Julian Assange - Still a Class-A prick

[Gawd]

In America, soldiers that bomb the homes of people in other countries are the "heroes".

[JimC]

eXcommunicate wrote:

Assange is not a Class A prick to me, at all. The guy's stance is completely defensible and he comes across as serious and knowledgeable. He doesn't mince words in interviews with the press and why the fuck should he? Our press is childish and despicable and Assange nails them here in this video. Obviously the man believes in what he does or else he wouldn't do it.

As for Manning; the dude is not a folk hero by any stretch. I'm not sure if he should even be considered a "hero" per se. However, I'm not one to require my heroes to have 100% pure intentions 100% of the time. Sometimes people can do heroic things for stupid or selfish reasons. Sometimes people can do stupid or selfish things that end up changing the world for the better. Maybe that's what will happen. Maybe not. I do thing that without whistleblowers, whatever their motivations, our corporations and governments would be getting away with a lot more than they do now. They should fear leaks, in my opinion.

On balance, I support WikiLeaks, although I suspect they have done both harm and good. It is not a black or white thing. It was risky, in that harm could accrue to people mentioned in the leaks, and it can be argued that diplomats need to be able to discuss things frankly amongst themselves. However, there is also a considerable public good, because the revealing of governmental duplicity is a healthy corrective to mindless PR spin.

Assange himeself seems to be something of an arrogant man, and I seriously doubt that the Swedish sex scandal has been orchestrated by the US. We will just have to see how that pans out...

[Hermit]

I suspect they have done both harm and good.

As far as damage is concerned, The exact terminology by official US releases is "Countless lives are at risk". Strangely enough, the rhetoric is not backed up by a single scintilla of evidence. On the contrary, while the US government blusters about "the danger", it - and other establishment institutions - explicitly deny that harm of any sort (save embarrassment) has been inflicted.

US Secretary of Defence Robert Gates admitted in a letter to the US congress that no sensitive intelligence sources or methods had been compromised by the Afghan war logs disclosure. The Pentagon stated there was no evidence the WikiLeaks reports had led to anyone being harmed in Afghanistan. NATO in Kabul told CNN it couldn't find a single person who needed protecting. The Australian Department of Defence said the same. No Australian troops or sources have been hurt by anything we have published.

Link: Don't shoot messenger for revealing uncomfortable truths

[JimC]

I suspect they have done both harm and good.

As far as damage is concerned, The exact terminology by official US releases is "Countless lives are at risk". Strangely enough, the rhetoric is not backed up by a single scintilla of evidence. On the contrary, while the US government blusters about "the danger", it - and other establishment institutions - explicitly deny that harm of any sort (save embarrassment) has been inflicted.

US Secretary of Defence Robert Gates admitted in a letter to the US congress that no sensitive intelligence sources or methods had been compromised by the Afghan war logs disclosure. The Pentagon stated there was no evidence the WikiLeaks reports had led to anyone being harmed in Afghanistan. NATO in Kabul told CNN it couldn't find a single person who needed protecting. The Australian Department of Defence said the same. No Australian troops or sources have been hurt by anything we have published.

Link: Don't shoot messenger for revealing uncomfortable truths

Yes, it seems that no-one was put at risk by the release, but there may have been a bit of luck there. It had the potential, in the early stages, to perhaps cause danger (more the earlier material, on Iraq...). There is also the argument that it makes parts of the normal processes of diplomacy more difficult, in that there is a time for extreme candour, but also (between governments) time for being somewhat circumspect in public statements...

However, as I said, on balance, I think it is healthy overall...

[Trolldor]

A: A hero is not someone who releases a slew of information because he feels undervalued and wants to be noticed. It is not and will never be heroic. Applies to both Manning and Assange.
B: Assange is and always will be a prick so long as he has this messiah complex. Constantly referring to himself as 'the right guy', equating himself to being wikileaks, has an infallbility complex - he is right and will always be right. Oh, and apparently total transparency does not extend to his life or his organisation. Just to everybody else.

[JimC]

A: A hero is not someone who releases a slew of information because he feels undervalued and wants to be noticed. It is not and will never be heroic. Applies to both Manning and Assange.
B: Assange is and always will be a prick so long as he has this messiah complex. Constantly referring to himself as 'the right guy', equating himself to being wikileaks, has an infallbility complex - he is right and will always be right. Oh, and apparently total transparency does not extend to his life or his organisation. Just to everybody else.

