Politics Do you think Wikileaks should be stopped?

[AnkorSVK]

Re: Congratulations Wikileaks...

Hmm if my country wouldnt stick their .... in the worng hole i would despite my low connection .

Damn why couldnt they orient more on Russia or at best stay neutral. That may be enough to lower the price of petrol and earth gas for normal ppl (working class ).

 

[Rikudou King]

If it was simply their goal for less corruption in government, I could agree with what they were doing. But there's a big difference between revealing what one guy thinks about another country and revealing information that can get people kill and cripple the country. The fact that Assange basically says he wants to hobble the U.S. government makes it even worst.

 

[shaheer]

I dont know about the political and other motivations(i live in bangladesh on the other part of the world i have 12 hr time diff with usa,knowing about wiki leaks is just enough , knowing about the other stuffs that governs it is just luxury) but i know one thing if they value their lives they ought to stop. i mean poking will seriously endanger them right

i might be talking nonsense but i dont know much about the political and social motivation and prejudice thats wki leaks are having in the west(i live in far south east)
can any one summarize the whole scenario?

 

[Imperium]

If it was simply their goal for less corruption in government, I could agree with what they were doing. But there's a big difference between revealing what one guy thinks about another country and revealing information that can get people kill and cripple the country. The fact that Assange basically says he wants to hobble the U.S. government makes it even worst.

There goal isnt less corruption as far as i am aware. What they want is more transparency. Less corruption comes as a consequence of that. Shouldn't governments be held accountable for their actions? Yes. Wikileaks is addressing that and its something governments do not like.

Now the thing with "Wikileaks is endangering innocent lives", is that it is most bandied about suggestion against the organisation. The US government said the same thing when they released the Iraq/Afghanistan War logs. After a couple of months the pentagon then stated that no one was actually endangered. But the target was achieved. It was a good sound bite, that was widely reported by journalists until it became fact.

Now the same thing was stated again, and the process repeats itself. The US administration was asked a month before the release of the cables if they wanted to work with the newspapers and Wikileaks in censoring important names/dates etc that could actually cause harm to people, they refused. So the newspapers and Wikileaks censored the information themselves. Not one person is reported to have been harmed in any by the leaks. If you look through them a lot of names and important dates are blacked out, the likelihood anyone is endangered is very slim to none.

I admit though, there are problems with Wikileaks. As they grow they can become the same thing they are fighting against. The New Yorker i thought put it brilliantly.

"Soon enough, Assange must confront the paradox of his creation: the thing that he seems to detest most—power without accountability—is encoded in the site’s DNA, and will only become more pronounced as WikiLeaks evolves into a real institution."

And has he actually stated he wants to basically hobble the US government? I searched but I couldn't seem to find any quotes attributed to him.

 

[Rikudou King]

There goal isnt less corruption as far as i am aware. What they want is more transparency. Less corruption comes as a consequence of that. Shouldn't governments be held accountable for their actions? Yes. Wikileaks is addressing that and its something governments do not like.

Really? Well transparency is a double edge sword and in all honesty not all that effective for any government. Having everything out in the open means that allies are more cautious about dealing with you and neutral countries may not ask for help out of fear their enemies will find out. Governments should be held accountable for criminal actions, When they do something wrong. But personal stuff like who thinks what about something hardly qualify.

Now the thing with "Wikileaks is endangering innocent lives", is that it is most bandied about suggestion against the organisation. The US government said the same thing when they released the Iraq/Afghanistan War logs. After a couple of months the pentagon then stated that no one was actually endangered. But the target was achieved. It was a good sound bite, that was widely reported by journalists until it became fact.

Now the same thing was stated again, and the process repeats itself. The US administration was asked a month before the release of the cables if they wanted to work with the newspapers and Wikileaks in censoring important names/dates etc that could actually cause harm to people, they refused. So the newspapers and Wikileaks censored the information themselves. Not one person is reported to have been harmed in any by the leaks. If you look through them a lot of names and important dates are blacked out, the likelihood anyone is endangered is very slim to none.

I was talking about them releasing a list of the most vulnerable terror targets across the world that our vital to the US. That's something that endangers many and really has no reason being release. There's nothing that knowing about all these places can do for anyone except those that would target them.

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/14/20101206/tpl-uk-condemns-wikileaks-release-of-ter-81c5b50.html

I admit though, there are problems with Wikileaks. As they grow they can become the same thing they are fighting against. The New Yorker i thought put it brilliantly.

"Soon enough, Assange must confront the paradox of his creation: the thing that he seems to detest most—power without accountability—is encoded in the site’s DNA, and will only become more pronounced as WikiLeaks evolves into a real institution."

And has he actually stated he wants to basically hobble the US government? I searched but I couldn't seem to find any quotes attributed to him.

Assange has spoke and written about driving the U.S. deeper into secrecy and making it harder for the Government to share valuable information between the needed branches, So to cause the U.S. to screw up.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703989004575653113548361870.html?m%20%20od=rss_opinion_main

Like I said before, I could agree if they were simply revealing the governmental wrongdoings. But so far i have to question some of their choices in revealing certain documents that really does no good released. Not to mention that unless I'm mistaken, Assange is only one of a group that themselves hidden. Weird for a group that's about "transparency".

