Topic: Wikileaks:

[So… Howard Philips]

What I've never understood is that if the American's wanted to extradite Assange for espionage or whatever the alleged crime is I'm sure that the one jurisdiction most likely to extradite is the UK, not Sweden.

Or am I missing something?

[Yorkykopite]

It's one thing that they (or Assange) had a self-admitted personal grudge against Clinton, but the way they were rampantly promoting blatant conspiracy nonsense just made them lose their credibility altogether for me. I don't think they can ever regain that because I'll be questioning anything that comes out from them now.

Is it personal against Clinton? I think his grudge, or his complaint, is much wider than that and political not personal. His real loathing is for liberalism and democracy.

What I've never understood is that if the American's wanted to extradite Assange for espionage or whatever the alleged crime is I'm sure that the one jurisdiction most likely to extradite is the UK, not Sweden.

Or am I missing something?

This is true. If extradition to the USA was the thing he really feared then one of the best places to go would be Sweden. Therefore there must be other reasons for not wanting to go to Sweden. Any fair-minded person must conclude it's because he doesn't want to be questioned about a rape allegation. 

[So… Howard Philips]

Out of interest whatever happened to those who pledged bail for him? Did they lose their sureties?

[classycarra]

Is it personal against Clinton? I think his grudge, or his complaint, is much wider than that and political not personal. His real loathing is for liberalism and democracy.

I think there is some personal dislike of Clinton too.

If you'll believe it, and bear with me, this article is actually very interesting and offers a fair insight into wikileaks in it's early days. The author worked for Assange for a time. I seem to recall the Clinton grudge being touched on.

https://www.buzzfeed.com/jamesball/heres-what-i-learned-about-julian-assange

Incidentally, I still agree with your point. He's not just anti-Clinton - these days his actions are very pro autocrat (especially his wannabe BFF and wikileaks contributor Putin)

Out of interest whatever happened to those who pledged bail for him? Did they lose their sureties?

Interesting question! I know nothing about bail and sureties, but one would hope that some of it contributed to the public expense Assange caused by going on the run (very statically on the run). Obviously that's not nice for the contributors, but I suppose that's an argument they ought to have with Assange, and not representatives of the UK justice system

[kennedy81]

Here's a defence of Wikileaks I just came across in the NYT, from one of their staff. Make of it what you will.

Op-Ed: Why the World Needs WikiLeaks 
By Sarah Harrison Nov 17, 2016

Sarah Harrison is a journalist and editor for WikiLeaks.

Berlin — My organization, WikiLeaks, took a lot of heat during the run-up to the recent presidential election. We have been accused of abetting the candidacy of Donald J. Trump by publishing cryptographically authenticated information about Hillary Clinton’s campaign and its influence over the Democratic National Committee, the implication being that a news organization should have withheld accurate, newsworthy information from the public.

The Obama Justice Department continues to pursue its six-year criminal investigation of WikiLeaks, the largest known of its kind, into the publishing of classified documents and articles about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Guantánamo Bay and Mrs. Clinton’s first year as secretary of state. According to the trial testimony of one F.B.I. agent, the investigation includes several of WikiLeaks founders, owners and managers. And last month our editor, Julian Assange, who has asylum at Ecuador’s London embassy, had his internet connection severed.

I can understand the frustration, however misplaced, from Clinton supporters. But the WikiLeaks staff is committed to the mandate set by Mr. Assange, and we are not going to go away, no matter how much he is abused. That’s something that Democrats, along with everyone who believes in the accountability of governments, should be happy about.

Despite the mounting legal and political pressure coming from Washington, we continue to publish valuable material, and submissions keep pouring in. There is a desperate need for our work: The world is connected by largely unaccountable networks of power that span industries and countries, political parties, corporations and institutions; WikiLeaks shines a light on these by revealing not just individual incidents, but information about entire structures of power.

While a single document might give a picture of a particular event, the best way to shed light on a whole system is to fully uncover the mechanisms around it — the hierarchy, ideology, habits and economic forces that sustain it. It is the trends and details visible in the large archives we are committed to publishing that reveal the details that tell us about the nature of these structures. It is the constellations, not stars alone, that allow us to read the night sky.

