Topic: Wikileaks:

[scatman]

That's why we have checks and balances, Freedom of Information among others. Well not where I live, but elsewhere. What I don't like is some hacker with delusions of grandeur sowing chaos while paying lip-service to the ideal of freedom.

What kind of info did the Wikileaks reveal? Pretty much what we knew all along. No big government conspiracies, no shining beacon of truth that would have made it somewhat worthwhile. Just political bitching among diplomats, and the lives of good men now put in danger. What was the point?

Assange and the knuckledraggers at Anonymous are more like the kid who gets his hand on a stick of dynamite than Woodward and Bernstein.

The lives of which good men put at danger?

[Refo]

That wasn't enough?

Illegal detention of people.
Kidnapping and transport of suspected enemy "combatants"
Torture of prisoners.

Granted most of those where known but the war logs at least showed the extend of it.

I have been saying that I thought that the collateral murder leak was very valuable because it gave us actual evidence of abuse. However considering how much information was released since then it seems a bit disappointing that we haven't really learned anything new, and your first 2 examples I'm pretty sure aren't war crimes, at least its very complicated to classify them as such. The third appears to have been curtailed.

[nicholasanthony]

Too bad he can't get back to Aus. No way he gets extradited to the US from here.

[Yorkykopite]

WikiLeaks: Julian Assange claims to have Rupert Murdoch 'insurance files'
Founder claims WikiLeaks has more than 500 US diplomatic cables on one broadcasting organisation
Josh Halliday He said yesterday that the whistleblowers' site would "shortly" continue publishing cables stories which would "speak more of the same truth to power".

Who is the 'power' here? Assange and his private organisation seem to be acquiring a lot of power, don't they? Why do they get to decide what is leaked and what must remain private?

[Corkboy]

Who is the 'power' here? Assange and his private organisation seem to be acquiring a lot of power, don't they? Why do they get to decide what is leaked and what must remain private?

Could you not level the same accusation against any purveyor of info, be they journalists or not? For example, the Republicans recently voted against a bill to help 9/11 first responders and not one of the major news networks in the US ran the story.

[Finn Solomon]

Could you not level the same accusation against any purveyor of info, be they journalists or not? For example, the Republicans recently voted against a bill to help 9/11 first responders and not one of the major news networks in the US ran the story.

Jon Stewart did, he's bigger than the rest of them combined.

[Yorkykopite]

Could you not level the same accusation against any purveyor of info, be they journalists or not?

Yes it could. But in a free country, at least, the newspapers and broadcasters do not typically hunt in a pack and therefore do not present a single unchanging face either to the public or the government. Plus our relationship (as consumers) to news organisations is more straightforward than it is to something like Wikileaks (where's their letters page, where's their ombudsman, how can I stop subscribing etc?). The problem of accountability becomes even greater when you see how centralised power in wikileaks is. It's basically Assange. He's the proprietor, the editor and the chief journalist.

I think you have, at least, to ask the following question. Would you be happy if it was the cyber equivalent of Rupert Murdoch who was receiving all this stuff and getting to decide what was fit for public consumption and what should be held back?

[scatman]

Yes it could. But in a free country, at least, the newspapers and broadcasters do not typically hunt in a pack and therefore do not present a single unchanging face either to the public or the government. Plus our relationship (as consumers) to news organisations is more straightforward than it is to something like Wikileaks (where's their letters page, where's their ombudsman, how can I stop subscribing etc?). The problem of accountability becomes even greater when you see how centralised power in wikileaks is. It's basically Assange. He's the proprietor, the editor and the chief journalist.

I think you have, at least, to ask the following question. Would you be happy if it was the cyber equivalent of Rupert Murdoch who was receiving all this stuff and getting to decide what was fit for public consumption and what should be held back?

I guess what is true here is that Assange - one man - holds a lot of power because of the information he holds. But could we not say the same of Google?

Ah sod the Google example I see how you note we can unsubscribe from that

[Corkboy]

The problem of accountability becomes even greater when you see how centralised power in wikileaks is. It's basically Assange. He's the proprietor, the editor and the chief journalist.

I don't think that's true. Certainly, Assange is the public face (and a dangerous job it is, too) but they have many others, according to their website.

WikiLeaks is an independent global group of people with a long standing dedication to the idea of a free press and the improved transparency in society that comes from this. The group includes accredited journalists, software programmers, network engineers, mathematicians and others.

I think you have, at least, to ask the following question. Would you be happy if it was the cyber equivalent of Rupert Murdoch who was receiving all this stuff and getting to decide what was fit for public consumption and what should be held back?

