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."

89 of 667 comments (clear)

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

    ...providing a service similar to what Wikileaks provides is always dangerous.

    --
    Living With a Nerd
    1. 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
    2. Re:Doesn't matter what country you are in... by datapharmer · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I take personally your accusations about health care. As a young person I had to drop my health coverage because I can not afford it. I rarely go to the doctor; I have been once in the last 3 years so I could get an allergy medication that is now over the counter. Yet despite having good health My policy price kept going up and up and almost every month when I paid it I would get a notice that premiums were increasing and that they were no longer covering x, y, or z. The coverage continued to decline and the prices kept going up until I couldn't afford it anymore. Now I put what I can afford in a savings account in case I have a health problem, but unfortunately if I were to have a major accident right now I would go bankrupt form medical bills and if I end up with a chronic condition I will die from it as I cannot afford medicine or treatment. I am an independent contractor, so I don't get health care through my job, so even if I kept the plan and somehow managed to pay the premium I would likely be dropped if I actually got sick as it is a common practice to do so in the health care industry. I'm glad your health care plan is so great - keep it. But I want coverage too, and if I don't get coverage from somewhere it will be your tax dollars paying for my emergency room visit, so what do you have to lose in this battle?

      Mods: My apologies for going a little off topic here - I already killed the karma bonus.

      --
      Get a web developer
    3. Re:Doesn't matter what country you are in... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Two words: infectious diseases.

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

      That said, what is the point of announcing that you're about to reveal something seriously damning about the government, instead of just releasing? The outcome seems fairly obvious in this case.

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

      Social stability affects everyone.

    6. Re:Doesn't matter what country you are in... by mcgrew · · Score: 2, Informative

      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.

      And drug laws.

      --
      Free Martian Whores!
    7. Re:Doesn't matter what country you are in... by Volante3192 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Darn, and I was fond of the FDA and the 40 hour work week...

    8. Re:Doesn't matter what country you are in... by Pojut · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Of course...everyone knows that things like Marijuana are extremely harmful to our society, and that it's a gateway drug, and that it has killed thousands of peop-

      Woop, sorry to cut this short. IT'S MILLER TIME!

      "Come on everybody! Let's be hypocritical bastards! It's ok to drink your drug!" -Bill Hicks

      --
      Living With a Nerd
    9. Re:Doesn't matter what country you are in... by Dishevel · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Now with current interpretation of the interstate commerce clause which states "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes" they think that means education funds, farm subsidies, healthcare, any power they will ever want they can have because of a Supreme Court that has it head fully engulfed by its ass. Whether you agree with healthcare or not. You have to know that the way in which the US federal government is coming by these powers is utter bullshit.

      --
      Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
    10. Re:Doesn't matter what country you are in... by Robin47 · · Score: 3, Informative

      The government should regulate anything that one person's actions directly affect another person's rights. ie. FDA makes sure some company doesn't sell you shitty drugs. however, health insurance doesn't affect me if you don't have it.

      Ever hear of Underwriters Laboratories? You don't need government regulation for product safety.

    11. Re:Doesn't matter what country you are in... by DM9290 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The government should regulate anything that one person's actions directly affect another person's rights. ie. FDA makes sure some company doesn't sell you shitty drugs. however, health insurance doesn't affect me if you don't have it.

      As a society we have every interest in regulating actions that also "indirectly" affect another person's rights. Many criminal statutes deal with indirect affect, including all of the so called "victimless crimes".

      And whether I get insurance does affect you. Since I virtually never visit the doctor, what you pay for insurance would actually decrease if I bought insurance.

      As someone who purchases insurance it is in your best interest that a large body of healthy people also buy insurance.

      If the only people who buy insurance are those who routinely get sick your insurance rates will go up.

      Also as a society we all benefit when you are covered by insurance so you can get to see the doctor when you feel sick and potentially stop an outbreak of an contagion. Whether that be a contagion of AIDS, hepatitis or tuberculosis or something else.

      Your health affects us all indirectly.

      --
      No one has a right to their *own* opinion. They have a right to the TRUTH.
    12. Re:Doesn't matter what country you are in... by SpeedyDX · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I'm Canadian, but I may be able to answer your question to some extent. We've elected a Conservative government since 2006. They are on the far right of the Canadian political spectrum, even falling to the right of centre on the American spectrum. Since they've come in power, there are several small but significant changes to our country's traditions.

