishonest, clearly they do this just cuz they can, it's a rather remedial logic

i think this stuff is a lot more justifiable than individual case reports from the counterinsurgencies

rouxymuzak (nakhchivan), Monday, 29 November 2010 00:43 (eight years ago) link

i'd agree that wikileaks is a bit dishonest, clearly they do this just cuz they can, it's a rather remedial logic

this is false though - they're not dishonest given their mission statement is pretty blatantly to reveal government and corporate secrets. "because they can" is not a motivation so much as it's just...pretty inextricably tied to that action

overtheseas aeroplanes I have flown (k3vin k.), Monday, 29 November 2010 00:51 (eight years ago) link

yeah well i dunno what your 'mission statement' in life is but i'd guess that's not the whole story

rouxymuzak (nakhchivan), Monday, 29 November 2010 00:53 (eight years ago) link

there do seem to be some worthwhile goals in here (reunification of n/s korea) that might be threatened by the reveal

.\ /. (dayo), Monday, 29 November 2010 00:53 (eight years ago) link

it's easy enough to provide an ethical rationale for wikileaks, and it holds in many instances

assange likes being the story tho, being a general mischief in a false-clandestine way, an inverse 007

rouxymuzak (nakhchivan), Monday, 29 November 2010 00:56 (eight years ago) link

Many more cables name diplomats’ confidential sources, from foreign legislators and military officers to human rights activists and journalists, often with a warning to Washington: “Please protect” or “Strictly protect.”

this seems dangerous

.\ /. (dayo), Monday, 29 November 2010 00:58 (eight years ago) link

The Downing Street source said: “We don’t think there will be much about the Coalition Government. There might be some slightly embarrassing things about David Cameron’s time in opposition but it will be nothing compared with what was said about Brown.

“The diplomatic cables were more about Labour. Brown was seen as paranoid and weak and unstable. These files are going to be embarrassing for him.”

It is believed London-based diplomats were shocked by reports of Mr Brown’s erratic tantrums.

President Obama witnessed one outburst first hand. At the G20 Summit in London last year, he said to Mr Brown’s aides: “Tell your guy to cool it,” as the PM threatened to erupt over something that had upset him.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ipr-wS5iBv0 (Princess TamTam), Monday, 29 November 2010 01:01 (eight years ago) link

from alan partridge extra/former british diplomat carne ross:

#wikileaks Am torn btw joy at transparency - at last - and anxiety over unforeseen consequences

#wikileaks even a preliminary read of the disclosures suggests that damage will be done eg revelation that US removing Pak uranium

#wikileaks diplomacy will never be the same again after this; diplomats will stop writing down the sensitive stuff

#wikileaks everyone will play this down in public, but no one will trust US dips in quite the same way again, for a while at least

max, Monday, 29 November 2010 01:02 (eight years ago) link

assange likes being the story tho, being a general mischief in a false-clandestine way, an inverse 007

― rouxymuzak (nakhchivan), Sunday, November 28, 2010 7:56 PM (5 minutes ago)

i guess the more this is repeated the more it becomes received wisdom - i don't get this impression at all though

overtheseas aeroplanes I have flown (k3vin k.), Monday, 29 November 2010 01:04 (eight years ago) link

yeah -- let's forget Assange's motives (and, as I've pointed out, skeptical about the value of the last couple of massive leaks). That's how the American press tried to smear him a few weeks ago.

look at it, pwn3d, made u look at my peen/vadge (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, 29 November 2010 01:06 (eight years ago) link

you could say its irrelevant psychologizing/personalization, but he doesn't dissuade it with his h4x0r shtick

rouxymuzak (nakhchivan), Monday, 29 November 2010 01:07 (eight years ago) link

i think he'd do a greater service by getting a few hundred pages of high-level stuff together and redacting any idenitifiable informants etc, than just releasing a quarter of a million documents every few weeks

rouxymuzak (nakhchivan), Monday, 29 November 2010 01:10 (eight years ago) link

I agree though, whatever value these leaks will have will be independent of assange himself

.\ /. (dayo), Monday, 29 November 2010 01:10 (eight years ago) link

naturally

rouxymuzak (nakhchivan), Monday, 29 November 2010 01:16 (eight years ago) link

lol at this btw

Bargaining to empty the Guantánamo Bay prison: When American diplomats pressed other countries to resettle detainees, they became reluctant players in a State Department version of “Let’s Make a Deal.” Slovenia was told to take a prisoner if it wanted to meet with President Obama, while the island nation of Kiribati was offered incentives worth millions of dollars to take in Chinese Muslim detainees, cables from diplomats recounted. The Americans, meanwhile, suggested that accepting more prisoners would be “a low-cost way for Belgium to attain prominence in Europe.”

rouxymuzak (nakhchivan), Monday, 29 November 2010 01:18 (eight years ago) link

haha the eu is just like guantanamo detainees

max, Monday, 29 November 2010 01:22 (eight years ago) link

"the island nation of Kiribati was offered incentives worth millions of dollars to take in Chinese Muslim detainees"

there's got to be a documentary in there

rappa ternt sagna (jim in glasgow), Monday, 29 November 2010 01:24 (eight years ago) link

Hakka to Haka -- former jihadi turns to rugby and acquires NZ citizenship

rouxymuzak (nakhchivan), Monday, 29 November 2010 01:26 (eight years ago) link

The group has said it intends to post the documents in the current trove as well, after editing to remove the names of confidential sources and other details.

i kinda doubt how effectively this can be done w/ 251,287 files

rouxymuzak (nakhchivan), Monday, 29 November 2010 01:27 (eight years ago) link

ctrl+f

.\ /. (dayo), Monday, 29 November 2010 01:28 (eight years ago) link

"the island nation of Kiribati was offered incentives worth millions of dollars to take in Chinese Muslim detainees"

there's got to be a documentary in there

― rappa ternt sagna (jim in glasgow), Sunday, November 28, 2010 8:24 PM (5 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

yah or hilarious screwball comedy

max, Monday, 29 November 2010 01:30 (eight years ago) link

directed by Jason Reitman and starring Tom Hanks and Julia Roberts.

look at it, pwn3d, made u look at my peen/vadge (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, 29 November 2010 01:31 (eight years ago) link

not sure if a few dozen ppl skimreading stuff with very localized information can 100% determine what information is potentially revealing to concerned intelligence agencies/other unfriendly ppl who will know exactly what to look for

rouxymuzak (nakhchivan), Monday, 29 November 2010 01:32 (eight years ago) link

THERE ARE SEVERAL LESSONS FOR THOSE WHO WOULD NEGOTIATE
WITH PERSIANS IN ALL THIS:

- --FIRST, ONE SHOULD NEVER ASSUME THAT HIS SIDE OF
THE ISSUE WILL BE RECOGNIZED, LET ALONE THAT IT WILL
BE CONCEDED TO HAVE MERITS. PERSIAN PREOCCUPATION WITH
SELF PRECLUDES THIS. A NEGOTIATOR MUST FORCE RECOGNITION
OF HIS POSITION UPON HIS PERSIAN OPPOSITE NUMBER.

- --SECOND, ONE SHOULD NOT EXPECT AN IRANIAN READILY
TO PERCEIVE THE ADVANTAGES OF A LONG-TERM RELATIONSHIP
BASED ON TRUST. HE WILL ASSUME THAT HIS OPPOSITE
NUMBER IS ESSENTIALLY AN ADVERSARY. IN DEALING WITH
HIM HE WILL ATTEMPT TO MAXIMIZE THE BENEFITS TO HIMSELF
THAT ARE IMMEDIATELY OBTAINABLE. HE WILL BE PREPARED
TO GO TO GREAT LENGTHS TO ACHIEVE THIS GOAL, INCLUDING
RUNNING THE RISK OF SO ALIENATING WHOEVER HE IS DEALING
WITH THAT FUTURE BUSINESS WOULD BE UNTHINKABLE, AT
LEAST TO THE LATTER.

- --THIRD, INTERLOCKING RELATIONSHIPS OF ALL ASPECTS
OF AN ISSUE MUST BE PAINSTAKINGLY, FORECEFULLY AND
REPEATEDLY DEVELOPED. LINKAGES WILL BE NEITHER READILY
COMPREHENDED NOR ACCEPTED BY PERSIAN NEGOTIATORS.

- --FOURTH, ONE SHOULD INSIST ON PERFORMANCE AS THE
SINE QUA NON AT ESH STAGE OF NEGOTIATIONS. STATEMENTS
OF INTENTION COUNT FOR ALMOST NOTHING.

- --FIFTH, CULTIVATION OF GOODWILL FOR GOODWILL'S SAKE
IS A WASTE OF EFFORT. THE OVERRIDING OBJECTIVE AT ALL
TIMES SHOULD BE IMPRESSING UPON THE PERSIAN ACROSS THE
TABLE THE MUTUALITY OF THE PROPOSED UNDERTAKINGS, HE
MUST BE MADE TO KNOW THAT A QUID PRO QUO IS INVOLVED
ON BOTH SIDES.

- --FINALLY, ONE SHOULD BE PREPARED FOR THE THREAT
OF BREAKDOWN IN NEGOTIATIONS AT ANY GIVEN MOMENT AND NOT
BE COWED BY THE POSSIBLITY. GIVEN THE PERSIAN
NEGOTIATOR'S CULTURAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL LIMITATIONS, HE
IS GOING TO RESIST THE VERY CONCEPT OF A RATIONAL
(FROM THE WESTERN POINT OF VIEW) NEGOTIATING PROCESS.

Mordy, Monday, 29 November 2010 01:32 (eight years ago) link

that whole document delivers on lulz

Mordy, Monday, 29 November 2010 01:33 (eight years ago) link

I was about to post that Mordy, it's great. It's from 1979 btw.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ipr-wS5iBv0 (Princess TamTam), Monday, 29 November 2010 01:40 (eight years ago) link

Iraq: Any plan B?
------------------

3.(C) MbR restated the UAE's support for the US in the region,
noting "the UAE is the only country that is 100 percent with the
US." MbR said UAE support for the US effort remained firm, but
asked what is "plan B" should the current US approach not
stabilize Iraq. Senator Lieberman quoted the Chairman of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff as saying "plan B is to make plan A work."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ipr-wS5iBv0 (Princess TamTam), Monday, 29 November 2010 01:46 (eight years ago) link

¶6. (C) Zhang asked the Ambassador whether the U.S. would
negotiate to keep the Base open. The Ambassador answered
that the U.S. side was evaluating its options. Zhang then
offered his "personal advice," "This is all about money," he
said. He understood from the Kyrgyz that they needed $150
million. The Ambassador explained that the U.S. does provide
$150 million in assistance to Kyrgyzstan each year, including
numerous assistance programs. Zhang suggested that the U.S.
should scrap its assistance programs. "Just give them $150
million in cash" per year, and "you will have the Base
forever." Very uncharacteristically, the silent young aide
then jumped in: "Or maybe you should give them $5 billion and
buy both us and the Russians out." The aide then withered
under the Ambassador's horrified stare.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ipr-wS5iBv0 (Princess TamTam), Monday, 29 November 2010 01:50 (eight years ago) link

holy shit that one is amazing

Mordy, Monday, 29 November 2010 01:52 (eight years ago) link

WHAT WILL THE END LOOK LIKE?

¶6. (C) This is the big, unanswerable question. One thing
at least is certain, Mugabe will not wake up one morning a
changed man, resolved to set right all he has wrought. He
will not go quietly nor without a fight. He will cling to
power at all costs and the costs be damned, he deserves to
rule by virtue of the liberation struggle and land reform and
the people of Zimbabwe have let him down by failing to
appreciate this, thus he neednQt worry about their
well-being. The only scenario in which he might agree to
go with a modicum of good grace is one in which he
concludes that the only way to end his days a free man is
by leaving State House. I judge that he is still a long
way from this conclusion and will fight on for now.

Mordy, Monday, 29 November 2010 01:54 (eight years ago) link

from the same:

Morgan Tsvangarai is a brave, committed man and, by and
large, a democrat. He is also the only player on the scene
right now with real star quality and the ability to rally
the masses. But Tsvangarai is also a flawed figure, not
readily open to advice, indecisive and with questionable
judgment in selecting those around him. He is the indispensable
element for opposition success, but possibly an albatross around
t heir necks once in power. In short, he is a kind of Lech Walesa
character: Zimbabwe needs him, but should not rely on his executive
abilities to lead the country's recovery.

Mordy, Monday, 29 November 2010 01:55 (eight years ago) link

¶5. (C) With all this in view, I'm convinced the end is not
far off for the Mugabe regime. Of course, my predecessors
and many other observers have all said the same thing, and
yet Mugabe is still with us. I think this time could prove
different, however,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ipr-wS5iBv0 (Princess TamTam), Monday, 29 November 2010 02:51 (eight years ago) link

(13 july 2007)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ipr-wS5iBv0 (Princess TamTam), Monday, 29 November 2010 02:51 (eight years ago) link

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/nov/28/us-embassy-cables-wikileaks

The job of the media is not to protect power from embarrassment. If American spies are breaking United Nations rules by seeking the DNA biometrics of the UN director general, he is entitled to hear of it. British voters should know what Afghan leaders thought of British troops. American (and British) taxpayers might question, too, how most of the billions of dollars going in aid to Afghanistan simply exits the country at Kabul airport.

overtheseas aeroplanes I have flown (k3vin k.), Monday, 29 November 2010 04:44 (eight years ago) link

it's kind of lol mostly sad that this whole thing is gonna get preempted by leslie nielsen

J0rdan S., Monday, 29 November 2010 04:47 (eight years ago) link

nah

Two and a Half Muffins (Eazy), Monday, 29 November 2010 05:32 (eight years ago) link

so between this and fake taliban last week any shot of diplomacy playing a role in ending the war in afghanistan is shot right?

balls, Monday, 29 November 2010 05:46 (eight years ago) link

more like kind of sad mostly lol

3:10 to Your Ma (Noodle Vague), Monday, 29 November 2010 07:39 (eight years ago) link

The Downing Street source said: “We don’t think there will be much about the Coalition Government. There might be some slightly embarrassing things about David Cameron’s time in opposition but it will be nothing compared with what was said about Brown.

“The diplomatic cables were more about Labour. Brown was seen as paranoid and weak and unstable. These files are going to be embarrassing for him.”

fucking hell, what a classy operation they have going at downing street

rip whiney g weingarten 03/11 never forget (history mayne), Monday, 29 November 2010 08:29 (eight years ago) link

Brown was seen as paranoid and weak and unstable

... by everyone on the planet. Some revelation there.

