WikiLeaks 'a Clear and Present Danger,' Says WaPo 837
bedmison writes "In an op-ed in the Washington Post titled 'WikiLeaks must be stopped,' Marc A. Thiessen writes that 'WikiLeaks represents a clear and present danger to the national security of the United States,' and that the US has the authority to arrest its spokesman, Julian Assange, even if it has to contravene international law to do so. Thiessen also suggests that the new USCYBERCOM be unleashed to destroy WikiLeaks as an internet presence."
Reader praps tips an interview with another WikiLeaks spokesman, Daniel Schmitt, who says they have no regrets about releasing the Afghanistan documents, and says WikiLeaks is "changing the game." Several other readers have pointed out that WikiLeaks posted a mysterious, encrypted "insurance" file on Thursday, which sent the media into a speculative frenzy over what it could possibly contain.
The Washington Post.... (Score:5, Insightful)
So apparently The Washington Post presents a clear and present danger to public freedom and the accountability of government and industry.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, anything that exposes what the WaPost has missed or completely mischaracterized is a clear and present danger...
Re:The Washington Post.... (Score:5, Informative)
No, not necessarily. It was an Op Ed. Anyone can write an Op Ed and submit it to popular newspapers to be published, including you and the people who marked you insightful. Politicians submit Op Eds to newspapers regularly. So, do journalists on occasion, but that's why it's in the Op Ed section and not the news section.
Re:The Washington Post.... (Score:5, Informative)
Yes, mod up this AC.
Thiessen worked for George W. Bush, Jesse Helms, and Donald Rumsfeld. He's a well-regarded pundit and speechwriter in conservative circles.
His writings do not represent the editorial board of the Washington Post. The Post publishes columns by Thiessen so that they can represent different shades of the political spectrum.
Well Regarded Warmonger (Score:5, Informative)
Thiessen [wikipedia.org] didn't just work for Bush, Helms and Rumsfeld. He was spokesman for and senior policy advisor to Helms, when the ancient and decrepit Helms was in charge of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee 1995-2001. He moved with Rumsfeld to the top of the Pentagon as his chief speechwriter 2001-2004, then to Bush's speechwriting team, becoming its chief in 2008.
He's "a well regarded pundit and speechwriter in Conservative circles" in that he was among the people most responsible for starting the Iraq War (as they'd planned through the 1990s), for ignoring the threats from the Qaeda in Afghanistan (because they cared only about invading Iraq), for running both wars as epic catastrophes while attacking everyone questioning them as a "clear and present danger" to America's security.
The Washington Post publishes columns by Thiessen because his radical rightwing warmonger faction is the Post's board's favorite tiny sliver of Americans. Who always get whatever they want, especially wars.
Re:Well Regarded Warmonger (Score:5, Informative)
The Washington Post publishes columns by Thiessen because his radical rightwing warmonger faction is the Post's board's favorite tiny sliver of Americans. Who always get whatever they want, especially wars.
So when their other columnists vociferously disagree with Thiessen, does that mean the Washington Post has changed it's views and is now pro-peace and transparency? The WaPo's stable of editorial writers leans slightly to the right (and only slightly), but I suspect this is largely an overreaction to balance perceived liberal bias at the paper. Take a look at the columnists:
Of the ones I have read and have a noticed a bias in, I count roughly half a dozen conservative writers (Applebaum, Gerson, Krauthammer, Parker, Samuelson, Thiessen and Will). There are a three or four more that lean right, without being purely conservative (and Parker and Samuelson are unorthodox for conservatives on some issues). I count a similar number of liberal leaning op-ed writers (Achenbach, though he's mostly a humor and science writer, Broder, Capehart, King, Klein, Marcus, Meyerson, Robinson), and a similar number of those that lean left (many of their op-ed writers specializing in economics write with a center left viewpoint). Trying to claim the Post holds a specific viewpoint based on their stable of op-ed writers is being intentionally obtuse.
P.S. I'm sure I got one or two writers' political inclinations wrong, I'm operating from memory here. But if you look at their op-ed writers as a whole, the overall political leanings are fairly moderate. If you read their website, the batshit crazy writers tend to get linked in the Opinion section on the front page more often, but I suspect this is trolling for page views; the more outrageous the viewpoint, the more clicks it gets.
Liberal = of liberty (Score:3, Informative)
This is princeton's somewhat muddled definition
Liberal:broad: *showing or characterized by broad-mindedness; "a broad political stance"; "generous and broad sympathies"; "a liberal newspaper"; "tolerant of his opponent's opinions" having political or social views favoring reform and progress tolerant of change; not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or tradition a person
Re:Well Regarded Warmonger (Score:4, Informative)
While I appreciate the work you put in your post and I can't disagree with it's premise, it is hard to ignore the fact that Robert Novak was a columnist, and when he outed Plame for Cheney it was fairly obvious to anyone paying attention that the WaHoPo had more than one columnist who got privileged information from the Bush administration in return for favorable treatment in the columns they wrote. Personally, that will always color my perception of the rag regardless of the future makeup of their editorial board.
Re:Well Regarded Warmonger (Score:5, Interesting)
The Washington Post was one of the chief cheerleaders in the rush to war in Iraq, in the determination to "stay the course", in the attacking of any discussion of any metrics towards or for withdrawal (like a timetable) as surrender.
Since around 2007 and Iraq's government forcing the US to commit to the withdrawal timetable now nearing its 50,000 troops milestone, that editorial policy has been moot. It did its job. Now the WP can go ahead and act like it wasn't the cheerleader, because people's memories aren't that long, and its business is the current manipulations.
Re:Well Regarded Warmonger (Score:4, Funny)
the ancient and decrepit Helms
Jeez, you make it sound as if he helped build the pyramids or something. That's absurd. He wasn't born until almost a thousand years after the pyramids were built.
