Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Wikileaks ... Friend or Foe?

245

Comments

  • #32
    Bottle_of_Smoke
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,770 ✭✭✭Bottle_of_Smoke


    Denerick wrote: »
    I have two very contradictory opinions about this.

    1) As somebody in love with history, its fantastic having the ability to have a real look at modern diplomacy and how our contemporaries view their rivals and colleagues. We usually have to wait at least 30 years for this kind of stuff, sometimes longer. And some of the dispatches are so beautifully written, complete with wit and insight that could only be better by a comic writer like the late J.G. Farrell.

    2) I also recognise that this has now changed diplomacy; diplomats will seek to have unrecorded communications; their language will become more guarded - generally people will be afraid to say what they really think. And we'll start feeling the effects of that in 30-50 years time, when the historians begin writing about our period in earnest.

    Completely agree. Real goose that lays the golden eggs scenario.


  • #33
    Mr. Presentable
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,495 ✭✭✭Mr. Presentable


    Loose cannon IMO. In other words, foe. The ideal is admirable, the problem is the man in the street will ultimately be the one to suffer - not politicians or the system.


  • #34
    gizmo555
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,948 ✭✭✭gizmo555


    EastTexas wrote: »
    S

    Semantics?
    Manning was arrested in May after WikiLeaks released leaked footage of attacks by US Apache helicopters in Iraq in 2007.
    He was later charged with transferring classified data and “delivering national defense information to an unauthorized source”, which could carry a maximum sentence of 52 years in jail.
    The Pentagon described Mr Manning as a “person of interest” for the subsequent and latest releases of documents.
    Meaning there is a good chance for his charges to be amended to treason and or espionage which could carry the death penalty.

    Not semantics at all. Just because Manning has been charged with and will likely be convicted of offences relating to the passing of the information to Assange, doesn't mean Assange is guilty of an offence in receiving it.

    Your assertion that he is guilty of receiving stolen goods when no goods were stolen makes as little sense as Sarah Palin's claim that Assange has committed treason against the US, when he isn't a US citizen and therefore by definition can't have.


  • #35
    Memnoch
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,276 ✭✭✭Memnoch


    Mr. Presentable wrote: »
    Loose cannon IMO. In other words, foe. The ideal is admirable, the problem is the man in the street will ultimately be the one to suffer - not politicians or the system.

    Why will the man in the street suffer if the political elite cannot act with complete impunity and fear of justice or exposure for their actions?

    The man on the street has nothing to gain with people in power being able to do whatever they want without any consequence.


  • #36
    Memnoch
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,276 ✭✭✭Memnoch


    gizmo555 wrote: »
    Not semantics at all. Just because Manning has been charged with and will likely be convicted of offences relating to the passing of the information to Assange, doesn't mean Assange is guilty of an offence in receiving it.

    Your assertion that he is guilty of receiving stolen goods when no goods were stolen makes as little sense as Sarah Palin's claim that Assange has committed treason against the US, when he isn't a US citizen and therefore by definition can't have.

    I wish Sarah Palin would commit REASON against the US.


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    mr.bovy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21 ✭mr.bovy


    EastTexas wrote: »
    He’s true believer of his own doctrine but completely unaware and incapable of even considering the magnitude of harm he has done by publishing private conversations.

    Which doctrine are you talking about?
    I remember when he used to aim for making the service offering raw data to the people. Nowadays we targets it to the press and they make a story out of it (check the interview for the economist on youtube). Mainstream recently gets even leak from wiki before website publishes it...

    Its quite a propaganda machine to me...

    please comment.


  • #38
    Jonny7
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,696 ✭✭✭Jonny7


    Why are the Americans the only ones getting into such a barney about this? they are practically baying for this mans blood, whilst every other nation affected just seems to respond with 'meh'


  • #39
    Black Swan
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 47,777 CMod ✭✭✭✭Black Swan


    gizmo555 wrote: »
    Sarah Palin's claim that Assange has committed treason against the US, when he isn't a US citizen and therefore by definition can't have.