      - The Prime Minister now abuses his executive authority to evade Parliamentary accountability and mask his contempt of Parliament.
      - The Prime Minister now has an entire entourage of armed guards and travels with them in a fleet of at least 5 cars ... to a house across the street (our Governor General's house), instead of walking like every single one of the previous PMs.
      - We now have, for all intents and purposes, free speech zones, although they're not called as such. The RCMP blocks protesters from coming within a certain radius of the Prime Minister because the PM, and I quote from an RCMP letter, "could have been embarrassed."
      - The Prime Minister has, time and again, tried to intervene with arms-length governmental agencies by appointing to important positions those who share his neo-conservative views and equal contempt of Parliament. For example, the Rights and Democracy organization chair was appointed by the PM, and now that the organization is coming under fire, the chair refuses to appear before a Parliamentary committee.
      - The PM also intervenes with arms-length agencies by firing or replacing those in positions of power in those agencies for disagreeing with him. Paul Kennedy, former RCMP watchdog, is the latest victim of this campaign, as he was way too critical of the RCMP. For example, Kennedy wanted to hold officers accountable for their actions! Unthinkable.
      - The PM has, for a couple of years now, if I recall correctly, refused to do unscripted interviews with mainstream national media outlets (particularly with the public broadcaster, CBC) because he accuses mainstream national media outlets of liberal bias (where have you heard that before?). He's also tried, unsuccessfully, to dismantle the CBC, but has instead settled for reducing its budget year-over-year.

      To understand how that is relevant to your question, you will need some background information on Canadian politics and our Prime Minister, Stephen Harper. Mr. Harper LOOOOOVVVESSS you guys. He LOVES America. In a 1997 speech, he blasts Canada for being a "Northern European welfare state" (like Norway or Sweden) and makes the case that America is the shining conservative beacon towards which we as a nation should strive to resemble. This is reflective of his practices while he was in office. He's hired former Republican consultants and PR people and strategists to help with his campaigning and policy decisions. To cut to the chase, Mr. Harper is an American Republican at heart.

      In Canada, we've had a long political tradition of responsible politics. There were some scandals here and there, but they were relatively minor. The most controversial use of the executive power of the PMO (Prime Minister's Office) was back in the Trudeau era, when Pierre Trudeau invoked the War Measures Act because of terrorism-related acts (bombings, kidnappings) by the FLQ in Quebec, a Quebec nationalist group. Even then, the use may be controversial or questionable, but it was undoubtedly a crisis situation. Otherwise, the executive power of the PMO has almost always been exercised responsibly. That is, until Mr. Harper came along. He abused Parliamentary process by defying the will of Parliament. In Canadian politics, the appointment of a PM is not technically decided by the party with the most seats. It is decided by whichever Member of Parliament has the most support in terms of the number of other Members of Parliament. So a coalition with the opposition parties would mean a new Prime Minister. Mr. Harper didn't like this very much, so he decided

    13. Re:Doesn't matter what country you are in... by L0rdJedi · · Score: 2, 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

      So you mean Democrats and Republicans. I'm pretty sure the Patriot Act passed with overwhelming support of both parties.

    14. Re:Doesn't matter what country you are in... by austinhook · · Score: 5, Interesting

      A bit of suspense makes it more interesting. Also it provokes a reaction from the government, and thereby shows to what lengths they will go to suppress it. That itself then becomes news. We need to be reminded how hard the government will try to cover up their crimes, until we act to clip its talons. Otherwise we end up like China, where every government blunder is covered up.

    15. Re:Doesn't matter what country you are in... by commodore64_love · · Score: 3, Interesting

      >>>it provokes a reaction from the government, and thereby shows to what lengths they will go to suppress it

      I'm planning to create a website documenting U.S. government (and possibly EU government) abuses. Everytime someone says, "But government is good," it's a pain to have to scramble to gather all the info & educate them.

      This way I can simply point to www.governmentabuse.com and be done with it.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    16. Re:Doesn't matter what country you are in... by commodore64_love · · Score: 2, Insightful

      >>>The government should regulate anything that one person's actions directly affect another person's rights.
      >>>

      +1 insightful.

