WikiLeaks: Julian Assange Arrested - Cablegate

[Global Laziness]

In some respects, this is fascinating. In others, terrifying. And I can't stop reading.

This document release reveals the contradictions between the US’s public persona and what it says behind closed doors – and shows that if citizens in a democracy want their governments to reflect their wishes, they should ask to see what’s going on behind the scenes.

As a journalist, I agree strongly with this.

[hefdaddy42]

emindead, what good can possibly come of this?  Your position (and that of wikileaks) is extremely naive.

[PlaysLikeMyung]

I'm surprised WikiLeaks hasn't been shut down yet. This could get into some serious national security issues...

[zerogravityfat]

it can't be shut down, it originates in sweeden i think, or some state that doesn't allow shut downs, and usa will look like a hypocrite if it limits free speech. all usa can do is to punish the people responsible for the leak.

[El Barto]

emindead, what good can possibly come of this?  Your position (and that of wikileaks) is extremely naive.

Aside from the fact that transparency is a good thing, IMO, you also need to keep in mind that this effects all countries, not just us.  This release of American cables sheds light on everybody's dealings.  If they'd released all of these documents from the Russian state department would you be outraged or would you laugh about it?

it can't be shut down, it originates in sweeden i think, or some state that doesn't allow shut downs, and usa will look like a hypocrite if it limits free speech. all usa can do is to punish the people responsible for the leak.

Pretty much this.  When they find out who it was that handed over all the cables, they'll Noriega the guy pretty quickly.  As for Julian Assange,  I think I'd be staying in my heavily guarded compound for a while if I were him.  The fact that there's nothing official that the US can do about it would really scare the hell out of me.  Those off the record sanctions can be a real bitch. 

[ack44]

WikiLeaks is what happens when the entire US government is forced to go through a full-body scanner.

Holy fucking burn.

[emindead]

emindead, what good can possibly come of this?  Your position (and that of wikileaks) is extremely naive.

Aside from the fact that transparency is a good thing, IMO, you also need to keep in mind that this effects all countries, not just us.  This release of American cables sheds light on everybody's dealings.  If they'd released all of these documents from the Russian state department would you be outraged or would you laugh about it?

Exactly. Any information on any country will be widely welcomed. The thing is that if this sort of things were revealed in a third world country there would be intervention, a world wide scream of indignation. What happens when they reveal the corruption of superpowers and first world countries? "This is outrageous! Absurd! How dare they!!!" And usually nothing happens. If by doing what WikiLeaks does -exposing the lies and secret maneuvers that the guys we choose into office do- we should demand real change and demand punishment for abusing the power we have given to them. We should dig what's really happening inside of our institutions and fix the problem. We need movements like WikiLeaks to help us expose those flaws, not to cover them up like it has happened forever. We're not better off that way.

[emindead]

NEXT TARGET A US BANK.

In a rare, two-hour interview conducted in London on November 11, Assange said that he’s still sitting on a trove of secret documents, about half of which relate to the private sector. And WikiLeaks’ next target will be a major American bank. “It will give a true and representative insight into how banks behave at the executive level in a way that will stimulate investigations and reforms, I presume,” he said, adding: “For this, there’s only one similar example. It’s like the Enron emails.”

Forbes: You’ve been focused on the U.S. military mostly in the last year. Does that mean you have private sector-focused leaks in the works?

Assange: Yes. If you think about it, we have a publishing pipeline that’s increasing linearly, and an exponential number of leaks, so we’re in a position where we have to prioritize our resources so that the biggest impact stuff gets released first.

F: So do you have very high impact corporate stuff to release then?

A: Yes, but maybe not as high impact…I mean, it could take down a bank or two.

F: That sounds like high impact.

A: But not as big an impact as the history of a whole war. But it depends on how you measure these things.

(...)

F: These megaleaks, as you call them that, we haven’t seen any of those from the private sector.

A: No, not at the same scale for the military.

F: Will we?

A: Yes. We have one related to a bank coming up, that’s a megaleak. It’s not as big a scale as the Iraq material, but it’s either tens or hundreds of thousands of documents depending on how you define it.

F: Is it a U.S. bank?

A: Yes, it’s a U.S. bank.

F: One that still exists?

A: Yes, a big U.S. bank.

F: The biggest U.S. bank?

A: No comment.

F: When will it happen?

A: Early next year. I won’t say more.

All I can say is... I hope it's not my Bank! 

[zerogravityfat]

it's probably chase.

[PlaysLikeMyung]

it's probably chase.

Probably. And it wouldn't surprise me. I just hope that some of this leads to some real financial reform...

[emindead]

it's probably chase.

Probably. And it wouldn't surprise me. I just hope that some of this leads to some real financial reform...

End the Fed. amirite!?!

[El Barto]

That dude is the proud owner of a pair of Alec Baldwin style brass balls.

Personally, I wouldn't mind if he had a ton of stuff to drop regarding Aetna or BCBS.  That's one that would actually shake some things up.

[ZKX-2099]

Shit is just not adding up here.

I think Assange is being allowed to release this...

[Fuzzboy]

Shit is just not adding up here.

I think Assange is being allowed to release this...

[7StringedBeast]

Well I think its interesting from what I read that a lot of the arab countries in the middle east are actually behind us in dealing with Iran. 

I feel like a lot of this stuff we could see coming anyway.  I figured intelligence gathering is an everyday thing.  It's nice to see that this whole war thing wasn't some huge conspiracy crusade, and the region is at least on the same page in some regards.  That's all I've gotten from this so far.  I think I'm going to go back and read Emin's articles he posted.

[zerogravityfat]

it's pretty obvious that the a-rabs would back usa in bombing iran, they want iran wiped off the map of the world so to speak; helps with the religious and oil problems.

[rumborak]

If by doing what WikiLeaks does -exposing the lies and secret maneuvers that the guys we choose into office do- we should demand real change and demand punishment for abusing the power we have given to them.

The naivety is mind-boggling in this post. Emindead, a government is essentially a company that competes with other countries' governments. A government has exactly the same need too keep certain facts from the general public as a private company does.

rumborak

[El Barto]

If by doing what WikiLeaks does -exposing the lies and secret maneuvers that the guys we choose into office do- we should demand real change and demand punishment for abusing the power we have given to them.

The naivety is mind-boggling in this post. Emindead, a government is essentially a company that competes with other countries' governments. A government has exactly the same need too keep certain facts from the general public as a private company does.

rumborak

But not necessarily from the shareholders.

[rumborak]

Of course there's information that's kept away from the shareholders, if it is deemed to negatively interfere with the operation of the company.
Just as a government needs to keep certain information away from the public if that information meant the endangerment of the very operation of it.
I mean, what's the argument here? That the NSA should make everything public they do?

rumborak

[El Barto]

Yes, there are some things that should be kept secret.  However, there also needs to be some transparency as well.  If it turns out that you're actually running the company in a manner completely contrary to what's expected, then the shareholders have a right to know about it. 

No, I don't think the NSA should tell us everything they do.  However, the occasional leak is beneficial, IMO.  I can assure you that The Man has plenty more secrets that haven't come out. This is merely a glimpse into the inner workings, and enlightening us as to what's really happening is good. 

[zerogravityfat]

company/shareholder is a bad analogy since there is no oversight of the 'company' actions in the world. you can't go cry about it to anyone, since UN is a joke so no country can trust the common public on the top secret things since they will be leaked instantly in today's e-world.

[William Wallace]

...a government is essentially a company that competes with other countries' governments. A government has exactly the same need too keep certain facts from the general public as a private company does.

rumborak

While true, I don't think I want a government that can hide anything it wants. We've learned enough about the government's intelligence gathering activities to know that they hide shit often times because it's politically detrimental, not because of national security. That gives me pause when I hear arguments like yours.

[rumborak]

Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating a carte blanche to governments to hide whatever they want. I'm just opposing emin's stance that anything and everything needs to be laid out in the open.
The real problem is, without knowing what the secret is, one can't make a judgment on whether it should stay a secret. So, as the general public there is no way to judge of how much is too much or too little transparency. Nothing that can really fix that, just pointing out that our concern is all nice and good, but we shouldn't be so vain and think that we can make any kind of educated judgment on what's a good balance of transparency.

rumborak

[El Barto]

Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating a carte blanche to governments to hide whatever they want. I'm just opposing emin's stance that anything and everything needs to be laid out in the open.
The real problem is, without knowing what the secret is, one can't make a judgment on whether it should stay a secret. So, as the general public there is no way to judge of how much is too much or too little transparency. Nothing that can really fix that, just pointing out that our concern is all nice and good, but we shouldn't be so vain and think that we can make any kind of educated judgment on what's a good balance of transparency.

rumborak

Bingo.  And the current paradigm actually seems damned reasonable.  Be disreputable at your own peril.  Occasionally, a random shit-ton of moderately secret intel will get leaked.  You don't have any idea of what, when or where, only that it will happen.  Something to always be mindful of. 

[Chino]

I believe that there are certain things within government that need to be kept secret. There are things that we just can't afford to let everyone in the world know about. However, these leaks in a way are keeping the government in check. It shows that people the world over will not stand there and become sheeples. There are a lot of pros and cons.

[rumborak]

The interesting part, I thought, is that all this stuff is pretty damn normal, i.e. what you would expect embassies to send. I have read the comments on German politicians, and they were all pretty much dead-on. Maybe a bit blunt, but no recipient would be served by a sugar-coated description.

rumborak

[William Wallace]

Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating a carte blanche to governments to hide whatever they want. I'm just opposing emin's stance that anything and everything needs to be laid out in the open.
The real problem is, without knowing what the secret is, one can't make a judgment on whether it should stay a secret. So, as the general public there is no way to judge of how much is too much or too little transparency. Nothing that can really fix that, just pointing out that our concern is all nice and good, but we shouldn't be so vain and think that we can make any kind of educated judgment on what's a good balance of transparency.

rumborak

My misunderstanding, sorry. I don't want a blanket policy either way, but a little skepticism of our leaders goes a long way. Leaks like this one could encourage people to hold "the man" accountable for his illegal actions, should any come to light.

[El Barto]

NEXT TARGET A US BANK.

SNIP

All I can say is... I hope it's not my Bank! 

Looks like BoA
https://dealbook.nytimes.com/2010/11/30/wikileaks-next-target-bank-of-america/?src=busln

In an October 2009 interview with Computerworld, Mr. Assange said that he had obtained copious amounts of data from a Bank of America executive’s hard drive.

From the Computerworld piece:

    “At the moment, for example, we are sitting on 5GB from Bank of America, one of the executive’s hard drives,” he said. “Now how do we present that? It’s a difficult problem. We could just dump it all into one giant Zip file, but we know for a fact that has limited impact. To have impact, it needs to be easy for people to dive in and search it and get something out of it.”

[rumborak]

I think we're on the same page overall. I agree, an occasional leak here and there will create a certain amount of fear that will (hopefully) hold the people involved to higher standards. However, it seems that WikiLeaks doesn't care much about what exactly they're disclosing as long as it's secret.
For example, the fact that one Arab leader wished that the US "cut off the snake's head" is something that is best left secret. It's a sign of trust between the US and that Arab leader, and that trust is now destroyed, and will be so for many other countries too.
Whatever emindead think how this incident increased transparency in the US government, it wreaked havoc on the trust other countries brought towards the US.  If nobody trusts that you can keep a secret, nobody will tell you any. And that severely weakens the US on the world's stage.

rumborak

[El Barto]

Yeah, but it wasn't the US that broke said trust.  All diplomats can now assume that what they say might get leaked out, but that applies across the board; not just towards the US. 

[rumborak]

Yeah, but that's not good. Countries need trusted channels of communication. JFK needed to be able to talk to Khrushchev to avoid a nuclear war, and that channel needed to be secure.

rumborak

[emindead]

If by doing what WikiLeaks does -exposing the lies and secret maneuvers that the guys we choose into office do- we should demand real change and demand punishment for abusing the power we have given to them.

