Wikileaks

[MaxPower]

These guys are getting a lot of coverage lately and I thought we could discuss the pro's and con's of a 'service' like this.

My views

• Anything that exposes corruption is good
  
• He has proven that he can be responsible with information, collaborating with news outlets for a synchronised leak after filtering out anything that could put someones life at risk
  
• You could argue that anything lodged with them could be automatically shared, but then you can't stop people posting dangerous material
  
• Anything that makes one person the arbiter of the truth is dangerous
  
• Like any source of information the media uses, it's open to what they don't report just as much as what they do
  
• To anyone who says they seem to be overly anti US government, they have been damning of ours in Australia and China about internet censorship.
  

[JackFetch]

If the US government was more transparent, there wouldn't be a Wikileaks. I personally can't stand the hypocrisy coming from the news anchors and talking heads that say Wikileaks is bad, and should be considered a terrorist organization yet continue to report on the leaks themselves with no hesitation. If they weren't reporting on them, then nobody would know about them so who's the real problem?

[Dread]

If the US government was more transparent, there wouldn't be a Wikileaks. I personally can't stand the hypocrisy coming from the news anchors and talking heads that say Wikileaks is bad, and should be considered a terrorist organization yet continue to report on the leaks themselves with no hesitation. If they weren't reporting on them, then nobody would know about them so who's the real problem?

On top of that, if the media actually did its job as, you know, journalists, then there wouldn't be the need for Wikileaks either.

If they were anything but shills for their corporate masters doing everything but investigating anything, they might actually be relevant. The fact that there's disdain for journalism by news reporters should be evidence enough that anyone on mainstream news should be burned to death.

[MaxPower]

Totally agree with that. The gap between 'media' and 'journalist' is getting bigger with every 'late breaking exclusive'.....

My definition of the media is : To blame everyone else for why the audiences shitty life sucks, while providing maximum profits to shareholders.

A journalist should be there to hold those in power accountable to those people who gave them the power in the first place.

[Stavros]

The idea that traditional journalism is 4th estate is ludicrous anyway. All major news organisations have to meet staggering requirements for content, and so they form close relationships with those in power in order to meet those needs.

Wikileaks operates outside that cozy little system, and so it gets slammed by the media and government but in reality its far closer to being the romantic ideal of journalism than most anything else out there.

[KnightWing]

Well, there's also the fact that Local and Cable News outlets are technically there to entertain, not inform.

[Molly]

Well, there's also the fact that Local and Cable News outlets are technically there to entertain, not inform.

And that's the problem with the whole damn system.

[Delete]

Has there been anything in Wikileaks that wasn't obvious to anyone who wasn't already paying any attention whatsoever?

[KnightWing]

Plenty.

[MaxPower]

Hi America, sorry, when did you become China??

WikiLeaks website pulled by Amazon after US political pressure

Site hosting leaked US embassy cables is ousted from American servers as senator calls for boycott of WikiLeaks by companies

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

The main website and a sub-site devoted to the diplomatic documents were unavailable from the US and Europe on Wednesday, as Amazon servers refused to acknowledge requests for data.

The plug was pulled as the influential senator and chairman of the homeland security committee, Joe Lieberman, called for a boycott of the site by US companies.

"[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," he said.

"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.

WikiLeaks tweeted in response: "WikiLeaks servers at Amazon ousted. Free speech the land of the free – fine our $ are now spent to employ people in Europe."

[KnightWing]

That seems to be the wrong way to do it. If you want to stop illegal leaks, stop the actual leaks, not the site that distributes the acquired information.

[Guest]

I have never not wanted to scissor kick Joseph Lieberman.

[Stavros]

I have never not wanted to scissor kick Joseph Lieberman.

I've always wanted to thwack his droopy dog face with a steel chair.

[Guest]

You hold the chair, I'll hit the Van Daminator.

Then when he gets up, we can just blame all the video games and music that made us do it.

[Stavros]

Won't someone save me for these destructive influences that make me want to commit violent acts?

Like Joe Leiberman.

[MaxPower]

I've never heard of Bob Gates until today, but this is pretty level headed.

Secretary of Defense Gates on the significance of the latest wikileaks disclosures (via SWJ):

But let me – let me just offer some perspective as somebody who’s been at this a long time. Every other government in the world knows the United States government leaks like a sieve, and it has for a long time. And I dragged this up the other day when I was looking at some of these prospective releases. And this is a quote from John Adams: “How can a government go on, publishing all of their negotiations with foreign nations, I know not. To me, it appears as dangerous and pernicious as it is novel.” . . .

Now, I’ve heard the impact of these releases on our foreign policy described as a meltdown, as a game-changer, and so on. I think – I think those descriptions are fairly significantly overwrought. The fact is, governments deal with the United States because it’s in their interest, not because they like us, not because they trust us, and not because they believe we can keep secrets.