 

[kkck]

Today I read that bank of america also suspended payments to wikileaks due to their statements about them being close to releasing documents about it. It does make sense Bank of America would do that, its not like the paypal and mastercard situation where they just wanted to avoid a relationship with them, wikileaks could actually have harmful information about them. Wonder to what degree wikileaks is hurt by the stopping of payments from all those organizations. I am really curious about the release of the documents about the banks though, specially if they do have something which might be outright illegal.

 

[Roflkopt3r]

Today I read that bank of america also suspended payments to wikileaks due to their statements about them being close to releasing documents about it. It does make sense Bank of America would do that, its not like the paypal and mastercard situation where they just wanted to avoid a relationship with them, wikileaks could actually have harmful information about them. Wonder to what degree wikileaks is hurt by the stopping of payments from all those organizations. I am really curious about the release of the documents about the banks though, specially if they do have something which might be outright illegal.

Haha. Great. "Oh damn, they might've discovered our dirty secrets. We better block their payment"
Bad losers.

They would never do that to an established news paper though... Although there is absolutely no difference. Traditional journalists would publish the same stuff when they get their hands on it - Obviously, as they published everything Wikileaks published so far!

 

[Imperium]

Really? Well transparency is a double edge sword and in all honesty not all that effective for any government. Having everything out in the open means that allies are more cautious about dealing with you and neutral countries may not ask for help out of fear their enemies will find out. Governments should be held accountable for criminal actions, When they do something wrong. But personal stuff like who thinks what about something hardly qualify.

Transparency does not mean not keeping things secret. There will always be secrets in government. Transparency is informing the populace of information they have a right to know, so that decisions taken by their governments are available to those who are going to be affected by those decisions. So that the government can be held accountable if it doesn't follow rules, regulations and the moral standards it is expected too. Without transparency, accountability for actions cannot happen. If the pictures of the Abu Ghraib torture incidents did not become public, would the soldiers have been tried? No. Why were they tried? Because the pictures were found, released and the government was being held accountable for the actions of those individuals. Having a more transparent government means that such abuses are not brushed under the carpet.

And do you call the order by Clinton to spy on the UN as “personal stuff”? The “personal stuff” are stuff the press likes to publish because they are wry, funny and make good stories. A lot of the more important does not get anywhere near enough coverage in some publications. Here in the UK, there was a law passed by parliament that stated that cluster bombs cannot be kept on UK territory (it’s signed the international anti-cluster bomb treaty). Parliament however wasn’t told of a loophole in the law by the foreign office that meant that cluster bombs could still be kept on UK territories by the UK and the US governments. It’s most likely illegal. There are many other cables that have been released that directly deal with more than just personal thoughts on various leaders. And bear in mind that something like a thousand cables out of two hundred thousand has been released, and im sure there will be a lot more issues raised.

I was talking about them releasing a list of the most vulnerable terror targets across the world that our vital to the US. That's something that endangers many and really has no reason being release. There's nothing that knowing about all these places can do for anyone except those that would target them.

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/14/20101206/tpl-uk-condemns-wikileaks-release-of-ter-81c5b50.html

With that cable I am of the same opinion that it was unnecessary to publish. I would argue though that it doesn't cause any more security concerns that it did previously.Here is the full cable. It is a list of names. Their locations, security, importance, production etc are not discussed. You can hand a terrorist a list of the top tourist sites in the America and it will do the same damage. A lot of the items mentioned are already generally well known, pharmaceutical companies, major arms suppliers which all have state-of-the-art security. A lot of the items are also cable landings; do you really think those would be unsecure? If it contained for example, critical deficiencies or vulnerabilities then releasing it would be reprehensible. But it doesn’t, it is just simply a list of important infrastructure worldwide which are already known about. I am pretty sure as well; that the people whole compiled these lists in their departments, simply googled most of it. Some of the items listed haven’t been in operation for years, others almost decades. In summary, cutting through the rhetoric, were they secret before the release of the cables? No. Are they in more danger? Probably not more than they were before (there vulnerabilities, locations, or anything critical in any way were not stated in the cables).

The reason wikileaks gave for their publication was that the state department in that instance was using diplomats as intelligence officers. And that list was compiled with the express intention of not informing the host countries. And another example they believe (like the UN spying) of blurring the lines between diplomat and spy.

Assange has spoken and written about driving the U.S. deeper into secrecy and making it harder for the Government to share valuable information between the needed branches, So to cause the U.S. to screw up.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703989004575653113548361870.html?m%20%20od=rss_opinion_main

Firstly here is the essay he is discussing. Crovitz, in one particular paragraph takes two quotes on two different pages and puts them together to paint a picture that Assange is on this anti-US spree. He also misrepresents the whole essay in the eight paragraph. The essay written by Assange is a piece on how to disrupt authoritarian regimes/organisations and their conspiracies . The essays main point stated in its introduction is that, essentially the more unjust authoritarian regimes or organisations are, the more they will fear “plans” (leaks) that will induce resistance in these regimes. It is an idealistic piece, and it seems Assange is an idealist. He believes that with more leaks you can cause less secrecy in authoritarian governments (i.e. more transparency) and lead to more “human form of governance”.

