There is no WikiLeaks. This is the US and it is intentional.
One poster noted that there were no cables from Assange's native Australia. It's not a far stretch to speculate that that is an attempt to safeguard against prosecution for domestic spying. Here is a good post on potential criminal liability under the U.S. Espionage Act:
http://opiniojuris.org/2010/08/21/ca...can-catch-him/The Espionage Act has long been held to apply to foreign nationals who commits acts while abroad (see U.S. v. Zehe, 601 F.Supp. 196 (D. Mass 1985).). The only problem seems to be actually capturing Assange. It is worth noting, of course, that abducting Assange, even in violation of the sovereignty of a country where the U.S. has an extradition treaty, would not prevent a U.S. court from trying him. (See U.S. v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259 (1990)). And finally, Wikileaks may or may not have a First Amendment defense, and even if it does, the precedent of NY Times v. U.S., 403 U.S. 713 (1971), (the Pentagon Papers case) only seems to prevent prior restraint. Post-publication prosecution is probably OK under the First Amendment.
So Wikileaks really does have serious legal exposure, and pretty weak legal defenses. I hope they are getting better U.S. legal advice than the WSJ article describes. And if I were Assange’s lawyer, I would advise him to avoid the U.S., and international waters and airspace, for as long as possible.
I haven't read all of the cables, or even a significant portion of them, but the other things I take away from them is what is not in them. There's absolutely no indication that the United States says one thing in public and a completely divergent thing in private. On the contrary, our public statements are remarkably consistent with the private analyses contained in the cables.
Some other things that are not in the cables:
1) There's no secret diplomacy or protocols going on. So far as I can tell, there's no mention of anything akin to a Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact or anything like that. There are no secret deals with China to carve up North Korea after Kim dies. There are no secret protocols with Russia to divide Iran up into spheres of influence after the Mullahs are deposed. There's just nothing to give any succor to conspiracy theorists who believe that the United States is running around making nefarious deals with other powers under the table.
2) Contrary to what Fidel Castro (and now Hugo Chavez) claim, there are no American stooges running anything in Latin America. There are some leaders and potential leaders who are more pro-American than others, but none of them are in our pocket.
3) There's absolutely nothing in there to support the conclusion that American policy or diplomacy is controlled by Israel. From everything I've read, it looks like Israel is treated as though it's as much a pain in our diplomatic ass as any of the Arab states. The cables from Riyadh show that we probably have a closer and more open relationship with the leadership in Saudi Arabia than we do with the leadership in Jerusalem. Of course it's probably easier to have a frank relationship with an autocrat than it is to have one with an elected leader who has to worry about domestic politics and separation of powers, but even still . . . .
I don't know--I'm not entirely convinced the release of these cables is, on balance, a bad thing.
String that $#@!ing PFC up for treason as well.
Shut down this entire operation....start to finish.
Obviously start over with our security of electronic documents with in the State Department and possibly make some arrests there as well.
$#@!ing fire Hillary over it if it comes to that.
Take a breather Tom, and consider that this is the intel community. Hackers have been working with the intel community from the beginning of hacking. Look at the information that has been released. Look at the pressure it is putting on Turkey in those cables. Consider the pressure it will put on Wall Street when the curtain is thrown back on BOA. Julian is a patsy, baby.
Maybe it is Hillary in a political move to get on the ticket?
Assange is not a patsy, at least no yet. However, it shouldn't be discounted that Wikileaks could potentially be manipulated in to releasing fabricated classified* information. Most likely not at this time, but sometime later.
* - I hereby coin the term "fabrified" .
Last edited by Ghost of LL; 12-02-2010 at 04:10 PM.
http://www.boingboing.net/2010/12/01...Boing+Boing%29When Wikileaks released thousands of classified US diplomatic cables this week, a familiar criticism was repeated by the project's foes: these leaks could harm innocent people. There's no evidence of that yet, but within the documents there is evidence the American government has harmed innocent people.
One of them is Khaled El-Masri, a German citizen of Lebanese descent, and a victim of so-called "extraordinary rendition." He was a car salesman in Germany, a father of six. The CIA kidnapped him by mistake (his name sounds and looks identical to that of an actual terror suspect), and sent off to receive months of torture in Afghanistan.
When the CIA realized he was innocent, he was flown to Albania and dumped on a back road without so much as an apology.
El-Masri's futile efforts at receiving justice in the U.S. are well-known, but the cables published this week by Wikileaks include revelations the U.S. also warned German authorities not to allow a local investigation into his kidnapping and abuse.
The nearest he's gotten to justice is an arrest warrant for 13 CIA agents issued by prosecutors in Spain, which they entered on forged passports.
Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates has regularly denounced Wikileaks in recent months for its extensive disclosures, and as a former director of central intelligence he places high value on secrets.
But at a Pentagon briefing on Tuesday, Mr. Gates, who plans to retire next year, responded to a question about Wikileaks’ disclosure of 250,000 diplomatic cables by meandering down a different path.
Here is some of what he said:
“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.’’
Hell let them continue. It doesn't look like they have a bias for or against any specific country. I doubt that much of what has been divulged is shocking to the diplomatic communities around the world. Its the general public who is getting an education and I don't have a problem with it. Long live WikiLeaks!
WikiLeaks,org domain killed by US everydns.net after claimed mass attacks KEEP US STRONG https://donations.datacell.com/
about 10 hours ago via web
WIKILEAKS: Free speech has a number: http://220.127.116.11
about 6 hours ago via web
WikiLeaks moves to Switzerland http://wikileaks.ch/
about 6 hours ago via web
Last edited by Meursault; 12-03-2010 at 10:39 AM.
The USA is now censoring the internet. Terrific. It was only a matter of time, I guess. Chinese government did it. Iranian government did it. Now it's our government's turn.
http://www.boingboing.net/2010/12/03...-wikileak.htmlPaypal bans Wikileaks just before midnight Friday
PayPal's blog:PayPal has permanently restricted the account used by WikiLeaks due to a violation of the PayPal Acceptable Use Policy, which states that our payment service cannot be used for any activities that encourage, promote, facilitate or instruct others to engage in illegal activity. We've notified the account holder of this action.
What has Wikileaks done that is illegal? Wouldn't all news sources be guilty of the same? NY Times was the first to release the diplomatic cables in the USA (Wikileaks was under a DOS attack at the time).Update: In a tweet, Wikileaks says it [PayPal's action] was the result of government pressure.
http://www.boingboing.net/2010/12/03...ables-rev.htmlSpain's Congress is about to vote on a new and extremely harsh copyright/Internet law. It's an open secret that the law was essentially drafted by American industry groups working with the US trade representative.
But it gets gets more interesting: 115 of the Wikileaks cables intercepted from the US embassy in Madrid were tagged with "KIPR" -- that is, relating to "intellectual property," The big question has been: will El Pais, the Spanish newspaper that has the complete trove of Wikileaks cables, release them in time to affect the vote on the new law?
Well, now they've started. The first 35 of the 115 cables have been released, and they confirm the widespread suspicion: the Spanish government and the opposition party were led around by the nose by the US representatives who are the real legislative authority in Spain.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/12/r...hat-wikileaks/Popular Texas Republican Congressman Ron Paul is no stranger to breaking with his party, but in a recent television appearance the libertarian-leaning Rep. went even further than any member of Congress in defending whistleblower website WikiLeaks.
Speaking to Fox Business host Judge Napolitano on Thursday about recent revelations at the Federal Reserve, Paul's typical candor showed through.
"What we need is more WikiLeaks about the Federal Reserve," he said. "Can you imagine what it'd be like if we had every conversation in the last 10 years with our Federal Reserve people, the Federal Reserve chairman, with all the central bankers of the world and every agreement or quid-pro-quo they have? It would be massive. People would be so outraged."
didn't really hit me till now. wonder how this will alter the internet and its control. damn.
What's so upsetting is you're right. Wikileaks is clearly in violation. Having said that, the letter of the law is so vague that practically anybody and anything could be found in violation. Who on Shaggy hasn't written a few abusive words about our government?It made it a crime:
* To convey information with intent to interfere with the operation or success of the armed forces of the United States or to promote the success of its enemies. This was punishable by death or by imprisonment for not more than 30 years or both.
* To convey false reports or false statements with intent to interfere with the operation or success of the military or naval forces of the United States or to promote the success of its enemies when the United States is at war, to cause or attempt to cause insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, refusal of duty, in the military or naval forces of the United States, or to willfully obstruct the recruiting or enlistment service of the United States. This was punishable by a maximum fine of $10,000 fine or by imprisonment for not more than 20 years or both.
The law was later extended on May 16, 1918 by the Sedition Act of 1918–actually a set of amendments to the Espionage Act–which prohibited many forms of speech, including "any disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language about the form of government of the United States...or the flag of the United States, or the uniform of the Army or Navy."
Really?What has Wikileaks done that is illegal?
I don't know, maybe something to do with releasing thousands of classified documents to the public?
