Can we meet for coffee/beer this weekend re: Wikileaks?
Tue, 12/07/2010 - 12:13pm
I need to get together with anyone else who is actively engaged on this issue to discuss, if only to let off some steam. I am not interested in discussing things in this forum. I think face to face conversation would be better.
My caveat for a meeting would be this: you should already be well-read on these issues. This isn't just an excuse to get together, have a beverage, and learn from people who have been doing their homework on this. I'd really like to have some productive discussions.
I mean, who else is following this? It's one of the more frightening battles for internet control that I can think of. Keep in mind that:
- Wikileaks has not been accused or convicted of a crime.
- They have only released around 1,000 of the 250,000 cables in their possession
- All of the cables were first released by the NYTimes, the Guardian and other participating news organizations, and Wikileaks had them review the documents to black out any names or information that could jeopardize individuals.
Nevertheless, because of US Government pressure, PayPal, Mastercard and Visa have all singled out Wikileaks and cut them off from receiving funds. After PayPal cut them off I decided to donate to Wikileaks has soon as I can. Now that Mastercard is cut off I should probably use that old American Express card with nothing on it ASAP before they follow suit.
The Washington Post series on the invisible Homeland Security bureaucracy was a major news story, but the government barely ruffled a feather. Wikileaks has released documents under conditions that the US Government doesn't approve of and they are now--pardon the crassness--shitting themselves over ways to keep Wikileaks quiet.
A reminder of some of the facts that the recent Wikileaks cables have revealed (this is from Assange's op-ed piece in the Australian today):
► The US asked its diplomats to steal personal human material and information from UN officials and human rights groups, including DNA, fingerprints, iris scans, credit card numbers, internet passwords and ID photos, in violation of international treaties. Presumably Australian UN diplomats may be targeted, too.
► King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia asked the US to attack Iran.
► Officials in Jordan and Bahrain want Iran's nuclear program stopped by any means available.
► Britain's Iraq inquiry was fixed to protect "US interests".
► Sweden is a covert member of NATO and US intelligence sharing is kept from parliament.
► The US is playing hardball to get other countries to take freed detainees from Guantanamo Bay. Barack Obama agreed to meet the Slovenian President only if Slovenia took a prisoner. Our Pacific neighbour Kiribati was offered millions of dollars to accept detainees.
Tue, 12/07/2010 - 1:31pm
#2
On Brian Lehrer show today
George Packer, staff writer for The New Yorker, discusses what we've learned about U.S. foreign policy from WikiLeaks and this morning's arrest of Julian Assange.
http://www.wnyc.org/shows/bl/2010/dec/07/george-packer-foreign-policy/
Tue, 12/07/2010 - 1:36pm
#3
We can work it out
I'd like to host a real meeting of minds.
Come over, I'll make tea. If everybody brings a little something we could have a lot.
I've been reading up on the "One Big Union" ideals today and maybe that's what's got me going.
Oh no, someone's gonna read this and the FBI is gonna put me in the "might be a wobbly" category.
Ack.
Tue, 12/07/2010 - 2:50pm
#4
Sundays are best for me.
Sundays are best for me. Throw a time out there and let's see who sticks!
Re Brian Lehrer - One thing I need to remind myself about shows like this is that, even though they have can often have great content, their basic format can misleading give micro and macro issues the same weight. A single incident or a discussion on the bigger picture gets the same treatment: a certain time slot on a daily show with callers, a speaker, etc. I didn't know about this recent WikiLeaks cable release and haven't had a chance to process it yet, but the bigger picture still stands and overwhelms the recent specifics: the governments tendency to over classify information that the public should know about; the totalitarian way that government officials have been trying to silence Assange by cutting off funding, suggesting that he be labeled a "terrorist," digging up old laws (or suggesting that new laws be written) in order to prosecute him; the power struggle going on over control of the internet and how information is shared on it; the fact that WikiLeaks, but not the larger institutions that are cooperating with them (like the NYTimes) is the only one being attacked. Lehrer could devote, say, 30 minutes to Assange's sex scandal or 30 minutes to the government's recent authoritarian/totalitarian behavior...the format gives them both equal weight, when in fact the charges against Assange re: the women could be virtually ignored since they aren't relevant to the larger issues.
