Julian Assange - Still a Class-A prick

[Coito ergo sum]

[
The Americans in general don't seem all that pissed off at Bush. Bush hasn't even been charged with anything or sent to the Hague.

Mainly because he didn't commit a crime.

Your folks gladly murder women and children and unarmed folks on buses and in cafes. Your folks fire rockets into residential neighborhoods, and openly call for genocide. I don't see you calling for any of your boys' to be called before the Hague. Why?

[Ian]

Ian, I am really surprised to see you in such strong opposition. I know that secrets are important to 'diplomacy', but that doesn't mean what diplomats are doing is right. I think Wikileaks is a great thing to have happened. Mainly because, like Napster (remember what happened when it was smashed?) this bell cannot be un-rung. I have thought for some time that there is simply NO privacy, and no security as it relates to anything on a computer. If you hire the worlds best file-encrypter to secure a file, they are not simply trying to 'beat' those who might crack it today, but those who might try for decades after.

I think this is a good wake-up to everyone.

I do hope that fewer people suffer as a result of this big leak, but unless I miss my guess, most folks in opposition are worried about the suffering as a result of the leaks. What if 10,000 die because of the leaks, but 100,000 would have died without them? If such a thing could be demonstrated, would you change your mind?

What evidence, Ian, would you accept that would change your mind about the value of this leak?

Well, let me be clear about my position: the concept of Wikileaks is a good one, and I hope that this website (or such a website) is always available to potential whistle-blowers. I don't believe in secrecy for secrecy's sake. In theory, I am very very much pro-Wikileaks.

The problem from my perspective has been its operations. Everyone in the world already known that the US government leaks information like a sieve and always will. But Wikileaks isn't just publishing items that could be construed as whistle-blowing, they're publishing absolutely everything, including a great number of documents that only have the potential for harm, such as the so-called "targets list". In other words, attempted transparency only for transparency's sake. This is just gratuitous, and could result in great collateral damage. Assange likes to say he's just a journalist. Well, should the media be exempt from all responsibilities and negligence? The press was kind enough to hold off on breaking the Cuban Missile Crisis story for a couple days until Kennedy could announce it himself, thank Zeus. Assange supporters like to say "Well, it's about free speech." I don't think free speech was in any great danger before. I also don't think that there's such a thing as 100% free speech anywhere; surely you've heard of the Supreme Court case which struck down the "shouting 'fire!' in a crowded theater" logic.

Anyway, I see the State Dept. leaks as producing much more harm than good. Wikileaks could've sifted through the documents and only published those which might be controversial, but they didn't. Because that is their policy, the following things are happening:
1) Less information will be shared between analysts and between governments. Steps have already been taken to limit who gets to read what. More leaks might happen, but PFC Manning wouldn't be able to duplicate what he did if he were released right now.
2) Related to 1, fewer leaks will be coming Wikileaks' way. What if some abuse of power is happening somewhere right now, and a potential whistleblower doesn't have access to hearing about it?
3) Also related to 1, there is a weakened ability to track and counter threats. 9/11, for example, was not a failure of information collection, but rather of coordination. The blowback from Wikileaks, I'm afraid, could set us back to pre-9/11 standards of information sharing.
4) An immediate cooling of diplomatic relations around the world, including many relations not involving the US at all. This is not semantic theory. I wish I could talk about what I've been reading in classified message traffic lately; suffice to say, there is some real diplomatic fallout happening around the world. Some of it harms the US, some of it helps the US, and some of it harms others.
5) A longer-term cooling of diplomacy everywhere. I'm talking about ambassadors and statesmen afraid to be candid with each other. One would have to be an incorrigible anarchist to think that this would produce more good than harm.

Anyway, reading these diplomatic cables, I just can't see how more people would've been hurt if they hadn't come out. And I don't think their release does a whole lot for ideals of transparency. So what evidence would I accept to make me think that the State Dept. dump will produce more good than harm? Hard to say... some of the cables have mentioned Pakistan and China taking a weak road on securing nuclear materials and missile exports from North Korea (respectively). Maybe if these leaks cause them to reverse their policies, that would be a start.

[JimC]

I would agree with JimC, the majority of the planet is pro Assange. You're mentioning (Ian) "A lot of governments have been terribly embarrassed", that may be true (although rightly so), but the people don't really care about embarrassed governments. The vast majority of people support the leaks. No one trusted the government before the leaks, and no one trusts their governments now. If anything, people are getting pleasure watching certain governments squirm.

You know what people love to have even more than stuff they can't afford? Stuff they're not allowed to have. Like classified information. "Hey, a confidential list of facilities the US government considers crucial to health and economic security! Wow, that's interesting!"

Don't assume most people on earth are as anti-government as you are. People hold their governments accountable, but Wikileaks is accountable to nobody at all. When push comes to shove and some real damage comes about because of these gratuitous leaks, those who are enjoying "watching certain governments squirm" will turn on Wikileaks in a heartbeat.