I can agree with those points to a fair extent, while still feeling that the released information is a healthy wake-up call in many respects...

[Pappa]

I don't believe governments have a right to exist and control/restrict people's lives, so it goes without saying that I think they should be prevented from keeping secrets (by fair means or foul).

I couldn't care less what kind of individual Julian Assange is supposed to be (and I doubt he's anywhere near as bad as many accounts are making him out to be). What matters to me is that he's helped created a system that makes whistleblowing and leaking of confidential information a far easier process.

[charlou]

I think "hero" is a ridiculously hyperbolic notion in general, but in this situation it's so inappropriate it's not even in the ballpark. What's even more ridiculous is the idea that this guy should be killed. WTF? I don't think he's done anything so wrong it warrants that kind of reaction. The governments involved should be more concerned about looking at what constitutes diplomacy because they're clearly not doing it right.

[JimC]

I don't believe governments have a right to exist and control/restrict people's lives, so it goes without saying that I think they should be prevented from keeping secrets (by fair means or foul).

I couldn't care less what kind of individual Julian Assange is supposed to be (and I doubt he's anywhere near as bad as many accounts are making him out to be). What matters to me is that he's helped created a system that makes whistleblowing and leaking of confidential information a far easier process.

However, there are cases where the information should be kept secret. One example is the large amount of information that government agencies accrue about individual citicens. For very inportant reasons of privacy, there are (or should be) some restrictions on who agencies can share that information with, and under what circumstances. A WikiLeaks release of people's medical, legal and social service material would not serve the public interest...

In addition, there are serious defence and intelligent secrets which should remain so, not to protect the government of the day from embarrassment, but to serve valid reasons of national interest, and protect the lives of operatives from hostile forces. From all that I have read, the WikiLeaks material does not involve secrets at this level.

[Gawd]

I don't believe governments have a right to exist and control/restrict people's lives, so it goes without saying that I think they should be prevented from keeping secrets (by fair means or foul).

I couldn't care less what kind of individual Julian Assange is supposed to be (and I doubt he's anywhere near as bad as many accounts are making him out to be). What matters to me is that he's helped created a system that makes whistleblowing and leaking of confidential information a far easier process.

However, there are cases where the information should be kept secret. One example is the large amount of information that government agencies accrue about individual citicens. For very inportant reasons of privacy, there are (or should be) some restrictions on who agencies can share that information with, and under what circumstances. A WikiLeaks release of people's medical, legal and social service material would not serve the public interest...

In addition, there are serious defence and intelligent secrets which should remain so, not to protect the government of the day from embarrassment, but to serve valid reasons of national interest, and protect the lives of operatives from hostile forces. From all that I have read, the WikiLeaks material does not involve secrets at this level.

"Operatives" are meant to be killed.

[JimC]

I don't believe governments have a right to exist and control/restrict people's lives, so it goes without saying that I think they should be prevented from keeping secrets (by fair means or foul).

I couldn't care less what kind of individual Julian Assange is supposed to be (and I doubt he's anywhere near as bad as many accounts are making him out to be). What matters to me is that he's helped created a system that makes whistleblowing and leaking of confidential information a far easier process.

However, there are cases where the information should be kept secret. One example is the large amount of information that government agencies accrue about individual citicens. For very inportant reasons of privacy, there are (or should be) some restrictions on who agencies can share that information with, and under what circumstances. A WikiLeaks release of people's medical, legal and social service material would not serve the public interest...

In addition, there are serious defence and intelligent secrets which should remain so, not to protect the government of the day from embarrassment, but to serve valid reasons of national interest, and protect the lives of operatives from hostile forces. From all that I have read, the WikiLeaks material does not involve secrets at this level.

"Operatives" are meant to be killed.

By other hostile operatives of course; it is naturally a real and present danger and it comes with the territory. However, any nation state that wants to employ intelligence operatives in the future needs to at least demonstrate that they will preserve them as far as possibly by effective security measures. Welcome to Realpolitik 101...

But I suspect you meant western operatives only, not the heroic people's anti-hegemonist operatives...