Later we will see how new technology and insights into the psychological motivations of conspirators can give us practical methods for preventing or reducing important communication between authoritarian conspirators, foment strong resistance to authoritarian planning and create powerful incentives for more humane forms of governance.

The part of the article I especially I found interesting was this:

Or as Mr. Assange told Time magazine last week, "It is not our goal to achieve a more transparent society; it's our goal to achieve a more just society." If leaks cause U.S. officials to "lock down internally and to balkanize," they will "cease to be as efficient as they were."

Now the Excerpt from the interview

[bold]RS: One of the unintended consequences is the opposite effect, which is what we've seen with the Department of Defense, and even the State Department, here in the U.S., of trying to make secrets more impenetrable rather than less and trying to take precautions against what has happened from happening again in the future. How do you regard that?[/bold]
JAssange: Well, I think that's very positive. Since 2006, we have been working along this philosophy that organizations which are abusive and need to be [in] the public eye. If their behavior is revealed to the public, they have one of two choices: one is to reform in such a way that they can be proud of their endeavors, and proud to display them to the public. Or the other is to lock down internally and to balkanize, and as a result, of course, cease to be as efficient as they were. To me, that is a very good outcome, because organizations can either be efficient, open and honest, or they can be closed, conspiratorial and inefficient.

It’s interesting to note how he changed a reasonable statement by Assange that the US state department should become more “efficient, open and honest” instead of become inefficient and becoming more secretive into a statement that is supporting his argument that Assange is on an Anti-US spree. The myth that is being perpetuated with that article, is that having secrets is good and that states need secrets. They do, but they also need accountability and transparency. When there isn’t any of that, it is when abuses of power and position happen.

If this was a leak of Iranian cables than Assanage would be hailed, and Wikileaks would be this bastion for “freedom of speech”. It is the double standards that rile me especially. Now that it shows that what our goverments do is not so rosy as we like to believe, that our governments are not so morally just, that they do not crusade for human rights and freedom for everything at all available opportunities. Now that this fantasy is brought back down to earth, Wikileaks is criminalised as this organisation with ulterior motives. Wikileaks publishes what is leaked to them. They do not go and look for documents. They are not the hackers, the informants, the whistleblowers. They are simply the publishers, and that is what is being missed by all these commentators. Assange may be the head, but his organisation simply provides a platform for which leaks can be published. You can say the Fox news has a right wing slant for example, but you should still be able to get the gist of the information being presented to you. The slant should not matter. It’s the same with Wikileaks, Assange may be presenting the leaks so that states can reach his idealistic transparent and open government, but you can see the information and make your own judgement on them. If these people find leaks so rephrehensible why are they not so vigorous in their attacks on the NY times, the guardian or the other publications that printed the cables at the same time as Wikileaks.

Wikileaks I think will be critical in bringing about change in other more oppressive regimes. If they can publish 200,000 diplomatic cables of the sole superpower in the world then more whistle-blowers will come forward. And not simply from big corporate organisations or western goverments. But from abusive governments that their power to commit flagrant and vicious acts against their populace. And that is when these commentators will look and hopefully realise that having an institution that is independent and provides a stage for secrets to be revealed is not a bad thing.

Not to mention that unless I'm mistaken, Assange is only one of a group that themselves hidden. Weird for a group that's about "transparency".

If they were all public figures im sure the Swedish judicial system would collapse under all the charges brought against them.

Though i do agree the organisation should be more public with its help. But the same argument of persecution from officials and the sole fact that they are against big big organisations which will do anything to stop them if they can be found, will be thrown back at you. I think Assange once stated that he as the most public figure, a role of his is to be the lighting rod per say and attract the attention so that the people in the background can get on with the work they do.

 

[Roflkopt3r]

Like I said before, I could agree if they were simply revealing the governmental wrongdoings. But so far i have to question some of their choices in revealing certain documents that really does no good released. Not to mention that unless I'm mistaken, Assange is only one of a group that themselves hidden. Weird for a group that's about "transparency".

First of all, not all of them are hidden. Some known members are the German Daniel Domscheit-Berg and Kristinn Hrafnsson from Island.

Second, yes, their intransparency regarding their own structures was questioned in the media some years ago. But these days, it proves that it was absolutely necessary for their job. Just look at all this b*ll***t the conservative US politicians talk, they even wanna try to charge them with death or just let them kill as "terrorists". There is more than enough reason for them to keep their members hidden in order to work well.