There are two contradictory myths about how we operate: on one hand, that we simply dump whatever comes to us into the public’s arms; and on the other, that we pick and choose material to harm our alleged political enemies.

We do neither. Yes, we believe in the integrity of source material, in the value of conserving pristine collections of documents, and we strive to make this historical record accessible to the public. We publish in full, in an uncensored and uncensorable fashion. But we also research, validate and contextualize the submissions we receive. While it can be difficult to balance the needs of the public to have timely access to large archives with individual privacy, such concerns have mostly been disingenuous.

At times we receive individual documents, but we have come to specialize in large collections. Over the last decade we have vetted, indexed and published an average of 3,000 documents per day, including over 300,000 reports covering the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, more than two million emails from Syrian political figures and over 120,000 documents from the Saudi Arabian Ministry of Foreign Affairs. We also curate the Public Library of United States Diplomacy, the world’s largest collection of diplomatic cables (nearly three million).

WikiLeaks has transformed more than 10 million documents into a unique searchable archive, not only making our website the world’s largest online library for suppressed information, but also enabling greater contextualization through relationships across publications.

Some have accused us of being pawns of the Russian government, but this misrepresents our principles and basic operations. WikiLeaks relies on our editor’s invention of a secure anonymous online submission system to protect sources’ identities. This technology has become a standard for many media outlets around the world. We prefer not to know who our sources are; we do not want to, and usually do not need to. What matters to us is the authenticity of the documents.

This has always been our position and approach, whether we were publishing material about the George W. Bush administration’s wars or corruption within the Democratic Party. The establishment media was happy to work with us on the former, but turned against us when it came to the latter, calling into question our intentions and those of Mr. Assange. CNN has even suggested, wrongly, that readers may have legal troubles if they download documents from our site.

While we have no institutional bias and can publish only what we receive, we are happy to publish documents about any presidential candidate, at any time, anywhere for a globally significant election.

We publish without fear or favor, bringing transparency to powerful factions and secretive institutions, not taking any sides except that of the truth. We believe in the democratization of information and the power that knowledge gives to people to further peace, accountability and self-determination.

WikiLeaks will continue publishing, enforcing transparency where secrecy is the norm. While threats against our editor are mounting, Mr. Assange is not alone, and his ideas continue to inspire us and people around the world.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/17/opinion/why-the-world-needs-wikileaks.html

[stevensr123]

In my naivety, I had hoped wikileaks could become a force for good. Pretty obvious now that that's not the case.

Why For exposing A Bunch Of corrupt fuckwits? Regardless of their intentions, your anger/whatever should be directed at other people and not the ones leaking the shit.

[Yorkykopite]

Why For exposing A Bunch Of corrupt fuckwits? Regardless of their intentions, your anger/whatever should be directed at other people and not the ones leaking the shit.

The Alt-Right speaks! Hope you're happy with Trump. (And Putin of course!)

[Corkboy]

Here's a defence of Wikileaks I just came across in the NYT, from one of their staff. Make of it what you will.

I agree with most of it.

[J_Kopite]

Why For exposing A Bunch Of corrupt fuckwits? Regardless of their intentions, your anger/whatever should be directed at other people and not the ones leaking the shit.

Would you say this to the faces of those people on the list of gay Saudis that was published?

[Circa1892]

In my naivety, I had hoped wikileaks could become a force for good. Pretty obvious now that that's not the case.

They're about as much of a force for good as the "Stop the War" lots - it's not progressive, just anti-west - there is a difference.

And Assange is, for me, one of the worst humans on this planet. Absolute fucking cretin.

[bigbonedrawky]

Would you say this to the faces of those people on the list of gay Saudis that was published?

No but for the other 99.99% of leaks ( I just made that stat up ) I probably would. 
I might also ask the Saudi Gov why they compiled the list of gay Saudis in the first place. 

They're about as much of a force for good as the "Stop the War" lots - it's not progressive, just anti-west - there is a difference.

