Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Wikileaks Receiving Gestapo Treatment?

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the picking-some-fights dept.

An anonymous reader writes "Wikileaks announced on Mar 21 (via its twitter account) its intentions 'to reveal Pentagon murder-coverup at US National Press Club, Apr 5, 9am.' It appears that during the last 24 hours someone from the State Department/CIA decided to visit them, by 'following/photographing/filming/detaining' an editor for 22 hours. Apparently, the offending leak is a video footage of a US airstrike."

10 of 667 comments (clear)

  1. [citation needed] by Bartab · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Seriously. Saying "we have something" is boring. Post it, or shut up.

    --
    Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo.
    1. Re:[citation needed] by vlm · · Score: 5, Insightful

      To come out and openly say, "We have classified material, and we'll show it to you in a couple weeks' time", what the hell did they expect would happen?

      Actually, it shows profound respect for the men and women doing the fighting, that they're willing to hold a very important story for awhile to minimize any theoretical impact to the boots on the ground. And letting everyone, including the brass, know whats coming, lets them start work early on the coverup/spin or maybe even genuinely change things to improve the situation.

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
  2. Well, what did they expect? by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    There are national security laws for a reason. If Wikileaks is going to publish sensitive information that is genuinely covered by those laws — and while I haven't seen the details, if this really is military video footage it might well be — then of course the security services are going to take steps, the same way they would with anyone else. Why anyone using/working on Wikileaks thinks they are above the law, I have never understood.

    --
    If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    1. Re:Well, what did they expect? by jandrese · · Score: 5, Insightful

      OTOH, it's very easy for governments to simply "classify away" embarrassing secrets that are in fact no danger to national security. That's exactly the sort of thing that Wikileaks is built for. It's a national security risk only in that it risks the jobs of the people who fucked up, who may be in charge of security.

      --

      I read the internet for the articles.
    2. Re:Well, what did they expect? by JDmetro · · Score: 5, Insightful

      National security is an excuse used when a government does something illegal and doesn't want anyone to know.
      And remember if you haven't done anything wrong you have nothing to hide.

    3. Re:Well, what did they expect? by davegravy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Why anyone using/working on Wikileaks thinks they are above the law, I have never understood.

      When national security laws are used to cover-up the immoral actions of high-level personnel, Wikileaks *IS* above the law.

    4. Re:Well, what did they expect? by jimwelch · · Score: 5, Insightful

      As always, in a "free" country, the question is who watches the watchers?
      Embarrassing vs Dangerous or both?
      Is the "reporter" out for glory or sees real criminal behavior or a political agenda?
      Who gets to decide? If they are arrested, a jury/judge gets to watch the watchers.
      The correct answer: all of the above.

      --
      Never trust a man wearing a coat and tie!
    5. Re:Well, what did they expect? by DM9290 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      There is certainly a potential problem with classifying things inappropriately, but my opposition to Wikileaks is based on three principles that are not affected by such problems:

      1. If Wikileaks is useful, we already have a fundamental problem of insufficient checks and balances in our government (see my sig).

      Did you just say you are opposed to Wikileaks because there is a fundamental problem of insufficient checks and balances in our government?
      Dude thats the whole reason Wikileaks exists.

      Supporting an organisation that actively tries to place itself above the law is not the solution to those problems. We should fix bad laws for the good of everyone, not merely try to circumvent them.

      That's a catch 22 situation. If we can't see what information is being suppressed we'll never know whether or not the justification for suppressing it is good or bad, and consequently whether the law is good or bad.

      Wikileaks in particular has exhibited a lack of good judgement about what is really in the public interest in the past, so they get little sympathy from me on any sort of civil disobedience/public interest whistleblower argument.

      The governments of the world have exhibited a lack of good judgement about what is really in the public interest in the past, so they get little sympathy from me on any sort of national security/just shut up and trust us argument.

      --
      No one has a right to their *own* opinion. They have a right to the TRUTH.
  3. Re:Really? by Idiomatick · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If the source is verified to be wikileaks does it matter what site they post on? I hate twitter, and I mean, quite a bit. But it doesn't make info posted on their less valid. Just less thorough.

  4. Re:Doesn't matter what country you are in... by Pojut · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Thus, your "no" was incorrect - certain groups *are* screaming that this new health care plan is 'oppression' and taking away from all of our rights.

    In a hilarious twist, most of the people who are saying that it's oppression and taking away our rights were also fully supportive of the Patriot Act.

    http://haacked.com/images/TerroristsHateFreedom.gif

    --
    Living With a Nerd