The Wikileaks debate continues

[Gfted1]

As I stated earlier, it took a specific service member in a specific location who was willing to sell out his country to a person trying for a famegrab by spreading it around the world.

What you stated earlier is simply a complete misunderstanding of all elements involved. Completely ignorant that this information was not specific to a specific person and place and that there are a large number of people who readily disagree with you on your assessment of what wikileaks has been doing for the past 4 years.

 

Wow, are you even trying? This took almost 10 seconds to Google.

 

U.S. military officials confirmed to NBC News today that a 22-year old military intelligence analyst has been taken into custody for allegedly providing the document-posting website Wikileaks with classified gun-camera video of a 2007 Apache helicopter attack that killed innocent civilians in Baghdad.

 

Specialist Bradley Manning of Potomac, Md., whose arrest was reported yesterday on Wired.com

[Meshugger]

The guy knows what he's doing, and yes he's the face of a new type of online activism. But he's a grown man, he's rolled the dice now he has to face the consequences.

Exactly. The moral thrust of civil disobedience is to do what you think is right, regardless of the cost or retribution that may come from the authorities. Evading that retribution greatly undercuts the moral authority with which you speak.

 

That said, that doesn't necessarily mean that the U.S. has any existing legal authority to reach him. Most of the speculation I've seen centers on the Espionage Act of 1917, which seems like a pretty thin reed to go on.

 

 

I've been on the record that there hasn't been anything all that newsworthy in what he's leaked. The damage to the level of secrecy required to have a functioning diplomatic system-- which is a pretty major concern when the country involved is the primary actor in dealing with the "problem" states in the world on behalf of the rest of the West-- has been the main casualty.

 

But the recent disclosure of the US's list of essential infrastructure sites changed my mind about that. Most of those sites could be reasoned out by a sophisticated attacker, but the vast majority of would-be terrorists who'd like to damage the U.S. aren't exactly the sharpest tools in the shed (witness the attempted shoe- and underwear-bombing numbskulls), and an itemized target list removes a serious obstacle from their bid for martyrdom. That's the kind of leak that can get people killed.

 

You seem to want hold him accountable for the leaks in the US. But what about Russia, Saudi-Arabia and China? Should he stand trial for civil disobiedience there as well? Should he face the consequences and retribution from their part?

 

However, if one takes a realistic approach to this, he is what Napster was to the recording industry. It doesn't matter whether you try to hang him or shut wikileaks down, pandora's box has been opened and nothing will be the same. The days of old-style realpolitik and backroom deals has come to an end.

[Meshugger]

As I stated earlier, it took a specific service member in a specific location who was willing to sell out his country to a person trying for a famegrab by spreading it around the world.

What you stated earlier is simply a complete misunderstanding of all elements involved. Completely ignorant that this information was not specific to a specific person and place and that there are a large number of people who readily disagree with you on your assessment of what wikileaks has been doing for the past 4 years.

 

Wow, are you even trying? This took almost 10 seconds to Google.

 

U.S. military officials confirmed to NBC News today that a 22-year old military intelligence analyst has been taken into custody for allegedly providing the document-posting website Wikileaks with classified gun-camera video of a 2007 Apache helicopter attack that killed innocent civilians in Baghdad.

 

Specialist Bradley Manning of Potomac, Md., whose arrest was reported yesterday on Wired.com

[Malcador]

However, if one takes a realistic approach to this, he is what Napster was to the recording industry. It doesn't matter whether you try to hang him or shut wikileaks down, pandora's box has been opened and nothing will be the same. The days of old-style realpolitik and backroom deals has come to an end.

 

 

Hmm, I dunno about that to be honest with you. This isn't going to hail some utopian era where diplomacy is all done out in the open and deals aren't made with bad people. It may agitate people a lot, but eventually I can see governments just marking more stuff as Top Secret.

[pmp10]

The days of old-style realpolitik and backroom deals has come to an end.

That

[Tale]

As I stated earlier, it took a specific service member in a specific location who was willing to sell out his country to a person trying for a famegrab by spreading it around the world.