And Assange is, for me, one of the worst humans on this planet. Absolute fucking cretin.

Can I go ahead and presume you and the "Start the War" lot... are the progressives in your alternative reality  
 

   

[Filler.]

I'm finding this all very very confusing. And I mean everything. I'm not really 'up' on my politics, or the machinations of it, but increasingly, I don't believe anyone is anymore. The left is right, the right is left, the middle don't exist or are just secretely right or left. Alt-right, alt this, pro this, anti this. It's just a fucking mess to me. The left became right, factions of the right became a bit left, the right became far right, traditional left voters tick right boxes, we've got Trump in charge, and wikileaks, who I had become to believe were interested in openness, seem to be filled with supporters of the far right... or right... or rightish... or liberal right?

I'm new to facebook. Social media was anathema to me for years, but had to sign up for a reason. I always thought social media would be just one big slag off, and I was right. Or left. But I watched the wikileaks video feed during the Brexit referendum as an alternative to the mainstream and it was interesting. Good interesting... balanced, reasonably distanced... people dropping in offering opinion. An agenda didn't seem too apparent - not too apparent anyhow. But shit me... the facebook stuff on there now... full of people slinging 'facts' to eachother, but with a 'yuge' Trump following.

Browsing through there you really do start to wonder if we have really fucked this up.

[stevensr123]

The Alt-Right speaks! Hope you're happy with Trump. (And Putin of course!)

huh so I have to be labeled "alt right"  about not disliking corruption being exposed?

And I think trump is a massive massive twat. But then so is Hillary.

[stevensr123]

Would you say this to the faces of those people on the list of gay Saudis that was published?

my comment was more based on the the Hilliary and the DNC leaks. I didn't even know about the gay Saudi leaks so yea.

But I personally think Wikileaks have done far more good at exposing corruption than bad.

[kennedy81]

my comment was more based on the the Hilliary and the DNC leaks. I didn't even know about the gay Saudi leaks so yea.

But I personally think Wikileaks have done far more good at exposing corruption than bad.

It's natural to say exposing corruption is good. It's not an unreasonable position to take at all.

But when the result of that, is an incomptent and dangerous loon in the White House, then what? What actual 'good' has really come of it?
Has it put an end to corruption? No.
Will it? No.
Is anyone actually better off at all? Is the world a better place now?

[kennedy81]

I agree with most of it.

I think there's a wider question here about information and how it can be used for good or bad. The world is a complicated place nowadays, especially with regards how information can be used to political ends. News stories and leaked documents can be weaponized in such a way as to inflict incredible political or economic damage. And some people are very, very good at it.
Wikileaks methods conveniently absolve themselves of much the responsibility that good journalistic behaviour entails. It's just not good enough that it puts info out there and expects the world to just use it in a positive way. The whole concept is dangerously flawed.

[cdav]

Here's a defence of Wikileaks I just came across in the NYT, from one of their staff. Make of it what you will.

It unfortunately just doesn't stack up to any reasonable standard as a defence. If you are a sausage machine and just pass on what you are fed you rely on the quality of the ingredients. Wikileaks passes on what they are fed regardless of balance or the bias of their source, they are not an impartial informer but blinded by the biasness of their contributors. Unfortunately, we cannot scrutinise their sources so we cannot hold any of their 'leaks' to a typical standard.

[Zeb]

Here's a defence of Wikileaks I just came across in the NYT, from one of their staff. Make of it what you will.

I agree with some of the fundamental principles, my major problem is that there is a certain ethical standard missing with how Wikileaks has chosen to release information without redaction. This is especially noticed when one compares their work done in association with major news outlets (which do have that ethical framework) and when Wikileaks does its thing of just dumping out leaks and hacks and whatever. I don't feel that a private citizen should have potentially harmful information thrown into the public domain, I don't think one should put at risk the lives of people living under authoritarian regimes, I don't think one should have 'collateral damage' when handling sensitive information such as the names of Afghani citizens working with multinational forces. I have grave concerns over anything which claims to operate outside and above any democratic judicial system - which is where Assange positions himself.

[Caligula?]

