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

Greenwald is mostly otm:

Just to underscore the climate of lawless initmidation that has been created: before WikiLeaks was on many people's radars (i.e., before the Apache video release), I wrote about the war being waged on them by the Pentagon, interviewed Assange, and urged people to donate money to them. In response, numerous people asked -- both in comments and via email -- whether they would be in danger, could incur legal liability for providing material support to Terrorism or some other crime, if they donated to WikiLeaks. Those were American citizens expressing that fear over an organization which had never been remotely charged with any wrongdoing.

Similarly, I met several weeks ago with an individual who once worked closely with WikiLeaks, but since stopped because he feared that his country -- which has a very broad extradition treaty with the U.S. -- would arrest him and turn him over to the Americans upon request. He knew he had violated no laws, but given that he's a foreigner, he feared -- justifiably -- that he could easily be held by the United States without charges, denied all sorts of basic rights under the Patriot Act, and otherwise be subject to a system of "justice" which recognizes few limits or liberties, especially when dealing with foreigners accused of aiding Terrorists.

All the oppressive, lawless policies of the last decade -- lawless detention, Guantanamo, disappearing people to CIA black sites, rendition, the torture regime, denial of habeas corpus, drones, assassinations, private mercenary forces, etc. -- were designed, first and foremost, to instill exactly this fear, to deter any challenge. Many of these policies continue, and that climate of fear thus endures (see this comment from today as but one of many examples). As the treatment just thus far of WikiLeaks and Assange demonstrates, that reaction -- though paralyzing and counter-productive -- is not irrational. And one thing is for sure: there is nothing the U.S. Government could do -- no matter how lawless or heinous -- which (with rare exception) would provoke the objections of the American establishment media.

yeah pretty much

we're at a point now where it's hard (for me, anyway) to conceive of a future in which "individual privacy rights" exist in the way that that they were defined during most of the 20th century. it seems much more reasonable to say, "that which can be known will be known, and that which is known will be shared."

but this annihilation of the private will likely begin to affect governments and large organizations, too.

― phish in your sleazebag (contenderizer), Monday, December 6, 2010 2:24 PM (3 hours ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

otm

That Assange provoked this reaction basically over trivial bullshit speaks volumes about his character/competency.

Yes, fearmongering and intimidation by the US government "over trivial bullshit" speaks volumes about Assange!

well i thnk what he means is that assange probably knew this would happen and blew his chance to provoke the govt over some other, more "important" ish

He knowingly annoyed more than 51 world leaders.

I'm just saying the trade-off isn't worth it. If he'd leaked something that was of like actual factual SHOCKING VALUE it's conceivable that the ramifications of that would offset the expected gov't reaction. That didn't happen.

instead Assange wanted to play self-righteous martyr

well we've still got ufos to look forward to

has Assange been such a peacock? Serious question.

he may get to do more than "play" martyr pretty soon, btw

his actions in some ways resemble those of various civl rights movements throughout the ages, it could be enlightening to examine them as such

its just lunch, its just a garment, its just info, nbd

has Assange been such a peacock? Serious question.

I think claiming you're going to CHANGE THE COURSE OF GLOBAL HISTORY is pretty presumptuous

his actions in some ways resemble those of various civl rights movements throughout the ages, it could be enlightening to examine them as such

if you mean the provoking a disproportionate reaction to elicit sympathy from the public at large, I'm not sure if this dude is really eliciting much sympathy...

he certainly is

anyway, i just think beefing with assange over all of this is wildly and weirdly misplaced. sure he's a self-absorbed d-bag and possible rapist who no doubt loves the prospect of being an hero to millions of...whoever, but it doesn't change the fact that we are watching, in real-time, the lengths some of our elected officials will go to to excoriate and gag what basically counts, under law, as "journalism"

that he chose the wrong battle is starting to become irrelevant at this point---that there's a "battle" at all is what should really be of concern

haha for real, just cuz you don't like him shakey doesn't mean that there are legions of ppl who str8 up think that the dude is a real-deal hero

aren't

apart from this thread I haven't really seen any

we are watching, in real-time, the lengths some of our elected officials will go to to excoriate and gag what basically counts, under law, as "journalism"

not saying this is complete bullshit, but id be careful. what's going on is a redefinition of journalism, or of the public interest. assange's admirers think the US state is basically illegitimate at this point so that any kind of revelation is allowed. under old rules, however, no, releasing tons of internal state dept memos is not journalism.

assange has somewhat become a standard bearer for a moment, and theres nothing that his enemies would like better than to make this abt some foreign weirdo sex criminal, but the issues his actions address are really seeing increased daylight - now if this coalesces into a movement, which for sure the infrastructure and sentiment are in place for, then he will have changed the course of history

suspect gbx is making a strictly legal distinction there, hm

xp

now if this coalesces into a movement, which for sure the infrastructure and sentiment are in place for, then he will have changed the course of history

I doubt this outcome very, very much

i dunno, i think this is really similar in so many particulars to the pentagon papers. that was journalism plain and simple. and the reaction of american hawks and semi-hawks was basically identical too, right?