What you stated earlier is simply a complete misunderstanding of all elements involved. Completely ignorant that this information was not specific to a specific person and place and that there are a large number of people who readily disagree with you on your assessment of what wikileaks has been doing for the past 4 years.

 

Wow, are you even trying? This took almost 10 seconds to Google.

 

U.S. military officials confirmed to NBC News today that a 22-year old military intelligence analyst has been taken into custody for allegedly providing the document-posting website Wikileaks with classified gun-camera video of a 2007 Apache helicopter attack that killed innocent civilians in Baghdad.

 

Specialist Bradley Manning of Potomac, Md., whose arrest was reported yesterday on Wired.com

Edited December 8, 2010 by Tale

[Meshugger]

The days of old-style realpolitik and backroom deals has come to an end.

That

[Walsingham]

But the recent disclosure of the US's list of essential infrastructure sites changed my mind about that. Most of those sites could be reasoned out by a sophisticated attacker, but the vast majority of would-be terrorists who'd like to damage the U.S. aren't exactly the sharpest tools in the shed (witness the attempted shoe- and underwear-bombing numbskulls), and an itemized target list removes a serious obstacle from their bid for martyrdom. That's the kind of leak that can get people killed.

 

Saying "I could have worked that out" betrays a lack of understanding about terrorists. I hate to break it to you, but they just aren't very bright. Which is kinda why they become terrorists.

 

Moreover, even if they did make a guess as to the sites which are or high significance, they wouldn't actually know for certain. The list takes away that uncertainty.

But that's not the point.

 

The real point here is that the leak doesn't remotely serve any public need. It's pure spite. And it shows exactly how this is a power trip for Assange, not an exercise in democracy - leaving aside my persistent point that not a single bastard elected Assange to anything he's doing.

[Zoraptor]

Nah, that list is rubbish- it's basically diplomatic make work. Most of the things there are of such huge strategic significance that their locations are matters of public record and can be found by anyone with any inclination. Better ban Snakes on a Plane PDQ if the loss of an Ockeronian antivenin facility is really going to do serious damage to the US, don't want those terrorists getting bright ideas from that. Best ban Google Earth as well, and paper maps, just to be safe and as they show important buildings and locations. Hmm, maybe a mod had better delete this post too in case a terrorist reads it and gets ideas...

 

And you're still going to get more terrorist kudos by blowing up a McDonalds than going to Congo to try and destroy a Coltain mine.

[Humodour]

Julian Assange is an Australian citizen who has not broken any Australian laws. He is also not the leaker - he is the leader of a media organisation, WikiLeaks. Australkia is now providing him consular assistance in his legal case with Sweden.

 

Shouldn't your cricket team have it's own website called Wicket-Leaks?

 

Bada-bisch! I'm here all week!

 

 

I am soooooooo sick of hearing about the cricket! Gosh, the winging and whinging in our newspapers is far worse than the fact we got trounced.

[Enoch]

You seem to want hold him accountable for the leaks in the US. But what about Russia, Saudi-Arabia and China? Should he stand trial for civil disobiedience there as well? Should he face the consequences and retribution from their part?

 

However, if one takes a realistic approach to this, he is what Napster was to the recording industry. It doesn't matter whether you try to hang him or shut wikileaks down, pandora's box has been opened and nothing will be the same. The days of old-style realpolitik and backroom deals has come to an end.

If realpolitik and backroom deals have come to an end, then diplomacy itself is pretty much over. The whole idea of having little enclaves of sovereign ground in the capitals of other nations-- the violation of which is considered by the community of nations as something greater than a simple act of war-- is still a very good and useful innovation. And it absolutely requires a great deal of privacy and confidentiality to function. Public disclosure of leaked communications between these enclaves and the mother country is an attack on one of the core principles of diplomacy in our civilization. I don't know about legal liability to any one state, but the ideology that puts unaccountable, unreviewable, and sometimes anonymous private parties in the position of deciding what secrets should be publicized is misguided and regrettable.