Tom A. (Tom B.) (Tom C.) (Tom D.), Monday, 29 November 2010 09:03 (eight years ago) link

• Silvio Berlusconi laughed when he was told about the cables (9.09am).

(+) (+ +), Monday, 29 November 2010 12:23 (eight years ago) link

(this fucking guy)

(+) (+ +), Monday, 29 November 2010 12:23 (eight years ago) link

So did I though. Although probably not in the same way or for the same reasons.

specifically, the word talking (Ned Trifle II), Monday, 29 November 2010 12:27 (eight years ago) link

William Hague likes to have sex with men lol.

Volumptuous blonde lol.

Iran oh shit, even Saudi Arabia is scared. World gonna 'splode.

lol.

wheezy f baby (a hoy hoy), Monday, 29 November 2010 13:14 (eight years ago) link

Great bit of essential info in the Graun this morning, of shocking exclusive news that Silvio Beezy likes to party. Wikileaks is important.

wheezy f baby (a hoy hoy), Monday, 29 November 2010 13:15 (eight years ago) link

Actually, the Saudis pressuring on Iran comes as no surprise to those of us who've noted a Saudi prince owns seven per cent of News International, and thus Fox.

Exotic Flavors of the Midwest, available in corn, bacon, or beef (suzy), Monday, 29 November 2010 13:26 (eight years ago) link

aren't there like 500 saudi princes?

i think saudi pressure on iran probably has more to do with saudi arabia being worried about iran than it does with NI

caek, Monday, 29 November 2010 13:33 (eight years ago) link

think saudi arabia h8s iran because they are the main regional players and well there ya go #thomas_hobbes

rip whiney g weingarten 03/11 never forget (history mayne), Monday, 29 November 2010 13:47 (eight years ago) link

nah pretty sure it has something to do with news international

caek, Monday, 29 November 2010 13:53 (eight years ago) link

I didn't say that - but al-Q's *are* high on a particularly harsh strain of Wahhabism exported from Saudi Arabia and they *are* undermining all these countries' ability to govern and trade. Rich Saudis finance them! I find the whole thing very manipulative.

Exotic Flavors of the Midwest, available in corn, bacon, or beef (suzy), Monday, 29 November 2010 13:58 (eight years ago) link

as i say, they are both regional players with fingers in many unpleasant pies. iran funds, you know, hezbollah, hamas...

rip whiney g weingarten 03/11 never forget (history mayne), Monday, 29 November 2010 13:59 (eight years ago) link

while i love good conspiracy, isnt p much every country in the middle east freaked out about a nuclear iran? i dont think im being a 'drumbeat to war' here

lotta diamonds ... but prolly more display names (deej), Monday, 29 November 2010 15:39 (eight years ago) link

+ natural shiite/sunni conflict undergirding it all

lotta diamonds ... but prolly more display names (deej), Monday, 29 November 2010 15:42 (eight years ago) link

ehh idk about that

wouldn't over do it

regional big dicks always hate each other -- now *that's* nature

rip whiney g weingarten 03/11 never forget (history mayne), Monday, 29 November 2010 15:42 (eight years ago) link

today's times implies otherwise

lotta diamonds ... but prolly more display names (deej), Monday, 29 November 2010 15:45 (eight years ago) link

3 Charitable activities
3.1 World Trade Center attacks

specifically, the word talking (Ned Trifle II), Monday, 29 November 2010 15:47 (eight years ago) link

You've got to be cruel to be kind.

specifically, the word talking (Ned Trifle II), Monday, 29 November 2010 15:47 (eight years ago) link

'Rude' Prince Andrew shocks US ambassador

Very weak stuff I think. Esp. for the lead story.

specifically, the word talking (Ned Trifle II), Monday, 29 November 2010 18:48 (eight years ago) link

all in the perception i guess

new yorker grandee George Packer:

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/georgepacker/2010/11/the-right-to-secrecy.html

On the whole, the trove makes American diplomacy look pretty good. Obama’s Iran strategy of engagement-leading-to-isolation is shown to have succeeded. Bush—contrary to the impression left on every page of his new memoir—had enough self-awareness about the disaster in Iraq to put the brakes on military action against Iran. And American diplomats are capable of writing blunt, vivid, even amusing assessments of world leaders. Berlusconi is feckless, Sarkozy thin-skinned, Mugabe a megalomaniac: the accounts seem spot-on. The faceless corps of tight-lipped American embassy officials turn out to be an alert and discerning bunch.

professional insane person David Goldman ("Spengler"):

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/LK30Ak02.html

American career diplomats have been telling their masters in the Obama administration that every theater of American policy is in full-blown rout, forwarding to Washington the growing alarm of foreign leaders. In April 2008, for example, Saudi Arabia's envoy to the US Adel al-Jubeir told General David Petraeus that King Abdullah wanted the US "to cut off the head of the [Iranian] snake" and "recalled the king's frequent exhortations to the US to attack Iran and so put an end to its nuclear weapons program".

Afghani President Hamid Karzai warned the US that Pakistan was forcing Taliban militants to keep fighting rather than accept his peace offers. Pakistani government officials, other cables warn, might sell nuclear material to terrorists.

The initial reports suggest that the US State Department has massive evidence that Obama's approach - "engaging" Iran and coddling Pakistan - has failed catastrophically. The crisis in diplomatic relations heralded by the press headlines is not so much a diplomatic problem - America's friends and allies in Western and Central Asia have been shouting themselves hoarse for two years - but a crisis of American credibility.

first as tragedy, then as favre (goole), Monday, 29 November 2010 22:18 (eight years ago) link

id go w/ the nyers assessment on the whole: this dump has not really made the US look bad

rip whiney g weingarten 03/11 never forget (history mayne), Tuesday, 30 November 2010 00:23 (eight years ago) link

imho it's made Wikileaks look pretty bad (like, what was the point of making diplomatic docs public again? I fail to see the political angle)

"smokin' hot" albeit in a "Nickelback on iPod" sort of way (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 30 November 2010 00:27 (eight years ago) link

like this isn't stuff that's exposing abuses of power or coverups or lies really, its just y'know diplomats bein diplomats.

"smokin' hot" albeit in a "Nickelback on iPod" sort of way (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 30 November 2010 00:28 (eight years ago) link

anyway how long before Assange goes to jail

"smokin' hot" albeit in a "Nickelback on iPod" sort of way (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 30 November 2010 00:28 (eight years ago) link

*wrings hands* ffs a political point needn't be made - and that's not the goal, as far as i've gathered - like alfred said if these are indeed trivial it just goes to show how ridiculous this secrecy fetish is. and when it exists as a matter of policy it's anti-democratic

overtheseas aeroplanes I have flown (k3vin k.), Tuesday, 30 November 2010 00:43 (eight years ago) link

eh I can see the virtue of confidentiality for diplomats - sometimes you don't want to have to show your hand to whoever you're negotiating with. is there something inherently morally wrong with that? I don't really think so.

"smokin' hot" albeit in a "Nickelback on iPod" sort of way (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 30 November 2010 00:47 (eight years ago) link

Look, I'm totally in the Moynihan camp -- the US' fetish for secrecy is abhorrent -- but these latest releases, I don't know, undermine the gravity of the previous ones?

look at it, pwn3d, made u look at my peen/vadge (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 30 November 2010 00:51 (eight years ago) link

of course they "don't want to" show their hands, but that's not wikileaks' problem. as a voter i'm not entitled to know what my government is up to? i'm just supposed to get all my news from what robert gibbs tells me? that's not how a demcracy should work imo xp

overtheseas aeroplanes I have flown (k3vin k.), Tuesday, 30 November 2010 00:54 (eight years ago) link

insofar as their release makes Assange look like a petty, embittered crank without much concern for how foreign policy actually functions, I would say yeah.

xp

"smokin' hot" albeit in a "Nickelback on iPod" sort of way (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 30 November 2010 00:56 (eight years ago) link

xxp only if you think about everything like a rock critic

overtheseas aeroplanes I have flown (k3vin k.), Tuesday, 30 November 2010 00:57 (eight years ago) link

of course they "don't want to" show their hands, but that's not wikileaks' problem. as a voter i'm not entitled to know what my government is up to? i'm just supposed to get all my news from what robert gibbs tells me? that's not how a demcracy should work imo

dude I don't want to know EVERYTHING the government knows. What would I gain from having access to the daily threat matrix, for example? Or other people's tax returns? Or these diplomatic communiques, which are largely inconsequential and of little interest?

and it IS kind of Assange's problem, he's responsible for his actions, and directly responsible for any fallout as well.

"smokin' hot" albeit in a "Nickelback on iPod" sort of way (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 30 November 2010 00:59 (eight years ago) link

as a voter i'm not entitled to know what my government is up to?

also I dunno if you've noticed but these leaks are going to people who AREN'T voters

"smokin' hot" albeit in a "Nickelback on iPod" sort of way (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 30 November 2010 00:59 (eight years ago) link

it's one thing for an American citizen to be able to satisfy their curiosity about our diplomatic relations, it's another thing for foreign countries to be able to satisfy that same curiosity, which has entirely different motivations.

"smokin' hot" albeit in a "Nickelback on iPod" sort of way (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 30 November 2010 01:00 (eight years ago) link

terrorists, right xp

overtheseas aeroplanes I have flown (k3vin k.), Tuesday, 30 November 2010 01:01 (eight years ago) link

The stuff published by The NYT today was, like I wrote yesterday, entertaining but not worth the chatter. Assange has no judgment.

look at it, pwn3d, made u look at my peen/vadge (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 30 November 2010 01:01 (eight years ago) link

He wants to leak the stuff? Fine. But has he no advisers -- gifted lawyers and journalists who can say, "OK, this action by the American government is worth leaking"?

look at it, pwn3d, made u look at my peen/vadge (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 30 November 2010 01:02 (eight years ago) link

insofar as their release makes Assange look like a petty, embittered crank without much concern for how foreign policy actually functions, I would say yeah.

xp

― "smokin' hot" albeit in a "Nickelback on iPod" sort of way (Shakey Mo Collier), Monday, November 29, 2010 6:56 PM (1 hour ago) Bookmark

ah yes well he could have quite a lot of concern for how foreign policy actually functions, you know

but yeah according to the summaries i've skimmed, there's not a whole lot here. i am really loving all the right wing bomb iran peeps suddenly taking the word of, like, king abdullah going "see?!"

first as tragedy, then as favre (goole), Tuesday, 30 November 2010 02:06 (eight years ago) link

on an only tangetially-related note i do get a sort of perverse pleasure watching people like this get worked up

Q. I’m writing regarding your decision to publish WikiLeaks documents, and my disappointment in your decision. Whereas, I acknowledge that you attempted to provide some censorship to the release of classified information. And I appreciate your gesture in forwarding documents to the Obama Administration for review. However, at the end of the day, I say, “How dare you?” How dare you decide what’s okay for release in this circumstance and what’s not!

I respect the First Amendment and believe in its importance. But does it mean that a line can never be drawn, even at the risk of national security? And, what makes The New York Times the most qualified to make this decision? I work in the field that you have just aided at putting at risk, and trust me when I say that you are not aware or understand the nuances of the information in these reports as well as you think you do. Even if you found a report or cable that appeared benign to you or simply political, you really aren’t aware of the secondary or tertiary affects that your release of these documents may have. Of course you will not listen to me, because The New York Times, along with WikiLeaks, obviously perceived yourselves to know better than the President of the United States, his National Security Advisors, and the United States military leaders of the war. Well, thank you for putting those of us who attempt to protect our country and your backsides in danger.

I’m sure at the end of the day, you felt compelled to release something because other news agencies were releasing information. Hopefully, you feel proud of partnering with WikiLeaks, as I have now lost a lot of respect for the editors and decision makers of The New York Times.

— F. Jean Ware


Q. I am greatly saddened by your role in this issue, and I disagree with your attempts to cloak your pursuit of readers in the context of some sort “right to know.” The fact is that these are secret documents of the United States Government, which by extension therefore are secret documents of the people of the United States. For the government to function, the simple reality, just as is undoubtedly the case in your organization, is that in order to candidly assess the situation, some items are not for public consumption. To say “it would be presumptuous to conclude that Americans have no right to know what is being done in their name” is a ridiculous statement. Are you really saying that the government should make public all its information at every level? There are reasons why there is secrecy. Should we have told Hitler when and where D-Day was coming so that the “people have a right to know”? Farce, plain and simple.

Moreover, in this case, the release of these documents means that people will die. It is as simple as that. I cannot say how many, but the butcher’s bill from this sorry “disclosure” will have to be met. Personally, I consider this willful release of secret documents to be treason.

I am not a Tea Party fanatic, nor even a Republican. I am proud to be a Democrat and have enjoyed your publication for many years both online and in print. I fear that this relationship will now have to end. I expected better.

— David Stier

overtheseas aeroplanes I have flown (k3vin k.), Tuesday, 30 November 2010 02:15 (eight years ago) link

You know, I'm all for making fun of these guys and stuff, but if this turns into some witchhunt where the gov't suddenly executes sweeping new censorship powers over the entire internet (which the music industry already seems to be doing) then we'll be longing for the days when we could make fun of these clowns.

Telephoneface (Adam Bruneau), Tuesday, 30 November 2010 04:41 (eight years ago) link

We've already heard a congressperson argue for classifying them as the dreaded T word. I really hope an Internet Patriot Act isn't just around the corner...

Telephoneface (Adam Bruneau), Tuesday, 30 November 2010 04:42 (eight years ago) link

reading today's nytimes front section was a blast. im lovin the details tbh

lotta diamonds ... but prolly more display names (deej), Tuesday, 30 November 2010 05:44 (eight years ago) link

quaddafi likes voluptuous blondes! saudi king kind of looks like a badass and wants iran to lose its head like a snake! high ranking afganis are drug smugglers!

lotta diamonds ... but prolly more display names (deej), Tuesday, 30 November 2010 05:46 (eight years ago) link

American career diplomats have been telling their masters in the Obama administration that every theater of American policy is in full-blown rout, forwarding to Washington the growing alarm of foreign leaders. In April 2008, for example, Saudi Arabia's envoy to the US Adel al-Jubeir told General David Petraeus that King Abdullah wanted the US "to cut off the head of the [Iranian] snake" and "recalled the king's frequent exhortations to the US to attack Iran and so put an end to its nuclear weapons program".

Afghani President Hamid Karzai warned the US that Pakistan was forcing Taliban militants to keep fighting rather than accept his peace offers. Pakistani government officials, other cables warn, might sell nuclear material to terrorists.

The initial reports suggest that the US State Department has massive evidence that Obama's approach - "engaging" Iran and coddling Pakistan - has failed catastrophically. The crisis in diplomatic relations heralded by the press headlines is not so much a diplomatic problem - America's friends and allies in Western and Central Asia have been shouting themselves hoarse for two years - but a crisis of American credibility.

― first as tragedy, then as favre (goole), Monday, November 29, 2010 4:18 PM (7 hours ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

this actually ... entirely contradicts the leaks? it suggests that obama's 'engaging' w/ iran was always plan A w/ a related plan B that they planned to execute from the beginning, which theyve done successfully, even getting china & russia on board. so ... .what?

lotta diamonds ... but prolly more display names (deej), Tuesday, 30 November 2010 05:48 (eight years ago) link

http://blogs.forbes.com/andygreenberg/2010/11/29/an-interview-with-wikileaks-julian-assange/

Yes. We have one related to a bank coming up, that’s a megaleak. It’s not as big a scale as the Iraq material, but it’s either tens or hundreds of thousands of documents depending on how you define it.

Is it a U.S. bank?

Yes, it’s a U.S. bank.

One that still exists?
Yes, a big U.S. bank.

The biggest U.S. bank?

No comment.

When will it happen?

Early next year. I won’t say more.

http://www.unconditionalconfidence.com/mt/mt-static/FCKeditor/UserFiles/Image/nervous.gif

(ㅅ) (am0n), Tuesday, 30 November 2010 06:08 (eight years ago) link

lmao

anticipating that leak tho!

(ㅅ) (am0n), Tuesday, 30 November 2010 06:11 (eight years ago) link

This is the greatest thing ever, as a big fan of transparency. Assange can crash on my couch for a night or two btw.

Culture: only gays have it (King Boy Pato), Tuesday, 30 November 2010 07:33 (eight years ago) link

The butthurt reaction from your "liberal Western democracies" is almost as good as the confirmation that Vladimir Putin and Silvio Berlusconi are having a bromance btw.

Culture: only gays have it (King Boy Pato), Tuesday, 30 November 2010 07:35 (eight years ago) link

So, thus far we've learned the following:

*Diplomats indulge in junior high-grade bitching.
*Prince Andrew will not be asked to join MENSA anytime soon. AA, maybe.
*China are cracking down on North Korea (I actually feel better knowing this).
*Saudis are basically trolling everyone while making bank.
*Bromance between hooker magnet and cub handler.
*David Cameron, joek.
*Some Afghani officials are drug fiends.

Exotic Flavors of the Midwest, available in corn, bacon, or beef (suzy), Tuesday, 30 November 2010 08:03 (eight years ago) link

as a voter i'm not entitled to know what my government is up to? i'm just supposed to get all my news from what robert gibbs tells me? that's not how a demcracy should work imo xp

― overtheseas aeroplanes I have flown (k3vin k.), Tuesday, November 30, 2010 12:54 AM (7 hours ago) Bookmark

knowing what your govt is up to stops short of knowing the exact content of all communications between govt officials, i think

partly because you don't get to know without a lot of other people getting to know, but only partly that

rip whiney g weingarten 03/11 never forget (history mayne), Tuesday, 30 November 2010 08:50 (eight years ago) link

as a voter i'm not entitled to know what my government is up to? i'm just supposed to get all my news from what robert gibbs tells me? that's not how a demcracy should work imo xp

― overtheseas aeroplanes I have flown (k3vin k.), Tuesday, November 30, 2010 12:54 AM (7 hours ago) Bookmark

this is.... kind of really reductive

jagger reupholstered my pussy (J0rdan S.), Tuesday, 30 November 2010 08:53 (eight years ago) link

lol it would be nice to be CCd on all govt emails tho

max, Tuesday, 30 November 2010 08:53 (eight years ago) link

personally i still think that the (general) principles behind what wikileaks does are far more important than what the leaks have contained -- & moreso how those principles contrast with mainstream media than how they contrast with those of a democratic govt

as it pertains to what is contained in this recent round of leaks, this one now is pretty much just like someone leaked a pitch to hbo right?

jagger reupholstered my pussy (J0rdan S.), Tuesday, 30 November 2010 08:57 (eight years ago) link

lol it would be nice to be CCd on all govt emails tho

― max, Tuesday, November 30, 2010 2:53 AM (5 minutes ago) Bookmark

paladino 2012

jagger reupholstered my pussy (J0rdan S.), Tuesday, 30 November 2010 08:59 (eight years ago) link

Maybe if k3vin said "as a TAXPAYER I'm not entitled to know what my government is up to?..."

Culture: only gays have it (King Boy Pato), Tuesday, 30 November 2010 10:54 (eight years ago) link

idgi

rip whiney g weingarten 03/11 never forget (history mayne), Tuesday, 30 November 2010 11:45 (eight years ago) link

why are these bros ddosing wikileaks

what's not to like ;_;

rouxymuzak (nakhchivan), Tuesday, 30 November 2010 11:45 (eight years ago) link

i have no idea what that means?

sonderangerbot, Tuesday, 30 November 2010 11:46 (eight years ago) link

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denial-of-service_attack

rouxymuzak (nakhchivan), Tuesday, 30 November 2010 11:49 (eight years ago) link

wikileaks said some evil bastard hacker types tried to DOS them

caek's graph refute or possibly confirms that *shrug emoticon*

rip whiney g weingarten 03/11 never forget (history mayne), Tuesday, 30 November 2010 11:50 (eight years ago) link

On November 28, 2010, whistle blower site wikileaks.org experienced a ~minor~ DDoS attack. This was presumably related to the pending release of many thousands of secret diplomatic cables.[32]

aint no thang yall

chillassange.jpg

rouxymuzak (nakhchivan), Tuesday, 30 November 2010 11:51 (eight years ago) link

tbf, histrionics like http://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/8920530488926208 could have been fog of war and not, you know, histrionics

caek, Tuesday, 30 November 2010 11:59 (eight years ago) link

it was probably histrionics though

everyone otm that they seem to need the advice of people who understand the context of the documents, because they are not very good at this media stuff.

caek, Tuesday, 30 November 2010 12:00 (eight years ago) link

they've got that from their "media partners" now, but their interest is obviously in disclosure, even if it's just gossip. not sure that an organization processing massive amounts of confidential government data and deciding, without any real accountability, what to release and what to withhold is all that great an idea either - i mean, i can see why they thought releasing it all makes more sense even if that brings its own problems.

most whistleblowers usually do the selection and editing themselves though. question for me is still, what is it within this material and all the other leaks that bradley manning thought was so important? haven't seen anything worth going to jail for yet. and if there is something of significance, hasn't he undermined it by burying it in a flood of crap?

joe, Tuesday, 30 November 2010 12:07 (eight years ago) link

Well, spying on the UN is a pretty big deal, and basically illegal. Everyone knows the US does it, but nice to have the evidence (kind of like when you manage to pin something on Al Capone). Likewise, bullying Germany into not prosecuting US kidnappers is surely a somewhat big deal. And getting US diplomats to gather intelligence on Palestinian politicians to facilitate their extermination by Israel.

The New Dirty Vicar, Tuesday, 30 November 2010 12:51 (eight years ago) link

not just kill, exterminate

rip whiney g weingarten 03/11 never forget (history mayne), Tuesday, 30 November 2010 12:53 (eight years ago) link

sright.

The New Dirty Vicar, Tuesday, 30 November 2010 13:22 (eight years ago) link

shakey otm lately.

i'm all for transparency but if anyone in politics cannot say *anything* without the risk of it being leaked then wtf is the point? its just going to make government officials even less likely to attempt to do things or think of new ideas in case they make a cock out of themselves on an international scale as opposed to the 1 intern they sent a memo to and losing their job. whereas iran will still be mental.

i guess if this stops a few conspiracy nuts then fine but i suspect their find a detail here or there to send them even more batshit.

wheezy f baby (a hoy hoy), Tuesday, 30 November 2010 13:26 (eight years ago) link

as long as you're ok with saying hamas is out to 'exterminate' israelis then ok...

xpost

rip whiney g weingarten 03/11 never forget (history mayne), Tuesday, 30 November 2010 13:35 (eight years ago) link

http://i56.tinypic.com/a9vchy.gif

Kerm, Tuesday, 30 November 2010 13:35 (eight years ago) link

has 'trap going hamas' been used yet?

wheezy f baby (a hoy hoy), Tuesday, 30 November 2010 13:36 (eight years ago) link

frankly the bank stuff is more compelling to me than a bunch of half-secret gossipy emails about the government. but I also think wikileaks hyping it's importance is getting a little old, because they aren' really leaking anything that explosive. the bank thing had better be. but at this point, what would really shock anyone?

akm, Tuesday, 30 November 2010 14:54 (eight years ago) link

yeah going 180, im a lot more pumped for the banking one

rip whiney g weingarten 03/11 never forget (history mayne), Tuesday, 30 November 2010 14:55 (eight years ago) link

what would really shock anyone?

Thousands of emails saying "sorry"?

specifically, the word talking (Ned Trifle II), Tuesday, 30 November 2010 15:01 (eight years ago) link

totally, seems like something we can all get behind. hope they make some effort to digest rather than merely infodump. xp

caek, Tuesday, 30 November 2010 15:01 (eight years ago) link

Once again the Taiwanese save you the bother of wading through pages of news...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MhXid6PmkO4

specifically, the word talking (Ned Trifle II), Tuesday, 30 November 2010 15:25 (eight years ago) link

well, i'll be interested to see the economist's reaction to the bank leaks

rip whiney g weingarten 03/11 never forget (history mayne), Tuesday, 30 November 2010 16:17 (eight years ago) link

^^Wikileaks Honduras: State Dept. Busted on Support of Coup

straight old fashioned, virgin (another al3x), Tuesday, 30 November 2010 16:27 (eight years ago) link

given the quality of other stuff Wikileaks has released so far my guess is this bank "megaleak" (lol) is just gonna be more bullshit we already know (ie "bankers are rich smug assholes robbing the rest of us blind!" shocker)

"smokin' hot" albeit in a "Nickelback on iPod" sort of way (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 30 November 2010 16:29 (eight years ago) link

yeah well some of these wikileaks bros like to have an empirical basis for their morbsian assertions i guess

lex eduction horror (nakhchivan), Tuesday, 30 November 2010 16:30 (eight years ago) link

if the threshold of interestingness is 'huge conspiracy unpredicted even by most cynical leftist' then i don't know if any concievable leak will really raise more than a shrug (since 70s at least)

lex eduction horror (nakhchivan), Tuesday, 30 November 2010 16:32 (eight years ago) link

I don't think it's even really conspiracy theory about how the banks made out like bandits before/during/and after the "crisis" - there's plenty of damning stuff in the public record, it's just a lot of it is fairly incomprehensible to the average citizen (including me!)

"smokin' hot" albeit in a "Nickelback on iPod" sort of way (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 30 November 2010 16:40 (eight years ago) link

yeah, but i'd guess there is more candour in internal documents

like that french dude who was up before congress w/ his damning emails

whatever happened there btw

lex eduction horror (nakhchivan), Tuesday, 30 November 2010 16:42 (eight years ago) link

shakey mo, esq: "but judge everyone KNOWS this guy did it"

straight old fashioned, virgin (another al3x), Tuesday, 30 November 2010 16:49 (eight years ago) link

as long as you don't say it explicitly, useful prosecutorial strategy right there

lex eduction horror (nakhchivan), Tuesday, 30 November 2010 16:51 (eight years ago) link

ha

lex eduction horror (nakhchivan), Tuesday, 30 November 2010 16:53 (eight years ago) link

shakey mo, esq: "but judge everyone KNOWS this guy did it"

will seriously lol if one of Wikileaks illegally leaked documents is successfully used in court to prosecute a bank for a crime keep me posted on that

"smokin' hot" albeit in a "Nickelback on iPod" sort of way (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 30 November 2010 16:56 (eight years ago) link

Wikileaks isn't interested in the law, everything they do is about (clumsily attempting to frame) media narratives and self-aggrandizement

"smokin' hot" albeit in a "Nickelback on iPod" sort of way (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 30 November 2010 16:57 (eight years ago) link

will seriously lol if one of Wikileaks illegally leaked documents is successfully used in court to prosecute a bank for a crime keep me posted on that

doesn't quite work but you get what im saying

they're all in on it man

rip whiney g weingarten 03/11 never forget (history mayne), Tuesday, 30 November 2010 16:58 (eight years ago) link

haha yeah that too

"smokin' hot" albeit in a "Nickelback on iPod" sort of way (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 30 November 2010 16:59 (eight years ago) link

i'm hyped for some bank disclosures. would it be too donald sutherlandy to say that i expect that's more likely to get assange killed?

the crash and bailouts need a pentagon papers imo. there's a thousand books out describing how fucked we are but there needs to be a personal touch, "yeah, we're fuckin you" kind of thing

first as tragedy, then as favre (goole), Tuesday, 30 November 2010 17:01 (eight years ago) link

The Economist's excellent editorial.

― look at it, pwn3d, made u look at my peen/vadge (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, November 30, 2010 10:11 AM (55 minutes ago) Bookmark

"W.W." in Iowa City? that's will wilkinson innit. didn't know he wrote for DiA

first as tragedy, then as favre (goole), Tuesday, 30 November 2010 17:07 (eight years ago) link

xxxp - yes the literal meaning is exactly what i was going for there, thanks for clearing that up. now let's get organized and go speak hunches to power

straight old fashioned, virgin (another al3x), Tuesday, 30 November 2010 17:11 (eight years ago) link

Like, why is Prince Andrew even invited anywhere? I thought he was the ultimate no1curr royal.

romoing my damn eyes (Nicole), Tuesday, 30 November 2010 17:25 (eight years ago) link

yes wikileaks is all about providing evidence for court trials!! thats how all important changes happen rite, in a courtroom!! with a gavel!!!