Also (on the show) Packer saying that it's "hard to imagine" Assange being as careful with releasing the Pentagon papers as Ellsberg was. Really. He really blows is overall credibility with comments like that. "Live feed?" Wikileaks has only released 960 of the 250,000 documents and only after the NYTimes went through them. Packer's argument is a bit misleading. I kept waiting for Lehrer to catch him on this, but apparently Lehrer clearly thinks Assange has "gone to far" as well. He asks every caller about this. After 22:00 Lehrer tries to address the "bigger picture." His tone changes and it's clear that he's baiting Packer for the answer that is given. I actually lost a little respect for Lehrer listening to this.
Tue, 12/07/2010 - 6:42pm
#5
I was with him until this
I was with him until this corporate "poison pill/doomsday" threat. Now he's just reduced himself to a plain ole' extortionist. There's probably a lot to learn from what was leaked. Regardless, of what you think about this I don't think Mr. Assange handled this the best way he could. I mean come on. This is something out of the James Bond Bad Guy Book.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/12/assange-threatens-release-poison-pill...
http://www.mediaite.com/online/report-julian-assange-vows-poison-pill-re...
There's a reporter here that seems to be giving you your "bigger picture" Ben. But I have to say that it sounds a bit like your criticism of Brain Lehrer in reverse. And how dare you dis the Lehrer "Man."
Right now I don't see much point in debating this enormous amount of data as a whole. What I've been hearing are some strange mixed messages about the "value" of this information and it's impact on our National security or reputation or what have you. Let's pic one of the more contested leaks and debate it's importance.
I think you have to take these things one issue at a time and decide if it's ever necessary for governments to act in a covert or manipulative way? I'd like to find just one or two of the more incriminating leaks and debate it's importance under these guidelines.
Debating Assange's fate is not possible in my opinion unless you prove one way or another that he has either pointlessly endangered peoples lives or forged a path towards a new process that will save them. Also is a Wiki supposed to be something that people comment and revise and share info through? Not just one guy deciding on what should be released?
Wed, 12/08/2010 - 1:18pm
#6
Brian Lehrer show today: In Defense of WikiLeaks
Glenn Greenwald, Salon.com columnist, former constitutional law and civil rights litigator in New York and the author of Great American Hypocrites: Toppling the Big Myths of Republican Politics, discusses why critics of WikiLeaks are wrong.
http://www.wnyc.org/shows/bl/2010/dec/08/defense-wikileaks/
Tue, 12/07/2010 - 8:03pm
#7
Discussion Group This Sunday Night
I'm interested in hosting a discussion on themes drawn from this board, this sunday the 12th at 4PM.
I will make tea and anyone who wants to bring something else to eat or drink should feel free.
Please email me at dancostelloBK(at)gmail(dot)com to reserve a spot and get the address if you need it. If the time doesn't work for you please send the times that would work on this Sunday. Maybe we can work out a time that works for everyone who'd like to participate. I'm very open that day.
I think it would also be pretty neat if friends/cohorts of OJ Board participants who are interested in a discussion group about these kinds of things were extended an invitation. But I would ask that we extend an invite only if you feel the conversation would benefit from their involvement, and you would feel comfortable having this person/these people in your own home. I trust ya.
Tue, 12/07/2010 - 9:12pm
#8
Heroes
Most evreyone that has ever done good has had some faults.
Sometimes people do good in very sloppy ways.
Of course, Julian Assange is not perfect. Neither was Gandhi or Joan of Arc or John Lennon, etc., but they were focused on doing the right thing and overall they were living for love, not money.
That's good enough for me.
Wed, 12/08/2010 - 2:59pm
#9
Good point.
Good point.
Wed, 12/08/2010 - 2:08am
#10
Shame on Assange.
Poor US
Shame on Assange.
Poor US government.
Wed, 12/08/2010 - 7:54am
#11
Scotland's a bit far to come from, but here's my take...
Hmm... Scotland's a bit far to come from, but here's my take...