I don't think that's the right question. Wikileaks don't solicit material so it's a little unfair to criticise them for deciding what to do with it. The whistleblower can go elsewhere if he or she wants. Besides, unlike Murdoch, Wikileaks are not for profit.

[Yorkykopite]

I don't think that's true. Certainly, Assange is the public face (and a dangerous job it is, too) but they have many others, according to their website.

Everything I've heard and read about wikileaks suggests that Assange is a supreme power there. Other high-up members like Israel Shamir don't inspire trust either. Shamir, for example, is described by Searchlight (the venerable anti-fascist group) as a Holocaust Denier and weirdo anti-semite.

I don't think that's the right question. Wikileaks don't solicit material so it's a little unfair to criticise them for deciding what to do with it. The whistleblower can go elsewhere if he or she wants. Besides, unlike Murdoch, Wikileaks are not for profit.

I didn't know that they didn't 'solicit' material. Is it just coincidence that it keeps ending up there? And do orthodox investigative journalists 'solicit' material?

You're correct about the commercial side of things, but how does this affect my point about the concentration of power? Wikileaks, presumably, doesn't need advertising revenue to be effective.

[The Gulleysucker]

Shamir, for example, is described by Searchlight (the venerable anti-fascist group) as a Holocaust Denier and weirdo anti-semite.

And he is....

MO: Should it be allowed to criticize the Zionist version of the Holocaust?

 IS: More than that, I think it is a duty to do so. I think it is every Muslim's and Christian's duty to deny the Holocaust, to reject this belief, just as Abraham and Moses rejected the idols. Any person who confesses to God should deny the Holocaust. I think it's much more serious that people deny God, right?

 MO: Today, even the Pope went out and demanded that they should believe in the Holocaust.

 IS: It is terrible. There is only one God, the Holocaust is an idol. I refuse to worship the Holocaust.

source

He's deeply suspect, especially if he is a wikileaks 'aggregator'.

[Corkboy]

source

I think that link is fucked, Gulley, I can't understand a word of it.

[The Gulleysucker]

I think that link is fucked, Gulley, I can't understand a word of it.

Soory, try Google Swedish to English

It's right at the end.

[The Gulleysucker]

Here is his praise to that other renowned champion of free speech (and er, holocaust denier) I'm a Dinner Jacket.
http://www.israelshamir.net/English/Congratulations.htm

[Yorkykopite]

I think that link is fucked, Gulley, I can't understand a word of it.

What, you don't know Swedish Corky? Shamir's been around for a long time (He is Swedish I think). When I first heard he was a player in Wikileaks I was gobsmacked. Alarm bells started ringing.

[Yorkykopite]

Here is his praise to that other renowned champion of free speech (and er, holocaust denier) I'm a Dinner Jacket.
http://www.israelshamir.net/English/Congratulations.htm

Yep, complete nutjob.

[The Gulleysucker]

...(He is Swedish I think)

He seems to be whatever he wants to be to suit the circumstances...
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2005/04/309818.html
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/37725_Wikileaks_Russian_Representative-_A_Holocaust_Denier
http://reason.com/archives/2010/12/14/the-assange-employees

[El Campeador]

How WikiLeaks helped fuel Tunisian revolution

By Maha Azzam
January 18, 2011

London (CNN) - Corruption has been one of the main features of the Ben Ali regime in Tunisia. It has gone hand in hand with authoritarian control of the state. Opposition groups and the public often spoke of endemic corruption among the Tunisian ruling elite.

However, the revelations made by WikiLeaks that in June 2008 the U.S. embassy in Tunis said that "Whether it's cash, services, land, property, or yes, even your yacht, President [Zine el Abidine] Ben Ali's family is rumored to covet it and reportedly gets what it wants," gave even greater weight and proof to an already widespread belief that Ben Ali and his wife's family, the Trabelsis, were the "quasi-mafia" often referred to by Tunisians. It added to the long list of grievances against a regime that had been in power for 23 years and had remained unaccountable.

With the political and security apparatus under their control, the regime was able to exploit the economic system and the financial sector to enrich themselves.

The Ben Ali clan had a hand in every aspect of the new economy, be it duties on imports and exports, media, internet providers, telecoms, banks, shopping centers or property development.

According to WikiLeaks, prime real estate was reportedly expropriated from its owner by the government for use by the water authority, then later granted to Mohamed Sakher El Materi -- Ben Ali's son-in-law -- for private use.

The cables reported: "With real estate development booming and land prices on the rise, owning property or land in the right location can either be a windfall or a one-way ticket to expropriation."