My Deep Fear (Score:5, Interesting)
I look at all these relics of the Nixon administration that got us into this, and can't help but think . . . as much as I have to believe that Gerald Ford pardoned Richard Nixon in good faith, so much of their actions seems to me to indicate that they took that pardon as a validation of the kind of imperial presidency Nixon sought to create. "If he had been *wrong*, then why would Ford have pardoned him?" goes the rationalization in my mind.
And I have to wonder, are we going to be dealing with these fools again in another 30 years. McCarthy begat Nixon, Nixon begat Cheney, Cheney begat . . . Yoo, Thiesen, Gonzales, Bush himself . . . another cabal of contemporaries determined to rewrite history after the fact, to show the world "No . . . we were *right* and we will prove it to you" again in thirty years.
We can't keep having this "Well, politics is politics" attitude that pardons and covers for the crimes of an administration as Obama and the Media has done here. We need to make sure that the historical record is clear that these people are war criminals.
Or we're going to go through this again in a generation.
Pug
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Resolution 1441 does NOT authorise use of force.
Nor did the 1991 resolution that led to the first Iraq war. There is some contention that 1441 did not specifically authorize war. France argued that "serious consequences" doesn't mean war. We'll never know, because no further UN action was taken from that point.
Or to put it another way, the UN has no pull if they don't actually back up what they say with action. If we told Iraq "or else be faced with serious consequences" then not give them serious consequences, why even have a UN?
Re:The Washington Post.... (Score:5, Insightful)
So apparently The Washington Post presents a clear and present danger to public freedom and the accountability of government and industry.
Keep in mind that this is an Op-Ed... NOT to be confused with a staff editorial.
Mr. Thiessen's writing doesn't represent the WaPo directly. Only in their decision to run the article are they involved.
In other words, don't think the WaPo is defending their bottom line, attacking accountability, etc. They have a pretty solid reputation for fighting for transparency.
Re:The Washington Post.... (Score:4, Insightful)
The Washington Post can't go out of business fast enough for me.
They've been the house organ of the ruling elite in this country, dishing out their contemporary wisdom, celebrating our glorious wars, supporting Israel above any US interest, regardless of morality. They've been so thoroughly worked over by K-Street and the Right-Wing Media that they constantly overcompensate by spreading any right-wing crap that comes down the pike and denying any reality if it even hints of something that the far right doesn't like.
It's been more than 30 years since Watergate and the Pentagon Papers. They've gone along meekly with the agenda of the rich and powerful to the point where they've trivialized their mission and completely lost their way. Howard Kurtz is an abomination, trying to load his op-ed section with the most odious opinions from neo-conservatives. They're a joke.
Instead of "comfort the afflicted" they should change their mission statement to "comfort the comfortable".
The people who love wars hate it when unflattering truths about their glorious wars comes to the attention of people. All of a sudden, people who are thrilled by predator attacks and civilian deaths are outraged, outraged, I tell you that Afghanis might be at risk for collaborating with American forces. What a load. I don't believe for one second these war mongers give a rat's ass about what's going to happen to Afghani civilians who might be named in the Wikileaks papers.
The war in Afghanistan is now the longest war in US history. George Bush took us there to get rid of Al Qaeda and that mission was accomplished some years ago. Now we're fighting a war with the Taliban. We're no more going to get rid of the Taliban than we're gonna invade Georgia to get rid of rednecks. We'd have to kill every last human in Afghanistan to get rid of the Taliban. So we support a corrupt government that the people of Afghanistan absolutely hate. What could possibly go wrong?
People who are all about "sunlight is the best disinfectant" believe we should be fighting wars in the dark. God forbid Americans should find out what we're actually paying for and what we're sending young people to die for.
Keep the Wikileaks coming, I say.
And they should know (Score:5, Interesting)
They could only publish it if they were getting the acceptable, authorized leaks which told them so.
I love it (Score:5, Insightful)
I love that an organization is a danger because it reveals coverups and secrets to ordinary citizens.
"But Pojut, our enemies will use this information against us!"
Well then maybe we shouldn't be doing it in the first place. Doy.
Re:I love it (Score:5, Insightful)
I feel that wikileaks is a Good Thing; but I also acknowledge that there are some things that serve no purpose being released, and that put individuals in danger for no benefit.
Responsible disclosure may be too much to ask for -- but I wish that dangerous information was redacted, unless there was some clear benefit to that information becoming public.
I guess that would run counter to what wikileaks is all about... and it's a shame, because without responsible disclosure, wikileaks will, in effect, be shut down by the PTB.
Re:I love it (Score:5, Insightful)
I also acknowledge that there are some things that serve no purpose being released, and that put individuals in danger for no benefit.
Humorously, if an American soldier dies for nothing, maybe for oil, or maybe just to profit the military industrial complex, they describe it as "he died to save our freedoms" and other assorted BS.
On the other hand, if an American soldier dies because of our actual freedoms, such as freedom of speech, well, thats a clear and present danger, etc, etc, bs bs bs.
Re:I love it (Score:5, Insightful)
I know they tried to completely purge names,
The problem is, names are frequently not needed to identify an intelligence source. Made even worse, his arrogance is not enough to know what does and does not compromise a source.
Without a doubt, at an absolute minimum, some innocent person and/or family is going to pay for his arrogance, with torture and their life.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Do you consider "wanting girls to be allowed to read and write" equivalent to "being a part of the American war machine"?
I'm sure that in the abstract and considered from your local Starbucks the Taliban are all lovely and cuddly, with their ancient traditions and funny hats and all that. But if you had to live under their rule you'd shit your iKnickers in short order.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh, so Assange published locations of girl schools?