 

[Rikudou King]

Transparency does not mean not keeping things secret. There will always be secrets in government. Transparency is informing the populace of information they have a right to know, so that decisions taken by their governments are available to those who are going to be affected by those decisions. So that the government can be held accountable if it doesn't follow rules, regulations and the moral standards it is expected too. Without transparency, accountability for actions cannot happen. If the pictures of the Abu Ghraib torture incidents did not become public, would the soldiers have been tried? No. Why were they tried? Because the pictures were found, released and the government was being held accountable for the actions of those individuals. Having a more transparent government means that such abuses are not brushed under the carpet.

And do you call the order by Clinton to spy on the UN as “personal stuff”? The “personal stuff” are stuff the press likes to publish because they are wry, funny and make good stories. A lot of the more important does not get anywhere near enough coverage in some publications. Here in the UK, there was a law passed by parliament that stated that cluster bombs cannot be kept on UK territory (it’s signed the international anti-cluster bomb treaty). Parliament however wasn’t told of a loophole in the law by the foreign office that meant that cluster bombs could still be kept on UK territories by the UK and the US governments. It’s most likely illegal. There are many other cables that have been released that directly deal with more than just personal thoughts on various leaders. And bear in mind that something like a thousand cables out of two hundred thousand has been released, and im sure there will be a lot more issues raised.

Accountability is perfectly fine and if that was all then there would be no problem. But I don't see how personal assessments of governmental members and info about important targets fall under the need to know heading. That stuff has nothing to do with the government being accountable for doing what is right and is wrong. If such documents don't show them breaking any laws or being morally irresponsible, Then they should remain private. Knowing what so and so thinks about this and that doesn't help in accountability if they haven't done anything wrong. What a person thinks and believe matter little compared to what they do.

Espionage isn't personal matters, But it's hardly criminal. All governments use spies. That ain't anything new. But such revelations only hurt the relationship between counties by opening declaring it. Unless the spy was ordered to do something illegal, It doesn't much effect the average citizen. Now see, If there were cables that dealt with possible legal or dangerous decisions, Then those were the ones they should be focusing on. Not personal ones that involve no wrongdoing or such things.

With that cable I am of the same opinion that it was unnecessary to publish. I would argue though that it doesn't cause any more security concerns that it did previously.Here is the full cable. It is a list of names. Their locations, security, importance, production etc are not discussed. You can hand a terrorist a list of the top tourist sites in the America and it will do the same damage. A lot of the items mentioned are already generally well known, pharmaceutical companies, major arms suppliers which all have state-of-the-art security. A lot of the items are also cable landings; do you really think those would be unsecure? If it contained for example, critical deficiencies or vulnerabilities then releasing it would be reprehensible. But it doesn’t, it is just simply a list of important infrastructure worldwide which are already known about. I am pretty sure as well; that the people whole compiled these lists in their departments, simply googled most of it. Some of the items listed haven’t been in operation for years, others almost decades. In summary, cutting through the rhetoric, were they secret before the release of the cables? No. Are they in more danger? Probably not more than they were before (there vulnerabilities, locations, or anything critical in any way were not stated in the cables).

The reason wikileaks gave for their publication was that the state department in that instance was using diplomats as intelligence officers. And that list was compiled with the express intention of not informing the host countries. And another example they believe (like the UN spying) of blurring the lines between diplomat and spy.

I would say it does cause more security concerns. Just because it's just a list of names doesn't lessen the damage. Such things as the location and security can be found once they're known. The items themselves may have been known, But I highly doubt their importance to the US was public knowledge. I doubt anyone would have given much thought to targeting a certain dam or pharmaceutical company over a crowded building knowing they could do more damage to be honest. Giving a terrorist a list of tourist sites wouldn't have the potential to destabilize the nation or cause long term damage. People would die sure, But beyond that the rest of the country would keep on moving. Not to mention it's far easier to target a location outside the country then one inside.

As for their reasoning, I don't get it. Maybe I'm not understanding it right or maybe I'm bias, but if the item is US property and they aren't doing anything harmful to the county their in, What business is it to anyone else what these locations are. Their not like factories building dangerous stuff, Where they have the potential to cause damage to the country their in. There was no danger. I'm also sure intelligence officers can hold more then one role. Unless they were stealing information or not representing the foreign country in their full diplomatic responsibility, I can't see anything illegal about a person being a spy and diplomat.

Firstly here is the essay he is discussing. Crovitz, in one particular paragraph takes two quotes on two different pages and puts them together to paint a picture that Assange is on this anti-US spree. He also misrepresents the whole essay in the eight paragraph. The essay written by Assange is a piece on how to disrupt authoritarian regimes/organisations and their conspiracies . The essays main point stated in its introduction is that, essentially the more unjust authoritarian regimes or organisations are, the more they will fear “plans” (leaks) that will induce resistance in these regimes. It is an idealistic piece, and it seems Assange is an idealist. He believes that with more leaks you can cause less secrecy in authoritarian governments (i.e. more transparency) and lead to more “human form of governance”.
It’s interesting to note how he changed a reasonable statement by Assange that the US state department should become more “efficient, open and honest” instead of become inefficient and becoming more secretive into a statement that is supporting his argument that Assange is on an Anti-US spree. The myth that is being perpetuated with that article, is that having secrets is good and that states need secrets. They do, but they also need accountability and transparency. When there isn’t any of that, it is when abuses of power and position happen.

