kind of shooting fish in a barrel obv but greenwald owns these retards
― k3vin k., Tuesday, 28 December 2010 22:58 (thirteen years ago) link
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XInz4i6AV8M
^^^^ Saw it this morning. Great stuff.
― Gus Van Sotosyn (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 28 December 2010 22:58 (thirteen years ago) link
Ok, this woman is really really stupid. k3v otm that shooting fish in a barrel and I'd really like to see Greenwald argue with someone who actually knows what they're talking about.
― Mordy, Tuesday, 28 December 2010 23:09 (thirteen years ago) link
"do you think it's ironic that he's getting his book published by a major corporation?""yes, thank you for pointing out the important literary elements of this political story."
― Mordy, Tuesday, 28 December 2010 23:10 (thirteen years ago) link
The problem: no one who opposes the release of the information or supports criminal prosecution of Assange knows what he's talking about.
― Gus Van Sotosyn (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 28 December 2010 23:11 (thirteen years ago) link
That's half true. No one who supports criminal prosecution knows what they're talking about (presumably, tho I've seen some cases made for prosecution lately that are compelling) but there are people who oppose the release of information who make strong cases against their release.
― Mordy, Tuesday, 28 December 2010 23:17 (thirteen years ago) link
Re the first thing, I'm not enough of a legal scholar to evaluate the merits of this - http://www.slate.com/id/2278922/ - but it seems well reasoned to me.
― Mordy, Tuesday, 28 December 2010 23:18 (thirteen years ago) link
It's not reasonable at all, in my opinion. To believe in the efficacy of the Espionage Act as passed by the Wilson administration, you'd think subversives posed so much of a threat that they disrupted the preparation and prosecution of a (needless) war.
Besides, subsequent SCOTUS rulings on the First Amendment have gutted most of the Act.
― Gus Van Sotosyn (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 28 December 2010 23:24 (thirteen years ago) link
Greenberg allows several cavils, but he basically accepts the Wilson administration's justifications, which history has repudiated.
― Gus Van Sotosyn (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 28 December 2010 23:25 (thirteen years ago) link
wrt the book deal = profiting from espionage
seems like a stretch to me---would they have to prove that the main reason he released the docs was to someday bag a book deal? or do they merely have to prove that without the release of the docs there would be no book deal? the whole thing seems outlandish but I swear I read that this was an avenue of investigation for the doj
― kanellos (gbx), Tuesday, 28 December 2010 23:37 (thirteen years ago) link
ha that was the worst part of the segment - if I was in greenwald's place I'd have just said "who cares"
― k3vin k., Tuesday, 28 December 2010 23:40 (thirteen years ago) link
the whole thing was hilar
― kanellos (gbx), Tuesday, 28 December 2010 23:44 (thirteen years ago) link
Bush lady sounded like a crazy person.
― Fig On A Plate Cart (Alex in SF), Tuesday, 28 December 2010 23:47 (thirteen years ago) link
to be fair she was george w bush's national security advisor
― k3vin k., Wednesday, 29 December 2010 00:36 (thirteen years ago) link
Her utterly meager 'thank you' at the end was hilarious
― WARS OF ARMAGEDDON (Karaoke Version) (Sparkle Motion), Wednesday, 29 December 2010 01:27 (thirteen years ago) link
this Wired chat logs controversy thing is O_O conspiracy insanity
― Mordy, Thursday, 30 December 2010 03:37 (thirteen years ago) link
It seems to be settled now since the Wired folks have indicated that none of what Lamo has been saying to the press lately is actually in the logs they have.
― Fig On A Plate Cart (Alex in SF), Thursday, 30 December 2010 16:22 (thirteen years ago) link
http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2010/12/2010122971637433801.html
― kanellos (gbx), Thursday, 30 December 2010 22:28 (thirteen years ago) link
Heavy Metal Islam: Rock, Religion and the Struggle for the Soul of Islam
― Fig On A Plate Cart (Alex in SF), Thursday, 30 December 2010 22:33 (thirteen years ago) link
that greenberg essay is specious, credulous rubbish, loaded with weasel words -- pretty much like everything else he's ever written for slate, as far as i can remember.
― (The Other) J.D. (J.D.), Friday, 31 December 2010 21:34 (thirteen years ago) link
CBS News does an excellent public service, linking to everything revealed by WikiLeaks.
― Gus Van Sotosyn (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Saturday, 1 January 2011 18:47 (thirteen years ago) link
i'm sure that will be illegal soon too
― k3vin k., Saturday, 1 January 2011 20:26 (thirteen years ago) link
WikiLeaks: US targets EU over GM cropsUS embassy cable recommends drawing up list of countries for 'retaliation' over opposition to genetic modification The US embassy in Paris advised Washington to start a military-style trade war against any European Union country which opposed genetically modified (GM) crops, newly released WikiLeaks cables show.In response to moves by France to ban a Monsanto GM corn variety in late 2007, the ambassador, Craig Stapleton, a friend and business partner of former US president George Bush, asked Washington to penalise the EU and particularly countries which did not support the use of GM crops."Country team Paris recommends that we calibrate a target retaliation list that causes some pain across the EU since this is a collective responsibility, but that also focuses in part on the worst culprits."The list should be measured rather than vicious and must be sustainable over the long term, since we should not expect an early victory. Moving to retaliation will make clear that the current path has real costs to EU interests and could help strengthen European pro-biotech voices," said Stapleton, who with Bush co-owned the St Louis-based Texas Rangers baseball team in the 1990s.http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jan/03/wikileaks-us-eu-gm-crops
The US embassy in Paris advised Washington to start a military-style trade war against any European Union country which opposed genetically modified (GM) crops, newly released WikiLeaks cables show.
In response to moves by France to ban a Monsanto GM corn variety in late 2007, the ambassador, Craig Stapleton, a friend and business partner of former US president George Bush, asked Washington to penalise the EU and particularly countries which did not support the use of GM crops.
"Country team Paris recommends that we calibrate a target retaliation list that causes some pain across the EU since this is a collective responsibility, but that also focuses in part on the worst culprits.
"The list should be measured rather than vicious and must be sustainable over the long term, since we should not expect an early victory. Moving to retaliation will make clear that the current path has real costs to EU interests and could help strengthen European pro-biotech voices," said Stapleton, who with Bush co-owned the St Louis-based Texas Rangers baseball team in the 1990s.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jan/03/wikileaks-us-eu-gm-crops
― Telephoneface (Adam Bruneau), Monday, 3 January 2011 15:59 (thirteen years ago) link
Some nonsense in here, but worth a read.
― Gus Van Sotosyn (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, 3 January 2011 21:28 (thirteen years ago) link
I think it's a damn shame Manning is in solitary.
I think the US govt is making a reactionary punchline out of itself.
I think we've wasted a lot of time and money in the last couple of months treating web pages in the same way the pope treats sacrament crackers (it's just information if you read it at home, if you read it at work - IT'S THE BODY OF SECRETS)
I think this will produce some myopic policy flim flam in the short term, but in the long term, it's kind of like what J Blount said ages ago about social conservatives. Gay people are going to get "married," people gonna smoke weed, folks gonna be weird colors and you can't stop any of it no matter what you do.
The classification process and marking rigor are based in a hard copy world, and hard copy world has met ragnorok. We - intelligence, law enforcement, et al. - need to learn a lot, very quickly, from the private sector, about how to protect sensitive data from adversaries and risky business. Ye Olde walled garden has been Ye Olde since Hanssen at least, and the movie they make about Manning isn't going to make this shit show look any better.
This post has been an excellent example of writing as a thought exercise. Thank you ILX! Also, everyone in the entire world should read this speech (has nothing to do with the thread but I like it): http://www.theamericanscholar.org/solitude-and-leadership/
― El Tomboto, Thursday, 6 January 2011 05:54 (thirteen years ago) link
hi tombot
― gr8080, Thursday, 6 January 2011 08:08 (thirteen years ago) link
Hey Tom! Been waiting fr your take on this :)
― Ex Loin Tamer (Trayce), Thursday, 6 January 2011 08:28 (thirteen years ago) link
(as someone who is ex-dealing with classified old school myself, I find this shit p interesting)
"I think this will produce some myopic policy flim flam in the short term"
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40916433/ns/us_news-wikileaks_in_security/
"Office of Management and Budget suggests that agencies use psychiatrists and sociologists to measure the 'relative happiness' of workers or their 'despondence and grumpiness' as a way to assess their trustworthiness. The memo was sent this week to senior officials at all agencies that use classified material."
― Control Z, Thursday, 6 January 2011 08:49 (thirteen years ago) link
7000-word Vanity Fair piece on The Guardian's dealings with WikiLeaks
― Alba, Thursday, 6 January 2011 09:45 (thirteen years ago) link
Not really the place for it, but a man appeared on the local news the other day called "Tom Bott".
― Alba, Thursday, 6 January 2011 09:46 (thirteen years ago) link
Its interesting Control z's link starts with "the Obama administration" rather than "the US government".
― Ex Loin Tamer (Trayce), Thursday, 6 January 2011 10:01 (thirteen years ago) link
I don't know if journalists really say "the Obama administration" more than they said "the Bush administration"!
― Hans Peter Cutlassin' (crüt), Thursday, 6 January 2011 10:05 (thirteen years ago) link
Oh wasn't suggesting they were! Just find it an interesting angle.
― Ex Loin Tamer (Trayce), Thursday, 6 January 2011 10:20 (thirteen years ago) link
presumably "the X administration" is heard/emphasized more in the u.s. not for politically motivated reasons but because it's not a westminster system, so you need to distinguish the executive from the legislature
― caek, Thursday, 6 January 2011 10:53 (thirteen years ago) link
Yep
― progressive cuts (Tracer Hand), Thursday, 6 January 2011 11:02 (thirteen years ago) link
the vf piece digested http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/01/06/assange_guardian_wikileaks_leak/
― caek, Thursday, 6 January 2011 14:59 (thirteen years ago) link
Assange is such a pompous arse.