Or did he publish the arrogance and war crimes of the "war machine"?
Re:I love it (Score:5, Insightful)
What's a few Afghan families if wikileaks can make the U.S. look bad?
You've got the wrong end of the flag waving. The whole point of the leaks is the US Military's true attitude: What's a few Afghan families?
"They had a weapon" or "They may have been terrorists" is some pretty sad territory to wander into as justification for killing people. But I guess if the US government was in your neighborhood accidentally killing people for having a wedding party, or for having a gun, you'd have no problem with it, right?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
According to the wikileaks documents, the U.S. Military is the good guy in Afghanistan: the Taliban has killed more than 10 times as many civilians, on purpose, while the U.S. Military has bent over backwards to avoid that.
You do believe the wikileaks documents, don't you?
But only CORRECTLY classified works (Score:5, Insightful)
But only CORRECTLY classified works. 99% of the classified works are incorrectly marked classified to hide malfeasance or just plain incompetency.
See, for example, ACTA.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713 (1971) says otherwise.
Re:I love it (Score:5, Insightful)
Time and time again, over the course of many decades, the US military has show that it is completely willing to miss-classify information as "secret" if there is even a slight chance that it will be embracing to them, either individually or as an organization. Specifically, from the Vietnam war on to today, they have made it very clear, publicly, that they actively try to manipulate what information gets out for no other reason than to manipulate public opinion about their operations.
The US is a representative democracy. It's one of the things we are most proud of and most defines us as a country. We don't get to micromanage what our elected officials/military do, but we do get to exert control over them every few years at election time. You can not have a functioning democracy if the government, actively, works to hide the truth from the voters. The entire concept of "controlling public opinion" should be considered a form of treason. If public opinion of a war or administration is only positive because the voters don't really know whats going on then what you have is a de-facto dictatorship/oligarchy.
Wikileaks is a small group of people dealing with lots and lots of data. It's not surprising that they screwed up and released papers with personal info in them. The main point here, though, is that if the US military limited their "secret" information to only what was directly, operationally, vital and released all "secret" info in a timely manner when it didn't, absolutely, need to be confidential any more then there wouldn't be a need for Wikileaks. Like the release of the Pentagon papers before this, groups like Wikileaks have to exist, regardless of any collateral damage from mistakes, until such time as the people hiding the information start treating "state secrets" in a responsible manner.
Re:I love it (Score:5, Interesting)
Wikileaks is a small group of people dealing with lots and lots of data. It's not surprising that they screwed up and released papers with personal info in them.
Well, actually, they didn't released papers with personal info - Only Rupert Murdochs paper The Times/Fox media mouthpieces tried to make that shit stick - however the echo chamber [wikimedia.org] that is the US mainstream media has tried (successfully I might add) to amplify this lame point despite there being not one single shred of evidence to back up the claim. Oh yeah, the one name that they do mention as already dead - died two years ago... but they fail to mention little facts like that, or tell you buried down on page 13 [guardian.co.uk].
What about the insurance file? (Score:5, Interesting)
According to The Register, there is a huge encrypted file [theregister.co.uk] up on wikileaks now, called 'insurance.' The US goes after wikileaks or Julian Assange, the key to that file goes out to the world. And according to Assange, everything dangerous was redacted out of the Afghanistan documents. Cryptome's John Young speculates that the 'insurance' file contains all the redacted bits.
Re:What about the insurance file? (Score:5, Insightful)
There's one reason why this is a poor method of insurance. Suppose there's somebody out there with an even bigger axe to grind than Assange, who will stop at nothing to get the contents of this "insurance" file released. With over six billion people in the world, and a substantial number of them having a beef with the U.S., it's not beyond the realms of possibility.
The implication here is that if something happens to Assange, then the key gets released. So, it logically follows that if you want the key to be released.......
(For my own safety, I have no interest in the contents of that file. And while I personally think Julian Assange is a self-righteous ass, I don't wish physical harm on him or any of the other people involved with Wikileaks.)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
There's one reason why this is a poor method of insurance. Suppose there's somebody out there with an even bigger axe to grind than Assange, who will stop at nothing to get the contents of this "insurance" file released. With over six billion people in the world, and a substantial number of them having a beef with the U.S., it's not beyond the realms of possibility.
The implication here is that if something happens to Assange, then the key gets released. So, it logically follows that if you want the key to be released.......
(For my own safety, I have no interest in the contents of that file. And while I personally think Julian Assange is a self-righteous ass, I don't wish physical harm on him or any of the other people involved with Wikileaks.)
But you have not thought this all the way through. The US itself is a big enough entity that nobody's axe is bigger than theirs. Knowing that someone might want to force Assange to give up the key, its probably in the US's best interest to protect Assange.
Re:What about the insurance file? (Score:4, Insightful)
* It's 1.4 GB
* It's encrypted with AES-256
* If anybody has the key they haven't published it.
What you can reasonably infer: It's information the gov. doesn't want released, providing Assange with "insurance".
Unless you have AES-256 goggles that let you peer through the encryption I would hesitate to comment in further detail on the contents of the file and therefore the moral character of the man who published it.
Re:What about the insurance file? (Score:5, Insightful)
Aside from a pissed-off US government, I'd also worry about someone acting outside the realm of government direction (pissed-off Taliban sympathizers, etc.) deciding they want to find out what intel Assange is sitting on and just grabbing him off the street without concern for the consequences.
Re:What about the insurance file? (Score:4, Interesting)
How would they grab him off the street? He's secured by multiple three-letter agencies who won't let him out of his sight. The pissed-off Taliban sympathizer has no chance to take their boy just like that.
No need to grab him. Just kill him. He probably stupidly gave people a "if anything happens to me" clause. Terrorist/Russian Spy/Chinese Spy/NK Spy/E. coli kills him... encryption key released... Now everyone can see the dirty bits. He just put a big fat target on his head.