If this was a leak of Iranian cables than Assanage would be hailed, and Wikileaks would be this bastion for “freedom of speech”. It is the double standards that rile me especially. Now that it shows that what our goverments do is not so rosy as we like to believe, that our governments are not so morally just, that they do not crusade for human rights and freedom for everything at all available opportunities. Now that this fantasy is brought back down to earth, Wikileaks is criminalised as this organisation with ulterior motives. Wikileaks publishes what is leaked to them. They do not go and look for documents. They are not the hackers, the informants, the whistleblowers. They are simply the publishers, and that is what is being missed by all these commentators. Assange may be the head, but his organisation simply provides a platform for which leaks can be published. You can say the Fox news has a right wing slant for example, but you should still be able to get the gist of the information being presented to you. The slant should not matter. It’s the same with Wikileaks, Assange may be presenting the leaks so that states can reach his idealistic transparent and open government, but you can see the information and make your own judgement on them. If these people find leaks so rephrehensible why are they not so vigorous in their attacks on the NY times, the guardian or the other publications that printed the cables at the same time as Wikileaks.

Wikileaks I think will be critical in bringing about change in other more oppressive regimes. If they can publish 200,000 diplomatic cables of the sole superpower in the world then more whistle-blowers will come forward. And not simply from big corporate organisations or western goverments. But from abusive governments that their power to commit flagrant and vicious acts against their populace. And that is when these commentators will look and hopefully realise that having an institution that is independent and provides a stage for secrets to be revealed is not a bad thing.

Well the essay was an interesting read, But I have to honesty say the idea of causing leaks in an unjust regime to induce resistance makes little sense to me. An unjust regime wouldn't change it's ways for the better, But more likely for the worst. It would more then likely eliminate the opposition and focus on harsher actions. I'm also not quite sure how the US qualifies as an authoritarian nation.
I can agree that states should be held accountable for their actions and if revealing some secrets do that, Good. But I personally don't see any reason to reveal secrets that have nothing to do with accountability. If they have done nothing wrong, Then they should have their secrets. Their not gonna be abusing their power/positions by simply thinking something pointless.

I don't see much of a double stranded. There would still be criticism had the leaks been Iranian cables instead of American. The only difference would have been who was on what side. The majority of Americans know that the government isn't perfect and that they can be morally unjust at times. That's nothing new. I think the bigger issue for me personally and those I know, Is that they'll end up doing more harm then good. We're already dealing with a host of problems and our government was already greatly strained within itself. Causing strain with other nations isn't gonna help that. Not to mention those using this action as an excuse to push forward their own political beliefs.

I actually can't see Wikileaks changing any oppressive regimes. The US has a long history of whistle-blowers and such actions aren't usually life threatening to do, Which is the complete opposite of an oppressive regime. Attempting such a thing would likely mean death for that person and those they knew. And from what we have seen in the past, Even if knowledge of their abusive and vicious actions came forward, They wouldn't care or stop. In a place like the US, Where the everyday person can affect the government, Revelations about the governments actions can force them to make things better. But in a nation where the common person has little power, The governments aren't gonna change even if their actions were revealed.

Also, Fox News is a horrible example. They don't even try to appear balance.

If they were all public figures im sure the Swedish judicial system would collapse under all the charges brought against them.

Though i do agree the organisation should be more public with its help. But the same argument of persecution from officials and the sole fact that they are against big big organisations which will do anything to stop them if they can be found, will be thrown back at you. I think Assange once stated that he as the most public figure, a role of his is to be the lighting rod per say and attract the attention so that the people in the background can get on with the work they do.

I really doubt the charges against Assange were because of America. Not because I don't think they wouldn't do it, But because they have far more plausible crimes to charge him with if they were gonna do so. Not to mention he didn't have an "accident" or anything while locked up, Something I would have though a good possibility.

As for them being in danger, I would doubt it. Maybe before they had release things they could have been targets, But now it's far to late. Considering the reaction and paranoia to Assange getting arrested, Things would get far worst if anything bad had happen to him and his allies. Which sort of make things worst.

First of all, not all of them are hidden. Some known members are the German Daniel Domscheit-Berg and Kristinn Hrafnsson from Island.

Second, yes, their intransparency regarding their own structures was questioned in the media some years ago. But these days, it proves that it was absolutely necessary for their job. Just look at all this b*ll***t the conservative US politicians talk, they even wanna try to charge them with death or just let them kill as "terrorists". There is more than enough reason for them to keep their members hidden in order to work well.

I didn't know others were known, That's interesting. As for the talk of the conservatives, They're always talking like that. They do that against Obama and gang nearly every week. It's simply that talk of idiots. I'm pretty sure no one has ever been killed, At least no high profile target. If the government were determined enough, They could locate them all. But at the moment it seems like a catch 22 situation since things are now more about cyber warfare then actual journalism.

