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

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.

'scooter assange' yeah good one

if there is a goal of 'the left' to be found here it's to make everyone hate america a little more, so, uh yeah 'scooter assange' i guess

Iatee, where did you pull 'no exceptions' from what I wrote? Honestly...

if anything (dunno who said this on ilx) i'm a little heartened that our foreign agents seem to have a p accurate picture of the world. karzai is corrupt? berlusconi like-a to party? etc. we can't say of our leaders that they just didn't know...

anyone who's defending assange's actions (not their legality) is basically defending the idea of 'no exceptions'

no on is doing that

oops

i think the dude we ought to be really talking about is bradley manning fwiw. not that i have anything to say. yeah it looks like he broke the law.

can't wait for the dump on the banks tho, if 'scooter' survives that long

k3v's done it throughout the thread! xp

I am 100% for the dump on the banks fwiw xp

assuming it's about the banks doing illegal shit and not about their affairs or whatever

idk dude i don't think any poster here or pundit in the world thinks every last thing assange has done has been awesome. neglecting to redact the names of afghan informants was a regrettable mistake. the argument that undermining diplomacy increases the likelihood of war is perfectly legitimate - i don't necessarily think that's the case here tho, first of all, and i'd disagree that it'd be wikileaks' "fault".

xp iatee

yeah, def pumped for the bank dump

same

also, c'mon, the fact that we're anticipating another hit from wikileaks serves to buttress the idea that it's a useful thing to have around, just so long as the person(s) in charge aren't idiots

color me skeptical it will yield any results (beyond a pr hit and brief stockdip to bank of america supposedly); someone noted 'think if we knew what we now know about enron' but the thing w/ enron (and most financial scandals) is the information was out there already, what was lacking was any action or consequences. not sure this infodump will change that. still considering how many banking practices are designed to fuck the poor a few juicy memos and other gossip illustrating that could spur some action or at least pressure for action. worked w/ big tobacco.

that's assange's exact logic for gov't. 'color me skeptical'.

i'm just asking if any of the wikileaks defenders here why they are repping for wikileaks. genuinely openminded here!

Love to read how my government is (mis)spending my money on foreign wars and bankrupt crypto-terrorist regimes like Saudi Arabia. According to Robert Gates, no one has died yet as a result of these leaks, so ayo.

US Politics: Pumped for the bank dump

lol

I can't say that there will be any immediate useful policy changes resulting from damning info like the debacle w/the Honduran coup, but I'd like to think that it might help proponents of peace/democracy/socialism in South/Central America at least a smidgen in being able to call bullshit on our lip service in future situations and maybe eventually corralling up enough public support to be able to demand even minor positive actions from our gov't towards our southern neighbors. Wishful thinking, I know, but one can dream.