I don't think Assange is a common extortionist... The "poison pill" has been over-egged by the press. Basically wikileaks has already released all the secret cables, but encrypted. Their preferred approach is to slowly release the information to maximize news coverage. The poison pill is an unlocking of all that data in one go if the site is taken down permanently. I think that he realizes it's an when, not an if... More of this in a minute, but I don't think he's trying to bargain for his freedom through extortion. Rather that he wants to make sure the information is released when wikileaks goes down.
As for Assange himself, he has some bold ideas, although often he is somewhat childish in the way he expresses them. There are flashes of brilliance and real insight in a lot of what he says and does, but I can't help but feel that he is being less open that those whose secrets he seeks to expose.
However, I've come to think that he is playing a more complex game here. Despite calls from those involved in wikileaks for him to stand down in the wake of the rape allegations, he continued to act as the public face of the organization. He's not an idiot. He is fully aware that ultimately he will be brought down. Whether or not that is as a result outside influence, or by mistakes of his own making remains to be seen, but it's a question of when, not if. This is why I think he's refused to stand aside. He is intentionally setting himself (and to a certain extent wikileaks, although I suspect the site will be harder to remove) up as a digital martyr. Knowing fully that those people, and the sites that come up in their place will be stronger, and will learn from his mistakes.
Wikileaks as a site is very old school. It relies on traditional network infrastructure and, as has been demonstrated this week, can be brought down by those organizations that provide that infrastructure, especially when pressured by political groups. The best comparison I can think is what happened with Napster ten years ago. Brought down by legal challenges, what arose in its place were more robust, anonymous, server-less systems that were much more difficult to shutdown. In fact, ten years later file sharing is ubiquitous, and impossible to stop. But users didn't even know that they wanted it before Napster. When Assange and Wikileaks go down, their place will be taken by stronger, anonymous, decentralized systems. By fighting them, Governments are adding fuel to the fire. Hell hath no fury like the Internet scorned.
Wed, 12/08/2010 - 10:56am
#12
4chan attack! :o
Wed, 12/08/2010 - 12:08pm
#13
Nice one!
Nice one!
Wed, 12/08/2010 - 1:19pm
#14
I wonder..
I wonder if they held back this cable just for the day Mastercard and VISA pulled the plug?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/08/wikileaks-us-russia-visa-mas...
Wed, 12/08/2010 - 2:25pm
#15
Whistleblowing on a company
Whistleblowing on a company that just cut one of your revenue streams for "political" purposes?
Priceless!
Wed, 12/08/2010 - 11:57am
#16
Thanks for that J. This
Thanks for that J. This changes my thoughts about the poison pill a bit. It makes more sense to me now though the language used to describe it was a big mistake. He should have called it a "Truth Bomb" or something like that. But I'm sure, as you said, the press had a lot to do with that.
I find this hypocrisy of acting so secretively while claiming to be a voice for transparency in business and government a bit troubling. Why doesn't he just sit down and give a statement about his goals and what he's trying to do and then just stick to talking about the leaks and what he wishes to accomplish with them?
These issues should be discussed and debated in a public forum. But, noone's even talking about the specific leaks anymore. It seems like his plight has overshadowed his purpose. A common problem I'm sorry to say.
The sex scandal appears to be a ruse by someone to shut him up. I think most people agree that the timing is very fishy. I feel like if he just addressed this issue and tried to deal with it more for what it is he could actually use it to his advantage. I feel like he better do it quick though because though he clearly has a lot of supporters, much like myself, questions are starting to accumulate.
It would be great if someone could start posting some of the more, for lack of a better word, juicy leaks and we could start discussing their relevancy. Has anyone actually read them?
Wed, 12/08/2010 - 1:30pm
#17
The hypocrisy is my biggest issue too.
I agree. The hypocrisy is my biggest issue too. At first it was quite refreshing seeing someone stand up at a press conference and refuse to answer questions until they had be phrased "properly", but after a while that just looks like you're avoiding answering the question, rather than trying to change the way the press thinks and acts.
The best source of information on the cables that have been released so far is on The Guardian's website:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/the-us-embassy-cables
I've been a bit disappointed by the New York Times coverage. At least on their website it seems to be buried down quite a bit. I wonder if this is a result of external pressure...