 

[Roflkopt3r]

I didn't know others were known, That's interesting. As for the talk of the conservatives, They're always talking like that. They do that against Obama and gang nearly every week. It's simply that talk of idiots. I'm pretty sure no one has ever been killed, At least no high profile target. If the government were determined enough, They could locate them all. But at the moment it seems like a catch 22 situation since things are now more about cyber warfare then actual journalism.

The cyber warfare thing indeed is a hot topic revolving around Wikileaks, but it's not a point for Wikileaks beeing illegal. Wikileaks is not involved in the launch of any attacks and said that they "neither condemn nor assist" attacks like those of Operation: Backback/Anonymous.
Much rather Wikileaks is beeing attacked by hackers and probably governments as well (Their IT experts said they were quite impressed by the pure size of some of the attacks - 10gb per second if I recall correctly- so it might've been governmental/army attacks)

 

[Rikudou King]

Well I know Wikileaks isn't involved in the cyber attacks, But it's their followers/supporters doing it to "help" and support them, Meaning that if something will bad were to happen to those behind Wikileaks things could explode into far worst cyber attacks.

10gb/s sounds more like private corporation then governmental, Though I wouldn't rule the government out.

 

[Roflkopt3r]

Well I know Wikileaks isn't involved in the cyber attacks, But it's their followers/supporters doing it to "help" and support them, Meaning that if something will bad were to happen to those behind Wikileaks things could explode into far worst cyber attacks.

10gb/s sounds more like private corporation then governmental, Though I wouldn't rule the government out.

However, Wikileaks isn't responsible for what Anonymous does, that's all I wanted to say. So they cannot be blamed for the cyber attacks.

I've few idea on what scales are required for such attacks, but I have two thoughts about it:
1) I don't think it's done by a corperation. I just don't see that they would spend ressources on that, ruining a part of their reputation in case they get tracked back and would do so although Wikileaks is beeing chased anyways.
2) I don't think that those opposing Wikileaks - mainly conservatives from the USA I guess, at least after the press echo - would be able to start an attack of this size unnoticedly - if they are able to arrange such a thing at all.

I don't think that the odds are too bad for this to be a trial from that rather new US air force cyber warfare department. They were also the guys who blocked Wikileaks on US air force computers, which was a purely useless but somewhat funny attempt and has been rated to only serve as a life sign of that department.

 

[HegemonKhan]

stealing and/or distributing and/or "leaking" (directly or as a 3rd party) of classified military secrets/data is an act of espionage, an act of war, and now as an enemy in war, the military has full right to shoot you dead and put a stop to that operation and method of stealing and/or distrubution and/or "leakage" of classified military secrets/data, just as soldier in the battlefield can shoot and kill an enemy soldier in the battlefield, a.k.a. it's war, and you made yourself an enemy in that war.

(if it's done by the country's own citizen, civilian or government official/employee - who doesn't have legal clearance/allowance/power of de-classification of data/secrets, that's what is known as treason, and the punishment is death)

correct me if this is legally incorrect, but this is my understanding of it.

 

[Roflkopt3r]

stealing and distributing and "leaking" (directly or as a 3rd party) of classified military secrets/data is an act of espionage, an act of war, and now as an enemy in war, the military has full right to shoot you dead and put a stop to that operation and method of stealing and distrubution of classified military secrets/data, just as soldier in the battle field can shoot and kill the nemy soldier in a battlefield, a.k.a. it's war.

correct me if this is legally incorrect, but this is my understanding of it.

It is legally incorrect, because the U.S. constitution allows publishing everything, including such documents.
This means that there is no legal guilt on Wikileaks, but still on Bradley Manning. (However, the circumstances of his imprisonment are making the U.s. appearing really bad, because not even the U.N. human rights inspector was allowed to check on him freely...)

Actually U.S. agencies went as far as trying to create a totaly stupid legal charge. This is actually hillarious, because they were even thinking about accusing them of offending against copy rights
(This is a very DDR-like method by the way... in a constitutional state, the idea of law is that "a crime has been commited, so it has to be carified and potentially punished", but here it has been totaly turned around: "Someone did something which we do not like, so we search for a law that we can use to punish them")

 

[benelori]

The thing is that Wikileaks doesn't really get its stuff on its own, for most parts...most of the information as far as I know is served to them...
Sometimes wikileaks can be used and are used as propaganda...I don't mind wikileaks, if there are problems with it, the people who serve them the information are the ones to blame

 

[Roflkopt3r]

The thing is that Wikileaks doesn't really get its stuff on its own, for most parts...most of the information as far as I know is served to them...
Sometimes wikileaks can be used and are used as propaganda...I don't mind wikileaks, if there are problems with it, the people who serve them the information are the ones to blame

Everything can be used for propaganda, but Wikileaks focussed on delivering only the raw facts and nothing else (even though they broke with that once, when they titled the helicopter video from Bagdhad "colerateral murder" - though it could be argued that this is actually correct).

Wikileaks does not retrieve any facts by themselves. They do not hack databases and don't infiltrate governments or organisations. All they do is offering a safe way for reliable sources to make their informations public without them having to reveal their identity. Other people get the information, they only publish it.