      In fact the founder of the Democratic Party, Thomas Jefferson, said more-or-less the same thing: "No man has a right to harm another, and that's all the government should restrain him." By giving yourself a government-provided car, or home, or whatever, you HARM my rights. You've stolen my labor (money) as surely as a manor lord stole the labor of his serfs.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    17. Re:Doesn't matter what country you are in... by operagost · · Score: 2, Informative

      Just about everything wrong with the health care system before the reform was due to government interference.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    18. Re:Doesn't matter what country you are in... by The+End+Of+Days · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It is actually "promote the general Welfare."

      If what the American people truly want is a federal government with no effective limits on its power, then accepting such a broad interpretation of what is structurally a statement of purpose is a good thing. You can use that line to do basically anything you want, so long as you say it is for the good of the people.

      I'm fairly certain that wasn't the intention of the framers, because they bothered to write the rest of the Constitution after it, but I'm one of those lunatics who thinks a large, powerful government with no effective limits is dangerous. Once the nanny-staters take over, my type will be educated out in early childhood, so you can safely ignore my ramblings.

    19. Re:Doesn't matter what country you are in... by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So you're claiming that private health insurance only excludes those with pre-existing conditions because of government interference?

      It looks like you've fallen for someone's line of BS hook, line and sinker.

    20. Re:Doesn't matter what country you are in... by CraftyJack · · Score: 4, Funny

      Thankfully, health care is one of four things that Canadians love so much that they're willing to stand up and fight for it (the other three things being: beer, hockey, and that god awful Tim Horton's coffee).

      You need the health care and coffee to counteract the hockey and beer.

    21. Re:Doesn't matter what country you are in... by melikamp · · Score: 2, Informative

      the people who sell pot usually also sell cocaine

      Usually? As in half the time or more often? You are grossly misinformed. For states like CA and MA, where most of the pot you can buy is local-ish, you are just dead wrong. The converse statement (cocaine dealers are usually pot dealers) would be a lot more plausible.

      What's the most ironic about drug laws is that the laws cause the very social problems they purport to solve.

      I agree completely.

    22. Re:Doesn't matter what country you are in... by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Considering that the same people who just passed this healthcare boondoggle, also, recently extended the Patriot Act, that really doesn't say anything.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    23. Re:Doesn't matter what country you are in... by BobMcD · · Score: 2

      While you make an excellent point, you're about 140 years late to this party. President Lincoln and company decided long ago that States really weren't supposed to have this kind of autonomy.

      Some will argue that they were right to decide this because their issue of the day (abolitionism) was important. I'll not refute that here.

      However, due to our wonderful friend the slippery slope, we stand today looking at a government who does not even acknowledge that States have any powers at all.

      This suits most of the people in the Union just fine, because they have never imagined anything any different. And when you're big enough to swing votes, like California, it isn't that big of an issue because you just ignore Federal laws you don't like and nothing bad ever happens.

      All of this would be fine, in the form of an Amendment to the Constitution, and I think today that a lot of people would support such a thing. I would not, personally, but I would be glad to see the Federalists stop lying to our faces about the content of the Constitution.

    24. Re:Doesn't matter what country you are in... by cduffy · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Preventative care is a myth. Patients don't want it and will not use it. Those that do use it are going to experience a cost far greater than the benefit due to all the overhead and false-positives. They will soon stop using it, unless there's some kind of anticipated need for it.

      Mmm. I find that I make use of preventative care all the time now that it's conveniently accessible (my current very-large employer has an in-house clinic next door to the company cafeteria), but let me recount some of my personal history, such that you can perhaps better understand why I'm gung-ho about health care reform. Admittedly, it's pretty disjoint from the economic arguments I gave earlier.

      When my wife and I married, I was working for a tiny startup that couldn't afford health insurance, and she was recently unemployed. The company started doing better, after a while, and began offering benefits. Within a few months after this, she gets severe abdominal pain. Her first instinct was to stay at home and try to wait it out -- same way she was accustomed to dealing with everything, having no or very poor insurance. But hey -- we had benefits now -- so I took her to the doctor, who sent her directly to the medical imaging center, which sent her directly to the hospital to go into surgery, as she had an appendix that was about to rupture.

      If the timing had been just a little different -- if she'd tried to do the stoic wait-it-out thing for even another half-day -- there's a very good chance I'd be a widower right now.

