Jump to content

More USA documents get released by Wikileaks


The Observer

Recommended Posts

Skeptical, for the most part media outlets are afraid of the government shutting them down so they can't make lovely, lovely money.

 

I hate the establishment as much as the next guy, but I can't recall the US shutting down any media outlets.

"Those who give up their liberty for more security neither deserve liberty nor security."

Support transparency... and by extension, freedom and democracy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 477
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

For those wondering, this was a few months ago. Sweden was Assange's safehouse at the time, being very protective of its freedom of speech and journalism laws. He had planned to get a journalism career in Sweden so as to be protected by its laws from the far-reaching fingers of the US gov't. Two women who he may or may not have had relationships with, but were at least acquaintances of his, somehow accused him of the crime. When it was clear that Assange was not in Sweden and could not be "brought in for questioning", the charges were all dropped and it became clear that the women were lying. It seems to have been an attempt to imprison or harm Assange, but the people behind it are unclear. The US gov't is not the only powerful organization interested in him, and it is not the most dangerous one either.

 

Assange says that he had consensual sex with both of them, and when each learned the other had sex with him that they then changed their story and called it rape.

99 dungeoneering achieved, thanks to everyone that celebrated with me!

 

♪♪ Don't interrupt me as I struggle to complete this thought
Have some respect for someone more forgetful than yourself ♪♪

♪♪ And I'm not done
And I won't be till my head falls off ♪♪

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And if the leaks cause a death, is anyone expecting you to justify them? You expect Wikileaks to be better than the government, but does that absolve them in the event of any wrongdoing? Is a death caused in the name of 'free speech' and 'transparency' somehow less than a death caused by war, or does the worthy cause make those that died martyrs? Here I was thinking that avoiding any unnecessary violence was a good thing. If violence is caused in the name of ending war, what is it?

 

As said before, the gov't has confirmed that no deaths or harm has come to anyone because of the Iraq leak. The leaks are trying to STOP the government from killing innocent people. Assange didn't put the people in the situation (informants, war crimes, etc), he's just making available what already should have been available

 

Like I said before:

 

 

gov't: "Wikilieaks might theoretically have blood on their hands in a hypothetical situation that has not actually happened" said a government spokesman from behind a podium made of blood in a castle made of blood atop a mountain made of blood.

 

Alternately: "*invades iraq for no reason*

 

The blood is on your hands wikileaks! "

yes.png
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lol at amazon pulling the plug on wikileaks.

99 dungeoneering achieved, thanks to everyone that celebrated with me!

 

♪♪ Don't interrupt me as I struggle to complete this thought
Have some respect for someone more forgetful than yourself ♪♪

♪♪ And I'm not done
And I won't be till my head falls off ♪♪

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As said before, the gov't has confirmed that no deaths or harm has come to anyone because of the Iraq leak. The leaks are trying to STOP the government from killing innocent people. Assange didn't put the people in the situation (informants, war crimes, etc), he's just making available what already should have been available

Post 78. If you don't want to look for it, this link was there http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503543_162-20011886-503543.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Skeptical, for the most part media outlets are afraid of the government shutting them down so they can't make lovely, lovely money.

 

I hate the establishment as much as the next guy, but I can't recall the US shutting down any media outlets.

 

Why would they? The U.S. media might as well be state-run media. They never report, they just repeat what the government says, uncritically passing on one government claim after the next -- without any contradiction, challenge, or scrutiny. When the NY Times is the best major newspaper, it says something awful about the state of print journalism in the U.S. Let's not even bother with cable news with people like Wolf Blitzer.

 

Also, lol:

 

cartoon.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Skeptical, for the most part media outlets are afraid of the government shutting them down so they can't make lovely, lovely money.

 

I hate the establishment as much as the next guy, but I can't recall the US shutting down any media outlets.

 

Why would they? The U.S. media might as well be state-run media. They never report, they just repeat what the government says, uncritically passing on one government claim after the next -- without any contradiction, challenge, or scrutiny. When the NY Times is the best major newspaper, it says something awful about the state of print journalism in the U.S. Let's not even bother with cable news with people like Wolf Blitzer.

 

Also, lol:

 

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_MnYI3_FRbbQ/TPZ0XLk8uBI/AAAAAAAACvU/74XE8-R69BA/s1600/cartoon.png[/img

Agreed and I enjoy that comic very much.

kaisershami.png

He who wears his morality but as his best garment were better naked... Your daily life is your temple and your religion
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Skeptical, for the most part media outlets are afraid of the government shutting them down so they can't make lovely, lovely money.

 

I hate the establishment as much as the next guy, but I can't recall the US shutting down any media outlets.