― Matt DC, Thursday, 6 January 2011 15:03 (thirteen years ago) link
Nevermind him or what an evil man we're supposed to think he is. What's in the leaks is all that matters.
― StanM, Thursday, 6 January 2011 15:27 (thirteen years ago) link
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/jan/08/us-twitter-hand-icelandic-wikileaks-messages
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/01/07/twitter/subpoena.pdf
― StanM, Saturday, 8 January 2011 15:20 (thirteen years ago) link
good overview & updates here too:http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/01/07/twitter/index.html
― StanM, Saturday, 8 January 2011 15:22 (thirteen years ago) link
― StanM
Correct - there will continue to be a deluge of ad hominem attacks on Assange and his supporters. Distraction from the content of the leaks is the sole intent.
― moley, Saturday, 8 January 2011 22:54 (thirteen years ago) link
feel like it would be harder to distract people from the content of the leaks if anyone made a strong case for what we should do with the leak information. instead there's always this unspoken action i feel like we're expected to take (esp wrt greenwald's posts on this -- 'they just want to distract you from the important issues') but i understand the problem. the question of how to effect change / or move to action are always a trickier question than getting angry. the natural consequence of information is always a call to action, and without that action the information just dies. would be interested in seeing greenwald be more of an activist but a) maybe he's not so interested in that (tho he is playing an important role in Manning's defense so maybe he is and b) he would probably have to move back to the US for an extended period of time.
serious question; I've read many of the leaks, many articles that illuminate particular leaks, etc, etc. I believe that the leaks are accurate and in some cases very interesting. now what? if there's nothing else to do after reading them, maybe we should talk about the ad hominems. it's about as productive as just ignoring the wikileaks entirely. at least it keeps the story alive (even in a bastardized even less useful form)
― Mordy, Saturday, 8 January 2011 23:22 (thirteen years ago) link
some typos. i'm tired.
The leaks and the ridiculous knee jerk reaction to their appearance only make me suspect this is a unique, one time only, chance us nobodies will ever get to find out how some stuff really works. Sometimes the tin foil hatters were right after all, who would have guessed, eh? (attention tin foil hatters: I said sometimes. Don't use this as another one of your TheySaidGalileoWasWrongToo arguments)
The only effects they will have is that a couple of people will end up in jail for 300,000 years (x years for every document), that security will be tightened up to the extreme for this kind of communication from now on, that there will be even more restrictions on freedom on the internet for everyone and not one thing will change about the way international diplomacy/economic backroom dealings are done.
― StanM, Saturday, 8 January 2011 23:38 (thirteen years ago) link
idk that the tin foil hatters were right. every terrible thing this has revealed displays incompetence and dumbassery (with maybe the exception of hilary spygate revelation) than grand conspiracy. if anything it makes it sound conspiracies are a terrible way to understand politics
― Mordy, Saturday, 8 January 2011 23:40 (thirteen years ago) link
Another nice Grenwald peice:
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/01/10/fear/index.html
― Ex Loin Tamer (Trayce), Tuesday, 11 January 2011 00:41 (thirteen years ago) link
that security will be tightened up to the extreme for this kind of communication from now on, that there will be even more restrictions on freedom on the internet for everyone and not one thing will change about the way international diplomacy/economic backroom dealings are done
I completely disagree."security" in the bureaucratic sense will be ratcheted up for official business communiques, which just means that more and more bureaucrats will begin moving to idiosyncratic side channels to discuss their business because the provided apparatus will just become more and more inconvenient compared to the relative degree of secrecy and progressively weaker arguments for that secrecy's absolute necessity in every exchange.
restrictions on internet liberties become generally more impossible to enforce every day, so that's just silly.
the way that international diplomacy and "backroom dealings" are done is going to change a lot, as per my first paragraph, although the degree to which it is affected and/or how quickly is dependent on how prolific wikileaks is - both in terms of how many more incorrigible bean spillers wikileaks can attract before it inevitably fades into irrelevance, and how many committed copycats spring up, of whatever stripe or purported mission.
generally, I like to think the whole "diplomatic wire" system will eventually be replaced by a taxpayer-funded uglification of Yammer, which embassy and consulate employees will constantly update from their taxpayer-purchased red rubber tablets that literally do nothing else, not even flashlight apps.
― El Tomboto, Tuesday, 11 January 2011 02:30 (thirteen years ago) link
http://mumbrella.com.au/murdoch-features-in-wikileaks-cables-38214
Wikileaks’ next target could be major media organisations, its leader Julian Assange has hinted.In an interview due to be published by New Statesman magazine, Assange says of the leaked diplomatic cables: “”There are 504 US embassy cables on one broadcasting organisation and there are cables on Murdoch and News Corp.”
In an interview due to be published by New Statesman magazine, Assange says of the leaked diplomatic cables: “”There are 504 US embassy cables on one broadcasting organisation and there are cables on Murdoch and News Corp.”
― goldenarsehat.jpg (Schlafsack), Thursday, 13 January 2011 22:27 (thirteen years ago) link