      A few years pass, I find blood in my urine, and eventually have a benign tumor removed from my bladder. I think about leaving that still-struggling small startup to join a still-smaller venture some friends are running, and find that I'm effectively uninsurable except as part of a large company's risk pool... which is part of why today, I'm working at a very big company with very good benefits, despite having had a few good ideas in the interim that might have been something worth starting a new venture over. Republicans talk about representing the best interests of small business owners? I might be a small-business owner right now if I were able to buy decent health coverage on my own.

      I don't expect any kind of resurgence of the bladder tumor issue -- heck, I'd gladly allow an insurance company to disclaim responsibility for any further bladder problems if that's what it would take to be able to buy individual coverage -- but I'm still stuck where I am right now, forced by financial necessity to work for whatever form of Da Man is willing to put me in a large enough risk pool to make me insurable. The no-preexisting-condition-denial + individual-mandate system means I can buy my way into a larger pool on the exchange, decoupling my ability to purchase insurance from whom I happen to work for at the time.

      So -- there's my personal stake in the issue. Sure, making legislation is like making sausage -- there's lots that's not pleasant to know about involved in the process -- but I find it hard to see what was recently passed as anything other than a massive win for the public as a whole.

  2. [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 Spyware23 · · Score: 2, Informative

      They said "We have something, we're going to show you then and then".

    2. Re:[citation needed] by krou · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Which means they're idiots. Seriously. Wikileaks is likely to be under surveillance all the time. 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? It'd be like Daniel Ellsberg announcing at a press conference that he's got secret documents called the Pentagon papers, and that he'll release them in a week later.

      --
      'If Christ had tweeted the sermon on the mount, it might have lasted until nightfall.' - John Perry Barlow
    3. Re:[citation needed] by Rogerborg · · Score: 2, Interesting

      What can be gained by holding it back [until] then??

      Donations.

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    4. 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
    5. Re:[citation needed] by Holammer · · Score: 2, Funny

      Any grade school teacher knows what's happening here. They announce it this way so the naughty children get to stew for a while, then hopefully come clean and admit the crime + learn a valuable lesson about honesty.

    6. Re:[citation needed] by gilgongo · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Which means they're idiots. Seriously.

      This gets modded as "insightful"??

      Here's a crash course in strategy vs tactics. Wikileaks isn't pulling some teenage prank solely for the purpose of seeing people in power with their pants down. In order to actually make a long-term difference to society, you need to play a long game by allowing your adversaries to respond in a way that allows you to be agile. By announcing ahead of time, Wikileaks can observe patterns of reaction which allows them to optimise the way in which they reveal the payload for maximum effect and minimal risk to themselves. At the very least, it's better to reveal several smaller scandals and live to fight another day then to blow the lid on a massive issue only to be totally silenced for all time.

      --
      "And the meaning of words; when they cease to function; when will it start worrying you?"
  3. 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 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 5, Interesting

      There are national security laws for a reason.

      True, but those laws are not the highest laws of the land.

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

      Actually, many government officials think they are above the law and can apply state secrets laws indiscriminately and without regard for constitutionality. It has been a huge problem throughout the history of the US, because it is very difficult for the fourth estate and the judicial branch of our government to provide the proper checks to balance misuse of that power because of the secrecy involved. What Wikileaks has been doing in many (but not all) cases is protected whistleblowing, protected freedom of the press, and protected free speech that the courts most likely will rule as constitutionally protected if they ever actually make it to court.

    4. 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.

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

      They are not in USA and do not have to follow our wishes. If the foreign combatants who have broken the video signal encryption for our drones have shared video with them then they should share it if they wish. They have not promised anyone that they will not show something that normal US citizens have no access to online.

      whether our defense folks like this or not is not their concern, as leakers....

    6. Re:Well, what did they expect? by Jurily · · Score: 3, Insightful

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

      Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

      I was told the First Amendment is above the law.

    7. Re:Well, what did they expect? by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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).
      2. 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.
      3. 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.
      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    8. Re:Well, what did they expect? by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And remember if you haven't done anything wrong you have nothing to hide.

      That's a silly argument when governments try to use it to justify privacy invasions, and it's an equally silly argument to make against a government, some of whose members/staff will necessarily have access to information that should not be immediately available to the general public.