(ㅅ) (am0n), Tuesday, 30 November 2010 17:29 (eight years ago) link

shakey mo/palin 2012

(ㅅ) (am0n), Tuesday, 30 November 2010 17:30 (eight years ago) link

shakey mo gives wikileaks' latest album a 4.8

overtheseas aeroplanes I have flown (k3vin k.), Tuesday, 30 November 2010 17:32 (eight years ago) link

shakey mo/palin 2012

if you people have a point you aren't expressing it very well

"smokin' hot" albeit in a "Nickelback on iPod" sort of way (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 30 November 2010 17:40 (eight years ago) link

i believe i have some insight into their point

http://www.t-shirt-mania.com/bad-attitude-t-shirts/Fuck-the-Police.jpg

Mordy, Tuesday, 30 November 2010 17:42 (eight years ago) link

Leave Shakey alone: he's my transportation secretary.

look at it, pwn3d, made u look at my peen/vadge (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 30 November 2010 18:53 (eight years ago) link

lol @ "Julian Ahsaaaaahnge" in that clip

"smokin' hot" albeit in a "Nickelback on iPod" sort of way (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 30 November 2010 18:59 (eight years ago) link

thats how all important changes happen rite, in a courtroom!! with a gavel!!!

please to point me to any "important changes" that have resulted from Wikileaks' actions k thx bye

"smokin' hot" albeit in a "Nickelback on iPod" sort of way (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 30 November 2010 19:01 (eight years ago) link

like I get that you guys are all excited about the PRINCIPLE of freedom of information - which I for the most part agree with, hey yes, let's have it! - but the practical impacts of Wikileaks' half-assed data dumps are negligible to negative so um what exactly is there to be cheering about apart from having a new collection of laughable tidbits to pore over for a day or two

"smokin' hot" albeit in a "Nickelback on iPod" sort of way (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 30 November 2010 19:02 (eight years ago) link

Did you read the Forbes article in full, Shakey? The whole thing that happened in Iceland is pretty notable alone.

Ned Raggett, Tuesday, 30 November 2010 19:03 (eight years ago) link

haven't gotten to the forbes article yet, no

"smokin' hot" albeit in a "Nickelback on iPod" sort of way (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 30 November 2010 19:03 (eight years ago) link

I recommend you do. (The interview is separate from the article but I find the article more informative.)

Ned Raggett, Tuesday, 30 November 2010 19:04 (eight years ago) link

oh yeah I wasn't interested in the interview so didn't click

"smokin' hot" albeit in a "Nickelback on iPod" sort of way (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 30 November 2010 19:05 (eight years ago) link

Seems like Wikileaks does exactly what you'd think it does, it leaks information. It doesn't stop the war and it doesn't expose some completely unknown scandals. The Wikileaks site didn't have a front page saying THIS LEAK WILL CHANGE THE WORLD with a big count-down clock on it or something. If you're upset that there aren't any "important changes" resulting from all this then perhaps you should lower your personal expectations.

Telephoneface (Adam Bruneau), Tuesday, 30 November 2010 19:14 (eight years ago) link

the shit has been out for like three days

first as tragedy, then as favre (goole), Tuesday, 30 November 2010 19:15 (eight years ago) link

this could happen:

http://www.slate.com/id/2276190/

first as tragedy, then as favre (goole), Tuesday, 30 November 2010 19:16 (eight years ago) link

xxp much too generous to wikileaks. they clearly have an agenda. the idea that they are agnostic about the information it's releasing is preposterous. and they obviously wants to have an impact, if only to further that agenda. in that respect its mostly doing a terrible job.

caek, Tuesday, 30 November 2010 19:16 (eight years ago) link

waut @ Iceland, that is actually the coolest thing about this whole shebang

Yeezy reupholstered my pussy (DJP), Tuesday, 30 November 2010 19:18 (eight years ago) link

if the biggest impact of this leak is that it ruins Hillary's political chances going into the future, that'll be a bummer.

Mordy, Tuesday, 30 November 2010 19:20 (eight years ago) link

Seems like Wikileaks does exactly what you'd think it does, it leaks information. It doesn't stop the war and it doesn't expose some completely unknown scandals. The Wikileaks site didn't have a front page saying THIS LEAK WILL CHANGE THE WORLD with a big count-down clock on it or something. If you're upset that there aren't any "important changes" resulting from all this then perhaps you should lower your personal expectations.

um please to note that SOMEONE ELSE implied that important changes were going to be borne from these leaks, not me. And sure while this latest batch has only been out for a few days (and appears to be largely inconsequential), the previous stuff has been out for months.

Iceland thing is interesting. kind of hard to predict how it will play out and whether it will be a success. I'll be surprised if anybody from that bank goes to jail tho fwiw.

"smokin' hot" albeit in a "Nickelback on iPod" sort of way (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 30 November 2010 19:21 (eight years ago) link

and yeah caek otm

"smokin' hot" albeit in a "Nickelback on iPod" sort of way (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 30 November 2010 19:22 (eight years ago) link

this could happen:

http://www.slate.com/id/2276190/

The sort of drool David Broder writes. No wonder the WaPo and Slate are sister publications.

look at it, pwn3d, made u look at my peen/vadge (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 30 November 2010 19:39 (eight years ago) link

agree with Alfred there, that's overstating the case. it's taken as a given that countries' diplomatic corps' function this way - unless some unforeseen horrible breakdown with a major ally ensues claiming that Hillary's days are numbered seems like overheated hyperbole to me. Obama seems plenty happy with her so far.

"smokin' hot" albeit in a "Nickelback on iPod" sort of way (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 30 November 2010 19:50 (eight years ago) link

did someone post this?
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/opinion/wikileaks-just-made-the-world-more-repressive/article1818157/

akm, Tuesday, 30 November 2010 20:08 (eight years ago) link

fart

(ㅅ) (am0n), Tuesday, 30 November 2010 20:09 (eight years ago) link

the two guys toing and froing on the economist blog are doing a really good job imo

caek, Tuesday, 30 November 2010 20:23 (eight years ago) link

Amazed by that Shafer article. I don't see Clinton losing her job over this at all.

The baby boomers have defined everything once and for all (Dorianlynskey), Tuesday, 30 November 2010 20:30 (eight years ago) link

LOL, I was unaware that Wikileaks had recently tweeted "The coming months will see a new world, where global history is redefined".

Telephoneface (Adam Bruneau), Tuesday, 30 November 2010 21:07 (eight years ago) link

ha that's almost friedman-y

xp

first as tragedy, then as favre (goole), Tuesday, 30 November 2010 21:09 (eight years ago) link

my parents love Sneakers.

look at it, pwn3d, made u look at my peen/vadge (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 30 November 2010 21:10 (eight years ago) link

The coming months will see a new world, where global history is redefined

lol

"smokin' hot" albeit in a "Nickelback on iPod" sort of way (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 30 November 2010 21:10 (eight years ago) link

consequences will never be the same

first as tragedy, then as favre (goole), Tuesday, 30 November 2010 21:11 (eight years ago) link

julian aykroyd

(ㅅ) (am0n), Tuesday, 30 November 2010 21:30 (eight years ago) link

Kind of curious about the 'history' part. Maybe Wikileaks is building this all up to a reveal of real proof of Atlantis.

Telephoneface (Adam Bruneau), Tuesday, 30 November 2010 21:32 (eight years ago) link

hope it's about 9.11

rip whiney g weingarten 03/11 never forget (history mayne), Tuesday, 30 November 2010 21:37 (eight years ago) link

Well, hey, the Pentagon Papers kind of redefined the Vietnam War, didn't they?

Two and a Half Muffins (Eazy), Tuesday, 30 November 2010 21:46 (eight years ago) link

nothing released yet at that level

look at it, pwn3d, made u look at my peen/vadge (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 30 November 2010 21:54 (eight years ago) link

They're going to drop the truth bombs w/r/t the aquatic ape theory AND the peopling of the Americas by boats.

the structuralist constructions of (Viceroy), Tuesday, 30 November 2010 21:56 (eight years ago) link

nm I suppose that's global prehistory...

the structuralist constructions of (Viceroy), Tuesday, 30 November 2010 21:57 (eight years ago) link

The central goal of WikiLeaks is to prevent the world's most powerful factions -- including the sprawling, imperial U.S. Government -- from continuing to operate in the dark and without restraints. Most of the institutions which are supposed to perform that function -- beginning with the U.S. Congress and the American media -- not only fail to do so, but are active participants in maintaining the veil of secrecy. WikiLeaks, whatever its flaws, is one of the very few entities shining a vitally needed light on all of this. It's hardly surprising, then, that those factions -- and their hordes of spokespeople, followers and enablers -- see WikiLeaks as a force for evil. That's evidence of how much good they are doing.

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/11/30/wikileaks?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+salon/greenwald+(Glenn+Greenwald)

Telephoneface (Adam Bruneau), Tuesday, 30 November 2010 21:58 (eight years ago) link

specious reasoning there glenn

"smokin' hot" albeit in a "Nickelback on iPod" sort of way (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 30 November 2010 22:01 (eight years ago) link

I know I'm a broken record with this but over the last few years Greenwald went from an intelligent commentator to an author of some of the dumbest shit ever.

Mordy, Tuesday, 30 November 2010 22:44 (eight years ago) link

you mean over the last 22 months i think

overtheseas aeroplanes I have flown (k3vin k.), Tuesday, 30 November 2010 22:54 (eight years ago) link

since i've been reading him since 2007 i don't know why i'd mean 22 months but thanks for your pedantic dumbass bullshit anyway cheers :)

Mordy, Tuesday, 30 November 2010 23:02 (eight years ago) link

(sorry, i'm upset about rl stuff, i'm not gonna post anymore while this stuff is going on cause i'm just gonna be a jerk)

Mordy, Tuesday, 30 November 2010 23:03 (eight years ago) link

jk

anyway i don't think this is what you're saying exactly but i doubt 2007 gg would have a different position on wikileaks

i really would rather not talk about glenn greenwald though

overtheseas aeroplanes I have flown (k3vin k.), Tuesday, 30 November 2010 23:04 (eight years ago) link

I don't mind Greenwald at all, except when I do.

look at it, pwn3d, made u look at my peen/vadge (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 30 November 2010 23:05 (eight years ago) link

haha yeah, that's basically my ish with him. when he's right, he's right.

BIG MUFFIN (gbx), Tuesday, 30 November 2010 23:08 (eight years ago) link

which to me is fifty percent of the time and okay with me.

look at it, pwn3d, made u look at my peen/vadge (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 30 November 2010 23:09 (eight years ago) link

His arguments re: the media speaking as the voice of the post-9/11 Security State are pretty convincing, and he seems to tie that into most of the stuff he talks about these days.

Telephoneface (Adam Bruneau), Tuesday, 30 November 2010 23:21 (eight years ago) link

So what differentiates this dude from the usual garden variety anarchist? Aside from his platform and prominence?

Josh in Chicago, Tuesday, 30 November 2010 23:27 (eight years ago) link

The central goal of WikiLeaks is to prevent the world's most powerful factions -- including the sprawling, imperial U.S. Government -- from continuing to operate in the dark and without restraints. Most of the institutions which are supposed to perform that function -- beginning with the U.S. Congress and the American media -- not only fail to do so, but are active participants in maintaining the veil of secrecy. WikiLeaks, whatever its flaws, is one of the very few entities shining a vitally needed light on all of this. It's hardly surprising, then, that those factions -- and their hordes of spokespeople, followers and enablers -- see WikiLeaks as a force for evil. That's evidence of how much good they are doing.

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/11/30/wikileaks?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+salon/greenwald+(Glenn+Greenwald)

On a gut level my problem with this kind of thing is the seeming asymmetry of it. Unless you're going to have equal-sized disclosures for every government in the world, you're sort of single out the United States for the kind of secrecy every modern nation practices. If there's information that's especially damning like the Pentagon Papers I'm all for releasing it. But I don't see the benefit in getting behind-the-scenes diplomatic communications and opinions otherwise, unless we're going to get the same from all sides.

ball (Hurting 2), Wednesday, 1 December 2010 01:16 (eight years ago) link

Unless you're going to have equal-sized disclosures for every government in the world,

Well US is proportionately always gonna be of more global interest than, what, 97% of other countries?

Goths in Home & Away in my lifetime (darraghmac), Wednesday, 1 December 2010 01:19 (eight years ago) link

So you think the right has a point -- that the leaks acquire validity if, say, Chinese and North Korean "secrets" emerged too?

(no sarcasm intended)

look at it, pwn3d, made u look at my peen/vadge (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 1 December 2010 01:19 (eight years ago) link

who me? got no other opinion, certainly no informed one, tbh

Goths in Home & Away in my lifetime (darraghmac), Wednesday, 1 December 2010 01:24 (eight years ago) link

Julian Assange is great
for me to leak on

buzza, Wednesday, 1 December 2010 01:24 (eight years ago) link

no -- Hurting

look at it, pwn3d, made u look at my peen/vadge (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 1 December 2010 01:24 (eight years ago) link

phew

Goths in Home & Away in my lifetime (darraghmac), Wednesday, 1 December 2010 01:24 (eight years ago) link

From the comments section in this article

You have to admire someone who can seriously annoy just about every government on the planet. On the other hand I feel sorry for his parents.

badg, Wednesday, 1 December 2010 02:00 (eight years ago) link

On a gut level my problem with this kind of thing is the seeming asymmetry of it.

The US has the largest diplomatic, intelligence (perhaps not internal intelligence, mind) and military apparatuses in the history of the world - there's simply going to be more to leak there. And the entire WikiLeaks project depends on the libertarian streak in and relative openness of the west - if US intelligence can't penetrate Rogue State X with any degree of success, how is WikiLeaks supposed to?

The only way asymmetry arguments hold up, IMO, is if Assange declined to leak from China/Russia/etc. - which seems unlikely, since some of the current leaks are pretty damning of Russia and China themselves.

boots get knocked from here to czechoslovakier (milo z), Wednesday, 1 December 2010 02:14 (eight years ago) link

Older but very interesting piece on the potential criminal liability of Wikileaks.

http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/2010/09/public_class.html

Bull fighting, Paris, hunting, suicide (kenan), Wednesday, 1 December 2010 02:48 (eight years ago) link

http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/activate-reston5

― first as tragedy, then as favre (goole), Tuesday, November 30, 2010 11:52 AM (Yesterday) Bookmark

lol

ladies and gentlemen, last night we came under attack by means of a direct denial of service attack. we had no choice but to *emperor assange removes his glasses, rubs his eyes... for a moment you are reminded that he is human... like us* we had to activate Reston5. may god forgive me.