The naivety is mind-boggling in this post. Emindead, a government is essentially a company that competes with other countries' governments. A government has exactly the same need too keep certain facts from the general public as a private company does.

rumborak

As for everything to be exposed, you're right, it shouldn't be that way. There's a lot of things on those leaked documents that I couldn't care less and perhaps it would have been better if they remain "secret, confidential" or whatever. Iran's president "is Hitler"? No big surprise there, and I really don't care about it. However, most of the stuff there is needed to formulate a better opinion of what is going on so one can choose better the course of ones Nation. I think we all agree on the big picture here.

[emindead]

WikiLeaks Founder Julian Assange Tells TIME: Hillary Clinton 'Should Resign'

https://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2033771,00.html#ixzz16oZlm23E

By Howard Chua-Eoan Tuesday, Nov. 30, 2010

Hillary Clinton, Julian Assange said, "should resign." Speaking over Skype from an undisclosed location on Tuesday, the WikiLeaks founder was replying to a question by TIME managing editor Richard Stengel over the diplomatic-cable dump that Assange's organization loosed on the world this past weekend. Stengel had said the U.S. Secretary of State was looking like "the fall guy" in the ensuing controversy, and had asked whether her firing or resignation was an outcome that Assange wanted. "I don't think it would make much of a difference either way," Assange said. "But she should resign if it can be shown that she was responsible for ordering U.S. diplomatic figures to engage in espionage in the United Nations, in violation of the international covenants to which the U.S. has signed up. Yes, she should resign over that."

Assange spoke about the latest tranche of documents from WikiLeaks in a 36-minute interview with TIME (the full audio will be available soon on TIME.com). He said there would be more: "We're doing about 80 a day, presently, and that will gradually step up as the other media partners step in." Indeed, every region of the world appears to be bracing for its turn in the WikiLeaks mill. Pakistani officials are almost certain that more revealing documents focusing on their country will come out soon. And the Russian media are anxious to see if future leaks will detail any behind-the-scenes dealings over the August 2008 Russia-Georgia war.

Assange said that all the documents were redacted "carefully." "They are all reviewed, and they're all redacted either by us or by the newspapers concerned," he said. He added that WikiLeaks "formally asked the State Department for assistance with that. That request was formally rejected."

Asked what his "moral calculus" was to justify publishing the leaks and whether he considered what he was doing to be "civil disobedience," Assange said, "Not at all. This organization practices civil obedience, that is, we are an organization that tries to make the world more civil and act against abusive organizations that are pushing it in the opposite direction." As for whether WikiLeaks was breaking the law, he said, "We have now in our four-year history, and over 100 legal attacks of various kinds, been victorious in all of those matters." He added, "It's very important to remember the law is not what, not simply what, powerful people would want others to believe it is. The law is not what a general says it is. The law is not what Hillary Clinton says it is."

And the source or sources of all the diplomatic cables? Stengel asked Assange if U.S. Army PFC Bradley Manning, now detained in Quantico, Va., was the sole source of the megaleak. "We're a source-protection organization," Assange said, "so the last thing we would do is discuss possible sources. However, we do know that ... the FBI, State Department and U.S. Army CID [Criminal Investigation Command] has been going around Boston visiting a number of people there." He referred to "people who have been detained coming back into the United States" with connections to Manning. The U.S. soldier's "mother's home in Wales, in the U.K.," he said, was "visited, or raided, depending on how you want to describe it," by the FBI.

Stengel asked what was coming next from WikiLeaks. "We don't have targets," said Assange, "other than organizations that use secrecy to conceal unjust behavior ... That's created a general target." A story in Forbes magazine, which interviewed Assange before the latest leak, said that WikiLeaks has a large U.S. financial corporation in its sights. Assange confirmed that. "Yes, the banks are in there. Many different multinational organizations are in the upcoming weeks, but that is a continuation of what we have been doing for the past four years" since WikiLeaks was founded. He added that the volume of material has increased. "The upcoming bank material is 10,000 documents, as opposed to hundreds, which we have gotten in the other cases."

TIME and TIME.com will continue to report stories based on Stengel's Assange interview and on the continuing fallout from the release of the diplomatic cables.

[juice]

How does Wikileaks get their apparently top secret info?

[emindead]

Anonymous insiders send it to WikiLeaks.