Now it appears Wikileaks is publishing a list of critical U.S. infrastructure. So, first they try to give motive to harm the US by publishing illegally obtained confidential war and diplomatic documents, then they publish what is essentially a hit list of targets for terrorists that would do serious damage to our country, our safety and our economic interests.
It's one thing to be a whistleblower, but this new publication clearly shows an intent to cause harm to the United States. There is no other motive to release such a list.
Seems like he just signed his own death warrant. I don't see him getting away with this without some serious and probably fatal repercussions. However, he has supposedly threatened that in the event that he is arrested, killed or Wikileaks is taken down, he would release a "poison pill" of information that would be supremely damaging to what I can only assume would be the United States and/or our government.
2. If foreign governments and/or extremist governments want such information, clearly it is very easy to obtain. PFC Manning walked out the front door with this information on a CD. Do you think PFC Manning is the only person willing to leak such information? PFC Manning (apparently) leaked it for zero compensation.
I'm quite sure there are several other people with access to the same classified information who are at present leaking all sorts of it, perhaps even more damaging information than infrastructure information. Just because you don't know about it doesn't mean it's not happening. Where there's opportunity and motive ($$$), you can bet it's happening.
3. At least now our government absolutely must accept it as fact that people are leaking information. Hopefully our government will take action to fix the problem rather than ignoring it. So in that light, it is indeed a positive that this information has been leaked.
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/12...nce-file-shut/Julian Assange, the WikiLeaks founder, has circulated across the internet an encrypted “poison pill” cache of uncensored documents suspected to include files on BP and Guantanamo Bay.
One of the files identified this weekend by The Sunday Times — called the “insurance” file — has been downloaded from the WikiLeaks website by tens of thousands of supporters, from America to Australia.
Assange warns that any government that tries to curtail his activities risks triggering a new deluge of state and commercial secrets.
The military papers on Guantanamo Bay, yet to be published, have been supplied by Bradley Manning, Assange’s primary source until his arrest in May. Other documents that Assange is confirmed to possess include an aerial video of a U.S. airstrike in Afghanistan that killed civilians, BP files and Bank of America documents.
One of the key files available for download — named insurance.aes256 — appears to be encrypted with a 256-digit key. Experts said last week it was virtually unbreakable.
If Assange does release those files he is as good as dead.................he is really a dead-man walking.
From a public relations standpoint, that was pretty $#@!ing stupid of Wikileaks. However, from a reasonable and practical standpoint, I don't think it's that big of a deal. Anyone with critical thinking skills could easily soft, critical targets. The notion that somehow this leak made us more vulnerable is a farce.
Perhaps easier to identify. But without this Wikileaks-baked pie on their face, I don't think our government would take action. It's not our state secrets walking out the front doors that bothers our government. It's the pie.I would bet that it's a hell of a lot easier to identify and prosecute a traitor receiving money for their espionage as where there is money, there is an easily traceable trail (financial or otherwise).
That is not at all clear to me. I realize some new safeguards were recently put in to place. But that is nowhere near what is necessary to fix the problem.Clearly these leaks were going to be confronted and measures put in place to prevent future leaks, even if Assange didn't release this new batch.
Disagree.All this new batch does is provide convincing evidence that Assange's motive is to cause harm to the United States and our allies (esp. the UK).
Agree.This just makes it much easier to prosecute Assange and I'm no legal authority, but I would bet this behavior makes him border upon the "enemy combatant" threshold.
If that is not his intention (and as an anarchist, I can only assume that it is), then what, pray tell, do you think is the point of the new release? What, he's just flexing his informational muscles and continuing to instigate a response from our government for $#@!s and giggles? Personally, I think he wants to be assassinated, as he believes that such an act would cause an uproar that could cause extreme civil unrest and push the government towards the brink of chaos. That's why I hope he is arrested, tried and convicted to a lengthy prison sentence (but not death) just like any other criminal that wants to become a martyr for their cause.Disagree.All this new batch does is provide convincing evidence that Assange's motive is to cause harm to the United States and our allies (esp. the UK).
Either way, it looks bad for us. If we do nothing, we appear weak in the eyes of the world. If we kill him, we look like a guilty party trying to silence opposition. There is no way we come out ahead in this situation, even though I've yet to find any incriminating behavior from the diplomatic leaks (the war leaks were definitely more damaging to our integrity).
Last edited by hopkinsnhorns; 12-06-2010 at 03:24 PM.
anyone think maybe we shouldn't 3 million folks with access? our military and intelligence is bloated and outdated, just like the rest of our government. i don't see any of this as a threat. i see it as a wakeup call for us to get our $#@! together.
Any nation-state with a decent foreign intelligence service knew this information already. So all we're talking about is stateless terrorists. And they're probably not that interested.