Privatizations offered a valuable channel. Members of the family would buy at a symbolic price and then sell to entrepreneurs at massive profits. They acquired commissions in foreign investments and were often the go-betweens in the award of public contracts. The leaked U.S. embassy cables cited that: "Lax oversight makes the banking sector an excellent target of opportunity, with multiple stories of 'First Family' schemes."

Anyone doing business in Tunisia, be they local or foreigner, would have been aware of the power and control of the Ben Alis, the Trabelsis and the coteries of power that surrounded them. However, the WikiLeaks revelations added to the "disgust" that many Tunisians had already been feeling at the chasm in wealth prevalent in Tunisian society, a country where unemployment runs at 30%.

The widespread protests that erupted were due to economic pressures and corruption, but they were also against a political system that abused human rights and showed no respect for the rule of law.

A new generation of Tunisians, connected to the internet and using TwitterVideo, was galvanized to action against a repressive police force and security services. Today's technology provided them with channels that despite their government's restrictions, proved invaluable in spreading information and support for the protests, while WikiLeaks merely further exposed an already discredited and reviled regime.

Others in the region share the same long brewing discontent. The question now in the minds of many is whether the 50-year-old Egyptian who shouted anti-government slogans in front of the Egyptian parliament before setting himself on fire on Monday, and the four Algerians who have done so over the last few days, echoing the action of Muhammad Al Bouazizi, the young Tunisian who set himself on fire and died in mid-December, will help set in motion a similar chain of events.

[Corkboy]

What, you don't know Swedish Corky? Shamir's been around for a long time (He is Swedish I think). When I first heard he was a player in Wikileaks I was gobsmacked. Alarm bells started ringing.

He does appear to be somewhat nutty flavoured. Mind you, he might be an honest nut.

The thing that I admire about Wikileaks is the simplicity of it all. They only have a few rules. They don't solicit (and no, Yorky, I'm not sure what that entails, or doesn't entail), they only accept documents (no oral tradition here) and the documents have to have been generated by someone other than the donor. Now, if that's all they do, there's an unassailable quality about it. You can't apportion blame for a faithful account of some actual document generated by someone else. It might cause havoc but isn't that the fault of the person who generated the document?

Suppose I could metaphorically take you by the hand and show you things, scenes, meetings, pow wows where we would be invisible observers. If you consented to joining me, how can you blame me for what you saw and heard? The only trouble, I suppose, would be my selection of places, which might be jaundiced in one direction or another. However, Wikileaks only release what is brought to them so they don't really have a choice. I can only presume that they exercise some editorial influence in what is released but I understand they release everything as soon as they're happy from a factual viewpoint. I don't recall any sex scandals, for example, or information in any of the leaks that was designed to be personally embarrassing but they do release an awful lot of boring garbage. (See the spoiler at the end for their methods.)

Tell you what. Let's have a quick scan down this list and see if we can winkle out any discernible slant or bias. These are some governments or institutions which have been exposed by Wikileaks.

Climate Change Conference
Japan              Thailand
Kenya             Scientologists
Iceland           Somalia
Switzerland    Shriners
UK                  Catholic Hospitals
USA                East Timor
Iran               Bermuda

Pattern?

Spoiler

1.4 How WikiLeaks verifies its news stories

We assess all news stories and test their veracity. We send a submitted document through a very detailed examination a procedure. Is it real? What elements prove it is real? Who would have the motive to fake such a document and why? We use traditional investigative journalism techniques as well as more modern rtechnology-based methods. Typically we will do a forensic analysis of the document, determine the cost of forgery, means, motive, opportunity, the claims of the apparent authoring organisation, and answer a set of other detailed questions about the document. We may also seek external verification of the document For example, for our release of the Collateral Murder video, we sent a team of journalists to Iraq to interview the victims and observers of the helicopter attack. The team obtained copies of hospital records, death certificates, eye witness statements and other corroborating evidence supporting the truth of the story. Our verification process does not mean we will never make a mistake, but so far our method has meant that WikiLeaks has correctly identified the veracity of every document it has published.

Publishing the original source material behind each of our stories is the way in which we show the public that our story is authentic. Readers don’t have to take our word for it; they can see for themselves. In this way, we also support the work of other journalism organisations, for they can view and use the original documents freely as well. Other journalists may well see an angle or detail in the document that we were not aware of in the first instance. By making the documents freely available, we hope to expand analysis and comment by all the media. Most of all, we want readers know the truth so they can make up their own minds.

[close]

[kavah]

pattern?

i googled them and  top of the list was WHAT WIKILEAKS HAS EXPOSED!