 

(Of course, exceptions are justified for truly important disclosures. The world became a better place when the Pentagon Papers hit the street. But I add that the parties involved with leaking and publicizing those documents all went through extensive legal battles in dealing with the consequences of their actions. (The NYTimes won; the leaker, Daniel Ellsberg, turned himself in and faced trial, but the charges were tossed due to gross misconduct by the FBI.))

 

 

As to putting the genie back in the bottle, so to speak, the best solution is to better police the people who have access, and stop them from leaking stuff. That's a far more credible approach here than it was in the Napster analogy you pose.

[Enoch]

But the recent disclosure of the US's list of essential infrastructure sites changed my mind about that. Most of those sites could be reasoned out by a sophisticated attacker, but the vast majority of would-be terrorists who'd like to damage the U.S. aren't exactly the sharpest tools in the shed (witness the attempted shoe- and underwear-bombing numbskulls), and an itemized target list removes a serious obstacle from their bid for martyrdom. That's the kind of leak that can get people killed.

 

Saying "I could have worked that out" betrays a lack of understanding about terrorists. I hate to break it to you, but they just aren't very bright. Which is kinda why they become terrorists.

 

Moreover, even if they did make a guess as to the sites which are or high significance, they wouldn't actually know for certain. The list takes away that uncertainty.

We may be talking past each other, as that's kinda the point I was trying to make.

[Humodour]

The days of old-style realpolitik and backroom deals has come to an end.

That

[pmp10]

The days of old-style realpolitik and backroom deals has come to an end.

That’s quite a claim considering the leaks contained very little previously unknown information and so far have all been centered around US.

 

Because the US (and the west) represents the good guys. While there have been leaks from countries like Russia and China, they're haven't even been as much interesting, since they are the bad guys.

Or maybe because the scale and level of secrecy of said documents is incomparable to those form US?

Right now it simply looks like that people behind wikileaks have an axe to grind against United States.

 

As for realpolitik I'll be convinced when top-secret documents start leaking and not before.

Publishing regular discussion notes is all well and good but the real dirt is undoubtedly on a higher level. And people on that level have much more interest in keeping things secret.

Edited December 9, 2010 by pmp10

[Malcador]

Never said that, i meant that diplomacy will change in how it is dealt. How it will be, well, i would guess that countries will now focus on overflow of information, since it would be more difficult to fingerpick the juicy intel. After all, it seems like they have been doing a terrible job to stop the leakage to begin with.

 

 

I really can't see them doing that, other than tightening everything up ridiculously, hopefully where some emo Pfc can't grab it all. As for Wikileaks having an axe to grind against the US, maybe, Daniel Domscheit-Berg left Wikileaks in September 2010 after a spat with Assange over the seeming focus on the US. I wonder how the Russians will respond to any leaks about them.

[Gorth]

The real point here is that the leak doesn't remotely serve any public need. It's pure spite. And it shows exactly how this is a power trip for Assange, not an exercise in democracy - leaving aside my persistent point that not a single bastard elected Assange to anything he's doing.

This...

 

As to putting the genie back in the bottle, so to speak, the best solution is to better police the people who have access, and stop them from leaking stuff. That's a far more credible approach here than it was in the Napster analogy you pose.

His (Assange) greatest accomplishment, besides damaging international relations, is going to be an increased security and information restrictions that is going to be way harder to access in the future, even by the normal democratically elected oversight institutions.

 

WikiLeaks also has lots of information on corrupt foreign governments (they've specified Russia at the least) and corrupt private businesses (they've specified banks among others) which it has stated it will soon release.

News at 11:00... the Russian government and Banks in general are corrupt, who would have thought that? >_

 

I don't know if the sexual assault charges are legitimate or not, but that is what a court of law is for. If he is innocent, I hope he get cleared of them, if not, I hope he rots in jail for a very long time, People "getting away with murder" because they are headline stuff (c.f. O.J. Simpson) is disgusting.

 

In my eyes he lost any and all credibility when he compared himself to David Hicks in an interview. That makes him nothing but an attention whore and internet paparazzi in my book.

[Gorgon]

I'd say that getting a look at how governments interact at a high diplomatic level serves a useful educational role. It's not often we get to see what they really get up to before hearing the polished version, and why are we crying about the US' wounded pride, who cares about that.