Re:What about the insurance file? (Score:4, Informative)
"There is certainly nothing that indicates they did it for the hell of it."
Perhaps you should listen to the unedited tape. They were clearly enjoying killing people.
"The crew saw people approaching the US position carrying AKs and at least one RPG."
They did NOT identify an RPG. A camera is not an RPG. Protocol requires clear identification.
"According to protocol, they received clearance to fire, and did so."
They LIED in order to receive clearance to fire. I believe that is against protocol.
"A van approached and started loading bodies, a common insurgent tactic."
It's also a common civilian tactic.
"They are obviously unaware (based on later audio) that there are children in the van."
Who would have thought there would be civilians in a van in a city. They certainly weren't concerned about having killed them
"Again, according to protocol, they received clearance to fire, and did so."
What part of protocol allows them to fire on civilians? The people loaded into the van weren't going to walk away.
"There is nothing in the tape to indicate intent to kill photographers..."
Other than the fact that they did.
Re:I love it (Score:5, Insightful)
"The reporters who disclosed those Iraq prison photos literally have the death and murder of a minimum of hundreds of people on their hands."
What The Fuck?
The people who were torturing and raping people have the responsibility.
Not the reporters who let everyone know about it.
If a reporter lets the public know about something horrific your country is doing they are not responsible for the backlash.
Whoever was doing something horrific and whoever else knew about it and let it continue because they, like you, just want to let it slide quietly has that blood on their hands.
Re:I love it (Score:5, Insightful)
You know what would also have prevented the backlash?
not raping people.
but no.
It's not the good little soldiers faults!Not our boys in uniform!
oh no!
It's them nasty reporters who weren't good little patriots and didn't keep quiet.
Re:I love it (Score:5, Funny)
To be pro-wikileaks now is like being pro-assignation
I am utterly opposed to assignation because people use it to assign me tasks to do. However, if you mean a meeting between lovers, that's OK, as long as I'm one of them.
Re:I love it (Score:5, Insightful)
No ifs, ands, or buts, this douche-bag has the blood of innocent people on his hands - and needlessly so. The people who leaked the information are traitors and should be treated as such. I honestly don't understand the mass ignorance of those willing to protect a negligent murderer; which is exactly what he is now.
Exactly who are the innocent people that have died as a result of this leak?
Precisely how did the people that leaked the information kill them?
What makes someone a traitor for demonstrating how their country fails to obey its own laws and fails to provide the freedoms its citizens expects?
Surely the murderers and traitors are the people killing innocent civilians, as documented and evidenced in the material being published? Or would you rather keep all that quiet, and let them get on with it?
These days we have countless lives lost and protracted military involvement because of irresponsible disclosure and reporting.
Oh. I see. Yes, you would rather hush up the misbehaviour of your own troops instead of admitting they're a bunch of racist predatory sadists that shouldn't have been allowed into the military in the first place, let alone put in positions of power over helpless people.
Responsible disclosure is absolutely not too much to ask for.
I think that reporting war crimes is the only responsible thing to do. If you don't like that, perhaps you should encourage the military not to commit them in the first place.
Re:I love it (Score:4, Insightful)
No, merely requesting evidence. Shit, I'm still waiting to see the WMD that were promised back in 2003, forgive me if I don't believe offhand any old crap right wing Americans tell me.
Re:I love it (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, they had them and they destroyed them all under the supervision of the UN. If you bothered to read anything at all that wasn't on Fox News in the runup to the Iraq war, you would know this. The UN even made them produce an accounting of what happened to the WMDs [dawn.com], and once they had, the US promptly ignored it and invaded anyway.
Re:Afghan informers will be killed (Score:5, Insightful)
Why isn't the US military just as evil or even more so for putting the names in the documents in the first place?
And remember that those who aided and abetted the US military can hardly be considered innocent civilians -- to the occupied, they are fifth colonists or worse: Quislings.
No, the brunt of the responsibility rests firmly on the shoulder of the US military, politicians and voters here:
1: For using civilians in the war effort.
2: For making notes that identify them.
3: For not safeguarding those notes, making a leak possible.
Against those travesties, the disclosure of a redacted subset of those notes is negligible.
Face it, it's all about lost face at this point, and taking out revenge at the whistleblower and his or her associates. Revenge and anger and two of the few things my country, 'tis of thee, are good at.
FLOG the impertinent child who dare to say that the emperor has no clothes. He's directly responsible for people's anger when being exposed to the truth! If someone throws a rock at the emperor's haberdasher as a result, it's clearly the evil child's fault! Shoot the messenger; off with his head!
Re:Afghan informers will be killed (Score:5, Insightful)
"In the territory of the Third Reich, we should presume he would have similarly exposed Jews, without concerning himself with their fate. If not, perhaps Jewish lives are more sacred to him than Afghan lives?"
Ever heard the term "straw man"?
He's generally anti authoritarian so he'd more likely be leaking the locations of nazi generals who went into hiding and V2 plans.
Believe it or not wikileaks did make an effort to redact sensitive information.
To propose a similar strawman, if wikileaks doesn't care about afghans who could be killed by the taliban does that mean you don't care about afghans have been killed by US army fuckups?
Would the world be a better place if the military knew it could get away with slaughtering civilians without getting caught?
Re:I Do Not Love It (Score:5, Interesting)
Two of the most recent wiki leaks (Collateral damage and Afghan War diary) are examples of not strategic information but examples of information that shows that the wrong things are done in the wrong places and in the wrong way.
One of those tells us that the strategic efforts of the USA in the war were wrong in many ways; the other tells us that civilians were killed by a psycho that was imploring to kill civilians.
I don’t see how this can be of any use to an “enemy” if this is just a report of things your enemy knows but you don't.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
If they have my credit card information and details, it means somebody else who may not be "a good guy" may have the data, or the data may already be somewhere where there's little to no accountability.
I'm already screwed, so by making things public I may be inconvenienced but it forces the banks to take measures in protecting the clients and some changes may happen that would improve the security of all people.
Re:I Do Not Love It (Score:5, Insightful)
As long as bad people exist, you will always need to keep certain information secured
As long as bad people exist, you will always need to know what your government is doing in your name. Any solution to any problem which amounts to "trust the government to do the right thing" is wrong.
Re:I Do Not Love It (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm not implying that our current scenario is as cut and dried as World War II but how would you react if Wikileaks had been broadcasting over a magical radio station that blanketed the Earth the location of allied forces in 1942? Would you so callously respond that "maybe the Allies shouldn't be doing that in the first place?"
The problem with that "if" you're constructing is that merely a diversion from a real discussion. Anyone could easily list a number of other historical "ifs" to sharply counteract yours. And by doing so both sides of the conversation would achieve absolutely nothing, beside cheap entertainment.
We have the current situation in which WikiLeaks is acting, we see how they're acting, and we see how affected people and organisations are reacting to them, today, and in reality.
If you want to say WikiLeaks has done wrong in reality then, of course, list your concrete factual points, and we may or may not agree with you. No "ifs", time machines and historical paradoxes required.
Re:I Do Not Love It (Score:5, Insightful)
How would you respond if Wikileaks put up your credit card information, bank account numbers, social security number and all your known residences and acquaintances?
Yeah, but that's not what they're doing, is it? Wikileaks isn't actually doing anything that our journalists wouldn't be doing, if they had the integrity to do their damned jobs.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Not revealing secrets can be even more dangerous.
If someone throws you in prison and rapes or tortures you daily would you prefer that the world never found out about it? .....oh! you mean it's ok as long as it's someone else on the other side who's getting raped,tortured or killed?
that it was never stopped?
If a family member of yours was shot because some idiot thought his camera was a gun would you prefer they kept it secret?
Arrest WHO? (Score:5, Informative)
Julian? Sure, he's the face of WL, but that would not stop the signal.
Re:Arrest WHO? (Score:4, Funny)
Mr Universe, is that you?
It's really the other way around... (Score:2, Insightful)
'The US Government is a Clear and Present Danger' says US Citizens
too late (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:too late (Score:5, Insightful)
I think it's safe to say that they're more concerned about what Wikileaks will publish in the future. This isn't about putting the cat back into the bag, but about prior restraint of future publication.
Re:too late (Score:5, Insightful)
Hence the insurance file. Presumably that encrypted file would contain information that the government would want to remain secret more than they would want wikileaks in general silenced.
Re:too late (Score:5, Funny)
Presumably that encrypted file would contain information that the government would want to remain secret more than they would want wikileaks in general silenced.
So obviously the file must contain highly sensitive copyrighted works like the music for next year's Disney pop star lineup. The economic damage from piracy of that magnitude could destroy the world economy 300 times over.
Brilliant move on Wikileak's part. Who in the US government will care about our minor military secrets when the RIAA's profits are at risk?
Re:too late (Score:5, Interesting)
Reacting has become the solitary goal of politicians...to take some kind of action when their constituents feel threatened, regardless of whether that action is appropriate, or if there even exists any action whatsoever is appropriate.
Cases in point:
The TSA
The War on Terrorism
Warrantless Wiretapping
The War on Drugs
MADD
Felony Time for Personal Drug Use
Religion
The Pledge of Allegiance
The Witchhunt to Determine Who Killed Michael Jackson
Laws Banning Assisted Suicide
Censorship of (insert media here)
Laws Against Flag Burning
The RIAA
The MPAA
etc.
etc.
etc.
It's a tragedy of this fully-padded, 100% sterilized, risk-free, instant-gratification, 24/7-connected dreamworld that we are increasingly inhabiting that there has to be an immediate cure for every evil. People no longer accept that sometimes the best action is no action at all.
a clear and prersent danger (Score:5, Insightful)
Sounds to me more like the United States is the clear and present danger. Particularly when they claim an authority and yet admit a conflict with international law.
Re:a clear and prersent danger (Score:4, Insightful)
And what force does a law have behind it? The idea that it exists by itself, independently of the power granted it by the consent of its citizens, is beyond laughable. No person is going to submit to a law if it perceives that submission as contrary to its interests.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Summary is Wrong (Score:5, Informative)
This wasn't the Washington Post saying this, it was a columnist who writes a weekly column for the Post. Saying that the Post says this is like attributing George Will's tirades to the Post. The Post publishes opeds from all over the political spectrum that may or may not reflect the editorial stance of the Post. Thiessen is a right-winger from the American Enterprise Institute. If you want to get pissed at someone, get pissed at the AEI, not the Post.
Re:Summary is Wrong (Score:4, Insightful)
Horse shit. Their ink, their paper, their website, their responsibility.
It's all well and good to play both sides of the political theater, but ultimately anything they choose to print is endorsed by the entire organization, two line legal blurb or no.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
So is Slashdot responsible for your statements? Look at the blurb at the bottom of Slashdot. Dododododododo. Oh wait, you're zealot. That means you'll make something up on why it's different even though it isn't.
Wikileaks is annoying... (Score:5, Insightful)
...but Marc Thiessen is downright scary. Secret indictments. Grabbing foreign citizens in other countries against local laws and extradition treaties. Are you kidding, Marc? Want to bring back the Alien and Sedition Acts while you're at it?
I'm not sure that a regime where stuff like this happens is really worth protecting in the name of "national security".
