Wikileaks: Salvation Through Information?

[Gruntlord6]

BREAKING NEWS: The Guardian is reporting that WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange was just arrested in the UK. Now American officials are trying to figure out how to extradite him to the US.

There's just one problem: experts say WikiLeaks hasn't broken any laws. So Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) is trying to change the law to retroactively make WikiLeaks illegal.

Click here to sign our urgent petition opposing this blatantly unconstitutional move.

The debate in Congress about this bill is going to be fast and furious, so we need to rally all the support we can get. We can't just let the government lock people up for publishing the news.

Add your name now. We'll make sure lawmakers and the media know how many people oppose this censorship.

Add your name today -- it just takes a second.

Keep on fighting,

-- Aaron Swartz and the Demand Progress team

Paid for by Demand Progress (DemandProgress.org) and not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee. Contributions are not deductible as charitable contributions for federal income tax purposes.

I got that email the other day :(

[Wolf]

Yeah, I have no idea what to think about his arrest. I've heard that the incidents might have been overblown, but then again, rape law is designed to maximize victim protection. Even if an event seems consensual, there are a lot of factors at play influencing a woman's apparent consent to sexual acts, and it might very well be that, despite what Assange may have believed, he actually was committing a sexual battery. (The case is an old one, a man of influence politically or professionally uses that influence to coax sexual favors out of young, impressionable women. Oftentimes the sex acts are consensual, oftentimes the use of influence approaches an unlawful act of coercion--which need not be physical force.) At the same time, I haven't seen where these sources are getting their info, and the authorities themselves are relatively tight-lipped about the whole affair. I know what his arrest isn't, though: it isn't a "honeytrap" meticulously laid by the U.S. government. For a couple of reasons, (1) these events happened well before the U.S. was pissed off enough to try something like that, and (2) as the leaks themselves have illustrated, that just isn't something the U.S. really does. Besides, we're talking about Sweden, a country that absolutely would resent U.S. manipulation of its local law enforcement for a political end. Assange has always tried to maximize the "drama" surrounding himself and his organization, so I can't exactly take his claims that this is solely a ploy to discredit him seriously. Especially when the country prosecuting him has one of the best, if not the best, human rights and criminal treatment records in the world. It's bullshit, and to quote SNL's Assange-alike, "[r]emember, no matter how I die, it was murder!" Well, this is what happens when you can't get over yourself.

[Andrew]

Oh look, it's an official white house briefing for yesterday.

Daily Press Briefing

Anyway, just to start off, the United States is pleased to announce that we’ll host UNESCO’s World Press Freedom Day in 2011 from May 1 to May 3 here in Washington, D.C. UNESCO is the only UN agency with a mandate to promote freedom of expression, and its corollary, freedom of the press. The theme for this commemoration will be 21st Century Media: New Frontiers, New Barriers. Obviously, we decided upon this before the latest round of news.

So US wants to host freedom of press event, they decided about this before current wikileaks, and yet are against wikileaks press.

Hilarious to read that section, they are all for freedom of press, except when it makes US look bad...

At least the guy admitted there was irony in it.

The United States places technology and innovation at the forefront of its diplomatic and development efforts. There certainly is an irony here.

Or watch the video of the press release. First 2 minutes.

terrorism link image

[athanasios]

I agree, terrorists use surveillance cameras and take pictures. Have you seen who is constantly doing this on the streets? If yes report it here and smash their equipment!

-

Sri Lanka's Foreign Ministry, according to the State run Dinamina, has launched its own "independent inquiries into the reports." I fear more journalists or hackers will be 'kidnapped', beaten and even ditched (dead) from white vans for 'betraying their country'.

-

To TMA_1: The word democracy is abused and raped in our days. It is used as a mask for oligarchy.

[Wolf]

Two more observations:

(1) Assange has, apparently, a battery of information larger than all the recent anti-American leaks combined that he has attached to a "dead man's switch." If killed or incapacitated, the information gets released. Well, wait a second, isn't his entire moral support based on the principle that you release information no matter what? What is he doing with this supposedly-awesome information that he's keeping to himself? Isn't that a little hypocritical? If he really believes in his freedom of information shtick, then he should release that, too--forget the consequences (they haven't stopped him before!). Is he really that worried for his life? People have said that he's a paranoid egomaniac, and at this point, I'm pretty willing to believe it.