Well, I'll agree with sandinista here in some ways. It is certainly true that governments are not happy (Russia made a cheap shot at the US and supported Assange, but I know that will change in an instant when it is their secrets being leaked). But the interests of governments, and the interests of the people they govern do not always coincide...

It is very clear, in Australia definitely, and Europe too from what I read, that a strong majority of people are saying that being embaressed in this way is something that governments (not just the US) deserve, given the duplictous, twisted underhand manouverings that are revealed by the various leaks (including plent of dirt on the Australian Labour Party, which I usually support...). Perhaps it's time that the cosy "business as usual" mentality of arrogant governments was upset from time to time. After all, Ian, the really top-secret stuff, material that would cause real harm to a nation's security is not been leaked at all. (nor should it, of course...). No one has been able to demonstrate "real damage" as yet, other than the sort of loss of face that any opposition politician yearns to happen to any ruling party...

[Cunt]

What evidence, Ian, would you accept that would change your mind about the value of this leak?

Well, let me be clear about my position: the concept of Wikileaks is a good one, and I hope that this website (or such a website) is always available to potential whistle-blowers. I don't believe in secrecy for secrecy's sake. In theory, I am very very much pro-Wikileaks. [/quote]So who decides what is important? We have had various governments handling it, with varying degrees of success for years.

The problem from my perspective has been its operations. Everyone in the world already known that the US government leaks information like a sieve and always will. But Wikileaks isn't just publishing items that could be construed as whistle-blowing, they're publishing absolutely everything, including a great number of documents that only have the potential for harm, such as the so-called "targets list".

I see immense possibility for good there. If only highlighting that if Joe Public can now get at all that info, there is a good chance that forces of evil have had access to it before.

In other words, attempted transparency only for transparency's sake. This is just gratuitous, and could result in great collateral damage.

The authorities have shown time and time again that corruption rules too often. This should reign some of that in. How much, I don't know...

Assange likes to say he's just a journalist. Well, should the media be exempt from all responsibilities and negligence? The press was kind enough to hold off on breaking the Cuban Missile Crisis story for a couple days until Kennedy could announce it himself, thank Zeus.

Not anymore, Ian. The world changed. Wikileaks has shown many old fools that their cloak of secrecy is useless.
Maybe they will stop hiding secrets in such a careless way. Wouldn't that be a benefit? (to YOU, I mean)

Assange supporters like to say "Well, it's about free speech." I don't think free speech was in any great danger before. I also don't think that there's such a thing as 100% free speech anywhere; surely you've heard of the Supreme Court case which struck down the "shouting 'fire!' in a crowded theater" logic.

Funny how that expression is so often misused. It was shouting fire falsely in a crowded theater, and the example came up over the government trying to protect it's ability to form slave-armies.

Those who spoke against the draft have been everyone from peaceniks to military officers. It should most CERTAINLY have been protected by free speech.

I don't even dare to look up what came of the case.

Anyway, I see the State Dept. leaks as producing much more harm than good. Wikileaks could've sifted through the documents and only published those which might be controversial, but they didn't. Because that is their policy,

Great! I would rather choose for myself what is important, rather than leave it up to 'journalists'.

the following things are happening:
1) Less information will be shared between analysts and between governments. Steps have already been taken to limit who gets to read what. More leaks might happen, but PFC Manning wouldn't be able to duplicate what he did if he were released right now.

Possibly true, but I hope the world doesn't start thinking so.

I think one of the large benefits of this leak will be to show how incompetently the documents were protected in the first place.

Not that such protection is really available anyway.

2) Related to 1, fewer leaks will be coming Wikileaks' way. What if some abuse of power is happening somewhere right now, and a potential whistleblower doesn't have access to hearing about it?
3) Also related to 1, there is a weakened ability to track and counter threats. 9/11, for example, was not a failure of information collection, but rather of coordination. The blowback from Wikileaks, I'm afraid, could set us back to pre-9/11 standards of information sharing.
4) An immediate cooling of diplomatic relations around the world, including many relations not involving the US at all. This is not semantic theory. I wish I could talk about what I've been reading in classified message traffic lately; suffice to say, there is some real diplomatic fallout happening around the world. Some of it harms the US, some of it helps the US, and some of it harms others.
5) A longer-term cooling of diplomacy everywhere. I'm talking about ambassadors and statesmen afraid to be candid with each other. One would have to be an incorrigible anarchist to think that this would produce more good than harm.

What about a corrigible anarchist?

I think they SHOULD be afraid of everything they say being exposed. That is the world we live in now. Tell me, Ian, if you had sufficient resources, do you think you could get photos of some very private person masturbating in their locked room?

The world is not a place for privacy anymore. The quicker that reality is realized, the better.

So what evidence would I accept to make me think that the State Dept. dump will produce more good than harm? Hard to say... some of the cables have mentioned Pakistan and China taking a weak road on securing nuclear materials and missile exports from North Korea (respectively). Maybe if these leaks cause them to reverse their policies, that would be a start.

I am pleased to see that you can see both sides. I think the governments will have to acknowledge, now more than ever, that their actions can and will be scrutinized in a much wider way now. I think there is plenty of good to come from that.

[Chuck Jones]

Those are very good questions, cunt.

[Trolldor]

Jim, damage has been done.

Rudd had a fat cry when the US cables on him came out, imagine what the more volatile arenas might do.

That's ignoring the list of targets Ian has mentioned.

Wikileaks will never do any good precisely because of what it represents and its actions. Absolute, unmoderated hypocrisy about transparency. There's a goddamn reason you don't always tell your friends and family everything you think.

I am pleased to see that you can see both sides. I think the governments will have to acknowledge, now more than ever, that their actions can and will be scrutinized in a much wider way now. I think there is plenty of good to come from that.

Absolute rubbish. If a Government is to be scrutinized then it should be from an independant watchdog which can hold a Government accountable to law, run by objective arbiters and exposing corruption.
Such a body should be protected by law, it should have powers of investigation.
And it should be working at its on discretion.
Wikileaks does no such thing. This random, arbitrary release of information sets back Government accountability leaps and strides.

I'm tired of this fecal dribbling called ideology. If a Government is to be held accountable, then it is to be held accountable by law, not by Asshole Jay and his internet circlejerk.

[sandinista]

I'm tired of this fecal dribbling called ideology.

Do you know what ideology is? Are you saying you are somehow, above ideology? Please share with the class. I only ask this because you, on a number of posts, have stated your distaste for "ideology", but it appears you may not know the meaning since you are obviously as "ideological" as anyone else.

[camoguard]

I've got some pages to read to catch up but I wanted this thread bookmarked via my comment as well.

I support what Assange does. I don't mind the collateral damage (and I was an American soldier in Iraq so I can see the vulnerabilities from that perspective). Separately, rape in any form needs to be investigated. Being a leaker doesn't mean women have lost rights. I'm not saying Assange is guilty but I'm saying he can be an interesting political fellow and shit when it comes to treating women. I think the former part is interesting and the latter part is wrong if it turns out to be part of his behavior.

I personally believe that the more leaks that happen the sooner people will realize how much we have in common with our enemies. We all wheel and deal. We all have our own interests in mind. Those aren't reasons to leave the negotiating table. If I read someone's leaked journal, I have the decency to realize the material was intended to be internal and private and it affects me differently than public statements. Other people will learn to do the same with a little practice reading leaked material.

When American soldiers stop proselytizing indigenous people and stop dehumanizing indigenous people and stop hashing up little criminal plots to kill extra civilians, then we can say classified documents are important. I'm not painting all soldiers with the same brush. But our armed forces are the people representing America only with guns and a literal Army to back them up. Their actions need to be held accountable and the occasional leak only contributes to that in my opinion.

[JimC]

TMH wrote:

Absolute rubbish. If a Government is to be scrutinized then it should be from an independant watchdog which can hold a Government accountable to law, run by objective arbiters and exposing corruption.
Such a body should be protected by law, it should have powers of investigation.
And it should be working at its on discretion.

As much as that might be nice in principle, it is not something that governments in general will encourage or even permit. My key point before was that the interests of government, and the interests of the people do not always coincide. Sandy would probably say that (at least for western, non-revolutionary governments... ) the interests would never coincide. Some others, particularly those that work in or with government, tend to, quite understandably, think that they mostly coincide, and the people should, in most situations, trust governments to work in their interests.

The truth is likely to be in the middle. Even though WikiLeaks may be flawed in some ways, and even though there are some risks, I judge that the people's interests in this case are mostly served better by the information being out there, rather than repressed. It is like a dose of unleasant-tasting medicine for governments, but in the end, we may have a healthier body politic, with a little less hypocrisy in future...

My opinion would change if it became clear that the leaks were causing real harm rather than just a loss of face.

[sandinista]

I've got some pages to read to catch up but I wanted this thread bookmarked via my comment as well.

I support what Assange does. I don't mind the collateral damage (and I was an American soldier in Iraq so I can see the vulnerabilities from that perspective). Separately, rape in any form needs to be investigated. Being a leaker doesn't mean women have lost rights. I'm not saying Assange is guilty but I'm saying he can be an interesting political fellow and shit when it comes to treating women. I think the former part is interesting and the latter part is wrong if it turns out to be part of his behavior.