The world might need wikileaks, but it does not need Julian Assange. He has been a commodity that should have long since been disposed of.

["21C or 70F?" SchizoidWeatherMan!]

It's natural to say exposing corruption is good. It's not an unreasonable position to take at all.

But when the result of that, is an incomptent and dangerous loon in the White House, then what? What actual 'good' has really come of it?
Has it put an end to corruption? No.
Will it? No.
Is anyone actually better off at all? Is the world a better place now?

Its not wikileaks concern or mandate to 'minimize' harm from the info they leak. They leak otherwise inaccessible information, some good, some bad and some groundbreaking.  The potential impact of this info is not their concern. Selectively hiding facts IS a disgrace. NOT releasing documents that could peril a political party defeats the whole point of Wikileaks.

Assange may be a tw@t, but there is definitely a need for Wikileaks in this world.

And yes, Hillary CLinton is a dangerous, unprincipled,  faux liberal proponent of the failed free market/capitalist system, AND a dangerous war monger to boot.   These kind of self serving politicians with no compunctions about changing positions as and when required need to be excised from left wing political parties around the globe and not just in America.  Time for the left to actually move to the left rather than dillydallying around the center.

[Antics]

I agree with the majority of that article.

Their conduct over the course of the election was somewhat questionable in my view though. Once they received the emails from the Russians you could easily make an argument to release them as the information was in the public's interest.

My issue is that they didn't release them all in one dump which would then allow journalists to parse through and find newsworthy information. They instead released them in drips over the course of months, creating new headlines every time. This meant that the process story of each "leak" dominated the media narrative rather than the information's own merits.

Its a small difference but it moved Wikileaks away from its original purpose towards something more sinister.

[Ray K]

I agree with most of it.

I thought it was self-serving nonsensical bullshit, completely untethered from reality and I'm confused by why on earth the NY Times would publish an advert on their op-ed pages, but then I remembered that it's 2016 and we're all living in a post-facts world and truthiness is king.

[Corkboy]

I thought it was self-serving nonsensical bullshit, completely untethered from reality

Well, obviously it's self serving, it's a defence of what they do after all. Nonsensical?

[J_Kopite]

Its not wikileaks concern or mandate to 'minimize' harm from the info they leak. They leak otherwise inaccessible information, some good, some bad and some groundbreaking.  The potential impact of this info is not their concern.

So ethics or even responsibility don't matter?

Just as well if you're Julian Assange I suppose.

[Ray K]

Well, obviously it's self serving, it's a defence of what they do after all. Nonsensical?

Obviously so, Corky. I'm surprised you seem to accept it as not nonsensical. These bits in particular:

While we have no institutional bias and can publish only what we receive, we are happy to publish documents about any presidential candidate, at any time, anywhere for a globally significant election.

Point me in the treasure trove of wikileaks where they've published negative stories on Trump, or Putin and I might accept some bona fides on their part.  Until then, not so much on the no institutional bias stuff. 

WikiLeaks will continue publishing, enforcing transparency where secrecy is the norm

Have no not read about Assange demanding that Wikileaks staff sign non-disclosure agreements, repeatedly calling them up all hours of the night insisting that they do so? 

The document, which was obtained and posted online (as a .pdf file) by The New Statesman, a British magazine, also states that anyone who makes public the workings of WikiLeaks, or any “personal information” about its directors, could be held liable for damages of 12 million British pounds (nearly $20 million). (NY Times)

How does that line up with their transparency claim?

[Yorkykopite]

The potential impact of this info is not their concern.

At least that's honest. People have died and suffered intimidation because of what wiki chose to reveal. I know they believe in principle that governments - or rather western democracies - shouldn't have any state secrets. Some naifs even agree with them. But the result of acting upon this principle is that the covers were blown for many people who were working covertly against tyranny in Egypt, Iran, Syria etc. Gays were exposed in Saudi Arabia, dissidents imperilled in all the regimes hostile to the United States and the West.

Editorially, wikileaks specifically is pro-Putin and generally pro-autocracy. Assange is not interested in revealing Russian state secrets or Venezuelan ones or Chinese ones or Iranian ones. Not interested. He is not interested in information which might damage Trump, only Clinton.