Princess TamTam, Wednesday, 1 December 2010 08:25 (eight years ago) link

people who claim that wikileaks is politically neutral forget the existence of collateral murder

.\ /. (dayo), Wednesday, 1 December 2010 08:28 (eight years ago) link

Just had my first look at the actual leaks, seems like these cables are gold for "unusual details" stuff; here's from Astana:

¶10. (C) HOW TO ORDER LAMB. Idenov insisted the Ambassador order a bottle of wine for their dinner but then never touched his first glass. Instead, he gulped three cans of Coca-Cola while inhaling his food. When both he and the Ambassador ordered lamb chops, Idenov advised, “Well done, never rare -- this is Astana, not London!”

(Fun fact: the (C) at the start means that this paragraph is merely "Confidential", as opposed to (S) "Secret", which is the overall classification of that particular msg.)

anatol_merklich, Wednesday, 1 December 2010 11:46 (eight years ago) link

Interpol puts Assange on most-wanted list

Shameless attention-grab from washed up indie-rockers.

Julian Osage Orange (kkvgz), Wednesday, 1 December 2010 14:28 (eight years ago) link

Assange's mother, Christine, said her son sees himself as "fighting baddies," but added she was afraid he had gotten "too smart for himself."

Fetchboy, Wednesday, 1 December 2010 20:32 (eight years ago) link

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bqtIafdoH_g

(ㅅ) (am0n), Wednesday, 1 December 2010 21:50 (eight years ago) link

The US has the largest diplomatic, intelligence (perhaps not internal intelligence, mind) and military apparatuses in the history of the world - there's simply going to be more to leak there.

and the database from which the latest documents were leaked is accessible by over three million people. It is astonishing that more from here has not been leaked already.

Anyway, it was interesting to see David Milliband and Foreign Office officials colluding with the USA in the misleading of the UK's parliament on cluster bombs.

The New Dirty Vicar, Thursday, 2 December 2010 12:48 (eight years ago) link

Controversial choice for Dead Pool 2011.

Two and a Half Muffins (Eazy), Thursday, 2 December 2010 18:14 (eight years ago) link

rendition shit is so so disgusting & humiliating

lotta diamonds ... but prolly more display names (deej), Thursday, 2 December 2010 18:34 (eight years ago) link

In the future, when historians look at this time, rendition is something that "the west" will rightly be absolutely crucified for. Not that that helps it's victims. It is a fucking disgrace.

Also, UK govts since 1965 must be the weakest, supine, spineless bunch of lamers the modern world has ever known. It is absolutely pathetic and makes me ashamed of my nationality.

Pashmina, Thursday, 2 December 2010 19:45 (eight years ago) link

In the future, when historians look at this time,

http://i53.tinypic.com/2lvmjvc.jpg

(ㅅ) (am0n), Thursday, 2 December 2010 19:47 (eight years ago) link

http://i.imgur.com/JkzS3.jpg

Princess TamTam, Thursday, 2 December 2010 19:52 (eight years ago) link

Man, that was the most nonsense comics page ever in a long history of nonsense comics.

Mordy, Thursday, 2 December 2010 19:57 (eight years ago) link

doom is crying because he wishes hed thought of it

max, Thursday, 2 December 2010 19:58 (eight years ago) link

the po' faced absurdity of Marvel Supervillains.

WARS OF ARMAGEDDON (Karaoke Version) (Sparkle Motion), Thursday, 2 December 2010 20:06 (eight years ago) link

Because even the worst of us, however scarred, are still human. Still feel. Still mourn the random* death of innocents.

* Except when they're the ones doing the random killing.

Mordy, Thursday, 2 December 2010 20:11 (eight years ago) link

They should have had Galactus on that page too

WARS OF ARMAGEDDON (Karaoke Version) (Sparkle Motion), Thursday, 2 December 2010 20:18 (eight years ago) link

i think it's time for a neversayrandomagain tumblr or something

first as tragedy, then as favre (goole), Thursday, 2 December 2010 20:21 (eight years ago) link

doom is crying because he wishes hed thought of it

― max, Thursday, December 2, 2010 2:58 PM

they're pretty much all like "welp i can't compete with this"

(ㅅ) (am0n), Thursday, 2 December 2010 20:22 (eight years ago) link

"spent all this money and all i needed was a couple guys and boxcutters??"

max, Thursday, 2 December 2010 20:33 (eight years ago) link

omg I never noticed Kingpin and Juggernaut in that comic until just now

like either of them would even care

Yeezy reupholstered my pussy (DJP), Thursday, 2 December 2010 20:35 (eight years ago) link

I can get Kingpin caring more than Doom or Magneto (maybe he has some kind of "no one abuses NYC unless it's me" thing going on)

Mordy, Thursday, 2 December 2010 20:36 (eight years ago) link

current Magneto at least makes some sense to be there

Doom being there is fucking ludicrous

Yeezy reupholstered my pussy (DJP), Thursday, 2 December 2010 20:37 (eight years ago) link

Yeah doom would def. be on board with it.

WARS OF ARMAGEDDON (Karaoke Version) (Sparkle Motion), Thursday, 2 December 2010 21:04 (eight years ago) link

Doom would just be sad that it would be difficult to outdo in terms of spectacle.

THX THO... (Nicole), Thursday, 2 December 2010 21:09 (eight years ago) link

http://onlinejournalismblog.com/files/2010/01/Flickr_JulianAssange-klein.jpg

^ magneto

(ㅅ) (am0n), Thursday, 2 December 2010 21:13 (eight years ago) link

Kingpin I'd give a pass to (blowing up the WTC = bad for business) but the rest of those dudes? lol

goat, camel, horse, and water buffalo (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 2 December 2010 21:17 (eight years ago) link

Juggernaut would only show up to loot

Yeezy reupholstered my pussy (DJP), Thursday, 2 December 2010 21:18 (eight years ago) link

what the hell are you all talking about?

rip whiney g weingarten 03/11 never forget (history mayne), Thursday, 2 December 2010 21:20 (eight years ago) link

click on some images

Yeezy reupholstered my pussy (DJP), Thursday, 2 December 2010 21:21 (eight years ago) link

damn guys I'm hungry

look at it, pwn3d, made u look at my peen/vadge (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 2 December 2010 21:24 (eight years ago) link

ASSange getting FLAMED/GRILLED
ASS BURGERS

so many levels

Ectothiorhodospira shaposhnikovii (nakhchivan), Thursday, 2 December 2010 21:26 (eight years ago) link

wish this thread had an embedded audioclip of Shepard Smith saying "Julian Asssssahnge"

goat, camel, horse, and water buffalo (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 2 December 2010 21:29 (eight years ago) link

Assflange? Come on, you guys. DISAPPOINTED.

Exotic Flavors of the Midwest, available in corn, bacon, or beef (suzy), Thursday, 2 December 2010 21:31 (eight years ago) link

can't tell from all the comic-book horseshit if you've noticed that Joementum is censoring the internet:

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/12/01/lieberman/index.html

kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 2 December 2010 22:08 (eight years ago) link

the article alfred posted talked about lieberdouche too

can't wait to vote against that useless schmuck in 2 yrs

overtheseas aeroplanes I have flown (k3vin k.), Thursday, 2 December 2010 22:12 (eight years ago) link

Sen. Droopy obviously a colossal asshole I have no love for (where is RIP thread) but seriously do not care that he got Amazon (gasp!) to drop Wikileaks. Like who gives a shit, have you noticed that Wikileaks' crap is all over the place, not exactly hard to find in America... to say nothing of my own distaste for Wikileaks

goat, camel, horse, and water buffalo (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 2 December 2010 22:20 (eight years ago) link

anyway back to comic-book horseshit

(ㅅ) (am0n), Thursday, 2 December 2010 22:24 (eight years ago) link

oh here it is

goat, camel, horse, and water buffalo (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 2 December 2010 22:25 (eight years ago) link

well I'm glad there's somrthing Mo and Palin can agree on.

http://joemygod.blogspot.com/2010/12/pravda-calls-sarah-palin-traitor-to-usa.html

kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 2 December 2010 22:53 (eight years ago) link

:3

(ㅅ) (am0n), Thursday, 2 December 2010 22:57 (eight years ago) link

I didn't say I agreed I said I didn't give a fuck. there is a difference.

goat, camel, horse, and water buffalo (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 2 December 2010 22:59 (eight years ago) link

like that's an inappropriate and legally questionable tactic that Senator Droopy took but at the same time it is a) totally ineffectual and b) largely inconsequential.

I know nuance is hard to grasp in your Mister A/all black and white all the time world

goat, camel, horse, and water buffalo (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 2 December 2010 23:01 (eight years ago) link

Spankin' Sarah Palin comes across as a pitifully inadequate anachronism from the times of the Far West.

Ectothiorhodospira shaposhnikovii (nakhchivan), Thursday, 2 December 2010 23:03 (eight years ago) link

lol, yer the king of nuance, babe

xp

kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 2 December 2010 23:04 (eight years ago) link

Sinister Sarah Palin vs. Spankin Sarah Palin

goat, camel, horse, and water buffalo (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 2 December 2010 23:06 (eight years ago) link

pravda website != pravda the paper

a nan, a bal, an anal ― (abanana), Thursday, 2 December 2010 23:46 (eight years ago) link

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/dec/02/wikileaks-gordon-brown-abysmal-prime-minister

this one is really weak sauce. basically, the us ambassador to the uk read the newspapers.

interesting to hear about brown lobbying for a tobin tax, weird to see the guardian burying that.

rip whiney g weingarten 03/11 never forget (history mayne), Friday, 3 December 2010 00:17 (eight years ago) link

i dunno, u can't complain abt them running it

miss u gordy ;_;

Ectothiorhodospira shaposhnikovii (nakhchivan), Friday, 3 December 2010 00:33 (eight years ago) link

The diplomatic cables confirm that Barack Obama's allies were irritated by Brown's intense manner: he interrupted a Thanksgiving call to the current president's ambassador to lobby for a Tobin tax on financial transactions in the face of US opposition.

kinda lol/sad that he's so socially inept that he can interrupt his own phone calls

Ectothiorhodospira shaposhnikovii (nakhchivan), Friday, 3 December 2010 00:34 (eight years ago) link

i can and shall complain!

all im saying is that the US ambassador for george bush just wrote down shit he read in the times, bfd

gordy was terrible, but not deserving of death like his successors, and i can just about believe he didn't want to leave the world a worse place

rip whiney g weingarten 03/11 never forget (history mayne), Friday, 3 December 2010 00:36 (eight years ago) link

yeah it isn't a thing but he says abysmal so papers are gonna lead w/ it

thought he was a known advocate of 'tobin tax'

Ectothiorhodospira shaposhnikovii (nakhchivan), Friday, 3 December 2010 00:39 (eight years ago) link

it wasn't a big part of their 2010 campaign iirc

rip whiney g weingarten 03/11 never forget (history mayne), Friday, 3 December 2010 00:41 (eight years ago) link

I'll retract what I said a few days ago. Greenwald collects the ugliest offenses, most of which were published in foreign newspapers (in America we've focused on gossip like what We Really Think about Putin):

(1) the U.S. military formally adopted a policy of turning a blind eye to systematic, pervasive torture and other abuses by Iraqi forces;

(2) the State Department threatened Germany not to criminally investigate the CIA's kidnapping of one of its citizens who turned out to be completely innocent;

(3) the State Department under Bush and Obama applied continuous pressure on the Spanish Government to suppress investigations of the CIA's torture of its citizens and the 2003 killing of a Spanish photojournalist when the U.S. military fired on the Palestine Hotel in Baghdad (see The Philadelphia Inquirer's Will Bunch today about this: "The day Barack Obama Lied to me");

(4) the British Government privately promised to shield Bush officials from embarrassment as part of its Iraq War "investigation";

(5) there were at least 15,000 people killed in Iraq that were previously uncounted;

(6) "American leaders lied, knowingly, to the American public, to American troops, and to the world" about the Iraq war as it was prosecuted, a conclusion the Post's own former Baghdad Bureau Chief wrote was proven by the WikiLeaks documents;

(7) the U.S.'s own Ambassador concluded that the July, 2009 removal of the Honduran President was illegal -- a coup -- but the State Department did not want to conclude that and thus ignored it until it was too late to matter;

(8) U.S. and British officials colluded to allow the U.S. to keep cluster bombs on British soil even though Britain had signed the treaty banning such weapons, and,

(9) Hillary Clinton's State Department ordered diplomats to collect passwords, emails, and biometric data on U.N. and other foreign officials, almost certainly in violation of the Vienna Treaty of 1961.

look at it, pwn3d, made u look at my peen/vadge (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 3 December 2010 00:41 (eight years ago) link

ie, Impeach Obama

kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Friday, 3 December 2010 01:45 (eight years ago) link

should go as well as the bush impeachment

(ㅅ) (am0n), Friday, 3 December 2010 02:43 (eight years ago) link

http://www.patriotdepot.com/images/products/detail/Impeach_Obama.jpg

buzza, Friday, 3 December 2010 03:15 (eight years ago) link

patriotdepot.com

max, Friday, 3 December 2010 03:25 (eight years ago) link

George Bush: Decision Points (PRE-ORDER!) with FREE Miss Me Yet Bumper Sticker!
http://www.patriotdepot.com/bushdecisionpoints.aspx

(ㅅ) (am0n), Friday, 3 December 2010 03:39 (eight years ago) link

The Patriot Depot™ is a Division of Discount Book Distributors, LLC. We were founded by publishers in 2007 to offer Politically Conservative/Christian books at below-retail pricing. With ownership based in metro-Atlanta, and our shipping and customer service based in White Hall, West Virginia, The Patriot Depot™ has become America's leading source for politically conservative resources. Our best-selling conservative bumper stickers harness the use of rhetoric to combat the mainstream media's Left-wing propaganda. It is our mission to inspire Americans to return to the conservative values that made America great and exercise their constitutional freedoms to elect leaders who share these values.

buzza, Friday, 3 December 2010 03:41 (eight years ago) link

FREE Miss Me Yet Bumper Sticker!

(ㅅ) (am0n), Friday, 3 December 2010 03:43 (eight years ago) link

^^^^^^amazing use of rhetoric

buzza, Friday, 3 December 2010 03:45 (eight years ago) link

I have Alvy Singer's Impeach Everyone button collection from Annie Hall

kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Friday, 3 December 2010 04:07 (eight years ago) link

but seriously, all US prezzes deserve life w/out parole

kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Friday, 3 December 2010 04:07 (eight years ago) link

Yeah, it's not like it's hard to be a "good" President

The reverse TARDIS of pasta (Niles Caulder), Friday, 3 December 2010 04:09 (eight years ago) link

each night i cry myself to sleep for the poor men who were forced into running for president

overtheseas aeroplanes I have flown (k3vin k.), Friday, 3 December 2010 04:10 (eight years ago) link

You going to do it?

