Where does WF stand on WikiLeaks?

Are you For or Against WikiLeaks?

  • For WikiLeaks

    Votes: 193 69.2%

  • Against WikiLeaks

    Votes: 50 17.9%

  • NEUTRAL

    Votes: 36 12.9%
  • Total voters
    279


nickster said:
They publish information they do not arbitrate.

We the people choose to pay them heed or not.
Click to expand...

They do arbitrate when they decide what is worth publishing and what isn't. Just like FOX news claims to be honest, objective journalism, but starts arbitrating the moment they spin and repackage news and opinion.

xmcp123 said:
What "legitimate interests"(aside from a little embarassment) were compromised that wouldn't be considered a newsworthy problem by either people in the US, or people in the other country involved?
"Legitimate" interests are honest interests. And if they aren't now, they will be if this survives another 10 years.
Click to expand...

The fact that the entire middle-east was skeptical of Iran's intentions. Just keeping that on the down low would have allowed the sunni Arabs around Iran to have maintained a more neutral tone, even to the extent of exercising influence.

Now that the cat is out of the bag, those doors are closed. Thanks, transparency. On my next date, I'm gonna go Assange's way and wear a plastic wrap tuxedo. That way I'm transparent, and if the condom breaks, they won't charge me with rape.

Opposing parties (including nations) had no idea how much information we collected about them and how this intelligence was gathered. With the publishing of these leaks, those channels are going to be made more difficult for our diplomats to make use of. Thanks WikiLeaks!

Even the threat assessment cable detailing American assessment of our most fragile infrastructural elements, can you imagine something like that being publicized to the benefit of the US?

To plead ignorance on issues like this is ridiculous and reflects a lack of interest in political and foreign policy issues- ironic considering how you trumpeted foreign policy a few posts ago.

Classifications to avoid the FOIA have skyrocketed. Compliance with FOIA has never been lower. Transparency is non-existent in our government. We don't get to see the foreign policy, we don't get to see the economic policy. Issues aren't even debated publicly on the floor anymore. Bill negotiations and discussions are now done behind the scenes, making even congressional records more or less piles of bureaucratic horseshit.
It's the first time in history the government has more means of knowing what their citizens are doing than the citizens have of knowing what the government is doing. Our privacy dwindles down to zero, their's continually expands. Their additional privacy allows them to limit ours even further with hardly a peep from us. That's how it's gone for almost a decade now.
It's over. Those days are never coming back.
Click to expand...

FOIA Exemptions

Wanna be more specific? Which one of those exemptions are unreasonable?
 
At Shady and HB:

You guys should have a radio show ("Neocons, Libtards, and The Constitution").

Not sure who would advertise, but you'd have a ton of listeners. Oh, and subigo would call in each day. So, it'd have that goin' for it.
 
By the way, HuffingPo = great read. The fact that Assange doesn't realize the irony/hypocrisy of his own theories is the funniest of all.
 
Ar Scion said:
They do arbitrate when they decide what is worth publishing and what isn't. Just like FOX news claims to be honest, objective journalism, but starts arbitrating the moment they spin and repackage news and opinion.
Click to expand...
First of all, the only significant "spin" or "opinion" that was put on anything was the Collateral Murder video(for which the raw, untrimmed video was also released). Everything recent has been raw, non editorialized data.
Second, they pick and choose in terms of news worthiness. When someone approached them with their own (confidential) donor list, they leaked that too.
The fact that the entire middle-east was skeptical of Iran's intentions. Just keeping that on the down low would have allowed the sunni Arabs around Iran to have maintained a more neutral tone, even to the extent of exercising influence.
Click to expand...
I don't really see as exposing the fact that the middle east was more or less united on an issue as a bad thing. It makes people (myself included) who previously didn't take Iran especially seriously reconsider and could show a more united front for sanctions. The stated goal with Iran right now is isolation, and it does more to that end than anything in recent history.

This is supported by Mousavi (leader of the Green Revolution). He said "Wikileaks has exposed the Islamic regime's "vulnerability" due to its government's policies which have left Tehran without allies in the Gulf..

