Master Index of Archived Threads


WikiLeaks

Yes

9 votes

No

11 votes

metirish Nov 30 2010 11:59 AM

A simple poll for a complex question http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WikiLeaks A lot of people are calling them criminal and are looking in to bringing charges against the founder.....the Aussie AG among them.....Peter King wants them branded as a terrorist organization ...Holder wants them charged with something....

themetfairy Nov 30 2010 12:21 PM Re: WikiLeaks

I swear, the leaks remind me of Chico Escuela's Bad Stuff About The Mets.

metirish Nov 30 2010 12:23 PM Re: WikiLeaks

themetfairy wrote: I swear, the leaks remind me of Chico Escuela's Bad Stuff About The Mets. and likely with similar world consequences

Edgy DC Nov 30 2010 12:25 PM Re: WikiLeaks

I'm not so sure about that. Leaks include plans by South Korea to take over after Pyongyang collapses, and open expressions of contempt of Iran from other Middle East nations. I'm sure that sort of thing in the hands of these nations despots makes for great propaganda.

metirish Nov 30 2010 12:30 PM Re: WikiLeaks

very true Edgy......I do find it fascinating how this Assange fella gets portrayed in the media, plus I wonder about some if these charges he is wanted on, rape and what not...Michael Graham on Irish radio yesterday wanted the guy "taken out".....

Edgy DC Nov 30 2010 12:37 PM Re: WikiLeaks

As long as we're consistent in the application of the law. If one faction delights in his merry prankster act while he's making fools of one administration, but objects when he undermines their own guys, well, that would suck. Let's hope we can make our response multilateral.

Lefty Specialist Nov 30 2010 01:09 PM Re: WikiLeaks

Most of the stuff was not classified top secret, in fact was on a server for others to see. It's embarrassing, yes, but no military secrets were spilled (apparently). So it'd be hard to make a real espionage case. A lot of this is almost like high school gossip. Every country spies on every other. There's probably a lot of embarrassing chatter between the foreign services of other countries as well. We got outed, but I'm willing to bet the British and French and Chinese and Russians are just glad it wasn't them this time. A lot of people want to shut this guy down desperately. And now he's teasing that he's got the goods on a lot of corporations. It wouldn't surprise me to see this guy wind up dead in a 'plane crash' or 'traffic accident' some time soon.

metsmarathon Nov 30 2010 01:17 PM Re: WikiLeaks

i'm pretty sure it's illegal to knowingly distribute information that's been classified as TOP SECRET, SECRET, or CONFIDENTIAL, even if you've never signed up to be legally entrusted with that classification of information. the reason being that TS, S, and C data present, by definition, some level of threat ranging from simply "damage" to "exceptionally grave damage" to national security in the event of their disclosure. is it legal to knowingly damage national security? i know if i were to come across a bunch of classified information that was, say, lying in the street, i'd probably go to jail if i posted it to my blog. i'm pretty sure any of the rest of us would too. here's where i don't know the law though. i would presume that the media is able to disclose that information if it shows up on their doorstep, and would be immune from prosecution, right, even though they are technically breaking the law. does wikileaks enjoy the same protection? regardless, are they not still breaking the law.

metirish Nov 30 2010 01:20 PM Re: WikiLeaks

Yeah MM, from what I read it's the hacker/leaker that would be in trouble as WikiLeaks is just disseminating the information .

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Nov 30 2010 01:21 PM Re: WikiLeaks

Not so bold prediction: he'll be dead within eighteen months. He has to have a not-inconsiderable death wish to have chosen this particular line, no? Regardless of what the law says, I'm a big "no." Assange may be a dickbag personally, but there's definitely a place for this sort of thing, be it merry or not-so-merry (especially since most major news organizations went all corporate/profit-center on us). And frankly, there's a pretty simple way for governments not to have embarrassing statements/demonstrations of incompetence leak out that has nothing to do with Assange.

metsmarathon Nov 30 2010 01:27 PM Re: WikiLeaks

i don't know the content of the documents that have been released to date. but according to wikipedia, of the 250,000 leaked documents, 40% are classified as confidential, and 6% are classified as secret. the documents weren't just on some server. they were on SIPRNet. that's the difference between being in some file cabinet and being in a safe.