And organisationally wikileaks - at least in its first manifestation - had its fair share of deranged anti-semites and conspiracy theorists. Practically everyone who came across them - even sympathisers - talked about the paranoia and delusion running through the tight-knit group surrounding Assange. 

All these things add up to a world view which is hostile to most of the things we enjoy in Britain, Ireland, western Europe and America.   

[stevensr123]

At least that's honest. People have died and suffered intimidation because of what wiki chose to reveal. I know they believe in principle that governments - or rather western democracies - shouldn't have any state secrets. Some naifs even agree with them. But the result of acting upon this principle is that the covers were blown for many people who were working covertly against tyranny in Egypt, Iran, Syria etc. Gays were exposed in Saudi Arabia, dissidents imperilled in all the regimes hostile to the United States and the West.

Editorially, wikileaks specifically is pro-Putin and generally pro-autocracy. Assange is not interested in revealing Russian state secrets or Venezuelan ones or Chinese ones or Iranian ones. Not interested. He is not interested in information which might damage Trump, only Clinton.

And organisationally wikileaks - at least in its first manifestation - had its fair share of deranged anti-semites and conspiracy theorists. Practically everyone who came across them - even sympathisers - talked about the paranoia and delusion running through the tight-knit group surrounding Assange. 

All these things add up to a world view which is hostile to most of the things we enjoy in Britain, Ireland, western Europe and America.   

ah the alt right speaks, you know, the one that actually defends corruption, big and corrupted government, defends the deaths and war that have been instigated by western governments etc

How about stop being a fucking hypocrite? You say pro Putin, pro China etc yet are obviously defending the shit that our own governments are doing? Smell your own bull shit for once.

[Yorkykopite]

How about stop being a fucking hypocrite? You say pro Putin, pro China etc yet are obviously defending the shit that our own governments are doing? Smell your own bull shit for once.

I oppose my government when I disagree with it. But I honestly don't believe that my government - or the American one - is as bad, or anywhere near as bad, as the Russian and Chinese regimes.

Those who think they stink equally know virtually nothing about the world.

[stevensr123]

I oppose my government when I disagree with it. But I honestly don't believe that my government - or the American one - is as bad, or anywhere near as bad, as the Russian and Chinese regimes.

Those who think they stink equally know virtually nothing about the world.

over half a million Iraqis would say otherwise. Along will probably millions more due to the fact our own and Americans governments getting too involved in foreign policy.

[Yorkykopite]

In fact, since you brought up China, check this out. It's from yesterday. One tiny example of Chinese 'democracy' in action. It might appear to be a small thing but it captures the essential humiliation of living in a country without human rights.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-38005603

People like you should raise their eyes from the ground a little, drop your obsession with Hilary Clinton, and try and imagine what it's like living under conditions like that.

[stevensr123]

In fact, since you brought up China, check this out. It's from yesterday. One tiny example of Chinese 'democracy' in action. It might appear to be a small thing but it captures the essential humiliation of living in a country without human rights.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-38005603

china has never pretended to be a democracy, so what's your point?

Ever heard of this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay_detention_camp

Again just more hypocritical bullshit that just defends our current governments. "When they go low, we go high"


Not when they go low, we dig deeper.

People like "you" just seem like the western worlds ass smells of roses, it doesn't. Either your a champaign socialist or a alt right guy who defends killing hundreds of thousands of innocent people. But yea, believe me. We ain't the ones to be taking about morals etc

Especially since our government sells arms to these Countris that aren't democracies

[Flinstone]

I'm a big fan of the Chinese. No nation, system or government has done more for it's people in a single generation than the Chinese. Russian autocrats, Syrian dictators etc are all in it for themselves and while there are corrupt politicians in China, the party overall def. seems to be doing things for the 'greater good'.

Of course, people will criticize them for lack of freedom and for not installing 'democracy' when it's crystal clear especially now that democracy is a bit of a joke. Theory trumps reality, I guess 

[J_Kopite]

People like you should raise their eyes from the ground a little, drop your obsession with Hilary Clinton, and try and imagine what it's like living under conditions like that.