Even the threat assessment cable detailing American assessment of our most fragile infrastructural elements, can you imagine something like that being publicized to the benefit of the US?
Click to expand...
You mean the ones that came with the direction to not inform the countries the infrastructure was in that it was important and should be guarded? With our lack of an ability to deploy troops in such locations, doesn't that strike you as bad?
This one makes me a bit uneasy honestly. I don't really like it. But so far, it's the only one of it's type.
FOIA Exemptions

Wanna be more specific? Which one of those exemptions are unreasonable?
Click to expand...
It's all in the interpretation. There's actually a specific turning point.
Under Janet Reno agencies were instructed to lean towards releasing the information whenever possible.
Under Ashcroft(and forever after - it was re-instated by Eric Holder) they were instructed to lean the other direction, and instructed the DOJ to defend any refusal to release documents. The result was a massive expansion in what was considered "national security", and also a newfound ability to use these exemptions as a way to avoid testing arguably unconstitutional programs(like the various surveillance measures, including warrant less wiretapping) in the court of law. "National security" has expanded far enough to cover controversial copyright treaties.

When "adverse affects" or "government interest" is enough reason to block a FOIA request, a FOIA request becomes worthless. It takes a stand against anything that could provide some level of accountability within our Government. People have a tendency to think them or their bosses losing their jobs is not in the "government interest".
 
Last edited:
Hammi said:
explain
Click to expand...

The article goes into detail on Assange's notion of a conspiracy.

Using Assange's definition of conspiracy and applying it to WikiLeaks, the result is a perfect fit.

But that's not even the end of it.

Going further down, under "How do we dismantle conspiracies", we look at Assange's ideas relevant to attacking conspiracies.

Let's go back to Assange's illustration of the nails connected by the twine. Imagine that this board had 100 nails all connected by a single length of twine wrapped around the nails. How many nails would you have to pull out before the network of twine fell apart? 10? 20? 50? Assange thinks that this is not the way to target the network; Rather what we want to do is to intercept and cut the information flow in the network so that the twine unravels of its own accord.
Click to expand...

...which is exactly what happened when Pfc Manning was arrested...

Going further down this path, we see Assange pondering the effects of a conspiracy under attack:

How can we reduce the ability of a conspiracy to act?...We can split the conspiracy, reduce or eliminating important communication between a few high weight links or many low weight links. ["State and Terrorist Conspiracies," Nov. 10, 2006, p. 4, available at iq.org/conspiracies.pdf]
Thus even if the network survives it may well be forced to split into parts. In this case the network becomes less powerful, even though it still exists and is still a conspiracy. It is simply a weaker conspiracy.
Click to expand...

After the cyber attacks on WikiLeaks, the website was "split", losing its primary domain and having to spread out to several mirrors and domains.

Capturing Assange put WikiLeaks in chaos, leading to a mutiny in their own ranks. (reduce or eliminating important communication between a few high weight links or many low weight links...). The result is, clearly, a less powerful network, that nevertheless exists.

Another perfect fit. You couldn't make this stuff up. Here's another one:

The more secretive or unjust an organization is, the more leaks induce fear and paranoia in its leadership and planning coterie. This must result in minimization of efficient internal communications mechanisms (an increase in cognitive "secrecy tax") and consequent system-wide cognitive decline resulting in decreased ability to hold onto power as the environment demands adaption.
Click to expand...

WikiLeaks got started on this long ago. Fearing for the security and anonymity of criminals like Manning, they put in place some pretty comprehensive infrastructure to preserve anonymity. Why? Because of fear and paranoia. :xmas-smiley-016:

Why did Assange go into hiding for so long? Why did he resist extradition to Sweden? Why is he blackmailing any country that tries to imprison him? What would the leakers and workers behind WikiLeaks feel if their work was brought into the light from behind the screen of anonymity?

You guessed it, fear and paranoia.

Seeing these parallels, it's amazing. Assange's WikiLeaks has transformed into exactly the kind of organization he has despised. The great irony is that he doesn't even realize it.

I'm tired of reading his two bit philosophies. So let's end it with this one

Plans which assist authoritarian rule, once discovered, induce resistance. Hence these plans are concealed by successful authoritarian powers. This is enough to define their behavior as conspiratorial. ["Conspiracy as Governance," Dec. 3, 2006, p. 3 - available here]
Click to expand...

For example, a plan to release American documents without the consent or wish of the American public or the government to whom it rightfully belongs? Is that authoritarian enough? Bwah!

Assange is a goldmine of contradictions.
 
I support Wikileaks, but remember that the real ballers are the leakers themselves that had the mutts nuts to stand up against bullshit.

Bradley Manning - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If you're a Wikileaks hater, read up on Manning, the chatlogs between him and Adrian Lamo, and why he did it. I think you'll find that you're on his side as you feel the excruciating futility and helplessness he must have felt.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom