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

1. new thing to be self-righteous about

wikileaks isn't a project of "the left"

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'.

Which left are you talking about? The Australian left? The Swedish left?

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).

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.

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.

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.

so I'd stick with 'angry internet people'

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.

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

whereas 'angry internet people' I mean their goals are pretty clear

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

balls can you stop arguing with an adam bruneau post or shut the fuck up maybe?

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?

welcome back, btw

kevin sorry if 'remind why this is good again' is crossing a line w/ you.

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

so any actual effects on policy wikileaks might have aren't relevant? really?

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.

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

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??)

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

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

gbx otm anyway

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.

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.

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.

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.

'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?

xp - You're really surprised that civil libertarians on the left are defending Wikileaks? Seriously?

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

Maybe it doesn't matter if you're a stan or not, shit like this is gonna happen regardless.

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.

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

my point is that suzy said " I don't see how this makes people 'libertarian' in the political affiliation or lowercase sense."

ok, so maybe she meant 'uppercase sense.' bfd.

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

assange?

j.d. i'm not sure they are betraying their principles! i'm just asking why they're defending wikileaks, what's the rationale? how is wikileaks helping? i'm also not asking 'the american left' since apparently none of the wikileaks stans here identify with it, i'm just asking if any of the wikileaks defenders here why they are repping for wikileaks. genuinely openminded here! not a huge fan of bloated national security apparatus! doubtful that 'well it has caused the govt to examine and tighten secrecy procedures' is the reason for the love here! apparently 'sells newspapers' is though!

gbx do you think jonathan pollard should be pardoned? how about scooter libby? or aldrich ames?

Hacker groupies

http://webtvdeluxe.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/angelina.jpg

He does it for the booty.

honestly think this really does boil down to a freedom of speech issue (in the abstract sense, not the constitutional sense). julian assange received (but did not himself obtain) sensitive documents. he chose to release them, lightly edited. whether or not this was wise still remains to be seen, in the long run. it's entirely possible, even likely, that history will not judge him kindly. however, what he did still qualifies, to me, as an act of 'speech' and i don't think he should be punished in any institutional way for it. now, if he had been a govt employee or american citizen or w/e, he'd have to face the consequences because that's part of the deal. but he's not. he's a creepy australian with a website and does not fall under the jurisdiction of the people he's pissed off. tough shit!

this doesn't mean we can't think that what he did was wrong/stupid/unethical/whatever, but it does, in my opinion, mean that we can't crack down on him because the only way to do that at this point is to try and pull the plug on the internet. which is a) kinda impossible and b) wrong.

xp

gbx do you think jonathan pollard should be pardoned? how about scooter libby? or aldrich ames?

― balls, Saturday, December 4, 2010 1:48 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark

no. for reasons that ought to be clear by now.

scooter libby: tried and convicted for breaking the law.

jonathan pollard: tried and convicted for breaking the law.

aldrich ames: tried and convicted for breaking the law.

THANK YOU!

This is the first time we have seen an attempt at the international community level to censor a website dedicated to the principle of transparency. We are shocked to find countries such as France and the United States suddenly bringing their policies on freedom of expression into line with those of China. We point out that in France and the United States, it is up to the courts, not politicians, to decide whether or not a website should be closed.

http://en.rsf.org/wikileaks-hounded-04-12-2010,38958.html

I think the reactions of gov'ts are atm more interesting than trying to get into Assange's mind.

and more to the point, breaking laws that were specific to their crimes. as far as i know, there is no law in the US, nor can there be, that can try and convict foreign nationals for pissing off the US govt. they're not citizens! our laws literally do not apply to them! i mean ffs this is exactly what's so disgusting about gitmo etc.

i mean maybe we can classify him as an enemy combatant and torture him in a cell in central asia somewhere, but there is nothing legal and above-board that the US can do about his existence except fume about it.

xp

THANK YOU!

― balls, Saturday, December 4, 2010 1:54 PM (2 minutes ago) Bookmark

you're welcome?

nb - if, say, ames had leaked his intel to an american reporter, who then turned around and published it in the newspaper, i'd say that a) ames should still have been tried and b) the reporter should not have.