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    9. Re:Well, what did they expect? by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 2, Insightful
      1. Yup
      2. Wikileaks does not place itself above the law
      3. When?
      --
      Palm trees and 8
    10. 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!
    11. Re:Well, what did they expect? by OzPeter · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And remember if you haven't done anything wrong you have nothing to hide.

      So how many curtains do you have on your bedroom windows?

      --
      I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
    12. Re:Well, what did they expect? by toastar · · Score: 2, 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.

      How can you not understand Freedom of the Press?
      The constitution is above any other law.

      Have you read the case surrounding the pentagon papers?
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_Papers

      The only way this this sort of service treasonous, is if you consider the american public to be your enemy.

    13. Re:Well, what did they expect? by slimjim8094 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Of course. But is Wikileaks the entity that gets to decide what should and shouldn't be classified? How about posting the assumed names and covers of foreign agents? Missile launch codes?

      Most of us would argue that there's a lot of classified info that, for the common good, shouldn't be classified - like the non-court mass wiretappings. But if you think governments (really, people in government) can make mistakes, then you also think Wikileaks, or people in it, can also make mistakes.

      Unless you're going to argue that nothing should be classified, which is I suppose a valid argument - but you'll have a lot of resistance.

      Which is worse? Something not supposed to be classified NOT being leaked, or something SUPPOSED to be classified being leaked? I, and most people, would say the latter.

      --
      I have developed a truly marvelous proof of this comment, which this signature is too narrow to contain.
    14. Re:Well, what did they expect? by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 4, Informative

      2. Wikileaks does not place itself above the law

      They do if they are publishing classified information, private information about individuals, etc. I'm not sure any jurisdiction in the world actually has absolute freedom of speech coded in law — even in the US, there have been Supreme Court cases balancing the First Amendment against other concerns with legal weight — and there are explicit exemptions in the basic constitutional or human rights legislation almost everywhere covering things like genuine national security interests.

      3. When?

      A common example is publishing the membership list of the BNP. It is particularly ironic since by outing those people, Wikileaks actually removed some protection and consequently damaged the freedom of expression of a minority political group that has been subject to dubious restrictions by mainstream politicians.

      (For the avoidance of doubt, I don't like the BNP's politics at all. I just don't like censoring them rather than beating them with rational argument any better.)

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    15. Re:Well, what did they expect? by Trails · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I think the counter point is that we don't know we have a fundamental problem without people leaking things.

      Further, giving away genuine, non "CYA" national secrets that puts civilians/military personnel at risk would be a horrible blow to wikileaks. My point is that there is incentive here for wikileaks to expose only BS-type classified stuff.

      Remember, "Deep Throat" gave up classified docs to the press, he broke laws in order to protect lawfulness.

    16. Re:Well, what did they expect? by mcgrew · · Score: 2, Informative

      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.

      And how do you do that? The problem isn't that national security laws are bad, it's that those laws are misused and abused.

      --
      Free Martian Whores!
    17. Re:Well, what did they expect? by Jeian · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This may be true; however, I can state with almost certainty that Wikileaks does not have the authority or understanding to determine what is validly classified and what is not.

    18. Re:Well, what did they expect? by MartinSchou · · Score: 4, Insightful

      How about posting the assumed names and covers of foreign agents?

      That depends on who you ask.

      If you ask the US government if it would like to know the assumed names and covers of agents in the US, who work for North Korea, Iran, Syria, Russia and China, I think they would really like to know. But on the other hand, if you ask the US government if they would like the assumed names and covers of their agents in North Korea, Iran, Syria, Russia and China, I think they'd say no.

    19. Re:Well, what did they expect? by jandrese · · Score: 2, Insightful

      They do know bullshit when they see it.

      --

      I read the internet for the articles.
    20. Re:Well, what did they expect? by N.+Criss · · Score: 5, Interesting

      This essay from Bruce Schneier goes directly to this issue:
      http://www.schneier.com/essay-208.html

      Government has a lot of power over you. Whereas you as an individual have very little power over the government. To balance things out, large/powerful entities should be transparent. Smaller entities and individuals get to have secrets (privacy).

    21. 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.
    22. Re:Well, what did they expect? by Angst+Badger · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Which is worse? Something not supposed to be classified NOT being leaked, or something SUPPOSED to be classified being leaked? I, and most people, would say the latter.

