|
the Wikileaks/ Cablegate scandal (pg. 3)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| pmoisse |
From my post in the COR:
I find this Assange guy super creepy.
However, I agree with whoever said it (maybe earlier in this thread) that effectively this is doing what a responsible news media should be, though some of it does go a bit far.
The war/afghanistan stuff doesn't really surprise me in that the stuff in the cables is the story of a worse situation than the public was led to believe.
What I'm actually excited for is the possibility of the upcoming release about some large banking institution. Also there's a court case in Nigeria that has charged Cheney with massive bribery from when he was chief of Halliburton that apparently Wikileaks has some juicy info on.
But yeah, this Assange guy needs to find a secret BatCave, and fast
edit: also re the release of sensitive identities / info etc. I think it has been overlooked that people working for the Bush admin did effectively the same thing outing Valerie Plame. So, there is internal precedent there though of course it isn't on the same scale...though which is worse? Stabbing your own in the back or your own being stabbed in the back by your own words that were exposed after the fact? |
|
|
| mahalliner |
| Apparently, and I can't seem to find a source for this, Wikileaks in advance of releasing the documents requested the US government provide a list of names that would be on the documents that they would need to have redacted prior to their release. Things like undercover agents, etc. So, if this were true, in terms of protecting the lives of those who might be put at risk of personal harm for their identities being revealed, this would seem to support that they did their due diligence in protecting those lives. As I said though, I can't find confirmation of this anywhere, I've just seen a couple of mentions of it. |
|
|
| Orko |
| quote: | Originally posted by StereoPrincess
can you tell me exactly what truth was revealed from the most recent cable leak? what was so amazingily brutal that got out. how did it help? |
From the previous leak, there were different figures about how many people have died in Iraq. These numbers are from government officials, but differ from what they release in the media. The Iraq government, along with human rights groups have always argued that the US' numbers were too low.
In the most recent dump, Iran actually came to Canada to help with intelligence in Afghanistan. That was interesting in its own right, and something that our government had not stated in the past.
Just two examples. It is only day five after the release, lot's more to come. |
|
|
| StereoPrincess |
do you guys even know how wikileaks works?
it's actually not Julian that is covertly obtaining the information. it's people in the government that have access to all this stuff that have a vendetta against their employer for some reason and are stealing the information from their offices and uploading it annoymously to wikileaks. he just gives the tools for these people to use to expose the information. i think the aim should be to find these leaks and not focus on Assange so much. |
|
|
| Magnetonium |
Also, look at it this way - everyone is concerned about "the truth" putting lives in danger, but they don't wonder that many people died as a result of the lies. Take the whole Iraq debacle for example, if the government didn't lie about the WMD's and did things the honest way, a different solution, using diplomacy or whatever else ... we wouldn't millions of people killed/injured/displaced/at war. |
|
|
| Xavier Moriarty |
democracy has finally crammed the freedom down peoples throats.
lol democracy. LOL freedom |
|
|
| The Potter |
| quote: | Originally posted by Magnetonium
Also, look at it this way - everyone is concerned about "the truth" putting lives in danger, but they don't wonder that many people died as a result of the lies. Take the whole Iraq debacle for example, if the government didn't lie about the WMD's and did things the honest way, a different solution, using diplomacy or whatever else ... we wouldn't millions of people killed/injured/displaced/at war. |
To protect against this in the future, freedom of information disclosures need to happen on a more regular basis. Of course, the US government would accept the Iraqi war collateral damage, including revealing the name of CIA agents (Valerie Plame) and the deaths of US soldiers...but only up to the point when it suits its self-serving agenda; when the power of elected represenatives is threatened, then the goal posts are shifted, and it is ok to attack Wikileaks if even ONE person's safety is put at risk. They now say that the ends DON'T justify the means, whereas they did before, when MILLIONS were affected. If that is not ed up, I don't now what is.
Also, is it not sriking the way that the entire American establishment and nearly all the media outlets are in complete agreement, probably for the first time since 9/11? Moreover, governments around the world agree for the first time, EVER. The powers that are collectively ting their pants at the prospect of the public wresting back some control over the democratic process - after all, information is power. On the other hand, when it comes to the actual public interest, such as health care for the 9/11 responders, the Republicans and Democrats have still not passed a bill after all these years. Tragically, the reason is that there is less to gain from putting aside party politics and helping the 9/11 heroes, compared with protecting your own asses and uniting in a vitriolic attack on Wikileaks. |
|
|
| The Potter |
| quote: | Originally posted by mahalliner
Apparently, and I can't seem to find a source for this, Wikileaks in advance of releasing the documents requested the US government provide a list of names that would be on the documents that they would need to have redacted prior to their release. Things like undercover agents, etc. So, if this were true, in terms of protecting the lives of those who might be put at risk of personal harm for their identities being revealed, this would seem to support that they did their due diligence in protecting those lives. As I said though, I can't find confirmation of this anywhere, I've just seen a couple of mentions of it. |
This is true, and Wikileaks has the e-mails to prove that the US government were given the opportunity to redact the cables. However, they refused to do so, probably to peddle the blatant lie that Wikileaks was not being responsible. Wikileaks then proceeded to edit the cables themselves. Since the government actually chose not to redact, this shows that they are the ones who are in fact responsible for putting the lives of people at risk, as they were prepared to allow the names of individuals to be made public. Ironically, they have been working with their establishment mates in the media, such as the New York Times, and helping the newspapers to redact the information that they released through their publishing outlets. |
|
|
| VDub |
| They were just dropped by PayPal... |
|
|
| hardcore trancer |
| quote: | Originally posted by VDub
They were just dropped by PayPal... |
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11917891
Now it is becoming more and clearer that the United States government will be doing everything in their power out of their desperateness to try to shut wikileaks down. I will not work since wikileaks is now too big to go down. Also I believe that the U.S is fearing what could be leaked out when it comes to the U.S banking industry. |
|
|
|
|