The reverse TARDIS of pasta (Niles Caulder), Friday, 3 December 2010 04:21 (eight years ago) link

i have to say it's strange getting these casual glimpses into the ruling class through the leaked cables. it's like seeing into the window of an upper-class ball, or reading tolstoy or proust in a way. there's even something straight out of the 18th-century about the world that is portrayed in the leaks.

jeevves, Friday, 3 December 2010 05:06 (eight years ago) link

albeit a much more tedious, repugnant 18th-century.

jeevves, Friday, 3 December 2010 05:08 (eight years ago) link

".....the mainstream media's Left-wing propaganda....."

Pashmina, Friday, 3 December 2010 09:51 (eight years ago) link

resisting temptation to rename myself "Joe Lieberman emulates Chinese dictators, VT100"

mini-skirt and gogol books (GOTT PUNCH II HAWKWINDZ), Friday, 3 December 2010 10:49 (eight years ago) link

I'm very impressed by the quality of diplomatic prose.

look at it, pwn3d, made u look at my peen/vadge (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 3 December 2010 12:02 (eight years ago) link

as ever, it's good for giving the veneer of civilization to bloodbaths.

kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Friday, 3 December 2010 12:38 (eight years ago) link

morbius, surveying human history, what strikes you as an admirable civilization?

rip whiney g weingarten 03/11 never forget (history mayne), Friday, 3 December 2010 12:45 (eight years ago) link

Iceland?

Matt DC, Friday, 3 December 2010 12:49 (eight years ago) link

Well they don't use GM ingredients so

absinthe of malithe (Noodle Vague), Friday, 3 December 2010 12:50 (eight years ago) link

anything w/ a non-dogmatic, humane socialism and lack of militarism seems fine to me.

kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Friday, 3 December 2010 12:52 (eight years ago) link

(I can imagine exactly how you're gonna twist that, nrq, don't disappoint me)

kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Friday, 3 December 2010 12:53 (eight years ago) link

that's all very well but there aren't many examples

was tito humane?

Ectothiorhodospira shaposhnikovii (nakhchivan), Friday, 3 December 2010 12:54 (eight years ago) link

John Lewis Partnership?

Matt DC, Friday, 3 December 2010 12:56 (eight years ago) link

he sold his shares ages ago, and in any case waitrose no longer run slave labour coffee fields

Ectothiorhodospira shaposhnikovii (nakhchivan), Friday, 3 December 2010 12:57 (eight years ago) link

nakh, no kiddin'

kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Friday, 3 December 2010 12:59 (eight years ago) link

israel in the 1950s?

Ectothiorhodospira shaposhnikovii (nakhchivan), Friday, 3 December 2010 13:00 (eight years ago) link

Sweden is badass

Telephoneface (Adam Bruneau), Friday, 3 December 2010 15:03 (eight years ago) link

John Bolton admits that those who work in government are not bound by the Constitution:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZNKRQN0owz0

look at it, pwn3d, made u look at my peen/vadge (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 3 December 2010 16:40 (eight years ago) link

admits?

Mordy, Friday, 3 December 2010 17:11 (eight years ago) link

bollton is such a cunt

Ectothiorhodospira shaposhnikovii (nakhchivan), Friday, 3 December 2010 17:12 (eight years ago) link

I can't follow anymore - what IS Assange accused of, in Sweden? It's not rape, apparently? Raping someone without a condom?

StanM, Friday, 3 December 2010 17:28 (eight years ago) link

'sex by surprise' apparently.

Stephens, told AOL News today that Swedish prosecutors told him that Assange is wanted not for allegations of rape, as previously reported, but for something called "sex by surprise," which he said involves a fine of 5,000 kronor or about $715.

***

"We don't even know what 'sex by surprise' even means, and they haven't told us," Stephens said, just hours after Sweden's Supreme Court rejected Assange's bid to prevent an arrest order from being issued against him on allegations of sex crimes.

"Whatever 'sex by surprise' is, it's only a offense in Sweden -- not in the U.K. or the U.S. or even Ibiza," Stephens said. "I feel as if I'm in a surreal Swedish movie being threatened by bizarre trolls. The prosecutor has not asked to see Julian, never asked to interview him, and he hasn't been charged with anything. He's been told he's wanted for questioning, but he doesn't know the nature of the allegations against him."

The strange tale of Assange's brief flings with two Swedish women during a three-day period in mid-August -- and decisions by three different prosecutors to first dismiss rape allegations made by the women and then re-open the case -- has more twists, turns and conspiracy theories than any of [Swedish novelist] Stieg Larsson's best-sellers.

BIG MUFFIN (gbx), Friday, 3 December 2010 17:39 (eight years ago) link

Tuesday, international police agency Interpol said it had issued a "red notice" which allows arrest warrants issued by national police authorities to be circulated to other countries to facilitate arrests and help possible extradition.

"There is no arrest warrant against him. There was an Interpol red notice, which is not a warrant, alerting authorities to monitor his movements," Stephens told Reuters.

***

"We are in this position where we have never been told what the allegations are against him, we do know that he hasn't been charged, we do know that he has only been asked for as a witness," he said.

"We know that ... the offence is one of 'sex by surprise', which is not an offence known in England. He has not been given the evidence against him."

Stephens said Assange was willing to meet Swedish prosecutors but they did not want to meet him.
"We are in a very, very surreal situation at the moment it's like a Swedish fairytale."

BIG MUFFIN (gbx), Friday, 3 December 2010 17:39 (eight years ago) link

"Whatever 'sex by surprise' is, it's only a offense in Sweden -- not in the U.K. or the U.S. or even Ibiza," Stephens said. "I feel as if I'm in a surreal Swedish movie being threatened by bizarre trolls.

look at it, pwn3d, made u look at my peen/vadge (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 3 December 2010 17:41 (eight years ago) link

you, the surprised

max, Friday, 3 December 2010 17:42 (eight years ago) link

surprises from the second floor

max, Friday, 3 December 2010 17:42 (eight years ago) link

that is the best name for a crime I have ever read

"You are wanted... for SEX BY SURPRISE"

I smell a hit single

Yeezy reupholstered my pussy (DJP), Friday, 3 December 2010 17:42 (eight years ago) link

surprises from a marriage

max, Friday, 3 December 2010 17:43 (eight years ago) link

fanny and alexander and SURPRISE!! JULIAN ASSANGE

max, Friday, 3 December 2010 17:43 (eight years ago) link

sounds like a My Life With Thrill Kill Kult song.

look at it, pwn3d, made u look at my peen/vadge (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 3 December 2010 17:43 (eight years ago) link

this is all getting a bit unperson

Ectothiorhodospira shaposhnikovii (nakhchivan), Friday, 3 December 2010 17:43 (eight years ago) link

i'm sure some swedish lawyers can let assange's lawyer know what it's all about

Ectothiorhodospira shaposhnikovii (nakhchivan), Friday, 3 December 2010 17:44 (eight years ago) link

Sex and Whispers

look at it, pwn3d, made u look at my peen/vadge (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 3 December 2010 17:44 (eight years ago) link

swedish newspapers report it as rape, plus some other minor charges. i have no idea what 'sex by surprise' is referring to, this whole thing is so embarrassing.

sonderangerbot, Friday, 3 December 2010 17:44 (eight years ago) link

doubt they'd get an interpol warrant if it was something that couldn't get a custodial sentence

Ectothiorhodospira shaposhnikovii (nakhchivan), Friday, 3 December 2010 17:45 (eight years ago) link

but it's not a warrant

BIG MUFFIN (gbx), Friday, 3 December 2010 17:47 (eight years ago) link

they're tryna get a proper warrant aren't they?

Ectothiorhodospira shaposhnikovii (nakhchivan), Friday, 3 December 2010 17:49 (eight years ago) link

he's sposed to be in the uk

chances of uk not extraditing someone hated by usa = pretty low

Ectothiorhodospira shaposhnikovii (nakhchivan), Friday, 3 December 2010 17:52 (eight years ago) link

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6AP06Z20101203

i mean even if you think the dude is a scumbag, all of this seems pretty fishy to me.

BIG MUFFIN (gbx), Friday, 3 December 2010 17:52 (eight years ago) link

definitely

Ectothiorhodospira shaposhnikovii (nakhchivan), Friday, 3 December 2010 17:54 (eight years ago) link

there is supposedly a proper arrest warrant out by now http://www.thelocal.se/30606/20101203/

xp pretty fishy to say the least

sonderangerbot, Friday, 3 December 2010 17:54 (eight years ago) link

not to demean the severity of the charges but the timing is just too suspicious

i mean this is exactly the sort of think i'd ~arrange~ if i was in the cia

Ectothiorhodospira shaposhnikovii (nakhchivan), Friday, 3 December 2010 17:57 (eight years ago) link

no obvious connections to his 'work', but at worst ends up making him seem like a 'rapey kinda bro'

Ectothiorhodospira shaposhnikovii (nakhchivan), Friday, 3 December 2010 17:58 (eight years ago) link

kind of amazing to see an actual int'l witchhunt unfold in real time, tho.

i have no doubt that he's engaged in "sexual misconduct" of SOME kind, ranging anywhere from "being a jerk" to actual rape, but to involve interpol AT ALL is sorta next level. is there anyone, anywhere, that thinks this is in any way business as usual?? crazy.

xp exactly

BIG MUFFIN (gbx), Friday, 3 December 2010 18:00 (eight years ago) link

there are literally millions of wanted rapists skipping around the globe who do not have interpol red flags on em.

BIG MUFFIN (gbx), Friday, 3 December 2010 18:01 (eight years ago) link

tmi dude

balls, Friday, 3 December 2010 23:40 (eight years ago) link

personally i still think that the (general) principles behind what wikileaks does are far more important than what the leaks have contained

Is basically the exact opposite of what I think. Well, the general principle of increased transparency I agree with, but the specific principles, from what I've seen, are some ideologue overload about how the US government is an authoritarian terrorist conspiracy and the only way to bring it down is to give information the freedom it wants.

It's that, plus the focus on Assange as figurehead, that undermines what's actually coming out in the leaks. The cables have hardly been earth-shattering, but with careful handling there are some really big stories in there, especially (for me) about how craven the UK has been -- and how heavy-handed the US has been with it. They all get lost in the noise about the process, though, which makes me start to wonder whether they actually do care about changing the behaviour of "those who use secrecy to commit unjust acts" or just like to break stuff because publication itself is the highest good. (A stance Cryptome has always taken all the way).

Can't wait for the redefinition of global history, though.

stet, Friday, 3 December 2010 23:50 (eight years ago) link

this is written by Assange's former lawyer. Its very very disturbing. Surely the CIA or someone are behind this shitsmear campaign.

Frank Lloyd Webber (Trayce), Friday, 3 December 2010 23:55 (eight years ago) link

what's interesting to me is that cryptome has been doing exactly what wikileaks has been doing but for 15 years and no one's ever given a shit.

BIG MUFFIN (gbx), Friday, 3 December 2010 23:56 (eight years ago) link

they are not headed by a Bond villain with delusions of GLOBAL HISTORY-CHANGNING grandeur

goat, camel, horse, and water buffalo (Shakey Mo Collier), Saturday, 4 December 2010 00:02 (eight years ago) link

Is wikileaks down or something?

not_goodwin, Saturday, 4 December 2010 00:06 (eight years ago) link

pretty much

goat, camel, horse, and water buffalo (Shakey Mo Collier), Saturday, 4 December 2010 00:07 (eight years ago) link

true, true.

xp
mostly curious if WL has gotten ~better~ intel than cryptome, tho? like, the only people that know about cryptome are internet dorks, security types, and anarcho-libertarians, i think. i forget how i stumbled upon it, tbh (sometime in 99). but WL seemed fairly well-known before all these recent scandals, which maybe meant that they attracted the attn of ppl that weren't aware of cryptome, and that had "good stuff."

BIG MUFFIN (gbx), Saturday, 4 December 2010 00:07 (eight years ago) link

but it's okay because Julian Assange has given the encrypted documents and their passwords to 10,000 people and if "anything happens to him" they will all be released automatically! MAGIC!

this guy is such a fucking moron. sad to see defenders here, honestly.

goat, camel, horse, and water buffalo (Shakey Mo Collier), Saturday, 4 December 2010 00:08 (eight years ago) link

you can get there with their IP address instead of a domain name

213 dot 251 dot 145 dot 96

pixel farmer, Saturday, 4 December 2010 00:09 (eight years ago) link

yeah, the big DNS companies have pulled it. it's got mirrors, though, and it's still up on archive.org

BIG MUFFIN (gbx), Saturday, 4 December 2010 00:10 (eight years ago) link

sad to see defenders here, honestly.

― goat, camel, horse, and water buffalo (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, December 3, 2010 6:08 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark

...defenders of Assange the dude? or WL the enterprise?

BIG MUFFIN (gbx), Saturday, 4 December 2010 00:10 (eight years ago) link

are they really separable at this point?

goat, camel, horse, and water buffalo (Shakey Mo Collier), Saturday, 4 December 2010 00:12 (eight years ago) link

fwiw stet has elaborated my feelings about the matter well enough

goat, camel, horse, and water buffalo (Shakey Mo Collier), Saturday, 4 December 2010 00:13 (eight years ago) link

are they really separable at this point?

― goat, camel, horse, and water buffalo (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, December 3, 2010 6:12 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark

yes? easily? i guess maybe not WL as it is functioning, but WL as an idea still seems pretty defensible.

BIG MUFFIN (gbx), Saturday, 4 December 2010 00:17 (eight years ago) link

so, basically what stet said, ha. (ie - in general, transparency is good. WL, specifically, is kinda whack)

BIG MUFFIN (gbx), Saturday, 4 December 2010 00:19 (eight years ago) link

yeah there's a dozen bob novak columns from a few years back defending the idea pretty much

balls, Saturday, 4 December 2010 00:20 (eight years ago) link

Is basically the exact opposite of what I think. Well, the general principle of increased transparency I agree with, but the specific principles, from what I've seen, are some ideologue overload about how the US government is an authoritarian terrorist conspiracy and the only way to bring it down is to give information the freedom it wants.