      That's frighteningly naive. If you create a system in which people can use the pretense of national security to commit heinous crimes, then they will as a matter of statistical certainty use it to commit heinous crimes. If it works, they will be emboldened to commit more numerous and more heinous crimes. If there is no internal regulatory mechanism to stop the cycle -- and generally, there is not, for "national security" reasons -- then you either helplessly watch as your country is imperiled by increasingly corrupt and inhuman national security agencies, or you thank your lucky stars that there are still some people inside the system with the courage and the moral character to leak evidence of wrongdoing to reporters and groups like WikiLeaks.

      --
      Proud member of the Weirdo-American community.
    23. Re:Well, what did they expect? by unbug · · Score: 2, Insightful

      But is Wikileaks the entity that gets to decide what should and shouldn't be classified?

      Which entity should decide this? Why would it be more qualified to do so than Wikileaks or anyone else?

      Which is worse? Something not supposed to be classified NOT being leaked, or something SUPPOSED to be classified being leaked? I, and most people, would say the latter.

      Well, tolerating the former leads directly to a system where people with the power to classify things are not accountable to anyone and where nobody knows what they do. Which, in turn, always leads to all sorts of utterly horrible things. The latter seems to happen quite often recently and what horrible things that have happened because of it? I don't know about most people but I quite definitely think the former is much much worse.

    24. Re:Well, what did they expect? by Entropius · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Neither do the people doing the classifying. Since nobody seems to be making good decisions about what to keep secret, we're in sort of a bind. Wikileaks' attitude -- that anything that ruffles the conscience enough for someone with a clearance to leak it ought to be public -- is as good of a leading-order approximation as any.

    25. Re:Well, what did they expect? by gknoy · · Score: 4, Informative

      Wrong. Classified information is still considered classified even if someone without clearance has seen it.

    26. Re:Well, what did they expect? by b4dc0d3r · · Score: 3, Insightful

      National security laws exist for a reason, but they are often enforced for entirely different reasons.

      Based on the description, there is absolutely nothing here that qualifies for protection. If the military made a mistake and killed innocent people, this news will come out instead. If it was intentional, the only proper course is to expose it.

      The only reason "national security" would qualify as an excuse is the fear of backlash or "blowback", either from the citizens or from a foreign country, depending on who was murdered. I don't think whatever this is can top the extraordinary rendition news, or Abu Ghraib, or waterboarding, or detainee "suicides", or anything else that has come out so far. It will add a small amount of fuel to an already huge flaming hatred, at most.

      If they do reveal specifics like troop movements or secret agent names, they will be attacked in any way possible, including labeling them enemy combatants and dropping a bomb on them. So I doubt they are going to that level. I don't know what documents WikiLeaks has chosen NOT to show, but the ones they have shown were necessary for the public (or parts of the public) to know and do not put national security at risk.

      I see no reason to expect that they are going to announce something that will get them high on America's target list in advance of releasing it. I also see no reason for anyone to be surprised that the CIA wants to know what this is before anyone else sees it. That's their job, and unless they can infiltrate WL or hack some servers real quick like, the only way is the classical way - follow people, take pictures, and ask questions. Citizens may be held without charges for a limited time, and I don't see this being violated anywhere.

      In other words, it's all going as one would expect. I want to know what it is now, where before I didn't know that I wanted to know what something was. So thanks, editor, for going through 22 hours of persecution as a publicity stunt, if it helps the cause.

    27. Re:Well, what did they expect? by guspasho · · Score: 2, Informative

      In the United States at least, "classified" binds the people responsible for maintaining its secrecy, basically people in the government. But once it's out, Wikileaks is within their legal rights to share that information. Unless of course it's protected by the DCMA.

      This whole claim that Wikileaks thinks it's above the law is bunk.