Edgy DC Nov 30 2010 01:34 PM Re: WikiLeaks

And really, "most of the stuff not classified top secret" is a little like saying most of the sex I've had sex was consensual. It's the exceptions that we need to be interested in.

metsmarathon Nov 30 2010 01:35 PM Re: WikiLeaks

well, if the law say's its illegal, isn't it by definition "criminal"? now, maybe the question should be "right" vs "wrong" or "good" vs "evil" or whatever. i've not read any of the wikileaks stuff, as i have no interest in having confidential or secret information resident on my home computer. yah, even though the info is floating around the internets, it still maintains its classification level until it is officially declassified. i'm pretty sure it goes beyond petty gossip and print version of america's funniest diplomats.

metsmarathon Nov 30 2010 01:38 PM Re: WikiLeaks

not for nothing, but CONFIDENTIAL is still protected. it's not un-secret, or please keep this hush-hush. it's "keep it in the fucking safe unless you have need to know, and put it right the fuck back when you're done. and no taking notes, either."

soupcan Nov 30 2010 01:42 PM Re: WikiLeaks

I think the whole thing is fascinating and I don't think its illegal. And propaganda or not, I do wonder - as much as people are saying this an embarassment for this country - about much of what I've read seeming to be advantageous toward the U.S. 'No matter what all you middle-easterners say publicly, you are all on the same page about Iran.' 'China and South Korea may be of similar minds in terms of North Korea falling.' Could this stuff have been leaked in order to cut through a lot of diplomatic bullshit and say to these countries 'Here's what you all want, now everybody knows it, let's make it happen.'?

themetfairy Nov 30 2010 01:47 PM Re: WikiLeaks

mm - I appreciate everything that you're saying. And your point about whether WikiLeaks constitutes The Press is well taken. I also agree with LWFS's point about the erosion of an objective free press among traditional news sources. I grew up idolizing Woodward and Bernstein, so my kneejerk reaction is always going to favor the dissemination of information. So if we consider WikiLeaks to be the press, then I feel they haven't broken the law. FWIW, my only exposure to the actual leaks is what I have heard on the news. Which is where the Chico Escuela comment came from. Because the mainstream media is reporting this more from a gossip perspective than that of any actual security leak.

metirish Nov 30 2010 02:35 PM Re: WikiLeaks

Ecuador has offered to give Assange refuge. "We are ready to give him residence in Ecuador, with no problems and no conditions," Ecuador's foreign minister, Kintto Lucas, said.

Edgy DC Nov 30 2010 02:38 PM Re: WikiLeaks

I understand idolizing Leonard Bernstein, but Chris Woodward?

Fman99 Nov 30 2010 04:03 PM Re: WikiLeaks

Edgy DC wrote: And really, "most of the stuff not classified top secret" is a little like saying most of the sex I've had sex was consensual. It's the exceptions that we need to be interested in. What does "consensual" really mean, anyway?

themetfairy Nov 30 2010 04:29 PM Re: WikiLeaks

Fman99 wrote: Edgy DC wrote: And really, "most of the stuff not classified top secret" is a little like saying most of the sex I've had sex was consensual. It's the exceptions that we need to be interested in. What does "consensual" really mean, anyway? Fman - you know I love ya. But consent is a non-negotiable!

Frayed Knot Nov 30 2010 05:10 PM Re: WikiLeaks

If I were the U.S. Gummint, I'd be more concerned with who is leaking the leaks to Wikileaks than with Wikileaks itself.

themetfairy Nov 30 2010 05:34 PM Re: WikiLeaks

Frayed Knot wrote: If I were the U.S. Gummint, I'd be more concerned with who is leaking the leaks to Wikileaks than with Wikileaks itself. Agreed.

metirish Nov 30 2010 06:37 PM Re: WikiLeaks

Wanted by Interpol http://www.interpol.int/public/data/wan ... _52486.asp

Fman99 Nov 30 2010 06:37 PM Re: WikiLeaks

themetfairy wrote: Fman99 wrote: Edgy DC wrote: And really, "most of the stuff not classified top secret" is a little like saying most of the sex I've had sex was consensual. It's the exceptions that we need to be interested in. What does "consensual" really mean, anyway? Fman - you know I love ya. But consent is a non-negotiable! Check. Chalk that one (and most of the others) up to "shock value."

themetfairy Nov 30 2010 06:39 PM Re: WikiLeaks

Fman99 wrote: Fman99 wrote: Edgy DC wrote: And really, "most of the stuff not classified top secret" is a little like saying most of the sex I've had sex was consensual. It's the exceptions that we need to be interested in. What does "consensual" really mean, anyway? Fman - you know I love ya. But consent is a non-negotiable! Check. Chalk that one (and most of the others) up to "shock value." Understood, my friend.

Kong76 Nov 30 2010 07:35 PM Re: WikiLeaks

It's lost any shock value it ever had like two years ago. We're a very small audience.

Valadius Nov 30 2010 07:48 PM Re: WikiLeaks

It's absolutely criminal and the perpetrators should be brought to justice. While the "secret" classification has been over-used in the past few decades, there is still so much that it is absolutely critical should be kept from our enemies. Thanks morons for doing the dirty work for Iran and North Korea.

Kong76 Nov 30 2010 07:54 PM Re: WikiLeaks

Keep pounding that kool-aid, Vlad!! Yummmy!

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Nov 30 2010 08:00 PM Re: WikiLeaks

All of a sudden, I feel like burning my bra.

Kong76 Nov 30 2010 08:04 PM Re: WikiLeaks

Hope it's not on my account, I like a guy with some support up there.

RealityChuck Nov 30 2010 08:30 PM Re: WikiLeaks

Probably not criminal, but really a bad idea. Unless they show evidence of wrongdoing, publishing the material is just an exercise in ego -- it accomplished nothing.

Kong76 Nov 30 2010 08:37 PM Re: WikiLeaks

It was some of the first main stream media coverage that says that North Korea's and Iran's neighbors don't like them one bit. I don't care if it comes out that it was all leaked on purpose. Valad's closing sentence is disturbing ... he's brainwashed.

soupcan Dec 01 2010 06:13 AM Re: WikiLeaks

soupcan wrote: And propaganda or not, I do wonder - as much as people are saying this an embarassment for this country - about much of what I've read seeming to be advantageous toward the U.S. Is it just me and Oliver Stone on this?

metirish Dec 01 2010 06:17 AM Re: WikiLeaks

I'm on the shelf with you Soupcan.

Edgy DC Dec 01 2010 07:36 AM Re: WikiLeaks

In order to undermine Iraq and North Korea, America would intentionally leak hundreds of thousands of documents embarassing to our allies and those we would have be our allies, in addition to some suggesting we are using our United Nations diplomatic corps to spy on people and nations? Did we want to undermine our own state department as well as Iraq and North Korea?

John Cougar Lunchbucket Dec 01 2010 07:59 AM Re: WikiLeaks

I think a lot of people are attaching motives to this that aren't necessarily there. My impression is that the Wikileaks guy is not much more than an ambitious but sloppy journalist driven to spoil secrets, regardless of their content. If any good comes of it let's hope it's not that journalists get executed, it's that people with access to sensitive stuff be more trustworthy, and that organizations consider whether they could be more transparent in general.

soupcan Dec 01 2010 08:24 AM Re: WikiLeaks

Edgy DC wrote: In order to undermine Iraq and North Korea, America would intentionally leak hundreds of thousands of documents embarassing to our allies and those we would have be our allies, in addition to some suggesting we are using our United Nations diplomatic corps to spy on people and nations? Did we want to undermine our own state department as well as Iraq and North Korea? I suppose not, but the whole thing seems so implausible that I sart to look for other motives. Of the documents I've read, the level of embarassment to the U.S. is far outweighed by the information that serves it agendas. It may in fact be a pretty good trade and if it weren't orchestrated, I still think that just the fact that everybody now knows what's really being said within the Arab States, China & South Korea works to the U.S advantage. It just seems too simple and maybe those orchestrating it (if it were in fact orchestrated), knew that the only way something like this would be believed is if there were considerable embarassment for the U.S. as well. And think about the embarassment - Sarkozy is a douchebag? The Pakistani President succumbs to peer pressure? Even if nobody knew that our U.N. reps were spying, I have to think that crap like that is always thought about, if not flat-out assumed. That sounds like stuff that can be smoothed over, while the bombshells are now out there. Odds are there is no conspiracy but it makes me think.

Edgy DC Dec 01 2010 08:46 AM Re: WikiLeaks

I don't think the idea that we're using the U.N. to gather intelligence that goes so far as collecting DNA samples of foreign dignataries is as open a secret as Sarkozy being an autocrat. And how does humilating him and Angela Merkel serve our ends? They're about as pro-American a pair of leaders as we can hope for on continental Europe, no? Their electorates resent us but they align themselves strategically with us at great risk to themselves politically. I admit that I'm pretty reflexively resistant to conspiracy theories. Even when they add up, I come across the people who try to live their lives maintaining and promoting them* and I don't like what I see. ______________ *I've spent evenings and workdays with September-11-Was-An-Inside-Job people and Barack-Obama-Is-A-Fifth-Columminst people. I hope to never again, and the right and the left each have a lot to answer for with regards to feeding this insantiy.

batmagadanleadoff Dec 01 2010 09:02 AM Re: WikiLeaks

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: Not so bold prediction: he'll be dead within eighteen months. He has to have a not-inconsiderable death wish to have chosen this particular line, no? Unless he starts going after Big Business. Then, he'll be dead in under a year.