(2) Anon. of Scientology fame has begun DDoSing the websites of corporations/public figures that have taken steps to oppose WikiLeaks. Now, while I don't think a DDoS is really that bad for a multinational corporation, save for the humiliation factor, I don't think Anon. (which may or may not be up to good things, that's a matter for debate) is serving itself well by taking this side of the issue--they can certainly never expect to rely on help from the U.S. government in the future, and a lot of their goals--such as repeal of the Church of Scientology's tax-exempt status and re-organization of the U.S. copyright code--are certain things that you need a cooperative government to help you with. Furthermore, everyone could get behind the anti-Scientology campaign; it's a lot harder for people to get behind the WikiLeaks campaign when Assange so clearly has an anti-American agenda (despite dozens of releases of other government abuses, many of them far worse than U.S. abuses--like genocide--it's only the leaks that embarrass the U.S. that occupy prominent positions on the WikiLeaks site). This is probably not the best expenditure of Anon.'s political capital that was gained in the Scientology campaign--then again, it's probably unavoidable given the nature of the organization.

[athanasios]

It is not hypocritical, and every sane person should take measures to protect himself. I would do the same. Often it matters a lot the way you release the information and the time you do so.

[Gruntlord6]

It is not hypocritical, and every sane person should take measures to protect himself. I would do the same. Often it matters a lot the way you release the information and the time you do so.

Or he could be claiming he has information that he doesn't for his own saftey, a bluff.

Either way I do not see him as against the american (or other countries) agenda, hes just trying to keep the government honest.

[Andrew]

Wikileaks Reveals U.S. Tax Dollars Fund Child Sex Slavery in Afghanistan

So the US government finances child sex slavery. Interesting.

US embassy cables: Afghan government asks US to quash 'dancing boys' scandal

[athanasios]

That's not big deal. Don't forget that in African countries they promote civil wars where the soldiers are children to grab their resources.

[Wolf]

Wrong. Sure, you can call it "insurance", but if your insurance is simply the commision of the very act that you claim is evil (in this case, secrecy), then you can't avoid being a hypocrite whether you like it or not. If he truly beleived that the "truth would set him free," then he'd release his "dead man's switch" data this very minute. That's of course assuming there's anything there--it might be that it's simply a bluff to waste the time of his perceived opponents.

I also think it's wrong to fail to characterize Assange and whatever wing of WikiLeaks he represents as anti-American: their efforts at publicizing the very worst aspects of American policy, while worse crimes go released elsewhere on their site without any publicity whatsoever, and to highlight them to the exclusion of virtually every other "leak" is indicative of a very serious anti-American agenda that the U.S. government should react to. I think this is why a second organization is springing up: they recognize that the original WikiLeaks is far too politicized and agenda-driven... which actually defeats the very reason WikiLeaks existed in the first place!

[ErasOmnius]

Wikileaks Reveals U.S. Tax Dollars Fund Child Sex Slavery in Afghanistan

So the US government finances child sex slavery. Interesting.

US embassy cables: Afghan government asks US to quash 'dancing boys' scandal

Thanks for the eye opener. Watched the entire clip you provided, and sent it to others. I'm glad this is coming out into the open. The US would allow 'anything' to protect it's interests overseas.

[Dante]

In reference to your point 1, Wolf, I would suggest that Wikileaks has often stated that it edits all the data it publishes in order to not reveal anything that would be potentially (physically) harmful. In other words, it censors things like troop movements, names and locations of sensitive individuals, etc. It's therefore possible that this backup of Assange's is simply all the data that Wikileaks possesses, unedited.

[Wolf]

Well, that would be funny for a few reasons. If that were the case...

(1) Assuming he'd keep to his word and release it only if he was killed or incapacitated (i.e., imprisoned), then release of the "Secret Files" (I'm going to call them that for the irony-value) would probably land him (or WikiLeaks, if he were dead) in even more trouble--it would be like trying to put out a fire with gasoline. So, I would argue that's a debatable strategy... also, the U.S. government has never reacted well to being dared. (See, e.g., Saddam Hussein).