I think people like him are so conditioned to thinking:

WEST = BAD
EVERYONE ELSE = GOOD

you'll probably never get through. Every link like that will be 'countered' with another link from somewhere else explaining how Western governments are the root of all evil and how that means they're both as bad as each other. I'd be interested to see if these people would like some real-world experience in living in some of these places, if they weren't white, straight and male they might find the grass isn't greener.

It's this simplistic thinking that is leading us to world leaders who are nothing more than demagogues and autocrats that charm the masses with simple soundbites.

[the good half]

^^^
I was exactly the same, kennedy 18. I thought it was a gamechanger for the cloak and dagger that goes on in offices of government.

Can anyone recommend a good book or paper written on this whole wikilinks affair?

[stevensr123]

I think people like him are so conditioned to thinking:

WEST = BAD
EVERYONE ELSE = GOOD

you'll probably never get through. Every link like that will be 'countered' with another link from somewhere else explaining how Western governments are the root of all evil and how that means they're both as bad as each other. I'd be interested to see if these people would like some real-world experience in living in some of these places, if they weren't white, straight and male they might find the grass isn't greener.

It's this simplistic thinking that is leading us to world leaders who are nothing more than demagogues and autocrats that charm the masses with simple soundbites.

You have me completely wrong. I'm against bull shit of the highest order.

Our government = shit as fuck that is involved with the he deaths of thousands.

China - dictator twats
Putin = pretty much dictator twat as well.

I don't like any of them. But let's not start recreating history and try and say our own government smells of roses like you people are trying to say.

[J_Kopite]

I don't like any of them. But let's not start recreating history and try and say our own government smells of roses like you people are trying to say.

Can only speak for myself but I'd never say that at all. The older I've gotten the more its become apparent that there are different degrees of cuntishness, I will never accept anyone trying to equate liberal democracies that have made mistakes and have flaws with dictatorships and autocracies who stamp out minorities and dissident views. That's why I mentioned the lack of nuance and blithe slogans cutting through to people more than ever, its lazy and its not fair.

[Yorkykopite]

Can only speak for myself but I'd never say that at all.

And nor did I. But it won't stop him from saying it because the standard response of the Know-Nothings to any criticisms of Chinese or Russian authoritarianism is...."well western democracies aren't perfect".

[J_Kopite]

And nor did I. But it won't stop him from saying it because the standard response of the Know-Nothings to any criticisms of Chinese or Russian authoritarianism is...."well western democracies aren't perfect".

∧ ∧
(･_･)っ NUANCE
(っ /
 Lﾉ┘     

　∧___∧
⊂(・＿・ ) IS
　ヽ ⊂二/
 　(⌒)  /

／　　　　　　　 ＼　
|　　●　　　　● 　 | 
＼　　 ＿＿           ／ IMPORTANT

[SamAteTheRedAcid]

You have me completely wrong. I'm against bull shit of the highest order.

Our government = shit as fuck that is involved with the he deaths of thousands.

China - dictator twats
Putin = pretty much dictator twat as well.

I don't like any of them. But let's not start recreating history and try and say our own government smells of roses like you people are trying to say.

You've got no solutions. Just calling everyone twats. Real ymature political debate.
And your inability to see the difference between UK/US governments and Chinese governments is laughable. Yes, it's politics, there's a million shades of grey, and our shade of grey is significantly lighter than theirs by any metric.

[kennedy81]

.....

But I watched the wikileaks video feed during the Brexit referendum as an alternative to the mainstream and it was interesting. Good interesting... balanced, reasonably distanced... people dropping in offering opinion. An agenda didn't seem too apparent - not too apparent anyhow.

 ...

I watched that too mate, the night of Brexit. It was interesting certainly, with some good guests.

But do you remember when Assange mentioned he had shit on Clinton that was going to shake-up the election? I remember it distinctly. And that was as far back as June 23rd.
So it's hard not to feel like there wasn't a political agenda at work there. At least an anti-Clinton one.