WikiLeaks

[tvashtarkatena]

Traitors or Heroes?

[prole]

CIA operation. What better way to doom all these "secrets" to immediate irrelevance than bulk dump them on the internet?

[j_b]

or at least swamp out the few nuggets in an ocean of relative platitudes.

[j_b]

Traitors or Heroes?

 

the Iraq papers releases were embarrassing to war mongers but the diplomacy releases also reinforce the official narrative in some cases.

[prole]

Yes. The latest bulk leak is basically a diplomatic tabloid tattle sheet. Elites already know how they talk about each other behind closed doors and most citizens should already know this as well. At this stage in the game power already operates quite freely without resistance. The notion that the leaks are any kind of geopolitical game changer or a danger to "world order" is a media hoax.

[billcoe]

I suppose I knew better than to log in here and see my self agreeing with you and jb for perhaps the first time.

 

None of us really knows the truth .

[prole]

For intelligence to be "actionable", you need:

 

a) Someone who gives a fuck

and

b) Someone who can do something about it.

 

I thought the bazilliongigs of information already on the internet showing exactly how we're robbed, beaten, and fucked over by the powerful on a daily basis would've proved that point already.

[Mal_Con]

meh

[tvashtarkatena]

For intelligence to be "actionable", you need:

 

a) Someone who gives a fuck

and

b) Someone who can do something about it.

 

I thought the bazilliongigs of information already on the internet showing exactly how we're robbed, beaten, and fucked over by the powerful on a daily basis would've proved that point already.

 

Seems like there might be just a wee bit o projection going on here.

[prole]

Could be. I certainly don't know what I'm going to do with the blockbuster revelation that Vladimir Putin is a fascist, etc. though I am pleased that GWBush might be "embarrassed". Whatever.

 

I am looking forward to the leaks of bank documents wikileaks has promised. You know, stuff that might lead to investigations, prosecutions, etc. Has anything come to light of this nature that has been revealed in the recent batch?

[ivan]

whistleblowers seem often to defy the hero/traitor simplification

 

daniel ellsberg is i suppose the most famous leaker in our history - i read his book "secrets" and finished it thinking that, despite the nobility of his cause (and i'm more confused as to wikileaks purpose, as they're all over the board on what they release), he came off as a self-important, johnny-come-lately sorta hero

 

the recent movie "the informant" also depicts historic whistel-blowers having mixed motives

 

secrecy is anathema to democracy

[G-spotter]

Assange rape charges: slimeball, or entrapment attempt by intelligence services?

[ivan]

Assange rape charges: slimeball, or entrapment attempt by intelligence services?

total bullshit i'd bet - takes big balls to leak secrets as them balls seem usually to get slammed in the nearest door soon thereafter.

[prole]

Assange rape charges: slimeball, or entrapment attempt by intelligence services?

total bullshit i'd bet - takes big balls to leak secrets as them balls seem usually to get slammed in the nearest door soon thereafter.

 

Get him in touch with Kojak. His "power shake" will get 'em down to the size of dried garbanzo beans in no time.

[Hugh Conway]

Assange rape charges: slimeball, or entrapment attempt by intelligence services?

total bullshit i'd bet - takes big balls to leak secrets as them balls seem usually to get slammed in the nearest door soon thereafter.

 

rumor is the rape charge is because he didn't use a condom like asked/suggested/requested (per some swedish website)

[jmace]

I enjoyed the wire that the CBC, Canada's Public TV, promotes "insidious negative popular stereotyping" of Americans.

 

hahah some of these wires are quite funny

 

[rob]

did you see the cable about Hillary Clinton exposing her penis to Saudi Deputy Prime Minister Nayef bin Abdul Aziz Al Saud?

 

 

Hillarious!!

[G-spotter]

I enjoyed the wire that the CBC, Canada's Public TV, promotes "insidious negative popular stereotyping" of Americans.

 

hahah some of these wires are quite funny

 

Like the Guardian one about Berlusconi fucking a hooker in Putin's bed?

[KaskadskyjKozak]

I enjoyed the wire that the CBC, Canada's Public TV, promotes "insidious negative popular stereotyping" of Americans.

 

hahah some of these wires are quite funny

 

Like the Guardian one about Berlusconi fucking a hooker in Putin's bed?

 

It's good to be the king.

[j_b]

rumor is the rape charge is because he didn't use a condom like asked/suggested/requested (per some swedish website)

 

His accuser claims he broke the condom on purpose (she is pregnant) after she found out he was concurrently having an affair with someone else.

[Hugh Conway]

I enjoyed the wire that the CBC, Canada's Public TV, promotes "insidious negative popular stereotyping" of Americans.

 

hahah some of these wires are quite funny

 

funny thing about those were they're true

[tvashtarkatena]

Well, you got yer Fellini-esque I-tralians, who'd rather fuck than fight, then you got your steely eyed Russians, who nobody in their right mind would fuck with, and then you got...yer fuggazi cowboy blue blood frat boy psychopath who's killed about a bazillion innocent folks just cuz he could, while pretending to be the hick-next-door.