(2) It further gives lie to his "freedom of information" shtick (which is really just his opinion that everyone is entitled to everyone else's secrets, unless it's him, in which case, any of his secrets people seek to release are "smear campaigns"--gotta keep up with the terminology), because, why redact at all? Why compromise at any point if your very position is one that purports to be uncompromising? Furthermore, if you want to argue that even he has limits and we should be glad he cares for the safety of people who might be implicated in these documents, then why is he the one that gets to make the choice of redactions? As someone who's actually performed redactions and requested redacted material, I'll tell you that different people and organizations have different thresholds of what should be redacted. I've seen colleagues ask for the same document from 3 or 4 relatively similar agencies and get back wildly different end-products. He has no right, especially legal, but I also think ethical and logical, to make that call. He's in awkward position ethically, that's obvious, but I want to stress that his mehtods and the very principle underlying his organization and his mission are also awkward logically. They don't make sense, and I think it's been clear from the start that he's never been a very mentally-stable individual.

With that said, I do want to say that none of this means that I don't believe in freedom of information--I do, and much of my problem with Assange lies in the fact that his methods will result in less freedom of information, not more. Both the U.S. and U.K. have FOI laws that I actually think are rather well-constructed. There's a legal way to do what he's doing, and, provided that you aren't asking for a classified or otherwise exempted document, you could have received most of what WikiLeaks released. There's a right way to do things. Assange is an example of the wrong way--and it's the wrong way, I think, because of his personal failings, amplified by his dictatorial control over WikiLeaks, and because of his personal agenda. What's sad about this whole affair is that we will probably see increased secrecy from our governments simply because of just how unsympathetic he is and how unpalatable his methods are. If the judiciary gets to decide things (at least as far as the U.S. goes), they will go out of their way to repudiate his methods, and if that results in a castrated FOIA, then so be it: Assange changed their policy concerns in a way, I think, that actually defeats his goals if he were to stop and think about it. I don't think the legsilature feels any differently. Shame on him, but the burden will fall on us.

[athanasios]

If they want to apply less freedom on information, they do not need any Assange 'alibi' to do it. They will find the way.

[ErasOmnius]

But he will be a convenient excuse.

[athanasios]

Much like the Twin Towers.

[ErasOmnius]

Much like the Twin Towers.

New thread.

[athanasios]

WikiLeaks: Gotabaya sanctioned extra-judicial killings by Paramilitaries

[ErasOmnius]

WikiLeaks: Gotabaya sanctioned extra-judicial killings by Paramilitaries

I always find it sad reading about genocidal activities.

[athanasios]

In a way or another it is happening all over the world.

Surgeons make needless operations to get money. Even worse other surgeons imitate the Tlilaxu.

[ErasOmnius]

Did they ever consider drawing a line through Sri Lanka to separate the two parties.

I see that in Sudan, that a line is soon to be drawn, and hopefully, the fighting will die down.

[Gruntlord6]

Funny how he is not considered a journalist, but a terrorist. What kind of world is this?

[athanasios]

No line because the Sinhalese won the war against the Tamil* 'terrorists'. I placed 'terrorists' in quotation marks, as even though Tigers (LTTE military) were (because they are no more-fell in battle or murdered) considered terrorists and resorted to terrorism and cooperated with al-Qaida, I think there are no rules in war conflicts. Who is to tell that the side that denies food and as a result famine reaps the lives of thousands, or steals the property and the history of the others, is not a terrorist and the side that sends a suicide bomber and kills hundreds is?

*Please note that not all Tamils in Sri Lanka support LTTE and its fight for a separate Tamil nation.

[Lord J]

Did they ever consider drawing a line through Sri Lanka to separate the two parties.

Because drawing lines always stops violence....

I'll admit that my knowledge of the Tamil people and their army is limited to an episode of Vanguard, but I find it an interesting account of how differing ideological viewpoints and limited resources leads to violence. It's like a petrie dish for war.

[ErasOmnius]

I think that drawing a line is a start because it gives legitimacy to the so-called 'rebel'. From what I have read about the Tamil, they had almost no official recognition by the Sri Lankan government at all.

As far as the line in Ireland goes, since the line was drawn in the 1920s, there has been some agitation and unrest, but no outright civil war.