now if this coalesces into a movement, which for sure the infrastructure and sentiment are in place for, then he will have changed the course of history

― ice cr?m, Monday, December 6, 2010 11:19 PM (50 seconds ago) Bookmark

idk if ur trollin

but wd love to see how this movement would run foreign policy

if anything what's new here is the personality of assange as a kind of advertisement for the technological novelty of wikileaks itself.

ellsberg mimeographed the PP's himself and shopped it around to establishment editors he knew (iirc).

assange has been grabbing data and banging the drum for the media to pick it up for years and only kinda got it to work when he fucked around with the US military/became a 'news celebrity' (chicken-egg here)

Ellsberg >>>>> Assange

rather obviously

shakey youll never go broke betting against important things happening as most things that happen arent that important, but you should wonder if yr knee jerk cynicism isnt clouding yr ability to even see things

ice, where is this movement, and what will it do?

rip history

even now as we speak future foreign policy leaders of tomorrow are wiping their evil-doing ways and embarking on a new positive career path that will slowly transform america, and then the world awesomesauce

idk if ur trollin

but wd love to see how this movement would run foreign policy

― rip whiney g weingarten 03/11 never forget (history mayne), Monday, December 6, 2010 6:21 PM (3 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

im just trying to game dudes motivation here, and not really making any judgement on probability of success, lord up in heaven knows its always a longshot to accomplish important things, this is maybe just abt holding governments accountable using our fancy new internet tools, its kinda obamaish really

is it napster for secrets and lies?

this is maybe just abt holding governments accountable using our fancy new internet tools

this is a good idea! assange should look into it.

yeah I don't really get how publishing a laundry list of places the State Dept deems important is "holding government accountable" really

same with exposing diplomats conversations

i guess you guys don't quite have state healthcare, but, well, plenty of information that wants to be free there. plenty of secrets to be exposed, cost-benefit analyses to be made.

yeah I don't really get how publishing a laundry list of places the State Dept deems important all of the documents wiikileaks has released is "holding government accountable" really

― goat, camel, horse, and water buffalo (Shakey Mo Collier), Monday, December 6, 2010 6:32 PM (10 seconds ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

on some level its at this point merely pointing out when their public rhetoric hasnt matched up to their private actions - but theres also something to the way the establishment has reacted that shows how scared they are - people are i think vibing to that

this is all obvs in its infancy - so its compelling to imagineer it into the future - regardless of what exact shape it takes i think we can agree that the internet will remake government like it has everything else its touched

btw i am now an eco blog

assange's admirers think the US state is basically illegitimate at this point so that any kind of revelation is allowed. under old rules, however, no, releasing tons of internal state dept memos is not journalism.

pssst guess what, you're not american, our rules are different, and we enjoy a free press. and also guess what: under old rules, yes, releasing tons of internal state memos IS journalism, in the legal sense. cf pentagon papers (which were Top Secret, btw). making available the documents themselves is, again, in a legal sense, virtually identical to reporting in detail on the contents thereof, which is absolutely enshrined under the first amendment. how assange is qualitatively different from woodward and bernstein legally is impossible for me to discern.

you can get haughty about the fact that assange isn't a "real" journalist (and i would agree), but the fact remains that in america, any revelation IS allowed, if the person making it is a journalist. and since assange didn't steal the documents himself, nor pay for them, nor directly solicit them (we assume), and instead merely received them and them public, he is a de facto journalist.

MAKE them public

thank you for your consistently otm work in this thread, gbx.

yeah u been killin it dude

doesnt britain enjoy a free press too

making available the documents themselves is, again, in a legal sense, virtually identical to reporting in detail on the contents thereof, which is absolutely enshrined under the first amendment

this isnt true under copyright law fwiw

which isnt to say that its not true here. just that "the law" has been willing make the distinction in the past.

fair use etc

also, w/r/t yr snide reference to the NHS and health documents, and the protection of privacy: i should point out that, again, here in america, making someone's health information public is not illegal; tabloids do it all the time. the only ppl that are required to abide by HIPAA are practicing health professionals; not sure what the situation is in england. if the average joe finds out that an elected official has a heart condition, or that their neighbor had a sex change operation, they are allowed to tell whoever the fuck they want. that's just how it goes. (NB - unless of course they acquired that information by theft/surveillance/etc). moreover, that's how it ~should~ go, for reasons that ought to be clear to a rational person ("___ is allergic to shellfish," "___ just got out of chemo, fyi, and isn't feeling well enough to eat spicy food," etc). should doctors be able to go blabbing about people? no, of course not.

xp good point, max. but copyright law is sort of an exception that proves the rule, no?

doesnt britain enjoy a free press too

― max, Monday, December 6, 2010 7:28 PM (3 minutes ago) Bookmark

compared to most of the world, of course. but, eg, their libel/defamation laws are o_O iirc

did u know that in that saying "prove" is being used as a synonym for "test" cf "proving ground"? tmyk