 

Welcome to the land of sociopathic school marms.

[billcoe]

did you see the cable about Hillary Clinton exposing her penis to Saudi Deputy Prime Minister Nayef bin Abdul Aziz Al Saud?

 

OMG! That's rocking stuff there Rob.!!!!!111111

[prole]

 

 

While the faux-libertarians fall all over themselves defending Sno Klux Klansmen, not a peep about this...

 

Joe Lieberman emulates Chinese dictators

By Glenn Greenwald

 

The comparison of these two passages is so telling in so many ways:

 

The Washington Post, today:

 

Revelations by the organization WikiLeaks have received blanket coverage this week on television, in newspapers and on Web sites around the globe. But in parts of the world where the leaks have some of the greatest potential to sow controversy, they have barely caused a ripple.

 

Authoritarian governments and tightly controlled media in China and across the Arab Middle East have suppressed virtually all mention of the documents, avoiding the public backlash that could result from such candid portrayals of their leaders' views.

 

In China, the WikiLeaks site has been blocked by the government's "Great Firewall," and access to other sources for the documents has been restricted. Most Chinese are unable to read the contents of the diplomatic cables. . . .

 

The Guardian, yesterday:

 

WikiLeaks website pulled by Amazon after US political pressure

 

The US struck its first blow against WikiLeaks after Amazon.com pulled the plug on hosting the whistleblowing website in reaction to heavy political pressure.

 

The company announced it was cutting WikiLeaks off yesterday only 24 hours after being contacted by the staff of Joe Lieberman, chairman of the Senate's committee on homeland security. . . .

 

While freedom of speech is a sensitive issue in the US, scope for a full-blown row is limited, given that Democrats and Republicans will largely applaud Amazon's move. . . .

 

The question is whether he was acting on his own or pressed to do so by the Obama administration, and how much pressure was applied to Amazon. . . .

 

Lieberman said: "[Amazon's] decision to cut off WikiLeaks now is the right decision and should set the standard for other companies WikiLeaks is using to distribute its illegally seized material. I call on any other company or organisation that is hosting WikiLeaks to immediately terminate its relationship with them."

 

The department of homeland security confirmed Amazon's move, referring journalists to Lieberman's statement.

 

Talking Points Memo -- in an article headlined: "How Lieberman Got Amazon To Drop Wikileaks" -- detailed that Lieberman's "staffers . . . called Amazon to ask about it, and left questions with a press secretary including, 'Are there plans to take the site down?'" Shortly thereafter, "Amazon called them back . . . to say they had kicked Wikileaks off." Lieberman's spokeswoman said: "Sen. Lieberman hopes that the Amazon case will send the message to other companies that might host Wikileaks that it would be irresponsible to host the site."

 

That Joe Lieberman is abusing his position as Homeland Security Chairman to thuggishly dictate to private companies which websites they should and should not host -- and, more important, what you can and cannot read on the Internet -- is one of the most pernicious acts by a U.S. Senator in quite some time. Josh Marshall wrote yesterday: "When I'd heard that Amazon had agreed to host Wikileaks I was frankly surprised given all the fish a big corporation like Amazon has to fry with the federal government." That's true of all large corporations that own media outlets -- every one -- and that is one big reason why they're so servile to U.S. Government interests and easily manipulated by those in political power. That's precisely the dynamic Lieberman was exploiting with his menacing little phone call to Amazon (in essence: Hi, this is the Senate's Homeland Security Committee calling; you're going to be taking down that WikiLeaks site right away, right?). Amazon, of course, did what they were told.

 

Note that Lieberman here is desperate to prevent American citizens -- not The Terrorists -- from reading the WikiLeaks documents which shed light on what the U.S. Government is doing. His concern is domestic consumption. By his own account, he did this to "send a message to other companies that might host WikiLeaks" not to do so. No matter what you think of WikiLeaks, they have never been charged with, let alone convicted of, any crime; Lieberman literally wants to dictate -- unilaterally -- what you can and cannot read on the Internet, to prevent Americans from accessing documents that much of the rest of the world is freely reading.

 

The Internet, of course, is rendering decrepit would-be petty tyrants like Lieberman impotent and obsolete: WikiLeaks moved its website to a Swedish server and was accessible again within hours. But any attempt by political officials to start blocking Americans' access to political content on the Internet ought to provoke serious uproar and unrest. If the Tea Party movement and the Right generally were even minimally genuine in their ostensible beliefs, few things would trigger more intense objections than a political official trying to dictate to private actors which political content they should allow on the Internet (instead, you have Newt Gingrich demanding that Assange be declared an "enemy combatant" and Sarah Palin calling for his murder). Remember, though -- as The Post told us today -- it's "authoritarian governments and tightly controlled media in China and across the Arab Middle East" which are trying to prevent citizens from learning about the WikiLeaks documents.--more here.

 

[j_b]

Well, they are the same Libertarians who didn't utter a peep throughout the Bush years about torture, rendition, patriot act, etc ... so don't hold your breath.