    "...US Govt can't stop Wikileaks' treasonous act?"

    Sarah Palin continues to display her depth of knowledge and understanding of law and civics.


  • #40
    gizmo555
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,948 ✭✭✭gizmo555


    Jonny7 wrote: »
    Why are the Americans the only ones getting into such a barney about this? they are practically baying for this mans blood, whilst every other nation affected just seems to respond with 'meh'

    Only some Americans - others, like Robert Gates, Defense Secretary and past Director of the CIA are more sanguine:

    Let me just offer some perspective as somebody who’s been at this a long time. Every other government in the world knows the United States government leaks like a sieve, and it has for a long time. And I dragged this up the other day when I was looking at some of these prospective releases. And this is a quote from John Adams: ‘How can a government go on, publishing all of their negotiations with foreign nations, I know not. To me, it appears as dangerous and pernicious as it is novel.’

    “Now, I’ve heard the impact of these releases on our foreign policy described as a meltdown, as a game-changer, and so on. I think those descriptions are fairly significantly overwrought. The fact is, governments deal with the United States because it’s in their interest, not because they like us, not because they trust us, and not because they believe we can keep secrets. Many governments — some governments — deal with us because they fear us, some because they respect us, most because they need us. We are still essentially, as has been said before, the indispensable nation.

    “So other nations will continue to deal with us. They will continue to work with us. We will continue to share sensitive information with one another.

    “Is this embarrassing? Yes. Is it awkward? Yes. Consequences for U.S. foreign policy? I think fairly modest.


  • #41
    Manic Moran
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 16,881 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    How many lives would have been spared if the CIA/US government officials who made the decisions to help Saddam) knew their actions would be open to public scrutiny? How many other dictators are propped up and propelled to power by the US? How many of their citizens do they murder and subjugate?

    I understand your logic, but there's no way of knowing if it turned out to be the better of two evils. What might have happened had not the US taken certain decision policies? How many lives would have been saved had the US not gotten militarily involved in Vietnam? Certainly lots of Americans and Vietnamese, but would the American refusal to demonstrate its willingness to shed its own blood in support of its allies have possibly encouraged other incidents elsewhere?

    The possibility that people can make poor, or even illegal decisions should not hamper the possibility of people making good decisions. That's why the default position for freedoms in the average Western world is that you are free to drink, drive high horsepower cars, or own guns, even though there are liabilities to those freedoms.
    Why are the Americans the only ones getting into such a barney about this? they are practically baying for this mans blood, whilst every other nation affected just seems to respond with 'meh'

    Mainly because they're the ones being targetted. Der Spiegel announced this week that there's been an internal split within Wikileaks on the issue. A number of staff including the former #2 in the organisation, Domscheit-Berg, have gotten fed up with Assange's anti-US vendetta and will be launching a new site later this month with a 'broader approach.' (Or, as D-B points out, he followed Assange's instruction that "If you have a problem with me, piss off". Interestingly, Assange apparently wasn't happy about that leak of the internal Wikileaks goings-on). It is entirely possible that as new organisations focus on other nations that those other nations will start being a little less (publicly) 'meh'.
    Just because Manning has been charged with and will likely be convicted of offences relating to the passing of the information to Assange, doesn't mean Assange is guilty of an offence in receiving it

    Although possibly correct as far as it goes (there may be caveats to 'knowingly receiving illegally obtained goods' for example), the unauthorised distrubution of intellectual property is an offence in most jurisdictions.

    NTM


  • Advertisement
  • #42
    Digitaljunkie
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 349 ✭✭Digitaljunkie


    Has wikkileaks been taken off line? I can't get in even through google.


  • #43
    gizmo555
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,948 ✭✭✭gizmo555


    Manic Moran wrote: »
    Although possibly correct as far as it goes (there may be caveats to 'knowingly receiving illegally obtained goods' for example), the unauthorised distrubution of intellectual property is an offence in most jurisdictions.