You're asking a question which is only tangential to your original statement (and tangential to my response to your original statement):
I disagree. It does more than that, as I've already stated in detail.Originally Posted by hopkinsnhorns
-Wikileaks is wrong to release the new data
-Confidential information is easily obtained by foreign entities for money or other motive and is likely still being leaked.
-Our government must now be aware of the leak and do something to prevent leaks from occurring.
-Since our government is "in the wrong" (not sure in what light you mean), somehow that makes Assange's actions less wrong?
None of that really refutes my supposition that his intent was to cause harm.
-Just because the same information could have been reached by our enemies through other means doesn't mean it excuses his own actions. If I know someone has a gun and an intent to cause someone else harm, are you to suggest that if I gave them bullets that I was not responsible for their potential actions as they could have gone to Academy and bought their own ammunition almost as easily?
-Our government was well aware of the problem of the leaks given he had already released hundreds of thousands of other classified documents, so this new bit really is superfluous in that regard.
-And lastly, because of some perceived injustice committed by our government, his release of this document is somehow justified, or at the very least properly motivated, even if it is still wrong?
Intent has been the crux of this discussion since I posted the article as that was clearly the only thing that made this story any different from his other releases. He is not blowing a whistle to highlight government/military corruption or uncouth diplomatic relations, but is instead highlighting weaknesses and in doing so aligning himself against firmly against our national interests. He did us no favors by telegraphing a list of our critical infrastructure to all those who would seek to know as much.
Last edited by hopkinsnhorns; 12-06-2010 at 05:43 PM.
I'm not sure what we're arguing over. I'll just answer your questions.
No.Since our government is "in the wrong" (not sure in what light you mean), somehow that makes Assange's actions less wrong?
My intention isn't and hasn't been to refute that.None of that really refutes my supposition that his intent was to cause harm.
You = Wikileaksif I gave them bullets that I was not responsible for their potential actions as they could have gone to Academy and bought their own ammunition almost as easily?
They = those who would do harm to the US
Academy = government
The problem with your analogy is you can legally purchase ammo at Academy. Wikileaks cannot legally obtain classified information from the government. Yet somehow they were able to. If Academy was somehow culpable for selling you (and "they") ammo, then your analogy would be more appropriate. And the party most at fault would be Academy.
In your analogy with my rules (illegal to sell ammo) you can bet Academy would be held liable by the justice system, whether you supplied the ammo or "they" bought the ammo.
I'm not discussing Assange's possible motivations nor am I discussion possible injustices committed by our government. If this question is a hypothetical, I'll answer it by saying the release of this information is wrong but hopefully it will have positive effects.And lastly, because of some perceived injustice committed by our government, his release of this document is somehow justified, or at the very least properly motivated, even if it is still wrong?
He did. Hopefully we'll get our policies in order. The more embarrassing the leaks, the more likely we'll get things fixed BEFORE something of critical importance is leaked and exploited to massive pain (if it's not already too late).He did us no favors by telegraphing a list of our critical infrastructure to all those who would seek to know as much.
If Assange is guilty, our government is complicit through incompetence.
-- edit --
I'll add that the single person hating Wikileaks more than anybody is Putin. Because he's worrying this will force us to address our security leaks, thus ending his stream of classified information. PLUS he's worrying Wikileaks has some goods on him.
Last edited by Grammer Police; 12-06-2010 at 06:54 PM.
I'm still not really buying your reasoning though I do think I understand it now.
Either way, it's like some stranger walking up to you on the football field before a game, kicking you square in the balls as they holler "Cup Check!" then alerting the opposing team that you are vulnerable in the groin area because you didn't wear your nut cup. Sure, you will probably not forget to put on the protection before future games, but you're still vulnerable during that game to anyone who would seek to deliberately inflict pain upon you, regardless of any penalties that person might incur.
It would be more appropriate if the previous dozen opposing teams all kicked you in the nuts. All the while you're wondering why your groin hurts. Then one day a stranger kicks you in the nuts and tells you to wear a cup. Then you have an ah-hah moment and correlate the kicking of the nuts with the groin pain. Because of the stranger, the next team you play definitely knows you don't have a cup (and they might exploit that knowledge), but the teams after that hopefully won't have the same nut-kicking advantage they otherwise might've.
Football .. Basketball .. Baseball .. Other Sports .. RC Didn't Offer .. Gamboool
Varsity .. Hole in the Wall .. PCL .. Einstein's .. Nasty's .. GM Steakhouse .. NSAA
Bada Bing .. Can you help me with this? .. Shagslist .. Cloak Room .. Classics .. Bellmont