US diplomatic cables to be dropped by wikileaks; US doing pre-emptive damage control

[Mistress Stowastiq]

I just thought he was anti-douchebaggery myself.

I think his op ed or statement in "The Australian" was a pretty good grasp of what his perspective is. He does not appear to be hopeless about the fact that change can happen and make way for reform.

[Cyn]

I think it's more he's anti-imperialism than he is specifically anti-America.

Yeah I kind of figure they've been focusing on America more because it's just what's being leaked to them. But whether he's singling America out or not, he's still clearly not a fan of our government.

[ZarakiKujata]

he's still clearly not a fan of our government.

Is anybody really?

[Mistress Stowastiq]

They said recently that they have plans to focus on other governments also with docs they have and dammit I can't recall where I read it. I think also during his conference at the Oslo Freedom Forum, where he specifically mentions that US is not exclusive to their focus.

If we don't have Western countries as a beacon on the hill for enlightenment values, what countries are left to hold that value?

To me, that does not display a hatred for us or the way we can govern if we stick to the principles of democracy, it displays a desire and hope for change and the demand for freedom, the belief that it is attainable if fought for. I see in him, a deep respect for the way that things can be and are suggested in our foundations.

Here is a link to it..
Julian Assange of Wikileaks Oslo Freedom Forum 2010 part 1 of 2

[Cyn]

Is anybody really?

Seriously?

[notorious bum]

Obviously other capitalistic societies are on-board the Terrer Express, but I don't think he was talking about them...

[BerenTebogo]

Obviously other capitalistic societies are on-board the Terror Express, but I don't think he was talking about them...

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y20...doomtrain1.jpg

?

[Demosthenes11]

If you're not with us, you're against us

lol.

[Cyn]

lol.

Are you fucking retarded or are you trolling?

[Cyn]

Serious question.

[Shojin]

Thought this was pretty funny.

Sweden, 2006: 4,000 rapes reported, only 6 people convicted. At last, Swedish police pounce! http://tinyurl.com/3xsqtyk

[Darkdreamer]

Out of curiousity, and no I'm not trolling, but what specific information has Wikileaks released that has actually endangered lives, specifically lives of the armed forces?

I see tons of articles saying "OMG if Wikileaks publishes this next bit of information it's going to endanger lives!!" But they never point out how.

Now I can see how some of the information may piss some people off in terms of calling out how ______ feels about _____.

I can only look at so much here at work and I can only imagine how much big brother watches so I can spend hours on end reading every article. I'm just more looking for particulars. Anytime I've brought this up in conversation the WL bashers say "Oh he's a danger to the US and their troops, and he's putting lives at risk with what he's doing." I thnk they're just parroting whatever Faux News vomits out.

Personally I think the whole thing is bullshit. WL has pulled back the curtain the wizard was hiding behind a bit and the wizard is pissed. I know from personal experience the Government as a whole overuses their security classifications for no apparent reason. I also think this whole rape thing is complete garbage and it was a way to try and get him into custody. I guess they think that if they can take down the figure head of it all then WL will just die off. I don't think Big Brother anticipated such a back lash from places like Anonymous.

[Antithesis]

Pretty soon, Sarah Palin will be all:

"Thats it! Wikileaks needs to go DOWN. NUKE IT. NUKE WIKILEAKS"
"But how can you nuke something that doesn't really exist!?"

and then its Imaginationland all over again.

[Azull]

I cant recall any specific direct dangers to US troops but i do recall the names of informents in the Afgan region having their names released. This would directly endanger them and their families. There would also be the chance this danger could be used to have them turn on the US, indirectly indangering our Troops.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

I think this whole thing whole thing is ridiculous.

With the Pentagon Papers the govt. was allegedly lying to us about a huge issue. Compared to that has anything been disclosed on that scale? I don't consider our diplomats calling their counterparts poopyheads anywhere near as important as the Pentagon Papers.

Also, his goal is to increase transparency. How in gods name is anything he has done going to accomplish that? If anything, the indications seem to be that our govt. is implementing policies to decrease transparency.

And then of course, what does, for example, releasing the locations/names of facilities our govt. considers vital to national security accomplish any legitimate goal? If anything, it discredits him.

Edit: I think the last point is how they prosecute him for espionage.

[aurik]

I cant recall any specific direct dangers to US troops but i do recall the names of informents in the Afgan region having their names released. This would directly endanger them and their families. There would also be the chance this danger could be used to have them turn on the US, indirectly indangering our Troops.

Actually, the pentagon did a study and found that they couldn't identify a single casualty that could be directly pinned on the wikileaked documents. Wikileaks did a damn good job redacting despite the US refusing to assist.

[aurik]

I think this whole thing whole thing is ridiculous.

With the Pentagon Papers the govt. was allegedly lying to us about a huge issue. Compared to that has anything been disclosed on that scale? I don't consider our diplomats calling their counterparts poopyheads anywhere near as important as the Pentagon Papers.

Yemen. And remember we're less than 1% into the dumped cables.

Also, his goal is to increase transparency. How in gods name is anything he has done going to accomplish that? If anything, the indications seem to be that our govt. is implementing policies to decrease transparency.

How do you know what his goal is?

And then of course, what does, for example, releasing the locations/names of facilities our govt. considers vital to national security accomplish any legitimate goal? If anything, it discredits him.

It's still interesting and newsworthy. Just because you personally don't like it doesn't mean they shouldn't publish it.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

#2 - He's said so?

#3 - Agreed. I don't know about that last sentence though. That could be true, except were talking national security. I think it's plausible that if your goal is to increase transparency and portray us an "imperial murderous regime" you don't go around giving away national security secrets b/c that doesn't accomplish the goal. It just seems disingenuous.

And, if I'm a prosecutor I'm going, "see, see, he wasn't trying to advocate a viewpoint. He was hiding behind the first amendment in order to commit espionage."

[aurik]

#2 - He's said so?

Haven't you learned yet that what people say publicly and what people think are often different things?

#3 - Agreed. I don't know about that last sentence though. That could be true, except were talking national security. I think it's plausible that if your goal is to increase transparency and portray us an "imperial murderous regime" you don't go around giving away national security secrets b/c that doesn't accomplish the goal. It just seems disingenuous.

And, if I'm a prosecutor I'm going, "see, see, he wasn't trying to advocate a viewpoint. He was hiding behind the first amendment in order to commit espionage."

The list of foreign infrastructure is interesting once you put it in context and say "oh, so that's why the US did X and Y and Z...they have an unstated interest in that site".

Also, he's not committing espionage if he's simply acting as a conduit for leaking information. So we'll have to see if they dig up anything on him soliciting or rewarding the leakers. If he's simply an enabler, he has a pretty strong case under freedom of the press. Then again, the constitution is used for toilet paper at black sites...


Assange has no moral or legal responsibility to act in a certain way to ensure US national security. People who keep bringing up "endangering our troops" or "undermining our national security" just don't get it.

[Callisto]

Also, he's not committing espionage if he's simply acting as a conduit for leaking information. So we'll have to see if they dig up anything on him soliciting or rewarding the leakers. If he's simply an enabler, he has a pretty strong case under freedom of the press. Then again, the constitution is used for toilet paper at black sites...

This, he's getting the info from somewhere, if they want to cause a big fuss about the people supplying him with info that's one thing, but simply reporting it(especially when major newspapers are also doing the same when he gives them information that he has obtained), calling him a 'spy' is idiotic.