    28. Re:Well, what did they expect? by Stellian · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There are basically two types of interesting classified information that Wikileaks can leak:
        1. Classified information that should really remain classified for everyone's safety
        2. Classified information information that's actually just cover-up for government's abuses

      If they leak the first type, I expect the government to act quickly and change those atomic launch codes - if an unprofessional spy organisation like Wikileaks can find them, you can be quite sure North Korea has them for a while. I also expect the persons responsible for keeping such info secret be fired/jailed/shot, and I expect democracy to act in that direction.
      If they leak the second type, I also expect democracy to act and the abuses curbed.
      In both cases, Wikileaks has a valid reason to exist, and the mere fact they are breaking the law to do so it's not unethical - they exist precisely to point out flaws in the law or they way it's enforced.
      The primary sources for the leaks will also exercise some form of personal judgement and are much likely to release type 2 info - the percentage of people with anti-social disorders is low.

    29. Re:Well, what did they expect? by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "The entire equipment load-out for Iraq and Afghanistan?"

      I did not realize that a list of what sort of equipment was purchased constitutes a threat to national security. They did not post troop movements, they just posted a list of what our tax dollars are being spent on -- whose life does this endanger?

      "The security procedures at GITMO?"

      What about them? If these procedures are so weak that they must be kept secret to remain effective, there is a problem with the procedures.

      "There's nothing just about releasing that sort of information."

      The American people deserve to know what their tax dollars are being spent on. Again, we are not talking about troop movements or battle plans, or the positions of nuclear submarines. The information itself could have been collected by a determined, organized, and well funded adversary anyway.

      "It is not much of a jump from there to consider releasing upcoming convoy routes so that insurgents can emplace IEDs against them."

      Yes, it is a huge jump, since that actually places lives at risk, unlike the examples you listed.

      "I do not trust WikiLeaks to say "this awesome classified information is harmful to people's lives, so we won't release it.""

      Would you prefer if the people who actually perform the leaks were to post the information on Usenet? Or perhaps a torrent website? The fact that you feel Wikileaks should be responsible for determining what information needs to remain classified is interesting; I would have thought that the people with access to the information in the first place would be the ones responsible for making such a determination.

      --
      Palm trees and 8
    30. Re:Well, what did they expect? by GasparGMSwordsman · · Score: 2, 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.

      I would argue that within the terms you have listed they are not "above the law" but ARE acting within the law. Whats more, they are in those cases, acting in a way specifically protected and sanctioned by that same law.

  4. Don't do that by Monkeedude1212 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    'following/photographing/filming/detaining' an editor for 22 hours

    Following someone for 22 hours and detaining someone for 22 hours are so incredibly different they should not be lumped together like that. It's the difference between a creepy stalker and an oppression of basic freedoms.

    Don't leave it up to my imagination how long each of those 4 actions took place. Because I'm imagining the "detaining" being about 15 seconds as they accidentally walked into each other, and then they both stepped to the side, oops still in the way, stepped to the side again, oops, and did this about 5 times.

    1. Re:Don't do that by jdgeorge · · Score: 2, Funny

      'following/photographing/filming/detaining' an editor for 22 hours

      Following someone for 22 hours and detaining someone for 22 hours are so incredibly different they should not be lumped together like that. It's the difference between a creepy stalker and an oppression of basic freedoms.

      Don't leave it up to my imagination how long each of those 4 actions took place. Because I'm imagining the "detaining" being about 15 seconds as they accidentally walked into each other, and then they both stepped to the side, oops still in the way, stepped to the side again, oops, and did this about 5 times.

      I'm sure this ambiguity was completely accidental. Surely the Wikileaks folks would ever sensationalize anything, or present it out of context.

    2. Re:Don't do that by Nadaka · · Score: 5, Informative

      The summary is not the story. one editor was detained 22 hours and had is laptop "confiscated", another was followed internationally, their editorial meetings were bugged, and recorded.

    3. Re:Don't do that by jdgeorge · · Score: 3, Informative

      Appears there's some interpretation/conflation by the person who submitted the Slashdot summary. What the relevant tweets says is:

      "WikiLeaks is currently under an aggressive US and Icelandic surveillance operation. Following/photographing/filming/detaining. "
      Then, later:
      "One related person was detained for 22 hours. Computer's seized.That's http://www.skup.no"
      and
      "We have been shown secret photos of our production meetings and been asked specific questions during detention related to the airstrike."
      followed by
      "We have airline records of the State Dep/CIA tails. Don't think you can get away with it. You cannot. This is WikiLeaks."

      (see, you could have gotten all this by following the link in the summary). I've got to say, the hubris implied by that last one seriously reduced by sympathy for these guys.