Re:Wikileaks is annoying... (Score:5, Insightful)
The fact that the US thinks it is legal under US law is not really the point, is it? What counts is jurisdiction. And if Marc proposes that the FBI grab foreign nationals in countries like Iceland, Sweden, etc., where it is against local law, then that is a problem with jurisdiction.
If Swedish police caught the FBI grabbing an Australian citizen on Swedish soil, I assume that is a crime, regardless of what the U.S thinks about. How could it not be?
Would the U.S. be happy if the Chinese starting grabbing Tibetan dissidents in the US, arguing that this is (hypothetically) allowed under Chinese law?
Re:Wikileaks is annoying... (Score:4, Insightful)
If Swedish police caught the FBI grabbing an Australian citizen on Swedish soil, I assume that is a crime, regardless of what the U.S thinks about. How could it not be?
What about when the CIA does it?
And we call it "extraordinary rendition"?
There was a brief flareup when the CIA got publicly called out,
but the long term fallout has been suspiciously absent.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
CIA did pick up two Swedish citizens allegedly suspected for terrorism, but it was with the cooperation of the Swedish authorities. If the CIA had just walked in and grabbed them, there would have been a huge outcry. But in this case, it was the Swedish authorities themselves who chose to overlook Swedish law.
Clear and Present Danger... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The danger doesn't come from talking.... (Score:5, Insightful)
The clear and present danger doesn't come from *talking* about the actions of the American government, but from the actions themselves.
Newspapers didn't aid the Northern Vietnamese when they published the Pentagon Papers, but instead the Government and Military hurt the America with their secretive and malicious actions in Southeast Asia.
Just the same, releasing more information about the military actions in Afghanistan (especially after taking all possible precautions to prevent harm before release) does not cause injury to the US. It's the actions the US is ashamed to talk about that cause the harm.
Erm... (Score:5, Insightful)
"and that the US has the authority to arrest its spokesman, Julian Assange, even if it has to contravene international law to do so"
Interesting interpretation of "international law" and America's opinion of it. No wonder the world hates the US.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Large parts of the world are critical to the USA because of their foreign policy.
Here in Europe, we have the left-wingers, who are critical of USA whatever they do, and the right-wingers, who love them whatever they do. But in the middle, we have a large number of people who judge USA by its actions.
For example, USA received almost no criticism in Europe when it invaded Afghanistan, because it had valid reason to do so. Afghanistan really did harbour terrorists who were directly involved in attacks against
It is not Wikileaks that is the danger, (Score:3, Interesting)
It is not Wikileaks that is the danger, it is the trigger happy US and allied military and the uncaring and arrogant US government that is jeopardising the safety and image of Americans to the world. To turn the oft repeated slogan on its head; "If you got nothing to hide, you should not fear Wikileaks". I am sick of hearing "political analysts" and politicians saying Wikileaks is endangering American soldiers because they expose atrocities committed by American soldiers, and as the flawed logic goes, emboldens the enemy. Seriously, this is something Goebbles or Stalin might say, not the leaders of the free world. Wikileaks is actually helping the US by creating negative consequences for excesses of its military. Instead of trying to silence Wikileaks by extra-legal, Gestapo/NKVD/Kempetai-like "rendering" of the founder (which will only worsen the US image), maybe the US should rein in their cowboy soldiers and walk the "spreading freedom and democracy" talk.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And that oft-repeated slogan is also oft-derided here on Slashdot as a ridiculous notion that flies in the face of the very concept of privacy, and the fact that some things really should remain private.
And in other news, (Score:4, Insightful)
And in other news, Joseph Goebbels has written a scathing denunciation of the Jews, and the threat they pose to German society.
Don't blame the Post (entirely) for this opinion piece; they merely published it. It was written by one of Bush and Rummy's chief apologists, an alarmist advocate of martial law.
"Clear and Present Danger" (Score:4, Funny)
Isn't "Clear and Present Danger" the terminology used to justify Executive Orders to assassinate someone Without Remorse? The Washington Post is playing Patriot Games. I think we owe Wikileaks a Debt of Honor.
Thiessen a Wart on the Discourse (Score:5, Insightful)
The New Yorker did a piece [newyorker.com] on that book, investigating some of the claims made within and revealing many to be clearly false. Basically the book was a defense of "enhanced interrogation". One claim that I recall off the top of my head is that information obtained by the CIA through enhanced interrogation was instrumental in preventing a conspiracy to hijack several planes flying from London in 2006. Yet according to the head of Scotland Yard's anti-terrorism unit, all the intelligence involved was gathered in the uk. Thiessen's version of events is flatly contradicted.
This guy has been one of the primary fonts of misinformation and foolishness in the media since then. He has no credibility, and should be regarded only as a bellwether of neoconservative opinion.
Blaming the messenger (Score:5, Insightful)
WikiLeaks is in its essence just a Wiki site. A web site. It's clear that publishing text is in no way unique to that site, you can do it on any site. Hopefully the government isn't saying that free communication is the real threat to national security.
WikiLeaks didn't commit any of the acts in the leaked documents, it wasn't their job or responsibility for keeping those documents secret, and they didn't leak the documents from their origin: some unknown source did on their own will, and sent them to WikiLeaks.
All WikiLeaks did was take those documents, make a cursory check of authenticity, and publish them.
Of course, by doing so, they become an easy target for people who are willing to turn heads away from the actual problems that lead to projects like WikiLeaks, and instead blame the messenger.
The real problem (for certain people) is that WikiLeaks is now a vivid symbol nurturing an environment where people may not simply do something because it was ordered from above, and especially if it's in conflict with basic human rights and morals.
But by loudly blaming WikiLeaks for the created situation, they only serve to further strengthen the very symbol they want to destroy. Somewhat ironic. As long as WikiLeaks is on everyone's target, and not their anonymous sources, more and more whistle-blowers will choose to trust them with their data.