Well, Russia is supposedly his next target, so yay for more authoritarian terrorist conspiracies.

look at it, pwn3d, made u look at my peen/vadge (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Saturday, 4 December 2010 00:23 (eight years ago) link

yay for polonium-210

balls, Saturday, 4 December 2010 00:24 (eight years ago) link

oof, russia, really?

somehow have the feeling that they would have no qualms about acing assange in a completely unambiguous fashion. just: iced. putin all shrugging "what're you gonna do about it?"

BIG MUFFIN (gbx), Saturday, 4 December 2010 00:28 (eight years ago) link

also just gonna post that cryptome missive why cuz its intersting

Wikileaks should stop the redactions of names in the diplomatic cables and war files and release untampered documents.

Name redactions are immensely deceptive -- like knee-jerk claiming there are valid grounds for some vital secrets -- they are used to hold hostages under guise of protection. Continue to obey or your name will be revealed. Redact or you will be pilloried in public. (Toot: The New York Times tried the "responsible redaction" scam on Cryptome with the CIA Mossadeq overthrow report.)

Dozens, perhaps hundreds of people are being put at risk by believing they are protected by the phony redaction scam Wikileaks has cowardly joined under pressure to conform to authoritative demands to be "responsible." Far better to tell the truth that the names are already loose so the victims know what the cabal of secretkeepers knows.

As if those who know the true names at redacting authoritatives, at Wikileaks and among the lawyers, editors and personnel at its new big media bedmates will never tell, will tightly control the original documents, will never be subject to betrayal or a burglary or a leak, will never have a trusted insider who acts to inform the world, will never write a tell-all best seller like Daniel Schmidt, will never aspire to be Time's Person of the Year, a Nobelist, a movie star, a sexual predator eager to cut a deal with the authorities.

Assange's craven desire to be an important world player is destructive to the Wikileaks initiative to engage many participants equally with preference for documents not personal fame. Fortunately, multiple wikis for leaking are now being set up unbound by Assange's lack of courage -- presuming that lack of courage is not contagious to the newcomers.

Never redact. No vital secrets. No deals with cheating dealers. No gulling of more Bradley Mannings.

BIG MUFFIN (gbx), Saturday, 4 December 2010 00:29 (eight years ago) link

yeah Russia will just ice this dude.

goat, camel, horse, and water buffalo (Shakey Mo Collier), Saturday, 4 December 2010 00:32 (eight years ago) link

cautiously sympathetic to cryptome's stance, fwiw. that is, if you are in the business of leaking documents, just put them out there. if you're going to edit them down in any way, and go so far as to contact the documents' authors/owners, you may as well undertake the task of doing actual journalism. it could even be said that you ought to.

i mean, can you even consider a redacted document a ~leak~ really?

BIG MUFFIN (gbx), Saturday, 4 December 2010 00:36 (eight years ago) link

That's the conversation I've had with students this week: is their some responsibility for releasing documents even if you're not publishing them yourself?

look at it, pwn3d, made u look at my peen/vadge (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Saturday, 4 December 2010 00:40 (eight years ago) link

do you mean responsibility for the fallout, or that someone holding incendiary documents has some responsibility to ~spread the word~?

BIG MUFFIN (gbx), Saturday, 4 December 2010 00:45 (eight years ago) link

The former but the latter too.

look at it, pwn3d, made u look at my peen/vadge (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Saturday, 4 December 2010 00:46 (eight years ago) link

who knew that a broken condom would cause such a WikiLeak rite

http://www.millenniumfalcon.com/phpbb/images/smiles/mf_emoticon_downboomtish.gif

Hip Hop MCs in Neighbours in my lifetime (King Boy Pato), Saturday, 4 December 2010 00:49 (eight years ago) link

xps to alfred

welllllll, legally? ethically? morally? (talking fallout here)

don't actually know about the first one, and the last two are kinda between you and the little lord baby jesus, tbh.

i mean, isn't the assumption of responsibility part of the journalist's burden? it's scary to be a whistleblower, so you leak info to woodward and bernstein, and they protect your identity until they die, you know?

if, however, you go public with the info yourself (violating NDA/treason laws/whatever), you'd better be ready for whatever shitstorm you get caught in. like, i keep seeing stuff on the internet about poor bradley manning and why won't anyone stand up for him, and it's like, dude, you DID actually break real-live laws, so don't be surprised when you get prosecuted for it.

BIG MUFFIN (gbx), Saturday, 4 December 2010 00:53 (eight years ago) link

we've enshrined in law, iirc, the journalist's right to protect the identities of his informants, right? a journalist is not required to name his sources, even if those sources broke laws to obtain their information. seems pretty central to the whole concept of the fourth estate, if you ask me.

BIG MUFFIN (gbx), Saturday, 4 December 2010 00:57 (eight years ago) link

Those are precisely the conversation topics discussed on Tuesday. It's important they know early that it's not simply enough to discharge information and avoid the consequences. We endure this once a year when, for example, we get names of sexual assault victims. The students' first impulse is to publish it because They Have The Name (it's also not illegal in Florida if the name's released in the public record); we'd have to slow them down, force them to ask, You have the name, but so what? What do you gain from publishing it?

look at it, pwn3d, made u look at my peen/vadge (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Saturday, 4 December 2010 01:01 (eight years ago) link

xp

if those sources are found out, however, they can and probably should bear the responsibility for their actions. that's, like, what the rule of law is for. making informant confidentiality sacrosanct is sort of a release valve for when information ought to be made public, but can't because of institutional constraints (an employee can't violate an NDA, a gov't official can't commit treason, etc).

the journalist as intermediary is in the position of determining the "ought" part, which is what makes their job so hard. something like cryptome removes the intermediary ~entirely~ and indiscriminately. assange's mistake (aside from, well, being himself) is that he seemed to be operating under the assumption that he was a cryptome, when he was, in fact, a "reporter," and a bad one at that.

BIG MUFFIN (gbx), Saturday, 4 December 2010 01:02 (eight years ago) link

we'd have to slow them down, force them to ask, You have the name, but so what? What do you gain from publishing it?

right. cryptome disposes with this reflection completely, which is at least bracing in its ideological simplicity (libertarians in brutally reductive shocker!). WL sorta does this (they ~have~ contacted the administration, after all), but in a hapless way that suggests that they don't actually give a shit.

BIG MUFFIN (gbx), Saturday, 4 December 2010 01:08 (eight years ago) link

We have said that sometimes circumstances will arise in which naming a victim is helpful, but it's up to you guys as journalists to assess the situation. It really is case by case.

look at it, pwn3d, made u look at my peen/vadge (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Saturday, 4 December 2010 01:10 (eight years ago) link

anyway, i think i've settled on cryptome being OK, and good to have around.

that missive upthread makes it pretty clear that while they won't cough up their informants' identities, those informants should also not assume for a second that the responsibility for any fallout lies anywhere but on their own shoulders. so if it somehow comes out that they were the guy that sent a USB drive to cryptome, they should be ready for what follows.

or: by mechanistically publishing ANYTHING they are furnished with, cryptome relieves themselves of responsibility. and if you're gonna give them stuff to publish, you'd better ask yourself the questions alfred's students are considering before you do it.

BIG MUFFIN (gbx), Saturday, 4 December 2010 01:18 (eight years ago) link

http://www.crikey.com.au/2010/12/02/when-it-comes-to-assange-r-pe-case-the-swedes-are-making-it-up-as-they-go-along/

This is a very very interesting read, Trayce.

Telephoneface (Adam Bruneau), Saturday, 4 December 2010 03:19 (eight years ago) link

Though he's pretty patronizing of Sweden. I'm betting whatever laws are in question are in place to protect the rights of women, and on that front they have been way ahead of most of the world for a long time.

Telephoneface (Adam Bruneau), Saturday, 4 December 2010 03:25 (eight years ago) link

Certainly, but I'm always dubious of the idea that a woman can leverage any accusation into an actual criminal charge that easily (sex without a condom = rape? uh). But lets not turn this into a discussion on rape laws cos erk.

Frank Lloyd Webber (Trayce), Saturday, 4 December 2010 04:24 (eight years ago) link

http://i56.tinypic.com/2em1mog.png

StanM, Saturday, 4 December 2010 12:02 (eight years ago) link

Good thing there's no other way for any one of the 2.5 million people with this kind of information access to leak it on the internet!

Telephoneface (Adam Bruneau), Saturday, 4 December 2010 15:12 (eight years ago) link

got this from digby: http://www.nationaljournal.com/columns/common-sense/maybe-the-government-would-earn-more-of-our-trust-if-it-invaded-our-privacy-less-20101202

In Washington’s polarized political environment, Republicans and Democrats seem to agree on a few things: That the government, in the name of fighting terrorism, has the right to listen in on all of our phone conversations and read our e-mails, even if it has no compelling reason for doing so. That the government can use machines at the airport that basically conduct the equivalent of strip searches of every passenger. That the government, for as long as it wants, can withhold any information from the public that it decides is in the national interest and is classified. And that when someone reveals this information, they are reviled on all sides, with the press corps staying silent.

My own sense is that we should err on the side of telling the truth, even when it’s inconvenient or when it makes our lives—or the business of government—more complicated. And that people who tell the truth should at the very least not be denigrated.

overtheseas aeroplanes I have flown (k3vin k.), Saturday, 4 December 2010 15:17 (eight years ago) link

is that what Assange is doing here tho, really? Does "telling the truth" = being kinda jerky?

goat, camel, horse, and water buffalo (Shakey Mo Collier), Saturday, 4 December 2010 15:31 (eight years ago) link

truthfulness for its own sake is p. overrated

Princess TamTam, Saturday, 4 December 2010 15:43 (eight years ago) link

Gotta say that in an age of unprecedented loss of privacy, where citizens of the world have been continuously spied on by their gov'ts often without any reason in public and private, it feels nice - at a base, emotional level - to have the gov'ts get a taste of their own medicine.

Telephoneface (Adam Bruneau), Saturday, 4 December 2010 16:08 (eight years ago) link

Also, its important to remember that "Information wants to be free" has been a hacker M.O. since the 70s.

Telephoneface (Adam Bruneau), Saturday, 4 December 2010 16:09 (eight years ago) link

unprecedented? also 'turnabout is fairplay' historically a great justification, esp if it's the only justification. still amazed the left is so giddy over the (further) destruction of diplomacy as a tool/option in american foreign policy and that ilx didn't rally around karl rove and scooter libby back in the day (how long until an administration figures out how to manipulate this type of leakdump to sell a war? 2 years? 6?)(plus unlike w/ yellowcakegate plausible deniability is builtin). but hey at least 'they' got a taste of their own medicine! totally understand how this is all great if you're a libertarian; i guess i just had no idea there were so many libertarians on ilx (i mean i know morbs is a ron paul supporter).

balls, Saturday, 4 December 2010 16:58 (eight years ago) link

also love how the other actual policy effect to come from this (besides yknow more american unilateralism) is increased secrecy. showed them!

balls, Saturday, 4 December 2010 17:03 (eight years ago) link

it is amazing though to think that before 9/11 the govt wasn't able to perform wiretaps or strip search passengers at airports or classify information under the blanket of national security (remember how they used to broadcast sub movements right after they did the lotto drawing?). what a strange new world we live in.

balls, Saturday, 4 December 2010 17:06 (eight years ago) link

"still amazed the left is so giddy over the (further) destruction of diplomacy as a tool/option in american foreign policy"

Haha what bullshit.

Way more disturbed at how easily near-monopolistic services like Paypal and Amazon are rolling over to US Gov at the drop of a hat than anything Assange/Wikileaks has done.

Fig On A Plate Cart (Alex in SF), Saturday, 4 December 2010 17:37 (eight years ago) link

I don't think they're rolling over to the US Gov as much as they don't want to get involved w/ shit that really can't benefit them

iatee, Saturday, 4 December 2010 18:02 (eight years ago) link

funny timing

k3vin k., Saturday, 4 December 2010 18:03 (eight years ago) link

xp iatee I have a bridge to sell you...

Fig On A Plate Cart (Alex in SF), Saturday, 4 December 2010 18:08 (eight years ago) link

http://images.huffingtonpost.com/gen/138658/GLENN-BECK-CHALKBOARD.jpg

balls, Saturday, 4 December 2010 18:11 (eight years ago) link

still amazed the left is so giddy over the (further) destruction of diplomacy as a tool/option in american foreign policy

If anything 'destroyed diplomacy as a tool,' it's telling Foreign Service bureaucrats to act like James Bond given half a chance.

boots get knocked from here to czechoslovakier (milo z), Saturday, 4 December 2010 18:12 (eight years ago) link

remind me again the cost-benefit analysis of paypal/amazon association w/ scooter assange

balls, Saturday, 4 December 2010 18:13 (eight years ago) link

benefit: become business-hero to this thread, various other msg board threads

iatee, Saturday, 4 December 2010 18:14 (eight years ago) link

cost: none, absolutely none

iatee, Saturday, 4 December 2010 18:15 (eight years ago) link

shocked shocked to find out intel falls under the state dept's purview. next you'll tell me the fed has some influence on monetary policy.

balls, Saturday, 4 December 2010 18:15 (eight years ago) link

smug jeering at "the left" for not supporting whatever the government wants to do = hey, it must be 2003 again

(The Other) J.D. (J.D.), Saturday, 4 December 2010 18:25 (eight years ago) link

intel isn't really supposed to fall under the state dept's purview, btw

BIG MUFFIN (gbx), Saturday, 4 December 2010 18:27 (eight years ago) link

blindly opposing the govt, esp the idea of diplomacy, due to conspiracy minded ranting libertarianism = nope, it's still 2010

balls, Saturday, 4 December 2010 18:29 (eight years ago) link

what's yr point, dude

BIG MUFFIN (gbx), Saturday, 4 December 2010 18:31 (eight years ago) link

having opinions what the fuck

fwiw: lol iirc sb'd u tbqh (dan m), Saturday, 4 December 2010 18:31 (eight years ago) link

it is amazing though to think that before 9/11 the govt wasn't able to perform wiretaps or strip search passengers at airports or classify information under the blanket of national security (remember how they used to broadcast sub movements right after they did the lotto drawing?). what a strange new world we live in.

Yeah, whoever said all these things....man are they ever wrong!