Many governments – some governments deal with us because they fear us, some because they respect us, most because they need us. We are still essentially, as has been said before, the indispensable nation. So other nations will continue to deal with us. They will continue to work with us. We will continue to share sensitive information with one another. Is this embarrassing? Yes. Is it awkward? Yes. Consequences for U.S. foreign policy? I think fairly modest.

[Stavros]

You can see why Obama kept that guy on, regardless of party.

[MaxPower]

PayPal cuts Wikileaks access for donations

The online payments processor, PayPal, says it has cut access for donations to the whistle-blowing website Wikileaks.

PayPal said its payment service cannot be used for activities "that encourage, promote, facilitate or instruct others to engage in illegal activity".

Wikileaks' latest releases - of US diplomatic cables - has caused considerable embarrassment to the US and its allies, correspondents say.

It has been forced to change its web address after sustained cyber attacks.

In a statement, US-based PayPal said donations could no longer be made to Wikileaks because of "a violation of the PayPal Acceptable Use Policy"

Earlier, the company providing Wikileaks with its domain name, EveryDNS.net, cut off service because the domain wikileaks.org had become the target of "multiple distributed denial of service (DDOS) attacks".

The company said: "These attacks have, and future attacks would, threaten the stability of the EveryDNS.net infrastructure, which enables access to almost 500,000 other websites."

Wikileaks later reappeared using a Swiss web address.

It had earlier turned to the online store Amazon to host its site but the company ended the agreement on Wednesday - a move welcomed by US officials.

Amazon said Wikileaks had failed to adhere to its terms of service.

"It's clear that Wikileaks doesn't own or otherwise control all the rights to this classified content. Further it is not credible that the extraordinary volume of 250,000 classified documents that Wikileaks is publishing could have been carefully redacted in such a way as to ensure that they weren't putting innocent people in jeopardy," Amazon said on its website.

Source

This is some serious fucked up shit. You know what is fucked up about this, the US government rewards, rewards whistle blowers with a % of any resulting class action. So one leak is ok, if it's against corporations, but 10,000, a million, against a country, is a threat to peoples civil liberties and safety? Fuck this world.

Jack, will you stop using eBay now, they own PayPal.

[JackFetch]

Jack, will you stop using eBay now, they own PayPal.

I stopped using eBay when it turned into a shitty online flea market.

I don't think this is about the government trying to shut him down. His next target is a major US bank. That's who really runs the world, so that's who's pressuring the companies that deal with Wikileaks. Evey business has a bank, and if the bank says stop dealing with him, then they will stop.

[MaxPower]

Hehe, flea market.

You're probably right about it being banks pressuring him, funny how he then goes to Switzerland, but I guess it will be a true test of their neutrality both politically and with their banks.

[Stavros]

Wikileaks warrant 'issued to UK'

Not saying he did it or not, but the timing is pretty convenient.

[JackFetch]

It's the same charges they originally refused to charge him with because they said the woman's story wasn't believable. Sounds like someone got to them also. I'm not usually one for tin foil hats, but this couldn't be a better conspiracy story.

[Missy]

Within two years we'll have a movie about this.

[MaxPower]

Link about charges

Apparently the charge is having unprotected sex. Some old Swedish law about using a condom. Both women agree that they consented to the sex, but they didn't know about each other (it happened on the same night) so the second chick is upset she was the seconds. Or something like that.

Also good to see O'Riley and Huckabee not overreacting

[Chops]

I understand the purpose of wikileaks and the access it gives people to information otherwise unattainable. However, my disagreement with this whole issue lies on the head Spc. Bradley Manning, the piece of shit army fuck who called himself a "hactivst" and downloaded 260,000 classified or sensitive State Department cables and transmitted them by computer to the website Wikileaks, and then went on to brag about it.

Sorry if I sound bad here, but there are some things people are not meant to know, war is not meant for everyone to see. There are things that need to be done that the general population simply cannot handle. We do our jobs better if mothers of america do not know everything that goes on. Last thing we need is every damn person out there interjecting their opinions in matters that they know nothing about. They don't understand that while some of the shit we do may be "fucked up" it HAS to be done. Sometimes we have to do shit for the greater good.

You know what, that speech that Jack Nicholson made in a Few good Men actually explains it Really well.

"Son, we live in a world that has walls, and those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Whose gonna do it? You? You, Lt. Weinburg? I have more responsibility here than you could possibly fathom. You weep for Santiago, and you curse the marines. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know. That Santiago's death, while tragic, probably saved lives. And that my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives. I know deep down in places you dont talk about at parties, you don't want me on that wall, you need me on that wall. We use words like honor, code, loyalty. We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom I provide, then question the manner in which I provide it. I prefer you said gracias, and went on your way, Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon, and stand to post. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you are entitled to!"

It takes a different kind of person to kill someone, even if we're doing it for the right reasons. What we need to do to get in that mindset (boot camp and beyond) and what we do when we get in that mindset is not meant to be scrutinized second by second.

That doesn't mean none of it should be out there. The video of the Reuters journalist being shot, while not as outrageous as everyone makes it, is still damning evidence that we can still do a much better job of following rules of engagement.