I personally believe that the more leaks that happen the sooner people will realize how much we have in common with our enemies. We all wheel and deal. We all have our own interests in mind. Those aren't reasons to leave the negotiating table. If I read someone's leaked journal, I have the decency to realize the material was intended to be internal and private and it affects me differently than public statements. Other people will learn to do the same with a little practice reading leaked material.

When American soldiers stop proselytizing indigenous people and stop dehumanizing indigenous people and stop hashing up little criminal plots to kill extra civilians, then we can say classified documents are important. I'm not painting all soldiers with the same brush. But our armed forces are the people representing America only with guns and a literal Army to back them up. Their actions need to be held accountable and the occasional leak only contributes to that in my opinion.

[Ian]

I don't mind the collateral damage

Why, if it can easily be prevented (or decreased) by scrutinizing which leaks come out and which do not? Are you aware of how many messages came out that have nothing to do with abuses of power? Not minding the collateral damage is like throwing out the baby with the bath water.

Their actions need to be held accountable and the occasional leak only contributes to that in my opinion.

Fair enough, but we're not talking about occasional leaks!
Well, maybe in a year or so we might be... :sighsm:

[Ronja]

No, wiseguy, I'm talking about this forum. You and Gawd are finding yourselves in a stark minority around here, and I'm sure you are well aware of that. Moreover, I think you know that there would be more people talking about issues on the politics forum if you two weren't always around to drive away reasonable people with your hysterical tripe. If you doubt that, I invite you to view ScienceRob's thread, "Phew! Close call!"
http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=20970

what? so two people don't want to post here because they are too "scared", whatever, what a fucking joke. LAME. Guess that proves we are in the "stark minority", two people don't like our posts, one being YOU for fuck sakes. If anyone types unreasonable tripe its you.

Sandy, I have not been scared. I have been fed up.

To begin with: I agree with your general politics and values, AFAICU them. In the US I would be called a communist, in Finland I am a social democrat on the left-right axis but for all practical purposes green (The Red Greens some here call people like me). However, I take strong exception to the way you have thus far presented those politics and values. With supporters like you, socialism needs no enemies - on this forum you have (thus far) created a veritable train wreck of representing our ideology. The way you interact here looks as if you have a chip the size of Alaska on your shoulder, and therefore lash out at anyone at first opportunity.

If your goal is to have a constructive debate or honest discussion (give a little, get a little, learn a little, teach a little - you know) you have to stop commenting as if you took everything enormously personally and negatively. And you have to stop reacting to 'Zilla. Could you try those, like, just for one week?

And if your goal is to not have a constructive debate or honest discussion, then I am not interested.

[Trolldor]

As much as that might be nice in principle, it is not something that governments in general will encourage or even permit.

How much more likely is that now? We should go for a quick fix that focuses not on corruption but arbitrary, unregulated and unrestricted releasing of information from an unregulated body because "governments in general" wouldn't support such bodies?

Domestically we have the ICAC, Jim, an organisation which investigated and brought to justice its own head.

[sandinista]

No, wiseguy, I'm talking about this forum. You and Gawd are finding yourselves in a stark minority around here, and I'm sure you are well aware of that. Moreover, I think you know that there would be more people talking about issues on the politics forum if you two weren't always around to drive away reasonable people with your hysterical tripe. If you doubt that, I invite you to view ScienceRob's thread, "Phew! Close call!"
http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=20970

what? so two people don't want to post here because they are too "scared", whatever, what a fucking joke. LAME. Guess that proves we are in the "stark minority", two people don't like our posts, one being YOU for fuck sakes. If anyone types unreasonable tripe its you.

Sandy, I have not been scared. I have been fed up.

To begin with: I agree with your general politics and values, AFAICU them. In the US I would be called a communist, in Finland I am a social democrat on the left-right axis but for all practical purposes green (The Red Greens some here call people like me). However, I take strong exception to the way you have thus far presented those politics and values. With supporters like you, socialism needs no enemies - on this forum you have (thus far) created a veritable train wreck of representing our ideology. The way you interact here looks as if you have a chip the size of Alaska on your shoulder, and therefore lash out at anyone at first opportunity.

If your goal is to have a constructive debate or honest discussion (give a little, get a little, learn a little, teach a little - you know) you have to stop commenting as if you took everything enormously personally and negatively. And you have to stop reacting to 'Zilla. Could you try those, like, just for one week?

And if your goal is to not have a constructive debate or honest discussion, then I am not interested.

Well, you are certainly entitled to your opinion. Train wreck? I would disagree. I love Finland though! As for zilla, it's just too easy, can't blame me for that. I suppose if he stopped reacting to me I would have no choice but to stop calling him out.

[Ronja]

Sandy, one is not obliged to do anything just because it is "too easy". And when two people have been entangled in a back-n-forth like you and 'Zilla, the only way out that I have ever heard of or observed is that the smarter / more mature person stops. Unilaterally and totally.

Are you a Mensch or a mouse? Can you take the smarter role, just this once?