Willets Point Dec 01 2010 09:36 AM Re: WikiLeaks

soupcan Dec 01 2010 09:57 AM Re: WikiLeaks

Edgy DC wrote: I don't think the idea that we're using the U.N. to gather intelligence that goes so far as collecting DNA samples of foreign dignataries is as open a secret as Sarkozy being an autocrat. And how does humilating him and Angela Merkel serve our ends? They're about as pro-American a pair of leaders as we can hope for on continental Europe, no? Their electorates resent us but they align themselves strategically with us at great risk to themselves politically. Good points, and again I'm not saying it is a conspiracy, just that there's some interesting things about this whole thing. If we were going top humiliate somebody, then why not pick Sarkozy & Merkel? As you said, they are very strongly aligned with the U.S. It would take a lot more than those slights against them to significantly change their allegiances. They are perhaps the best targets in that regard and everyone would say what you are - 'how embarassing to America that two of their biggest allies are spoken about like that'. Makes the whole leak thing seem more plausible. Edgy DC wrote: I admit that I'm pretty reflexively resistant to conspiracy theories. Even when they add up, I come across the people who try to live their lives maintaining and promoting them* and I don't like what I see. And I am so not a conspiracy theorist either. I still think Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone. I just don't like to accept things like this out-of-hand.

Edgy DC Dec 01 2010 10:08 AM Re: WikiLeaks

Could he be even a little bit more Bond-villian creepy? Because I'm not sure he possibly can.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Dec 01 2010 10:41 AM Re: WikiLeaks

soupcan wrote: Edgy DC wrote: In order to undermine Iraq and North Korea, America would intentionally leak hundreds of thousands of documents embarassing to our allies and those we would have be our allies, in addition to some suggesting we are using our United Nations diplomatic corps to spy on people and nations? Did we want to undermine our own state department as well as Iraq and North Korea? I suppose not, but the whole thing seems so implausible that I sart to look for other motives. Of the documents I've read, the level of embarassment to the U.S. is far outweighed by the information that serves it agendas. It may in fact be a pretty good trade and if it weren't orchestrated, I still think that just the fact that everybody now knows what's really being said within the Arab States, China & South Korea works to the U.S advantage. It just seems too simple and maybe those orchestrating it (if it were in fact orchestrated), knew that the only way something like this would be believed is if there were considerable embarassment for the U.S. as well. And think about the embarassment - Sarkozy is a douchebag? The Pakistani President succumbs to peer pressure? Even if nobody knew that our U.N. reps were spying, I have to think that crap like that is always thought about, if not flat-out assumed. That sounds like stuff that can be smoothed over, while the bombshells are now out there. Odds are there is no conspiracy but it makes me think. As long as it's simply a self-amusement thing-- hell, you don't want to know how much Saran-Wrap and EVOO I've run through on those grounds-- then, hell, enjoy. The embarrassment level from the most recent rounds of leaks can be interpreted to have been slightly more advantageous to U.S. interests than embarrassing to representatives of the U.S. and those interests. But I can't imagine that the government would willingly release, say, video or documents that depict its military leadership as incompetent and its soldiers-- in chilling detail-- as cowboys whooping it up after murdering civilians from a helicopter. Even more so, I can't imagine a government populated by pros that can't foment a cohesive PR response to clumsy attack ads administering this sort of thing with intent. (A government that can't administer income taxes, blah blah blah.) I mean, there's skepticism, and then there's mental masturbation. Too much of that, and your ideas get hairy.

Edgy DC Dec 01 2010 11:09 AM Re: WikiLeaks

Am I the only one who has felt the urge to pee a lot more since this story broke?

metirish Dec 03 2010 12:00 PM Re: WikiLeaks

Q&A with Assange http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/blog/20 ... -wikileaks

Edgy DC Dec 03 2010 12:11 PM Re: WikiLeaks

Q: Are you mad with lust for power? A: I would say so, yeah. Q: Do you feel you're serving the needs of the people? A: Definitely. They have a right to information. Q: Any information? A: I just provided the means to disseminate it. Q: And if that gets people destroyed? A: It's not on me. Q: Do you expect James Bond to talk? A: No, I expect him to DIE!

metirish Dec 03 2010 12:13 PM Re: WikiLeaks

There is one thing in there that interests me......wikileaks pertaining to UFO's coming soon....