PS have you seen Old Cold's video about rawk - you get a mention

[Phil M]

Police arrested five young men on Thursday following an investigation into Internet activists who carried out cyber attacks against groups they viewed as enemies of the WikiLeaks website.

"The arrests were related to recent 'distributed denial of service' (DDoS) attacks by an online group calling themselves Anonymous," London police said in a statement.

Internet activists last month carried out a series of online assaults against institutions they viewed as enemies of WikiLeaks, temporarily bringing down the websites of credit-card giants Visa and MasterCard, and of the Swedish government.

Several companies ended services to WikiLeaks after it angered the U.S. authorities by publishing thousands of secret diplomatic reports. Sweden wants to extradite WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange from Britain for questioning over sexual assault allegations.

Officers from a specialist London police unit dealing with online crime detained the five males, aged between 15 and 26, in raids at homes in central and southern England.

Police said they were working with counterparts in continental Europe and the United States in their investigation into Anonymous.

Dutch police last month arrested two teenagers suspected of involvement in the online campaign. They face trial later this year.

A DDoS attack consists of swamping the resources of a computer such as a server to make it unavailable to users.

The maximum penalty in Britain for offences of computer misuse is 10 years imprisonment and a fine of 5,000 pounds.

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/22/20110127/tuk-uk-wikileaks-britain-cyber-fa6b408.html

[RedRabbit]

The maximum penalty in Britain for offences of computer misuse is 10 years imprisonment and a fine of 5,000 pounds.

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/22/20110127/tuk-uk-wikileaks-britain-cyber-fa6b408.html

Jesus Christ! 10 Years in prison. That's more than some do for murder!! 

[[new username under construction]]

Where's my aliens you fuckers!!!!

[Azi]

has the FBI bought the media havnt heard anything in last fortgnight or has everyone just got fed up with these false claims

[BIGdavalad]

"One of the dispatches from Feb 17 2009 and titled “The frogman who couldn’t swim: a co-operation cautionary tale”, recounts how the Italian Government funded a Libyan to attend “a training program in Rome on underwater explosives detection and demolition”.

It continues: “After several days of classroom instruction, the candidates - it was a regional course and included students from several countries - were taken to the pool for their first practical session in the water.

“The instructor directed the students to don their masks and regulators and enter the deep end of the pool; however, after several minutes, the Libyan student had still not entered the water.

“The instructor walked up to the student, put his mask on, shoved the regulator in his mouth and pushed him into the pool. The Libyan student sank like a stone, spit [sic] out his regulator and swallowed a great deal of water.

“After pulling him out and pumping the water out of lungs, the Italians learned that the Libyan student could not swim and was not a member of the Libyan GPC for Public Security or any GOL [Government of Libya] entity.

He was the cousin of an official tasked with selecting participants for training programs and had simply wanted a vacation in Rome.”

Italy’s interior minister Roberto Maroni contacted Tripoli “straight away to pre-empt any Libyan accusations of mistreatment of their man”.

Italian officials also verbally protested that Tripoli “had sent an unqualified candidate to participate in a program paid for by the Italian government.

“The next day, the Italian Embassy received a formal written reply in which the GOL [Government of Libya] frostily averred that it was the responsibility of the Italian governnment to ensure that candidates for its training programs were properly qualified, and that the Italians should have taught him how to swim.”

Wikileaks: Libyan 'frogman' sent to train in Rome couldn't swim - Telegraph

[BoRed]

See - even you find wikileaks useful .

[Corkboy]

Julian Assange's accusers sent texts discussing revenge, court hears

Björn Hurtig, the WikiLeaks founder's lawyer in Sweden, says the women's messages contradict their claims

    * Esther Addley
    * guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 8 February 2011 20.41 GMT

Julian Assange's Swedish lawyer was shown scores of text messages sent by the two women who accuse him of rape and sexual assault, in which they speak of "revenge" and extracting money from him, an extradition hearing was told.

Björn Hurtig, who represents the WikiLeaks founder in Sweden, told Belmarsh magistrates court that he had been shown "about 100" messages sent between the women and their friends while supervised by a Swedish police officer, but had not been permitted to make notes or share the contents with his client.

"I consider this to be contrary to the rules of a fair trial," he said. A number of the messages "go against what the claimants have said", he told the court.

Sweden is seeking the WikiLeaks founder's extradition in relation to allegations of rape, sexual assault and sexual molestation. He denies the accusations.

One message referred to one of the women being "half asleep" while having sex with Assange, Hurtig said, as opposed to fully asleep. "That to my mind is the same as saying 'half awake'." One of the women alleges that Assange had sex with her while she was sleeping.