From a Scottish perspective, last night's leak about Gaddafi and the Lockerbie bomber release was one of the juiciest.
Wed, 12/08/2010 - 5:16pm
#18
"I find this hypocrisy of
"I find this hypocrisy of acting so secretively while claiming to be a voice for transparency in business and government a bit troubling. Why doesn't he just sit down and give a statement about his goals and what he's trying to do and then just stick to talking about the leaks and what he wishes to accomplish with them?"
He hasn't done this?
Wed, 12/08/2010 - 9:26am
#19
julian assange
not saying this is what happened
This may be closer to what transpired than what most Americans have conjured up in there minds.
In any event, we received a note from a Swedish reader this morning. The reader, Johan Lindberg, posits that it WAS rape because one of the women did not agree to have sex without a condom. Which means, we guess, that what happened between Assange and the woman started out as "sex" and became "rape" when the condom broke.
(To which we would ask: Are arrest warrants issued for all men in Sweden on whom condoms break?)
http://www.businessinsider.com/latest-on-julian-assanges-sex-crimes-sex-without-a-condom-is-rape-in-sweden-says-a-swede-2010-12#ixzz17WgR7YGG
Wed, 12/08/2010 - 1:57pm
#20
Cryptome, etc.
It's easy to say what Julian should be doing, but let's remember that him doing this his way may be why we have heard of these documents at all.
John of cryptome is critical of Julian's "secretiveness".
John's been releasing unredacted documents and photos for quite a while now.
He has spoken before with Julian.
I like both of them, myself.
Cryptome believes crossing out names does not protect people, but quite the opposite, because he believes it gives the people whose names have been redacted a false sense of security.
He says it'd be better if everyone knew there name.
He says the people that really are interested in knowing find out anyway.
John also says that no one can guarantee a leaker anonimity because there are just to many ways for them to be discovered/revealed.
He says to promise that again, leaves the contributor unknowingly vulnerable.
(I did my best to paraphrase a few ideas behind cryptome. I pray I was somewhat accurate.)
Wed, 12/08/2010 - 4:15pm
#21
No News is
A New York 1 reporter said the information in the leaks was common knowledge to anyone following foreign policy.
Wed, 12/08/2010 - 5:10pm
#22
"I find this hypocrisy of
"I find this hypocrisy of acting so secretively while claiming to be a voice for transparency in business and government a bit troubling."
Sorry, I'm just happy to see the government getting royally pissed off over this. Like I said earlier: with some of the other major news stories that have been dropped this year in the WAPost and Times, the government could have cared less. The public seemed to barely bat an eye.
Wed, 12/08/2010 - 7:03pm
#23
Ben stop taking my words and
Ben stop taking my words and using them for other things. It's lame dude. Stop it! If you're trying to cast me in the role of "pro" US government you've go the wrong guy. So please stop with this. It just mucks up the conversation. (Thought you were holding out for the face to face hangouts anyway.)
Yes there is hypocrisy in government and there is hypocrisy in wikilinks. And they both appear to be trying to stop the other one from doing what it wants to do?
My question is can Government and Wikileaks exist together? Do you want Julian Assange to be president now? Anybody can throw a wrench in a motor. I'm more interested in people who want to fix them.
Prewar makes a pretty good point too. Are we really that surprised by much of this info?
I'm already hearing a bit of talk about how the reactions to some of the leaks might actually help the US diplomatically as far as allowing the world to see how volatile and complex diplomatic dealings with other countries around the world are.
Wed, 12/08/2010 - 7:59pm
#24
Ben stop taking my words and
Ben stop taking my words and using them for other things. It's lame dude. Stop it!
I really don't think it's that lame and I can't promise that I won't do it in the future, especially when there's clear irony that needs to be pointed out.
Prewar makes a pretty good point too. Are we really that surprised by much of this info?
No, but at least now we have documentation of it, and that's huge.
My question is can Government and Wikileaks exist together?
Wikileaks and Government do exist together. The First Amendment of the Constitution is supposed to protect the press. The government is using unconstitutional and illegal means to silence Wikileaks, who is releasing documents that reveal and/or confirm, for the most part, unlawful activity by the government.