    At best, in most jurisdictions it's treated as a civil tort, not a criminal offence. If it's a criminal offence "in most jurisdictions", the Guardian, New York Times and Der Spiegel are equally, if not more guilty than Assange. Why aren't they being prosecuted, if it's an offence? How come Palin and her ilk aren't calling for the NYT's editor to be tried for treason? After all, he, unlike Assange, actually is a US citizen.


  • #44
    Teferi
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,320 ✭✭✭Teferi


    Digitaljunkie wrote: »
    Has wikkileaks been taken off line? I can't get in even through google.

    If it is down it is likely due to a DDOS. There are a ton of mirror sites up if you google for one.

    Slightly aside - I am shocked at the Sky News reporting on this. They're really showing their Murdoch roots on this particular issue and are sounding more like the eejits of Fox News than anything else.


  • #45
    Anonymous1987
    Closed Accounts Posts: 784 ✭✭✭Anonymous1987


    I question the reason and morality of this:
    On Monday, Wikileaks released an extensive list of facilities around the world that, according to the latest leaked cables, the US describes as vital to its national security.
    The list includes pipelines, communication and transport hubs.
    Several UK sites are listed, including cable locations, satellite sites and BAE Systems plants.
    This is probably the most controversial document yet from the Wikileaks organisation, says BBC diplomatic correspondent Jonathan Marcus.
    Former UK Foreign Secretary Sir Malcolm Rifkind said WikiLeaks' actions were "verging on the criminal".
    He told the BBC: "It's not just negligence, it's not just stupidity, it is something which can be of active assistance to terrorist organisations."
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-11929034
    The file identifies sites the US relies on for a range of substances, from smallpox vaccines in Denmark to bauxite in Guinea and liquefied natural gas in the Middle East. Several underwater pipelines are listed in Japan, China and Britain, while Indonesia is flagged up for its tin mines and Iraq for its oil.
    http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/1d463920-011a-11e0-8894-00144feab49a.html#axzz17MRL91so


  • #46
    Manic Moran
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 16,881 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    gizmo555 wrote: »
    At best, in most jurisdictions it's treated as a civil tort, not a criminal offence.

    The countries in 'Red' seem to take an interest in it being a criminal matter.
    map20101001.jpg
    If it's a criminal offence "in most jurisdictions", the Guardian, New York Times and Der Spiegel are equally, if not more guilty than Assange. Why aren't they being prosecuted, if it's an offence?

    It's a fair question. My guess is it's a cost/benefit policy decision.
    How come Palin and her ilk aren't calling for the NYT's editor to be tried for treason? After all, he, unlike Assange, actually is a US citizen.

    I have no idea. I don't pay overly much attention to what Palin says, let alone know what she thinks.

    In the meantime, State Dept fallout continues, according to the Indo.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/us-forced-to-shake-up-embassies-around-the-world-after-wikileaks-revelations-2152167.html
    "In the short run, we're almost out of business," a senior US diplomat told the Reuters news agency, saying it could take five years to rebuild trust. "It is really, really bad. I cannot exaggerate it. In all honesty, nobody wants to talk to us ... Some people still have to, particularly (in) government but ... they are already asking us things like, 'Are you going to write about this?'"

    <Snip>

    "We're going to have to pull out some of our best people – the diplomats who best represented the United States and were the most thoughtful in their analysis – because they dared to report back the truth about the nations in which they serve."

    I still don't see how this is a good thing, or a necessary side-effect of the revalation of illegal activity.

    NTM


  • #47
    Digitaljunkie
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 349 ✭✭Digitaljunkie


    Looks like the digital feds are working hard to shut wiki down,

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/online/cyber-attacks-close-wikileaks-website-2152953.html


  • #48
    EastTexas
    Closed Accounts Posts: 251 ✭✭EastTexas


    mr.bovy wrote: »
    Which doctrine are you talking about?
    I remember when he used to aim for making the service offering raw data to the people. Nowadays we targets it to the press and they make a story out of it (check the interview for the economist on youtube). Mainstream recently gets even leak from wiki before website publishes it...