But the lawyer admitted that Swedish prosecutors had tried to interview his client before he left the country, contradicting earlier claims by Assange's legal team and his own witness statement.

Hurtig told the extradition hearing that he had been wrong to assert that the prosecutor Marianne Ny had made no active attempt to interview Assange between her appointment to the case, on 1 September last year, and 27 September, when Assange left the country with her permission.

Under cross-examination by Clare Montgomery QC for the Swedish government, Hurtig admitted the prosecutor's office had contacted him on 22 September requesting an interview. Montgomery asked him to take out his mobile and read two text messages received on that date. One, in Swedish, he translated as: "Hello, is it clear if it's going to be good to have interrogation on Tuesday, 1700h?"

Hurtig said he could not recall calling Assange after receiving the request, but was sure he would have done. "You should bear in mind that it was very difficult to get hold of him during this time," he said.

The omission was "embarrassing and shouldn't have happened", he said. "It's true that that gave an impression that was to Julian's advantage."

But he insisted it was accidental: "I am myself a member of the Swedish bar association and it's important that what I say is right. It's also important for Julian that my statement is reliable and correct."

The hearing did not conclude in the allotted two days and will resume on Friday. Judge Howard Riddle is not expected to deliver his judgment immediately.

He agreed to amend Assange's bail conditions until Friday, lifting the requirement that he attend a police station near his rural bail address each afternoon.

Earlier, the court heard from a retired prosecutor who said the conduct of the prosecutor had been "quite peculiar" in not seeking to interview Assange earlier. Sven-Erik Alhem said he would also have tried to have Assange interviewed in the UK before seeking his extradition. He added, however, that if he were Assange "I would have gone to Sweden immediately to give my version of events."

Outside court, Assange tried to put the spotlight on the Swedish prosecutor: "She has refused to come to these hearings. Our witnesses were brought from Sweden, my lawyer was brought from Sweden and expensively cross-examined.

"Where is the equality in this case? There is not an equality. Rather, we see an unlimited budget of Sweden and the UK being spent on this matter and my rather limited budget being spent in response."

His lawyer, Mark Stephens, said: "We have seen Hamlet without the princess. We have seen a prosecutor who has been ready to feed the media with information but has been unprepared to come here and subject herself to the cross-examination she knows she cannot withstand."

source

[Buck Fast]

If Assange gets locked away there should be a general strike with riots on the streets of every major UK city.

[Ray K]

Julian Assange to be extradited to Sweden

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange is to be extradited to Sweden to face allegations of rape and sexual assault. Assange will appeal, his legal team confirmed. If this is unsuccessful, he will be extradited to Sweden in 10 days.

From the Grauniad.

[Wendy Baby]

Julian Assange to be extradited to Sweden

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange is to be extradited to Sweden to face allegations of rape and sexual assault. Assange will appeal, his legal team confirmed. If this is unsuccessful, he will be extradited to Sweden in 10 days.

From the Grauniad.

Stand Up! Stand Up! all you who oppose the misuse of power across the globe.

[berrno3333]

Stand Up! Stand Up! all you who oppose the misuse of power across the globe.

[Naughtykid]

How do you have sex with someone whilst there asleep?

Surely they'd wake up.

[BIGdavalad]

How do you have sex with someone whilst there asleep?

Surely they'd wake up.

It depends how much Special K you've dropped into their drink.

[Naughtykid]

It depends how much Special K you've dropped into their drink.

I prefer the fight.

[Wendy Baby]

How do you have sex with someone whilst there asleep?

Surely they'd wake up.

She claimed to have been halve asleep hence halve awake. Me and my fella love that situation, what better way to greet the new day

[Wendy Baby]

It depends how much Special K you've dropped into their drink.

No way! 

[BIGdavalad]

Stand Up! Stand Up! all you who oppose the misuse of power across the globe.

Do you not believe that he should stand trial for the allegations against him?

[BIGdavalad]

No way! 

It's much easier than having to show them the knife.

[classycarra]

Stand Up! Stand Up! all you who oppose the misuse of power across the globe.

surely if you opposed the misuse of power across the globe you would be happy that he is facing trial, and hasn't escaped scrutiny due to his rise to power (not in the sovereign sense)

[BoRed]

surely if you opposed the misuse of power across the globe you would be happy that he is facing trial, and hasn't escaped scrutiny due to his rise to power (not in the sovereign sense)

It kind of depends on whether you think he's going to get a fair trial. A trial could be both a tool against the misuse of power, or a misuse of power in itself. I think in this case his "power", regardless of his rise, is much smaller than the power of Swedish or British courts, not to mention some of his other enemies.