Nymr83 Dec 04 2010 01:17 PM Re: WikiLeaks

Valadius wrote: It's absolutely criminal and the perpetrators should be brought to justice. While the "secret" classification has been over-used in the past few decades, there is still so much that it is absolutely critical should be kept from our enemies. Thanks morons for doing the dirty work for Iran and North Korea. I'd imagine its not too often that we're on the same page. the wikileaks people are criminals, but worse is whoever leaked the information to them (i assume they didnt steal it on their own), that person or persons should be, at a minimum, given a life sentence. the death penalty would be appropriate if it could be proved that the leaked information led to the deaths of any americans or our allies (this applies more to the war leaks than the more recent diplomatic stuff)

A Boy Named Seo Dec 08 2010 03:12 PM Re: WikiLeaks

Unbelievable the Denial of Service attacks on both Mastercard and Visa today. The hackers called their shots, told them when they were going to attack, counted down on twitter, and both still got completely run over. Visa.com just now back online. Information Security guys at PayPal and Amazon must be shitting themselves right now.

A Boy Named Seo Dec 08 2010 03:37 PM Re: WikiLeaks

Sonofabitch, they're hammering Visa again right now.

Gwreck Dec 08 2010 03:56 PM Re: WikiLeaks

Practical question: who actually uses Visa.com or Mastercard.com? I don't think I've ever actually gone to either of those websites. I've had both of these credit cards but they're issued through a bank as I would imagine most cards are. That's where I would go to pay balance, check the account, etc. and that's what I would be mad about being down.

A Boy Named Seo Dec 08 2010 04:05 PM Re: WikiLeaks

Yeah, I don't know, but I'm sure taking Visa.com and Mastercard.com completely offline for chunks of time cost some peeps lots & lots of $$ and some other peeps their jobs. The hackers announcing their play-by-play (was watching em on Twitter today) just had their Twitter acct suspended after they posted a list of leaked credit card #'s, telling people to say away from Mastercard. This shit is pretty amazing to me. That's a lot of power those guys wield.

metirish Dec 08 2010 05:51 PM Re: WikiLeaks

Watch this guy get extradited to the US from Sweden, after he gets sent there from Britain.

Nymr83 Dec 08 2010 10:18 PM Re: WikiLeaks

these people belong in jail, intentionally posting other peoples' credit card info should land you a madoff-sentence.

Valadius Dec 08 2010 10:37 PM Re: WikiLeaks

We're dealing with anarchists here. They're not doing it for any kind of noble purpose, but to undermine and corrode the fundamental institutions of society.

Edgy DC Dec 09 2010 08:22 AM Re: WikiLeaks

You've been writing speeches.

Ceetar Dec 09 2010 08:39 AM Re: WikiLeaks

I haven't really been paying much attention to much of this, but are we sure this isn't some big advertising campaign for a new spy novel?

A Boy Named Seo Dec 09 2010 01:08 PM Re: WikiLeaks

Valadius wrote: We're dealing with anarchists here. They're not doing it for any kind of noble purpose, but to undermine and corrode the fundamental institutions of society. Anonymous (the hacker group) aren't anarchists. They're anti-internet censorship, so that's why they've chosen to back this movement. From what I've read, they don't give 2 shits one way or the other about WikiLeaks. If their bent was to hurt these financial institutions in the only place where it matters ($$) as retaliation, I'd say they did probably pretty OK. Whether those credit cards they posted were good, valid credit card #'s doesn't really matter, I'm sure it freaked out a lot of people at how easily they got that data, plus the fact that both MC and Visa got run over by these peeps at will probably freaked anyone out that paid any attention to this. It should. A little. It's enlightening that these big financial institutions were under no obligation (that I'm aware of) to stop processing transactions for WikiLeaks, but all did to stay on the good side with the governments, most specifically the US. Did they not know what WikiLeaks was up to before? Did they not give 2 shits? I think the whole thing is fascinating and entertaining, too. Feels like sort of big moment in history happening right NOW!!!! with regards to how governments are going to gather and share top-level info from here on out. Back to the drawing board in many ways, no? Lessen the access. Close up the circle. Trust fewer peeps. Would be a good movie. Can get Spike from "Buffy" to play Assange.

Willets Point Dec 10 2010 12:02 PM Re: WikiLeaks

The single most damming wikileaks cable.