 

Why would they? The U.S. media might as well be state-run media. They never report, they just repeat what the government says, uncritically passing on one government claim after the next -- without any contradiction, challenge, or scrutiny. When the NY Times is the best major newspaper, it says something awful about the state of print journalism in the U.S. Let's not even bother with cable news with people like Wolf Blitzer.

 

Also, lol:

[hide]

cartoon.png

[/hide]

Ha, true. To find out about what bad things my country has done I actually have to read British newspapers.

So, basically Earthysun is Jesus's only son.

earthysig3.jpg

earthynorris.jpg

awwwwuo6.jpg

wootsiggiedagainhw5.jpg

algftw.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As said before, the gov't has confirmed that no deaths or harm has come to anyone because of the Iraq leak. The leaks are trying to STOP the government from killing innocent people. Assange didn't put the people in the situation (informants, war crimes, etc), he's just making available what already should have been available

Post 78. If you don't want to look for it, this link was there http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503543_162-20011886-503543.html

 

 

My point still stands. No one has been harmed because of the leak, informants names and info have been revealed, but no one has actually been harmed

yes.png
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My point still stands. No one has been harmed because of the leak, informants names and info have been revealed, but no one has actually been harmed

Yet.

"The leaks certainly have put in real risk and danger the lives and integrity of many Afghans," a senior official at the Afghan foreign ministry told The Times on condition of anonymity. "
One former intelligence official told the paper that the Taliban could launch revenge attacks on "traitors" in the coming days.

Let's remember that this is after Assange claimed that anything harmful was removed. The name and location of an informant is pretty significant and pretty harmful in the wrong hands, no?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's remember that this is after Assange claimed that anything harmful was removed. The name and location of an informant is pretty significant and pretty harmful in the wrong hands, no?

 

The Iraq documents were released months ago and no harm came to them. Harmful stuff was removed when the documents went to newspapers, but the wikileaks website has the unedited ones.

yes.png
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jay Rosen, prominent media critic, makes the point I made earlier about the failure of the US watchdog (the Media):

 

 

His key takeaway point:

 

The main reason why Wikileaks causes so much anxiety with our journalists is that they haven’t really faced the fact that the watchdog press they treasured so much died under George Bush. It failed, and instead of rushing to analyze this failure and prevent it from ever happening again, instead of a truth-and-reconciliation-commission-style effort that would look at how could this happen, mostly what our journalists did, with a few exceptions, was they just went on to the next story. The watchdog press died, and what we have is Wikileaks instead.

 

If we can ever get past the Assange distraction, the big Wikileaks story is how it is a response to the failure of mainstream journalism. This explains the loathing the Media has directed towards Assange. He stands as an indictment of them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't find this funny at all anymore. Too much information is being leaked, god damn can't we trust the government of a world superpower who has, relatively, kept world peace for the longest time now? Sometimes we have to trust our government and let them do the more important stuff. I think this explains my point.

 

[hide]67b115df70ffce43dee2f4c768d2d04b.jpg[/hide]

Ever heard of the Pentagon Papers? Thank god for news being news back then and not what makes money.

Steam | PM me for BBM PIN

 

Nine naked men is a technological achievement. Quote of 2013.

 

PCGamingWiki - Let's fix PC gaming!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the most overwhelming thing in this entire thread, is simply the irony.

 

 

 

" He stands as an indictment of them. "

 

 

 

I wonder why you said "them."

I have all the 99s, and have been playing since 2001. Comped 4/30/15 

My Araxxi Kills: 459::Araxxi Drops(KC):

Araxxi Hilts: 4x Eye (14/126/149/459), Web - (100) Fang (193)

Araxxi Legs Completed: 5 ---Top (69/206/234/292/361), Middle (163/176/278/343/395), Bottom (135/256/350/359/397)
Boss Pets: Supreme - 848 KC

If you play Xbox One - Add me! GT: Urtehnoes - Currently on a Destiny binge 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jay Rosen, prominent media critic, makes the point I made earlier about the failure of the US watchdog (the Media):

 

 

His key takeaway point:

 

The main reason why Wikileaks causes so much anxiety with our journalists is that they havent really faced the fact that the watchdog press they treasured so much died under George Bush. It failed, and instead of rushing to analyze this failure and prevent it from ever happening again, instead of a truth-and-reconciliation-commission-style effort that would look at how could this happen, mostly what our journalists did, with a few exceptions, was they just went on to the next story. The watchdog press died, and what we have is Wikileaks instead.

 

If we can ever get past the Assange distraction, the big Wikileaks story is how it is a response to the failure of mainstream journalism. This explains the loathing the Media has directed towards Assange. He stands as an indictment of them.

 

 

You seem to forget, we aren't the media. We are normal people who still loath the guy.