But Balls, yeah you're right about all that. Destruction of privacy been goin' on forever. I have some underground comic from the 70s parodying JFK assassination conspiracies, and they go on and on about warrant-less gov't wiretaps on civilians, the absurd volume of top secret documents churned out daily, etc.

Telephoneface (Adam Bruneau), Saturday, 4 December 2010 18:33 (eight years ago) link

lol at people "opposing the idea of diplomacy" - yes, that's precisely what outrages people about government misconduct, its diplomacy being on the up-and-up

boots get knocked from here to czechoslovakier (milo z), Saturday, 4 December 2010 18:34 (eight years ago) link

i mean at least when karl and scooter pulled this shit they actually achieved their end goal. if you're gonna lean on 'the ends justify the means' it help to actually achive the ends. unless the ends just = get to feel good about 'giving them a taste of their medicine'. which w/ the left it apparently always is.

balls, Saturday, 4 December 2010 18:34 (eight years ago) link

blindly opposing the govt, esp the idea of diplomacy, due to conspiracy minded ranting libertarianism

http://startright-llc.com/blog-im/StrawMan.png

BIG MUFFIN (gbx), Saturday, 4 December 2010 18:35 (eight years ago) link

i mean at least when karl and scooter pulled this shit they actually achieved their end goal. if you're gonna lean on 'the ends justify the means' it help to actually achive the ends. unless the ends just = get to feel good about 'giving them a taste of their medicine'. which w/ the left it apparently always is.

still can't figure out who you're arguing with

BIG MUFFIN (gbx), Saturday, 4 December 2010 18:37 (eight years ago) link

really 'give them a taste of their own medicine' as sole criteria isn't blind opposition to govt? beck's more sophisticated.

balls, Saturday, 4 December 2010 18:38 (eight years ago) link

oh n/m i guess i glossed adam's 'taste of own medicine' comment (which, it should be noted, was qualified pretty explicitly)

BIG MUFFIN (gbx), Saturday, 4 December 2010 18:40 (eight years ago) link

if there's a goal of the left that's actually being helped by wikileaks plz let me know what and how. what ends are being furthered here?

balls, Saturday, 4 December 2010 18:42 (eight years ago) link

also love how the other actual policy effect to come from this (besides yknow more american unilateralism) is increased secrecy. showed them!

Thing is, hackers historically exploit flaws in systems and often have justified such actions by claiming that this actually does help increase security in said systems. Check it out:

The leak has also led the U.S. to tighten, not loosen, its security protocols. After consulting with the White House in the run-up to the WikiLeaks dump, State temporarily cut the link between its NCD database and SIPRNet. CentCom has reimposed its restrictions on using removable media, is newly requiring that a second person approve the download of classified information to an unsecure device and is installing software designed to detect suspicious handling of secrets.

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2034276-4,00.html#ixzz17AaiwxC8

Telephoneface (Adam Bruneau), Saturday, 4 December 2010 18:43 (eight years ago) link

'give them a taste of their own medicine' is my personal gut-level reaction. I didn't say this is the goal of Wikileaks, or reason for the leaks themselves.

Telephoneface (Adam Bruneau), Saturday, 4 December 2010 18:44 (eight years ago) link

so the goal of wikileaks is incresed secrecy and power to the national security apparatus? mission accomplished!

balls, Saturday, 4 December 2010 18:47 (eight years ago) link

seriously though: if there's a goal of the left that's actually being helped by wikileaks plz let me know what and how. what ends are being furthered here?

balls, Saturday, 4 December 2010 18:47 (eight years ago) link

1. new thing to be self-righteous about

iatee, Saturday, 4 December 2010 18:49 (eight years ago) link

wikileaks isn't a project of "the left"

BIG MUFFIN (gbx), Saturday, 4 December 2010 18:49 (eight years ago) link

seriously though: if there's a goal of the left that's actually being helped by wikileaks plz let me know what and how. what ends are being furthered here? note: wikileaks is not a project of 'the left'.

balls, Saturday, 4 December 2010 18:52 (eight years ago) link

Which left are you talking about? The Australian left? The Swedish left?

Telephoneface (Adam Bruneau), Saturday, 4 December 2010 18:53 (eight years ago) link

i mean milosevic wasn't a project of the left either (well the american left at least) but i still was confused/disgusted when the left felt the need to go to bat for him (speaking of 2003).

balls, Saturday, 4 December 2010 18:54 (eight years ago) link

the american left. preemptive: by american i mean 'united states'. feel free to answer what goals of the swedish left are actually being helped by wikileaks though.

balls, Saturday, 4 December 2010 18:56 (eight years ago) link

yr question is smug and inane, dude, and presupposes the fact that no one will be able to answer it to yr satisfaction, which is precisely why you worded it that way.

BIG MUFFIN (gbx), Saturday, 4 December 2010 18:58 (eight years ago) link

balls I agree w/ you in general but talking about 'the left' is probably a bad way to go about it. there's no 'the left' and even 'the american left' is hard to define and has a strange and complicated composition. as you've mentioned lots of the people you're arguing w/ have more in common w/ ron paul than barack obama.

iatee, Saturday, 4 December 2010 18:59 (eight years ago) link

so I'd stick with 'angry internet people'

iatee, Saturday, 4 December 2010 19:00 (eight years ago) link

sorry for assuming the (american) left had goals! keep 'giving them a taste of their own medicine', winning the occasional battle, always losing the war.

balls, Saturday, 4 December 2010 19:00 (eight years ago) link

if you narrow 'the american left' down to smaller sub-groups then yeah, there are goals, but beyond that you're just talking about a vague group that could be composed of 5 to 50% of american voters, depending on how you define it

iatee, Saturday, 4 December 2010 19:03 (eight years ago) link

whereas 'angry internet people' I mean their goals are pretty clear

iatee, Saturday, 4 December 2010 19:04 (eight years ago) link

again, i feel like there's a conflation of wikileaks as it has been operated by assange, and wikileaks as a generic idea. seems pretty clear by now that wikileaks/assange operated under some pretty vaguely defined "principles" that mostly served to feed the dude's ego. and wikileaks as a generic idea (we poop classified documents) isn't novel, or new, at all.

so to ask ppl who aren't in any way associated with it or with "the american left" to defend its existence on the grounds that it serves their supposed goals is really just a set-up for a funny jab at imaginary ron paul supporters or w/e, good job

BIG MUFFIN (gbx), Saturday, 4 December 2010 19:04 (eight years ago) link

balls can you stop arguing with an adam bruneau post or shut the fuck up maybe?

k3vin k., Saturday, 4 December 2010 19:05 (eight years ago) link

iatee i knew morbs was a ron paul dude i'm just shocked/surprised/amused to find out that ilx has gone libertarian when i wasn't looking. to all the non-libertarian ilxor wikileak stans: what vision of american foreign policy, govt, etc do you have that wikileaks is furthering?

balls, Saturday, 4 December 2010 19:06 (eight years ago) link

welcome back, btw

BIG MUFFIN (gbx), Saturday, 4 December 2010 19:06 (eight years ago) link

kevin sorry if 'remind why this is good again' is crossing a line w/ you.

balls, Saturday, 4 December 2010 19:06 (eight years ago) link

o all the non-libertarian ilxor wikileak stans: what vision of american foreign policy, govt, etc do you have that wikileaks is furthering?

who knows! not really relevant, either, tbh

BIG MUFFIN (gbx), Saturday, 4 December 2010 19:08 (eight years ago) link

so any actual effects on policy wikileaks might have aren't relevant? really?

balls, Saturday, 4 December 2010 19:09 (eight years ago) link

not really, no.

its only relevant if it has any bearing on what we (the world, america, internet herbs, w/e) do about its continued existence, really. because, again, tediously, things like wikileaks have existed forever, and will do forever.

BIG MUFFIN (gbx), Saturday, 4 December 2010 19:11 (eight years ago) link

that this recent dumping may have deleterious effects for foreign policy and gov't secrecy is definitely an issue, but i'm not sure why it means that "the american left" suddenly has to justify the actions of a rapist with a website

BIG MUFFIN (gbx), Saturday, 4 December 2010 19:13 (eight years ago) link

it's always fun to pretend the motives/goals of "the left" are more important than actual shit happening in the world, since it permits you to reduce everything that happens down to whether or not some vaguely defined group of people (seriously, who are you talking about? democrats? people who read the nation? the guys on this thread who don't think assange is scooter libby?) is taking the "right" stance or not on something. it's also way easier to win an argument if you can somehow cast the people you oppose as betraying themselves and their principles, rather than just opposing you. (see any number of columns from 2002/2003 asking why leftists were opposing the war -- was it because they were getting soft on totalitarianism??)

(The Other) J.D. (J.D.), Saturday, 4 December 2010 19:16 (eight years ago) link

balls can you tell me how granting ku klux klan leaders permits to hold rallies in public places furthers a goal of the left? given that we on the left don't like racism, should we oppose this?

gotta say i love how words like "libertarian" and "ron paul" are used to browbeat liberals into taking more conservative positions - the intellectual vacancy of trying to invalidate positions by associating them with people we don't like seems pretty self-evident to me and it won't work. also nb ron paul, useless asshole that he is on many other things, has a lot better positions on foreign policy and civil rights than your boyfriend obama

k3vin k., Saturday, 4 December 2010 19:19 (eight years ago) link

its only relevant if it has any bearing on what we (the world, america, internet herbs, w/e) do about its continued existence, really. because, again, tediously, things like wikileaks have existed forever, and will do forever.

― BIG MUFFIN (gbx), Saturday, December 4, 2010 2:11 PM (2 minutes ago) Bookmark

well what do u mean by 'things like'... u talked about cryptome earlier but theyve never even posted a secret government document before, let alone a zillion of them like wikileaks is doing

Princess TamTam, Saturday, 4 December 2010 19:19 (eight years ago) link

gbx otm anyway

k3vin k., Saturday, 4 December 2010 19:21 (eight years ago) link

i don't think they do, which is why i'm curious that so many members of what could be called the american left are rushing to defend the guy. i'm curious as to why so many (presumably non-libertarian) ilxors repping for wikileaks are doing so. i keep bringing up 'give them a taste of their own medicine' cuz it's the only actual motivation that been offered. would welcome others.

balls, Saturday, 4 December 2010 19:23 (eight years ago) link

kevin protecting unpopular speech = a goal of the left presumably (unless the unpopular speech is 'remind me again how wikileaks is good' apparently). also: obama not actually my bf. i'm straight and i believe he's married anyhow.

balls, Saturday, 4 December 2010 19:29 (eight years ago) link

Maybe it's because so many of us are writers or journalists? As a notional editor, Assange is more 'one of us' than not. Also early-adopters of internet anything tend to be freedom of information stans. I don't see how this makes people 'libertarian' in the political affiliation or lowercase sense.

Exotic Flavors of the Midwest, available in corn, bacon, or beef (suzy), Saturday, 4 December 2010 19:31 (eight years ago) link

well what do u mean by 'things like'... u talked about cryptome earlier but theyve never even posted a secret government document before, let alone a zillion of them like wikileaks is doing

― Princess TamTam, Saturday, December 4, 2010 1:19 PM (2 minutes ago) Bookmark

this will probably seem infuriatingly vague, but: ppl have been rebroadcasting information that other ppl would have preferred to be kept secret for frikkin ever. cf woodward/bernstein, and every other plucky cub reporter that gets to the bottom of a vast govt conspiracy or w/e. the distinction between "officially, legally Secret govt document" and "gbx's sex dream journal" isn't a necessary one, it's one we made up because sometimes the gov't really does need to do top secret stuff, and who gives a shit if i fantasized about boning alison brie last night.

basically: outing secret gov't misconduct or just plain old conduct is nothing new. and i personally think that to assume that all secret documents are secret for reasons that serve everyone's best interests all the time is hilariously naive.

BIG MUFFIN (gbx), Saturday, 4 December 2010 19:32 (eight years ago) link

'give them a taste of their own medicine'

Dude you keep bringing that up. I said that is my personal gut level/emotional reaction. I also said it doesn't give a reason for what Wikileaks does. I also said Wikileaks has not said that is why they are doing it. I would like to add that I did not say this will help the left, or any political party. Do you still need more clarification on what I said?

Telephoneface (Adam Bruneau), Saturday, 4 December 2010 19:33 (eight years ago) link

xp - You're really surprised that civil libertarians on the left are defending Wikileaks? Seriously?

boots get knocked from here to czechoslovakier (milo z), Saturday, 4 December 2010 19:33 (eight years ago) link

Maybe it's because so many of us are writers or journalists? As a notional editor, Assange is more 'one of us' than not. Also early-adopters of internet anything tend to be freedom of information stans. I don't see how this makes people 'libertarian' in the political affiliation or lowercase sense.

if you're a freedom of information stan w/ no exception, then you pretty clearly are a libertarian on that issue at least

iatee, Saturday, 4 December 2010 19:34 (eight years ago) link

Maybe it doesn't matter if you're a stan or not, shit like this is gonna happen regardless.

Telephoneface (Adam Bruneau), Saturday, 4 December 2010 19:36 (eight years ago) link

i don't think they do, which is why i'm curious that so many members of what could be called the american left are rushing to defend the guy.

no one is doing this. or at least no one is going to bat as a character witness or anything. he seems like a self-aggrandizing a-hole. is it weird that he's been targeted by interpol for a sex crime? yeah, i think so. does that mean i like him, want to be his friend, or think that what he's been doing is a great idea? no, not really.

BIG MUFFIN (gbx), Saturday, 4 December 2010 19:36 (eight years ago) link

if you're a freedom of information stan w/ no exception, then you pretty clearly are a libertarian on that issue at least

― iatee, Saturday, December 4, 2010 1:34 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark

i am also a freedom of sit wherever you want on the bus stan so i am pretty clearly a libertarian on that issue, too. what the fuck is your point

BIG MUFFIN (gbx), Saturday, 4 December 2010 19:37 (eight years ago) link

my point is that suzy said " I don't see how this makes people 'libertarian' in the political affiliation or lowercase sense."

iatee, Saturday, 4 December 2010 19:37 (eight years ago) link

ok, so maybe she meant 'uppercase sense.' bfd.

BIG MUFFIN (gbx), Saturday, 4 December 2010 19:40 (eight years ago) link

if you're a freedom of information stan w/ no exception, then you pretty clearly are a libertarian on that issue at least

― iatee, Saturday, December 4, 2010 2:34 PM (6 minutes ago)

please name a person who is a freedom of information stan with no exception