    Its quite a propaganda machine to me...

    please comment.

    Because Assange is an idealist and has adopted a particular view of how the world should function.
    The world according to Assange if you will and appears to be dead set to impose that with total disregards to the potential cost and harm to others.
    Considering himself above the law whilst holding others to the law also indicates some compartmentalized thinking.
    That doctrine, to answer your question.

    Also consider context.
    If he where an American investigative reporter he’d use a completely different and legal paths to tell the story and be a real whistle blower.
    Somebody part of the process (aided and protected by the freedom of the press and freedom of information) holding those in the process accountable, an entity the Government could work with.
    But they are not partnering up with Assange at his request to determine what to publish.

    Neither would any credible journalist ever sink so low to publish private cables/ mail
    But as some internet wild cat, indiscriminately leaking private conversations, he is just a finger pointer whilst hiding from accountability.

    Look, I get the Robin Hood aspect of this and don’t deny some admiration at least for his set of huevos, so this is not a blind partisan position.
    And in part also blame our mainstream press for not being more vigilant, especially in the last decade.
    But that does not legitimatize or exonerate J.A.
    Legally and ethically private mail, cables, post, conversations is of the table.
    The difference between a pro and a wannabe .
    He jumped the shark right there.


  • #49
    EastTexas
    Closed Accounts Posts: 251 ✭✭EastTexas


    Memnoch wrote: »
    I wish Sarah Palin would commit REASON against the US.


    Isn’t there already a palin thread already?
    Must those obsessed with her leak her into topic unrelated? :rolleyes:


  • #50
    COUCH WARRIOR
    Closed Accounts Posts: 116 ✭✭COUCH WARRIOR


    EastTexas wrote: »
    Assange accepted stolen property from Bradley Manning.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradley_Manning
    innocent until proven guilty does not apply to people accused of actions I do not agree with?


  • #51
    EastTexas
    Closed Accounts Posts: 251 ✭✭EastTexas


    gizmo555 wrote: »
    Not semantics at all. Just because Manning has been charged with and will likely be convicted of offences relating to the passing of the information to Assange, doesn't mean Assange is guilty of an offence in receiving it.

    Your assertion that he is guilty of receiving stolen goods when no goods were stolen makes as little sense as Sarah Palin's claim that Assange has committed treason against the US, when he isn't a US citizen and therefore by definition can't have.


    They are not done charging Manning as the fallout from his actions is ongoing
    Depending on what they charge Manning with will greatly affect and broaden the scope of possibilities of what J.A. can be charged with.
    Turning it over to a foreigner to publish and not to a legit American news outlet may well put him in the realm of espionage if not treason.

    There are many angles on which J.A. can be charged.
    One that jumps our right away is that Wikileaks has solicited funds via PayPal for publishing this information.
    Which could be legally interpreted as a form of selling, especially since his profits have sky rocketed with the release of the private cables.
    How being registered as a none profit organization affects this, I wouldn’t know.

    I am not going to respond to your palin argument.
    Be sure to stay tuned to her tweets.


  • Advertisement
  • #52
    gizmo555
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,948 ✭✭✭gizmo555


    Manic Moran wrote: »
    The countries in 'Red' seem to take an interest in it being a criminal matter.
    map20101001.jpg

    You must be having a laugh Manic - the Interpol programme mentioned on your map is aimed at catching organized crime gangs pirating CDs & DVDs and counterfeiting jeans. It has sweet f.a. to do with preventing the unauthorised publication of private correspondence against the wishes of its owners, even if they do happen to be the US government.


  • #53
    EastTexas
    Closed Accounts Posts: 251 ✭✭EastTexas


    COUCH WARRIOR wrote: »
    innocent until proven guilty does not apply to people accused of actions I do not agree with?