WaPo/MSM probably love WikiLeaks. (Score:4, Interesting)
WikiLeaks is in a great place for the press in that it allows WikiLeaks to be the source of scandalous documents; rather than actually being responsible for the leak itself.
What this means is that they have a huge overarching story they can flog for quite awhile and not have to worry about retribution for running any given story. WikiLeaks is a total win-win for an ever more lazy media.
Blood on his hands (Score:5, Insightful)
Let's keep it straight just who has blood on their hands.
Doctors Without Borders was in Afghanistan for 30 years, running rural health clinics and supporting and teaching Afghani doctors and nurses. They treated everyone without regard to who they were affiliated with or which side they were on. Their medical clinics were one of the few neutral areas in Afghanistan, respected by everyone, where guns were not permitted.
After the U.S. invasion, Colin Powell moved in a lot of U.S. medical charity workers, and referred to medical workers as "force extenders." The U.S. passed out fliers telling villagers that if they joined the American side and turned in the Taliban, they would get all kinds of benefits, including medical services.
That politicized medical services in Afghanistan. Doctors Without Borders was no longer safe, and had to leave the country. I read an account in which a German obstetrician was crying and refused to leave her patients -- Afghanistan has one of the highest infant and maternal death rates in the world -- and her supervisor had to order her to leave. It was too dangerous.
The other problems like checkpoints manned by soldiers who didn't speak the local language, and killed civilian families who didin't understand their orders, is too much to get into here.
The Bush Administration has blood on its hands. Thiessen was George W. Bush's speechwriter. Thiessen has blood on his hands.
Thiessen is arguing that we should ignore international law. He's using the logic of terrorists.
Re:Blood on his hands (Score:5, Informative)
Posting AC because I've done 7 missions with MSF (Medecins Sans Frontieres/Doctors Without Borders).
Your posts contains elements that are both right and wrong. MSF left Afghanistan when five of our expats were murdered. MSF can only work in the areas we do (in conflict areas, where no one else goes except the ICRC) only because we are both neutral and impartial and if this fact is understood and respected by all parties. Clearly, a targeted attack is sign that this understanding is no longer respected.
Regarding the refusal to evacuate. No one likes doing it. I've done it several times and it feels like shit. You are abandoning the people you were there to help as well as your national staff counterparts while you tuck tail and leave. There's no way around this. OTOH, if the situation's come to the point where death is highly probably, you waited too long to evac. The moment an expat or multiple MSF expats are intentionally killed, that's it for operations in that country. Game's over and no one's coming back for a while. The major players usually understand this and our white t-shirts and white Landcruisers are pretty good protection. If it turns out it was by accident or a rogue action, then that has negative implications as well. In one country, we had an expat staffer killed. Eventually, the killers were found and as a show that their actions didn't represent any of the differing factions, they were executed and bodies dumped with an explanation. Those deaths are on us, too, because somebody wasn't careful enough and didn't see the signs.
One way or another, the evacuation order is the one order that cannot be refused or argued about. If you refuse, your contract is terminated on the spot. You're no longer MSF and you're on your own. Your refusal to evacuate will damage operations and hurt the people in the long run. This is made clear to you in training and prep. I know of no one who's refused an evacuation. I know of no one who knows of anyone who's ever refused an evacuation order. Oddly enough, I'm a former soldier so people expect me to be the most reticent to call an evacuation, whereas the reality is that I'm usually the first one to put the option on the table.
In the past decade, humanitarian aid's become highly politicized. As in, everyone talks of neutrality and impartiality but very few can actually walk the walk. How can they? They're all taking money from USAID ECHO or various UN agencies and that money usually comes with strings attached. Really? You're impartial? You're taking money from European nations that all belong to NATO and you say you're impartial? You work within the UN cluster system and may be traveling under ISAF (aka, the "bad guys" if you're Taliban) protection (which was established by the UN) and you say you're neutral? Really? REALLY?
MSF avoids this whole can of worms by only taking private donors and/or money with no strings attached. It gives us the freedom to actually be neutral and impartial. But here's the kicker. No one knows that, least of all, the guys who associate Americans and Europeans with NATO, ISAF, UNAMI and the US government and the US military.
"No really, we're different from all the other guys! Really!" You try that line and see if anyone with a hard-on against anyone not like them believes you. We are, but it's impossible to get that point across where it really matters.
That's not to shit on the other NGOs. They do good work, too. Some do it better than we do - the Oxfam guys really know their water and ACF does famine better than anyone else - but very few NGOs have the luxury of financial independence that we do. It sucks, but that's the way things have gone and for us, we no longer have the trust and access that we once did.
It also doesn't help that the military is involved in "humanitarianism" as well. Thanks.
Oh yeah, and these views are my own and don't necessarily represent the views of MSF, official or otherwise. Yeah.
Time to step up (Score:5, Insightful)
I really need to write a check to Wikileaks. And EFF. And ACLU. This liberty thing could get expensive, what with us having to fund the fight against the people who we elected to uphold it, who are also using our money.
Charge him with "Depraved Indifference" (Score:3, Insightful)
Depraved Indifference [uslegal.com]: "to bring defendant's conduct within the murder statute, that the defendant's act was imminently dangerous and presented a very high risk of death to others and that it was committed under circumstances which evidenced a wanton indifference to human life or a depravity of mind. . . . . The crime differs from intentional murder in that it results not from a specific, conscious intent to cause death, but from an indifference to or disregard of the risks attending defendant's conduct."
I hope for Julian Assange's sake that no Afghani or Iraqi informants are killed because someone figured out from the unredacted information who the informants are. His releasing of this information directly led to these informant's death.