Anybody can throw a wrench in a motor. I'm more interested in people who want to fix them.
This is a platitude. It also suggests that two things are polar opposites rather than part of a process. First of all, no, not just anyone can throw a wrench in the motor. We can't all be Wikileaks. Second of all, wrenches in the motor are often an initial step towards fixing things. Do I really need to start listing all of the wrenches that have ended up doing just that? The Pentagon Papers is the most obvious/relevant/quoted one for this particular case. Protests are another. Sit ins.
Wikileaks is definitely anarchistic in nature. I also don't think it's throwing a wrench into--or breaking--anything. The system is already broken. Wikileaks, more than anything else, has been providing document after document confirming this. Exposing a broken system is not the same as breaking things.
I'm already hearing a bit of talk about how the reactions to some of the leaks might actually help the US diplomatically as far as allowing the world to see how volatile and complex diplomatic dealings with other countries around the world are.
In all earnestness, I haven't heard this talk yet and would really like to. Please link.
Wed, 12/08/2010 - 10:00pm
#25
Thanks for responding...
I really don't think it's that lame and I can't promise that I won't do it in the future, especially when there's clear irony that needs to be pointed out.
Noone is arguing that the US government isn't hypocritical or keeping secrets and that it's okay. I think the the present administration would argue that transparency is a relative term here. So would Assange I guess. The point of my question was supposed to inspire some thought about where we are supposed to draw the line with Transparency in business or government and who gets to decide these things. Your point was redundant and from what I can tell meant to just mock my statement. I have no use for it. Pretty platitudinal if you ask me.
The government is using unconstitutional and illegal means to silence Wikileaks, who is releasing documents that reveal and/or confirm, for the most part, unlawful activity by the government.
As far as I've heard the US government has officially done nothing to silence Wikileaks. Only private corporations and individual politicians' statements.
No, but at least now we have documentation of it, and that's huge.
There was always documentation, the difference now is that everyone in the world has access to it.
This is a platitude. It also suggests that two things are polar opposites rather than part of a process. First of all, no, not just anyone can throw a wrench in the motor. We can't all be Wikileaks. Second of all, wrenches in the motor are often an initial step towards fixing things. Do I really need to start listing all of the wrenches that have ended up doing just that? The Pentagon Papers is the most obvious/relevant/quoted one for this particular case. Protests are another. Sit ins.
You misunderstood me. I happen to think we can and should, in a way, all be Wikileaks. Why does wikileaks need a spokesperson anyway? I thought the whole point of a wiki was supposed to be made up of everyone. The pentagon papers, and most protests, and sit ins all have/had specific goals in mind. I'm curious about what the specific goals are behind the various cables. I'm not saying that there aren't any. I just think this is where the news is and where Assange could be focusing people's attention to. Another point I might ad is that what Wikileaks is doing is not journalism. It's just making secret documents public.
Wikileaks is definitely anarchistic in nature. I also don't think it's throwing a wrench into--or breaking--anything. The system is already broken. Wikileaks, more than anything else, has been providing document after document confirming this. Exposing a broken system is not the same as breaking things.
Anarchy is a temporary solution to a permanent problem. So it's news that the system is broken?
In all earnestness, I haven't heard this talk yet and would really like to. Please link.
Fresh air today. Check out around 37 minutes.
http://www.npr.org/2010/12/08/131884250/nyt-reporter-defends-publishing-...
------------------
I just want to state for the record that I find wikilinks to be a very valuable tool in helping people understand the world. I haven't read everything they have released so I can't comment on it all.
Wed, 12/08/2010 - 11:57pm
#26
Let's try this from a
Let's try this from a different angle, Matt. Is there a certain way that you feel Wikileaks should be releasing their information other than the way they are doing it now? What kind of response from the US government to you think is the most conducive step to "fixing things." Panic? Indifference? Remorse? Anger? Fear? If you don't like the way this is being handled, is there an ideal scenario in your head that you're playing it against? I'm really curious. The way you present your arguments, I get a sense like in your ideal world there's a headline that reads "Joint Effort By Press and Public Able to Help Government Check Into 12-Step Program." It's hard for me to get a sense of what you stand for, what--if anything--makes you angry regarding the government, this administration in particular. So many of your statements, even if they sound assured, always end with a question mark? (just like that)
==============
Your point was pejorative and redundant. And from what I can tell meant to just mock my statement.