    Manning already admitted to smuggling/ stealing/ transferring and then forwarding classified information to Wikileaks earlier this year.
    There will be due process.


  • #54
    gizmo555
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,948 ✭✭✭gizmo555


    EastTexas wrote: »
    They are not done charging Manning as the fallout from his actions is ongoing

    Doesn't change the fact that no property was stolen.
    EastTexas wrote: »
    There are many angles on which J.A. can be charged.

    Well, IANAL, but the people at the Program in Law and Journalism at New York Law School are, and they say otherwise.


  • #55
    EastTexas
    Closed Accounts Posts: 251 ✭✭EastTexas


    gizmo555 wrote: »
    Doesn't change the fact that no property was stolen.



    Well, IANAL, but the people at the Program in Law and Journalism at New York Law School are, and they say otherwise.

    Sorry, but it’s a waste of time, at least for me, to argue about semantics.
    There are plenty of opinions and I expect many more.
    But in the end, everybody working for the federal government has sworn an oath to protect the nation.
    This duty will take precedent to everything else.


  • #56
    Manic Moran
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 16,881 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    gizmo555 wrote: »
    You must be having a laugh Manic - the Interpol programme mentioned on your map is aimed at catching organized crime gangs pirating CDs & DVDs and counterfeiting jeans. It has sweet f.a. to do with preventing the unauthorised publication of private correspondence against the wishes of its owners, even if they do happen to be the US government.

    The legal definition of intellectual property does not confine itself to the products of commercial enterprise.
    Intangible rights protecting the products of human intelligence and creation, such as copyrightable works, patented inventions, Trademarks, and trade secrets. Although largely governed by federal law, state law also governs some aspects of intellectual property.

    Diplomatic correspondance is very much a product of human intelligence and creation, and the government retains the right to restrict its distribution.

    NTM


  • #57
    COUCH WARRIOR
    Closed Accounts Posts: 116 ✭✭COUCH WARRIOR


    EastTexas wrote: »
    Manning already admitted to smuggling/ stealing/ transferring and then forwarding classified information to Wikileaks earlier this year.
    There will be due process.

    I'd be interested in seeing your source for this.


  • #58
    EastTexas
    Closed Accounts Posts: 251 ✭✭EastTexas


    COUCH WARRIOR wrote: »
    I'd be interested in seeing your source for this.

    That’s how he was caught, more precisely turned in for bragging and having a good laugh about it.


  • #59
    COUCH WARRIOR
    Closed Accounts Posts: 116 ✭✭COUCH WARRIOR


    EastTexas wrote: »
    That’s how he was caught, more precisely turned in for bragging and having a good laugh about it.
    Oh! so you've gone from the word of a snitch. Straight to guilty, fair enough so.


  • #60
    gizmo555
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,948 ✭✭✭gizmo555


    Manic Moran wrote: »
    Diplomatic correspondance is very much a product of human intelligence and creation, and the government retains the right to restrict its distribution.

    Even if you're right, and we'll have to agree to differ on that, your argument would still be trumped - at least as far as US law is concerned - by the First Amendment guarantee of freedom of the press.

    News organizations like the New York Times or the Washington Post have published classified government documents on numerous occasions, long before Wikileaks, long before Assange was even born, and no doubt will continue to do so. And that's how it should be.


  • Advertisement
  • #61
    EastTexas
    Closed Accounts Posts: 251 ✭✭EastTexas


    gizmo555 wrote: »
    Even if you're right, and we'll have to agree to differ on that, your argument would still be trumped - at least as far as US law is concerned - by the First Amendment guarantee of freedom of the press.

    News organizations like the New York Times or the Washington Post have published classified government documents on numerous occasions, long before Wikileaks, long before Assange was even born, and no doubt will continue to do so. And that's how it should be.

    Assange is not covered under the first amendment.
    He is not a US citizen.
    Does not reside in the US, legally or otherwise
    And isn’t a member of the US press like the Washington Post.
    Not a member of any press at all but vigilante practicing internet jihad.


Advertisement