 

[HegemonKhan]

but, this is civil-criminal law you're talking about, what about military law, as it *IS* law too, so am I still incorrect?

war does exist and always will, lol, and the laws of war does exist. laws of war are laws just as much as is civil and criminal laws, are laws.

and what specifically was incorrect with my assessment? your response was vague (you didn't address any of the military-wars laws i was attempting to describe, the only thing I got was about the allowance of publication by the constitution), and I also highly doubt (actually I'm 100% confident that there's exceptions to) that anything can be allowed to be published and/or distributed by our constitution (such as like child porn or extremely graphic violence/gruesome death-injuries, like with pat tillman if we had a picture of half of his head sliding off, and than his brain out, in front of his buddy, after being struct by rounds from our friendly fire from that humvee mounted machine gun of our own by our own, etc, stuff that "shocks the consciousness", and classifed information would definiately be among this is is not constitutionally allowed as it isn't, its unlawful, classifed means classified, which means private information and NOT public information), I mean things that are unlawful to be in the public sphere are unlawful and anyone involved is lawfully guilty, and since we're dealing with military/war laws with this information, that means the legal consequences are those of war-military legal sequences and that's being shot dead as an enemy of war. I mean even with freedom of speech and religion, there is not actually total freedom of speech ("inciting violence" and "yelling fire in a crwoded building" or religion ("human sacrificing" or "polygamy-such as with mormons", such as seen with Warren Jeffs being tried and convicted, so much for his "freedom of religion", people are ignorant to think that anything is alright via our constitution, whether its speech, religion, or publication/distribution). criminal things are criminal things no matter what, and espionage is a war-military crime, an act of war, and again as an enemy of war, the military can shoot you dead, as are the laws and rules of war, soldiers/actors of war can legally kill soldiers/actors of war, and by comitting espionage, involved in unlawful information circulating unlawfully within the public spehere, you've made yourself a enemy soldier/actor in war, and thus made yourself legally able to be shot dead on the spot or being tried in a court and found guilty, and then executed or imprisoned.

classifed information in the public is a crime, it is unlawful, and anyone involved with it, is an accomplice in crime, and are just as guilty as those who done the actual espionage.

for example, if I were to murder someone, and my friend helped me carry it out, guess what, my friend is just as guilty as I am. wikilinks is just as guilty as is that traitor in prison (I don't know why he's alive, he committed treason and he should be convicted and dead now already, via lethal injection). both wikilinks and that miltary guy commited a crime and/or are enemies of war, and for both of them (wikilinks and the military guy), for both a crime and as an enemy of war, can be legally executed either via a soldier blowing his brains out or lethally injected after being found guilty in a court.

is not classified secrets, espionage, an act of war and/or a crime of treason, both of which are legally punishable by death?

espionage: if a russian sends a spy to the U.S. and he steals our blue prints on building an atom bomb, he comitted an act of war upon the U.S., and now as an enemy of war, he can be shot dead, as it's now war-time and miltary-war laws are now activated and taken jurisdiction. In war, a soldier/actor can legally kill an enemy soldier/actor, basic law of war, the legal right to engage in war. espionage is an act of war, making you a combatant, that we have every legal right to kill dead on the spot, just as he has the right to kill our combatants our soldiers, as are the rules and laws of war.

This is EXACTLY what that traitor of ours did, and wikiwinks an ally of him, making wikilinks an enemy in war, and both can be killed on the spot by us, via guiltiness of treason and as an enemy combatant in war, which wikileaks has become. If Itally joins Germany and japan in WW2, and helps/accomplices its acts of war, then it too is a combatant in war, and the U.S., England, and Russia has every right to wage war against Italy as it does against Germany and Japan. We have the full legal right to shoot that russian spy dead, just as we have the full legal right to shoot that spy assange and everyone else apart of wikilinks dead, as they are waging war against the U.S. stealing and/or distributing and/or publishing our classifed documents just as the Russian spy is with our classifed documents of the atom bomb designs. They are combatant enemies of war against the U.S., and combatant enemies of war are legally allowed to be killed, just as much as they are legally allowed to kill our combatants of war.

classified means classified, its definition hasn't changed (as well as illegal meaning illegal, "what part of IL-legal don't you understand" -whatever the name of the congressman that said this). it can only be legally publically available via via law, public information act legal attempt and success vis-a-vis the courts deciding to allow you to have the information from the government.

let's take nuclear knowledge secrets instead or advanced military technology blue prints instead, is this not espionage, and even if you're a 3rd party, alowing it to be distributed around, are you not acting as an enemy of war, and can be shot dead?