[Gawd]

I don't believe governments have a right to exist and control/restrict people's lives, so it goes without saying that I think they should be prevented from keeping secrets (by fair means or foul).

I couldn't care less what kind of individual Julian Assange is supposed to be (and I doubt he's anywhere near as bad as many accounts are making him out to be). What matters to me is that he's helped created a system that makes whistleblowing and leaking of confidential information a far easier process.

However, there are cases where the information should be kept secret. One example is the large amount of information that government agencies accrue about individual citicens. For very inportant reasons of privacy, there are (or should be) some restrictions on who agencies can share that information with, and under what circumstances. A WikiLeaks release of people's medical, legal and social service material would not serve the public interest...

In addition, there are serious defence and intelligent secrets which should remain so, not to protect the government of the day from embarrassment, but to serve valid reasons of national interest, and protect the lives of operatives from hostile forces. From all that I have read, the WikiLeaks material does not involve secrets at this level.

"Operatives" are meant to be killed.

By other hostile operatives of course; it is naturally a real and present danger and it comes with the territory. However, any nation state that wants to employ intelligence operatives in the future needs to at least demonstrate that they will preserve them as far as possibly by effective security measures. Welcome to Realpolitik 101...

But I suspect you meant western operatives only, not the heroic people's anti-hegemonist operatives...

So you have no problem with it then.

[JimC]

Gawd wrote:

So you have no problem with it then.

I'm not sure what you mean by "it" in the context of a complicated quote...

If you mean what WikiLeaks has done so far, I think it is risky but has been worthwhile, and overall is in the public interest...

If you mean the killing of intelligence operatives by their opposite numbers, it is not something to support, but perhaps to realistically recognise as a hazard of the trade, on any side...

[Hermit]

However, there are cases where the information should be kept secret. One example is the large amount of information that government agencies accrue about individual citicens.

I can't see Wikileaks bothering to publish the contents of databases such as Medicare. Can you?

there are serious defence and intelligent secrets which should remain so, not to protect the government of the day from embarrassment, but to serve valid reasons of national interest, and protect the lives of operatives from hostile forces. From all that I have read, the WikiLeaks material does not involve secrets at this level.

Ah! "The National Interest". Never mind how we act to defend that, nor even how we define it, but since you asked, oil for Halliburton, for example, constitutes National Interest, OK? Just keep your nose out of secret business. That would be ever so double plus good. Ignorance is strength, haven't you heard? Well, your ignorance is our strength.

Now, cozy up in your cardigan and post the picture of you as an SDS activist once more. I love nostalgia.

[JimC]

However, there are cases where the information should be kept secret. One example is the large amount of information that government agencies accrue about individual citicens.

I can't see Wikileaks bothering to publish the contents of databases such as Medicare. Can you?

there are serious defence and intelligent secrets which should remain so, not to protect the government of the day from embarrassment, but to serve valid reasons of national interest, and protect the lives of operatives from hostile forces. From all that I have read, the WikiLeaks material does not involve secrets at this level.

Ah! "The National Interest". Never mind how we act to defend that, nor even how we define it, but since you asked, oil for Halliburton, for example, constitutes National Interest, OK? Just keep your nose out of secret business. That would be ever so double plus good. Ignorance is strength, haven't you heard? Well, your ignorance is our strength.

Now, cozy up in your cardigan and post the picture of you as an SDS activist once more. I love nostalgia.

Well, the first example was just to moderate Pappa's assertion about whether any information should remain secret, with no reference as to whether it would be headline grabbing...

The second is more complex, and would involve some difficult judgements as to where to draw the line. Rather than slipping the boot into cardigan-wearing ex-idealists, now realists, it might be more useful to abandon the fine romance of romantic absolutism, which demands the release of all information, come what may. There will be some material which a potentially hostile nation state would find exceptionally useful in a time of overt or covert conflict. We are not talking here about the murky motives for dubious military adventures as your throw-away reference to Halliburton indicated, but the codes which release the missiles, for example; it would be utterly pointless for armchair revolutionaries to advocate their release, and rail against the evils of nations that refuse...

I am quite certain that there is a murky area of secret information between the level of current WikiLeaks and the core non-negotiable military secrets I indicated earlier. We may well agree on a fair swag of what should be released from this area (probably including the supect operations of private security firms in Iraq), although I doubt it will happen anytime soon...