 

They made a website and said 'come to us with your leaks', and lo and behold some people did, and once in a while it created a stir. Why has this become about blaming the messenger. It would have been someone else if not Wikileaks.

[Humodour]

To be honest I don't really like Julian Assange at all. But he deserves the same rights owed to every other human.

 

I am extremely frustrated that WikiLeaks has not been more responsible with its leaks (classic example being the list of critical terror targets) and I've lost faith with this particular organisation. But the core philosophy and concept is an extremely important evolution of modern-day journalism and government transparency which America is feebly trying to discredit and crush.

[Monte Carlo]

I know I've raised it before, and Di tried to explain it away as post-9/11 information sharing...

 

But allowing a disgruntled Private soldier have legitimate access to everything the US diplomatic corps has been saying in private, whilst kicking back in a tent in Iraq, is crazy. Lunacy.

 

Wikileaks to my mind is irresponsible and is reaping the whirlwind. But bejaysus the US government has been extremely lax with it's basic IT security. I'm amazed this hasn't happened before, so they probably (deeply ironically) owe Wikileaks a debt. Now the more serious stuff is likely to be protected so self-aggrandizing techno-geeks can't get their sweaty paws on it.

 

For me, this matter is of interest because it heralds, at last, the dawning of a new era in global journalism. If a respected dead tree press paper had done this, then there would be less of an uproar (The Guardian, in the UK, for example is deeply complicit yet comes up smelling of roses using a 'They were publishing it anyway' argument). Because it is a proactive online organisation (send us your secrets risk free!) Wikileaks is new and dangerous to a lot of people.

 

So watch this space folks, it's going to be a fun ride whatever side of the argument you're on.

[Moose]

And then there's leaks like this: clicky

 

Not sure how publishing a list of facilities vital to U.S national security is really helping anyone out, other than a potential attacker.

 

"A number of BAE Systems plants involved in joint weapons programmes with the Americans are listed, along with a marine engineering firm in Edinburgh which is said to be "critical" for nuclear powered submarines" - I mean come on, this is an obvious blatant attack on national security.

[Walsingham]

Enoch, full apology, and humble pie from me. I don't know how I failed to grasp your original post properly.

 

To quickly recap, we've split into two discussions. One is on the behaviour of Julian Assange, and that is in two parts (rape and leaking secrets). The other is the principle of leaking in general.

 

- I believe the technical vulnerability leak puts the nail in Assange. His is not a crusade for information the People need, but a power play. Zoraptor's analysis that the targets aren't serious is interesting, but defunct. Mass casualty attacks on tourists may make the opposition feel good, but they don't pose an immediate threat to national well being. Whereas these are presented as vital. I see no reason why I should instantly dismiss their validity because I make an idle guess that they aren't.*

 

- The principle of leaking has - I can accept - some noble intentions. However, as free members of democracies we have it in our power to put in place real institutions with real power to whom leaks can be given. If we support leaks let us do so properly**, and not at the whim of dubious and unaccountable persons of unclear agenda.

 

 

* I haven't read them, and don't intend to as that would be a crime.

 

** I have a further point on the validity of leaks in principle, in military and diplomatic affairs, but I'm hoping not to get a tldr.

[Blarghagh]

I just skimmed through this thread, and the amount of posts I read advocating what is pure and simple murder angers me. It's also encouraging criminal acts, which I'm pretty sure is a bannable offense.

 

Anyway, I have just one question - how exactly did Assange get unto Interpol when there's only rape charges? Isn't that out of their jurisdiction? I thought they only did drug trafficing, human trafficing, mass murder, etc.?

[Walsingham]

True Neutral: This, represented with kind permission of Stratfor.com

 

Editor

[Blarghagh]

Ah, so sex crimes is their bit as well. I wasn't aware of that. Thanks!

 

(So how come they didn't nab Polanski?)

 

((That was in jest.))

Edited December 9, 2010 by TrueNeutral

[Walsingham]

LOL POlanski's another case in point. It's OK to be a rapist as long as you are a hip liberal rapist.