---------------------------------

(and the U.N. has zero authority and zero crediblility what-so-ever, they're a total joke, nothing they say has any importance at all, they have zero track record of opposing human rights violations, pfft. the U.N. has zero significance and importance in this world. total NOBODIES. total "LOSERS")

(HK grabs the U.N. human rights inspector by his collar, lifts him up into the air and carries his bottom to the middle east and north africa, like libya and syria and iran and pakistan and soudi arabia and yemen and etc dictatorships that are mass murdering their own people, to wherever terrorists are, to china, to north korea, to Russia, to Darfur/Sudan, all the other human rights/genocidal african/arab/muslim countries, etc, and finally to the U.N. as well - clean up your own mess too like the security council and which countries you allow to be part of the U.N., and drops him off in each other those places, and tells this to him: "once you get done with all these WORST-OFFENDERS of human rights, THAN you can come back and deal with the U.S.' violations of human rights, AFTER you thank the U.S. and give us awards for all the good and policing that we are doing for the entire world, once you're appreciative of all the good we do and have dealt with everyone else who are far worse including yourselves at the U.N., THAN you can have legitimacy to criticize our actions and go after our human rights violations. oh, and until than we're going to dismantle the U.N. in the U.S. and stop paying you with all of our money. once you dealt with the rest of the world and have apologized to us and shown gratitude to us, than you'll have earned to our hosting and finance of your U.N. by us.)

-----------------------

P.S.

inept lawyers are inept lawyers, lol.

they were stupid in their selection of what to use as a charge, I mean how'd they become lawyers?, they should be dis-barred immediately, as they're totally unfit to win the most easy case there is, an act of espionage (if a non-citizen of the U.S.) and/or treason (with anyone involved who's our citizen)! it's espionage and/or treason, both of which are punishable by death vis-a-vis a soldier shooting them dead or by lethal injection after being found guilty in court! what morons to use such a riduclous charge, when you got glaring epsionage and/or treason to use as your charge. so again, an inept lawyer is an inept lawyer. that has no baring on the crime itself and those responsible/guilty of it.

------------------------

hackers/spies/espionage'rs, wikilinks, and supporters of it don't understand they're playing a very real and dangerous game, as they're playing with fire, they're playing around with war and treason, war-military laws, crimes/treason and acts of war, they're ignorance of it can be serious and fatal, should we so choose, as we have the fully legality to act and to kill.

there's a BIG difference between the LAWS of war and the LAWS of civil/criminal, both are LAWS, miltary law is just as binding as is civil/criminal laws, and when its wartime or an act of war has been comitted, it's military LAWS which have jurisdiction, not civil, not criminal laws.

---------------------------------------

obviously, my understandings are influenced by me being just a "wee-bit" hawkish, I make "darth vader" (Dick Cheney) into Anakin again (though Dick Cheney never was Anakin, but meh). lol

Dick Cheney might be Darth Vader, but I'm the Sith Lord himself

(I would not make a good president of the U.S., especially for the rest of the world )

(the instant our troops after killing Osama Bin Laden got out of Pakistan, it would become a part of the Indian Ocean, as for blatantly/flagrantly KNOWINGLY AND SUPPORTIVELY harboring the #1 public enemy/monster of the entire world, I'd have it nuclearly bombed into a huge crator and the Indian Ocean would rush to fill it )

 

[benelori]

Everything can be used for propaganda, but Wikileaks focussed on delivering only the raw facts and nothing else (even though they broke with that once, when they titled the helicopter video from Bagdhad "colerateral murder" - though it could be argued that this is actually correct).

Wikileaks does not retrieve any facts by themselves. They do not hack databases and don't infiltrate governments or organisations. All they do is offering a safe way for reliable sources to make their informations public without them having to reveal their identity. Other people get the information, they only publish it.

The problem are the sources...if the sources are deliberately feeding Wikileaks propaganda info, then the attempt of being neutral is pretty much useless, even if the info is raw

 

[Roflkopt3r]

but, this is civil-criminal law you're talking about, what about military law, as it *IS* law too, so am I still incorrect?

war does exist and always will, lol, and the laws of war does exist. laws of war are laws just as much as is civil and criminal laws, are laws.

Military Law?

Military justice is the body of laws and procedures governing members of the armed forces.

(miltary justice: redirected from military law)
This does not affect civilians.

The kind of law you probably ment was State of Emergency (which is not active in the U.S. however - why should it be, anyways?) or Laws of War, which are about things like "When is it legal to wage war?" and "What is allowed in war"?

All of these are either not in effect or not affecting Wikileaks. The Military Law does affect Bradley Manning though, as he is a part of the Army.

The problem are the sources...if the sources are deliberately feeding Wikileaks propaganda info, then the attempt of being neutral is pretty much useless, even if the info is raw

That is just a general risk of all information. Every bit of information can be understood in many ways. All Wikileaks ensures is that the intel is correct.
I mean, where does a pice of information start beeing more "propaganda" than "fact for itself"? Is the information that the USA were torturing in Guantanamo and Abu Ghuraib "propaganda"?

For itself, it is just a fact. It has a public relevance. It does damage the reputation of the USA, but at the same time the USA are actually responsible for these things. The thing that you probably mean is, that the public so very often overreacts. But to exclude that effect, all channels of information had to be shut down or very, very selective with the information they spread.

I guess you see what I am heading at? A selective distributor of information has a lot of power over public opinion. Neutrality means to publish all factual correct information, and hope that the public does interprete the facts well.