It was totally meant to mock your statement. I think we all do our share of taking and dishing on this board, you included. Just because you're not in the mood today doesn't mean you need to criticize my snarkiness as part of your retort. Unless you're really hurt, why not just let it slide?
As far as I've heard the US government has officially done nothing to silence Wikileaks. Only private corporations and individual politicians' statements.
Well, if that's all it is. Hey, whatever Lieberman does on his free time is his business, I guess. What does "officially" silencing Wikileaks mean?
There was always documentation, the difference now is that everyone in the world has access to it.
as opposed to?
You misunderstood me. I happen to think we can and should, in a way, all be Wikileaks. Why does wikileaks need a spokesperson anyway? I thought the whole point of a wiki was supposed to be made up of everyone. The pentagon papers, and most protests, and sit ins all have/had specific goals in mind. I'm curious about what the specific goals are behind the various cables. I'm not saying that there aren't any. I just think this is where the news is and where Assange could be focusing people's attention to. Another point I might ad is that what Wikileaks is doing is not journalism. It's just making secret documents public.
I'm not sure how a wiki would narrow the focus. Assange's goals can be found online. Links above.
Wikileaks is journalism by definition. The only end result of efforts to try and discredit Wikileaks in this way is to make it easier to deny them protection under the First Amendment, which they deserve.
Fresh air today. Check out around 37 minutes.
It's an interesting point. Maybe the United States will be "embarrassed enough to rethink their strategy" as well.
Thu, 12/09/2010 - 1:31am
#27
Okay Dude...
Let's try this from a different angle, Matt. Is there a certain way that you feel Wikileaks should be releasing their information other than the way they are doing it now?
I was thinking about this and for the most part I don't think my issues have to do with how Wikileaks release the info. Most of my problems have to do with Assange as a person and how he handles himself publicly. My main critique of how Wikileaks releases their information would be to do it more piecemeal and not in such large dumps with so much seemingly extraneous info. But there we get into the questions about what's important and what's not and who gets to decide this and why? I'd also like to to see leaks pertaining to other governments of the world as well and not just the US. What's the point in putting the US under the microscope unless we are willing to treat the rest of the world with the same scrutiny? Hopefully this will come through time.
What kind of response from the US government to you think is the most conducive step to "fixing things." Panic? Indifference? Remorse? Anger? Fear?
All of the above I guess. I think the members of the US government should respond to the separate issues separately as they are confronted with them through the press. If seems funny to me to talk about the US government like it's just one thing. It's a lot of people with a lot of opinions elected by a lot more people with even more opinions. This is why I feel like arguments that portray The System or The US Government as some kind of singular dark corrupt force unrealistic and counterproductive.
I'm really curious. The way you present your arguments, I get a sense like in your ideal world there's a headline that reads "Joint Effort By Press and Public Able to Help Government Check Into 12-Step Program." It's hard for me to get a sense of what you stand for, what--if anything--makes you angry regarding the government, this administration in particular. So many of your statements, even if they sound assured, always end with a question mark? (just like that)
Wow. I take this as kind of a compliment. That headline sounds like a good one to me. A lot makes me angry. I guess what makes me most angry is how much people don't listen to each other or try to understand where other people are coming from. It makes me angry when people think that government is something separate from them. I see it as a form of self hatred. I find the amount of hostility and lack of general sensitivity in the way people communicate very distressing. With that being said it's also kind of amazing how that many people with so many different ideas can sit in a big room and hash stuff out relatively simply. I mean at least we're not cutting off people's heads. I'm rarely assured of any particular thing other than the fact that there is probably someone out there that knows more about a subject than me. Who was it that said the answer to life is in the form of a question? That makes so much sense to me.
------------------
It was totally meant to mock your statement. I think we all do our share of taking and dishing on this board, you included. Just because you're not in the mood today doesn't mean you need to criticize my snarkiness as part of your retort. Unless you're really hurt, why not just let it slide?