Want to be my friend? Look under my name to the left<<< and click the 'Add as friend' button!

zqXeV.jpg

Big thanks to Stevepole for the signature!^

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, I'd like to point out that wikileaks TRIED to get the US to help them identify where it would be good to take out names that would supposedly put people at risk. The US didn't seem to think it was important enough

 

 

Index on Censorship has obtained copies of correspondence between whistleblowing website Wikileaks and the US embassy in the United Kingdom, which took place between Friday and Sunday. They reveal Wikileaks editor in chiefs last-minute attempt to seek the cooperation of the United States government in redacting information from the latest controversial release of documents.

 

Mark Stephens of Finers Stephens Innocent, who represents Julian Assange in the UK, is a trustee of Index of Censorship.

 

26 November

Julian Assange, Editor in Chief, WikiLeaks

to

US Ambassador to London, Louis Susman

 

Subject to the general objective of ensuring maximum disclosure of information in the public interest, WikiLeaks would be grateful for the United States Government to privately nominate any specific instances (record numbers or names) where it considers the publication of information would put individual persons at significant risk of harm that has not already been addressed. PDF

 

27 November

Harold Hongju Koh, Legal Adviser, United States Department of State

to

Julian Assange, Editor in Chief, WikiLeaks

 

We will not engage in a negotiation regarding the further release or dissemination of illegally obtained U.S. Government classified materials. PDF

 

28 November

Julian Assange, Editor in Chief, WikiLeaks

to

US Ambassador to London, Louis Susman

 

I understand that the United States government would prefer not to have the information that will be published in the public domain and is not in favour of openness. That said, either there is a risk or there is not. You have chosen to respond in a manner which leads me to conclude that the supposed risks are entirely fanciful and you are instead concerned to suppress evidence of human rights abuse and other criminal behaviour. PDF

 

http://www.indexoncensorship.org/2010/11/wikileaks-and-state-department-correspondence/

yes.png
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, I'd like to point out that wikileaks TRIED to get the US to help them identify where it would be good to take out names that would supposedly put people at risk. The US didn't seem to think it was important enough

 

Don't be fooled by what wikileaks "tried" to do. The fact that the US made the information "CLASSIFIED" means that they didn't want any of it leaked to the public. If the US openly cooperated with wikileaks in further censoring the information they were to leak, what would that mean to you? That posting sensitive information is a legitimate thing to do?

 

Here US government, you can have this olive branch from your olive tree we're about to cut down.

99 dungeoneering achieved, thanks to everyone that celebrated with me!

 

♪♪ Don't interrupt me as I struggle to complete this thought
Have some respect for someone more forgetful than yourself ♪♪

♪♪ And I'm not done
And I won't be till my head falls off ♪♪

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, I'd like to point out that wikileaks TRIED to get the US to help them identify where it would be good to take out names that would supposedly put people at risk. The US didn't seem to think it was important enough

 

Don't be fooled by what wikileaks "tried" to do. The fact that the US made the information "CLASSIFIED" means that they didn't want any of it leaked to the public. If the US openly cooperated with wikileaks in further censoring the information they were to leak, what would that mean to you? That posting sensitive information is a legitimate thing to do?

 

Here US government, you can have this olive branch from your olive tree we're about to cut down.

 

So, you're willing to let the government deny you information? Information about actions that they have taken in your name, with your money, and possibly your vote?

"Those who give up their liberty for more security neither deserve liberty nor security."

Support transparency... and by extension, freedom and democracy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey, we need secrecy, otherwise all the legitimate diplomatic relationships we've formed based on trust with other countries will surely crumble...

phpFffu7GPM.jpg
 

"He could climb to it, if he climbed alone, and once there he could suck on the pap of life, gulp down the incomparable milk of wonder."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, I'd like to point out that wikileaks TRIED to get the US to help them identify where it would be good to take out names that would supposedly put people at risk. The US didn't seem to think it was important enough

 

Don't be fooled by what wikileaks "tried" to do. The fact that the US made the information "CLASSIFIED" means that they didn't want any of it leaked to the public. If the US openly cooperated with wikileaks in further censoring the information they were to leak, what would that mean to you? That posting sensitive information is a legitimate thing to do?

 

Here US government, you can have this olive branch from your olive tree we're about to cut down.

 

So, you're willing to let the government deny you information? Information about actions that they have taken in your name, with your money, and possibly your vote?

Yep. I don't need to know (or care) that the US government knows about that voluptuous nurse.

Information hiding happens all the time, and its not a bad thing. It doesn't bother me that I don't know the secret ingredient in Coca-Cola, or the next Apple product, or that I don't know how many monkeys with keyboards Google employs. I still drink coke, listen to my ipod, and search Google.

99 dungeoneering achieved, thanks to everyone that celebrated with me!