This has all played out in America before... (Score:5, Informative)
Daniel Ellisberg was the man who leaked what has become known as "The Pentagon Papers". He was the first man to be charged under the Espionage Act, with results that the administration did not intend. He never spent a minute in jail. The documentary of his actions came out last year (2009).
Here is a little breakdown of the story:
"The Most Dangerous Man in America" is the story of what happens when a former Pentagon insider, armed only with his conscience, steadfast determination, and a file cabinet full of classified documents, decides to challenge an "Imperial" Presidency-answerable to neither Congress, the press, nor the people-in order to help end the Vietnam War. In 1971, Daniel Ellsberg shook America to its foundations when he smuggled a top-secret Pentagon study to the New York Times that showed how five Presidents consistently lied to the American people about the Vietnam War that was killing millions and tearing America apart. President Nixon's National Security Advisor Henry Kissinger called Ellsberg "the most dangerous man in America," who "had to be stopped at all costs." But Ellsberg wasn't stopped. Facing 115 years in prison on espionage and conspiracy charges, he fought back. Ensuing events surrounding the so-called Pentagon Papers led directly to Watergate and the downfall of President Nixon, and hastened the end of the Vietnam War. Ellsberg's relentless telling of truth to power, which exposed the secret deeds of an "Imperial Presidency," inspired Americans of all walks of life to forever question the previously-unchallenged pronouncements of its leaders. "The Most Dangerous Man in America" tells the inside story, for the first time on film, of this pivotal event that changed history and transformed our nation's political discourse. It is told largely by the players of that dramatic episode-Ellsberg, his colleagues, family and critics; Pentagon Papers authors and government officials; Vietnam veterans and anti-war activists; Watergate principals, attorneys and the journalists who both covered the story and were an integral part of it; and finally-through White House audiotapes-President Nixon and his inner circle of advisors.
Documentary is available at Megavideo: http://www.megavideo.com/?d=6VI4M5CC [megavideo.com]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's a brilliant documentary, but times have changed. And changed in a big way.
One of the best things in the documentary, was when the US government got a court injunction to prevent the publication of a US Newspaper.
That was how they tried to plug the leaks.
In an amazing display of journalism doing its job, other newspapers collectively put their heads on the block, and took over the release of information.
As the government shut one down, another would step up and take over.
It was like a pre-internet versi
Re:srsly govt? (Score:5, Insightful)
haven't you seen star wars? if you strike him down, he will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine.
Dude, Julian Assange is not a Jedi. He won't come back as a ghost after death to advise Luke. If you strike him down, he'll be dead.
And, sure, martyrs can have a power to move opinion that living people lack, but I'm not convinced this is one of those situations.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Being a martyr isn't even the half of it. Anything happens to Julian or the wikileaks site, then this happens: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/08/02/wikileaks_insurance/ [theregister.co.uk]
Re:srsly govt? (Score:5, Interesting)
He isn't a US citizen, so, is he breaking any Australian laws by publishing US state secrets? If not, then publishing more state secrets is not a crime either. He has not made any statements about the contents or use of the 'insurance' file, so it would be hard to pin extortion on him.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Somehow, leaking the uncomfortable truth sounds so unglamorous when you put it that way.
Re:Maybe I'm missing something, but... (Score:4, Insightful)
One of the major complaints by the gov't was that some of the Afghan informers that were named will now be Taliban targets. Seems an easy way to flush out more Talibs...just set up surveillance on the informers, and wait for the rats to find their way to the cheese...
And yet (without taking a position for/against this leak in specific or WikiLeaks in general), if I'm an Afghan considering becoming an informer, that's sure going to make me think twice about it, especially if I have a family.
Trapping rats is great and all, until someone makes you the cheese without your consent.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
if I'm an Afghan considering becoming an informer, that's sure going to make me think twice about it, especially if I have a family.
Isn't the death rate already well over 100% due to them killing suspected informers whom aren't informers?
Its very much like a slashdot story from earlier today, where elderly people should not be allowed to live near Chernobyl because they'll get cancer in 75 years from the radiation, which would be a real bummer if you make it to 160 years old and then living in Chernobyl back in the 00s kills you.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Isn't the death rate already well over 100% due to them killing suspected informers whom aren't informers?
You're looking at the math from the wrong end.
If I'm a potential informant, one of my probable goals is not to reduce the death rates of informants overall; it is to reduce the death rates of specifically me.
Regardless of how often the Taliban murders false positives, if my name has a good chance of being leaked to the world if I inform, my risk goes up a lot if I inform.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
He he -- you're funny.
One could argue that the reason why leaders like Fidel Castor and Kim Song Il aren't assassinated or gotten rid of in some way is because they help, indirectly, to give the Military Industrial Complex a reason to exist.
But that would be just crazy, and I certainly wouldn't try and espouse it.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:please oh please (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
ah, yes, but then you have to gamble that the secrets which you hold are damaging enough that they'll consider leaving you alone (and keeping the secrets safe) to be the best option. (Or, that once they know what it is, they won't work to smother it before it even gets out.)
If you don't tell them what the secret is, then you can let their imaginations run wild as to exactly how damaging it is - they know all the secrets already, and have to gamble how far up the scale the one (or ones) you have is (or are).
WH thanks you for buying it's spin... (Score:4, Insightful)
...for repeating the "nothing new here" line.
Then there's known facts vs what the media bothers to report vs what's common knowledge.
Examples:
None of this things would be "new" news, but it would be news if the media started talking about them.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Well now....the reason that people are relatively relaxed about Israel having 200 nukes and yet freaked out by the Iranians having just one is because Iran is run by a messianic fascist theocracy which really couldn't give a shit about killing several million people while Israel is a semi-secular rightwing democracy dedicated to keeping a few million people alive. So the cases aren't exactly parallel.