All I did was ask you to not cut and paste my statements and use them to mean something other than what I originally intended. I wouldn't have commented on it if it didn't "really" hurt.
Well, if that's all it is. Hey, whatever Lieberman does on his free time is his business, I guess.
Now who's arguing against free speech?
What does "officially" silencing Wikileaks mean?
A cease and desist order. A criminal charge.
Wikileaks is journalism by definition.
I guess we'll just have to disagree on that one. I see that they do release little blurbs and sure they have a twitter account but I think the substantial amount of commentary on their leaks is reported on through outside news sources.
The only end result of efforts to try and discredit Wikileaks in this way is to make it easier to deny them protection under the First Amendment, which they deserve.
Sounds like a broad statement to me. Do you believe that there are legitimate reasons for our government to have secrets? If so how do we decide this? I don't know the answer. I kind of don't think there should be secrets. But then again it appears as though if some people had access to certain information they would make it their responsibility to kill everyone who doesn't believe what they believe. Where is the line there?
-------------------
I'm reading "State and Terrorist Conspiracies" right now to get a little better idea of Assange's perspective.
Thu, 12/09/2010 - 3:36am
#28
Found this transcript very
Found this transcript very informative. It answered a lot of questions for me about Assange and his agenda or lack there of. The more I hear and read about him personally the more I like him.
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2034040,00.html
Thu, 12/09/2010 - 9:10am
#29
My wife Kat had issues with
My wife Kat had issues with Assange early on, just in the way he presented himself as the spokesperson for Wikileaks and other things. She wasn't following this particular story as much as I do, though. It's ben an interesting week since our household is on television/movie lockdown...we've spent a lot of time sitting in bed while Marcella hangs out with books, listening to previously recorded shows like Lehrer's show, reading articles. Her opinion has totally changed regarding him.
It's frustrating sometimes that it takes so much time and effort to really get a handle on a story. It feels empowering to hear some expert with an Ivy league degree get on the air, make a claim..and for you to know enough about a story to realize they're lying/clueless/full of shit.
Thu, 12/09/2010 - 11:28am
#30
I question everyone.
I was never against the idea of Wikileaks. I find it interesting how everyone is so wiling to overlook Assange's character faults and contradictions but so quick to jump all over Obama's ass or other people in government who are actually in the trenches dealing with hardcore issues every day. (and please don't start portraying me as a blind US Government/Obama supporter. This is how this whole thing got started.) I understand both sides of the line of instigating change and actually trying to make it happen. We can praise people like Ghandi all that we want for his teachings but there is still a lot of conflict between Hindu's and Muslims. We can praise MLK for his work but we still have race issues in this country that have to be dealt with on a real level every day. (again I obviously respect and love the work of these men.)After reading that Time interview transcript I learned that he's not as much of an Anarchist as I thought. I also don't think he's above using his image to drum up business for his company which I think got him into some trouble. If you business is selling the truth then you have to be trustworthy. Sadly image is a big part of this. Personally, and perhaps unfortunately, I don't think Wikileaks is going to bring down the US government but I do think it could help make it better as long as Assange can lay low, learn to talk to the press better and lay off the underaged Sweedish chicks.
Sat, 12/11/2010 - 10:17am
#31
I hope you talk about The Espionage Act...
for your perusal:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/naomi-wolf/post_1394_b_795001.html
For my money, it's a toss up as to which is more dangerous, The Espionage Act or The Patriot Acts. Taken together, they are a serious threat to our freedoms.
geography prevents me.
I would like to suggest a peripheral topic for discussion. Mr. Assange's charges and red notice have been all over the news. Why hasn't the news of Dick Cheney's indictment for bribery in Nigeria made the mainstream press? It is extremely likely that a red notice will be issued for him as well. Is this not news? If it isn't, then why is Mr. Assange's case news?
Perhaps this subject is best for another day but, I feel it just as important. Who is choosing what we get to know? Why?
The implications of the treatment of Julian Assange and Wikileaks are staggering. If he is in custody now, as has been reported, I think it is folly to consider him anything other than a political prisoner.
You should know what Sibel Edmonds knows.