 

♪♪ Don't interrupt me as I struggle to complete this thought
Have some respect for someone more forgetful than yourself ♪♪

♪♪ And I'm not done
And I won't be till my head falls off ♪♪

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey, we need secrecy, otherwise all the legitimate diplomatic relationships we've formed based on trust with other countries will surely crumble...

 

Haha

 

 

Don't be fooled by what wikileaks "tried" to do. The fact that the US made the information "CLASSIFIED" means that they didn't want any of it leaked to the public. If the US openly cooperated with wikileaks in further censoring the information they were to leak, what would that mean to you? That posting sensitive information is a legitimate thing to do?

 

Here US government, you can have this olive branch from your olive tree we're about to cut down.

 

"The government is always right and can do no wrong." We should just let them go around doing whatever they want, killing civilians in Yemen and making the Yemeni government take responsibility, clearly this information should be kept a secret!

 

 

e:

I don't need to know (or care) that the US government knows about that voluptuous nurse.

 

Someone hasn't actually read the leaks

yes.png
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, I'd like to point out that wikileaks TRIED to get the US to help them identify where it would be good to take out names that would supposedly put people at risk. The US didn't seem to think it was important enough

 

Don't be fooled by what wikileaks "tried" to do. The fact that the US made the information "CLASSIFIED" means that they didn't want any of it leaked to the public. If the US openly cooperated with wikileaks in further censoring the information they were to leak, what would that mean to you? That posting sensitive information is a legitimate thing to do?

 

Here US government, you can have this olive branch from your olive tree we're about to cut down.

 

HERE HERE!

 

Also, I'd like to point out that wikileaks TRIED to get the US to help them identify where it would be good to take out names that would supposedly put people at risk. The US didn't seem to think it was important enough

 

Don't be fooled by what wikileaks "tried" to do. The fact that the US made the information "CLASSIFIED" means that they didn't want any of it leaked to the public. If the US openly cooperated with wikileaks in further censoring the information they were to leak, what would that mean to you? That posting sensitive information is a legitimate thing to do?

 

Here US government, you can have this olive branch from your olive tree we're about to cut down.

 

So, you're willing to let the government deny you information? Information about actions that they have taken in your name, with your money, and possibly your vote?

 

 

I'm willing to entrust them with my life. After all, they all just wanna help out, right?

 

 

For a liberal, you seem pretty paranoid of the government.

I have all the 99s, and have been playing since 2001. Comped 4/30/15 

My Araxxi Kills: 459::Araxxi Drops(KC):

Araxxi Hilts: 4x Eye (14/126/149/459), Web - (100) Fang (193)

Araxxi Legs Completed: 5 ---Top (69/206/234/292/361), Middle (163/176/278/343/395), Bottom (135/256/350/359/397)
Boss Pets: Supreme - 848 KC

If you play Xbox One - Add me! GT: Urtehnoes - Currently on a Destiny binge 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"The government is always right and can do no wrong." We should just let them go around doing whatever they want, killing civilians in Yemen and making the Yemeni government take responsibility, clearly this information should be kept a secret!

 

You know that the government releases records of things periodically? Knowing why something happened three years ago doesn't change the current situation, but can definitely make it worse.

 

What wikileaks is accomplishing for us is tightening down current information policy for the US, making it more difficult in the future for important leaks to happen.

99 dungeoneering achieved, thanks to everyone that celebrated with me!

 

♪♪ Don't interrupt me as I struggle to complete this thought
Have some respect for someone more forgetful than yourself ♪♪

♪♪ And I'm not done
And I won't be till my head falls off ♪♪

Link to comment
Share on other sites

e:

I don't need to know (or care) that the US government knows about that voluptuous nurse.

 

Someone hasn't actually read the leaks

 

 

Kadhafi had a team of nurses and "relies heavily on his long-time Ukrainian nurse, Galyna Kolotnytska, who has been described as a 'voluptuous blond,'" said a secret cable from the Tripoli embassy dated September 29, 2009, written by the US ambassador, Gene Cretz.

 

One source, whose name was blacked out by the Times, tells the US embassy that Kadhafi cannot travel without Kolotnytska, "as she alone 'knows his routine,'" it said.

 

"Some embassy contacts have claimed that Qadhafi and the 38 year-old Kolotnytska have a romantic relationship," it said.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jOSEFypoNiNvm2AnAHw3nVk9ew7w?docId=CNG.15cc4feb849a0db79c547e6aa131f09a.231

Apparently not.

99 dungeoneering achieved, thanks to everyone that celebrated with me!

 

♪♪ Don't interrupt me as I struggle to complete this thought
Have some respect for someone more forgetful than yourself ♪♪

♪♪ And I'm not done
And I won't be till my head falls off ♪♪

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.