  5. Really? by Slash.Poop · · Score: 2, Insightful

    A Twitter page is now the source /. is running with?
    I suppose when you put "it appears" and "apparently" you can just pass anything off as "news".

    --
    I'll try anything once. Twice if it tastes good
    1. 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.

    2. Re:Really? by toastar · · Score: 3, Funny

      A Twitter page is now the source /. is running with?

      I suppose when you put "it appears" and "apparently" you can just pass anything off as "news".

      Would you trust a source more if it was on the radio?
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_War_of_the_Worlds

      Maybe you'ld just like it if I got off your lawn.

    3. Re:Really? by TooMuchToDo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And Twitter is excellent for high-speed dissemination of information, no matter what the source.

  6. Like a backseat driver... by OdoylesRule · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's easy to decry from the position of luxury afforded by enjoyed freedoms. "We sleep soundly in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm." - Winston Churchill

  7. UPDATE: tweet about disclosure removed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The original tweet has been removed.

    This was the original text:

    "WikiLeaks to reveal Pentagon murder-coverup at US National Press Club, Apr 5, 9am; contact press-club@sunshinepress.org 10:43 PM Mar 21st via bit.ly"

    Two possibilities: they're planning immediate release, or they decided to give up with it.

  8. What do they expect? by tnk1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If you are decrypting or gaining access to decrypted classified video, what do they expect is going to happen? Even if the video shows things that the government doesn't want us to see, I'd be a little disturbed if they did nothing about the breach of security. It's like saying that if a guy knocks over a bank with my money in it, it's okay for him to have done it as long as he only took the money from the mobsters who use the bank. Determining that footage "shows bad things" is not a security determination, it's a political determination. I don't want security personnel making value judgments about the data that is entrusted to their care. If it is classified, they need to find out who the leak is and deal with it.

    To be honest, while I think its a good thing that cover-up data can come out, I worry a little that throwing raw data out there with interpretations like "murder-coverup" is just as political an act as covering it up, not to mention a little sensationalistic. I mean, if its airstrike footage, it's not like they brought the aircraft camera into the room to film the alleged conspirators rubbing their hands together and saying "terminate them!". It's a grainy black and white video of someone launching a missile or a laser-guided bomb and hitting something. Maybe there is some date/time or even location data in the video. What I don't expect we will see is "TERMINATED: Abdul Sayyid al-Derka HEADSHOT +50 points" pop up on the screen.

    1. Re:What do they expect? by phayes · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Video taken from the point of view of the designating laser (if it was ground based) can be back-tracked. Even if the video is from the launcher information on the designator used can be determined & be useful in many cases. The less al-queda knows, the better.

      --
      Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
    2. Re:What do they expect? by CheshireCatCO · · Score: 2, Informative

      I assume you're aware that even the Supreme Court has ruled that there are limits to those freedoms, especially where sensitive information is concerned, yes? If so, please elaborate on your post explaining why they don't apply here, as the original poster was suggesting that they do. If not, please don't post such nonsense until you do understand that there are limits on freedoms.

    3. Re:What do they expect? by tnk1 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Freedom of Speech is applicable to talking about the video, should you happen to see it, but not to it's release.

      As for Freedom of the Press, first of all, there are almost certainly National Security implications of the release of a recent military operation. That means that there is likely a judicial precedent for exception to Freedom of the Press on that account.

      However, even if there was not an exception for National Security, Wikileaks would only be protected as an entity if they merely published the video. That does not mean that they cannot be investigated to see if they actually obtained or conspired to obtain the video.

      If their personnel directly broke into an air base and stole the video, they could go to jail for whatever crime that is (theft, trespassing).

      If they provided means (resources, payment, etc.) to obtain the video with the leaker ahead of time, as opposed to merely receiving it, they would be liable for conspiracy to commit one of the broken laws. Freedom of the Press does not allow reporters to become investigators immune from the law. They may print anything but libel, but they can't break other laws to get the material.

      Make no mistake, the leaker of this video is likely eligible to go to jail. The question is whether Wikileaks is a party to the actual leak or just the publisher. I really have no patience for Wikileaks if they expected to publish this and not be investigated. If they are going to be in this business, they need to understand the implications. They may be in the right, but the US Government cannot assume that is the case with classified material.

    4. Re:What do they expect? by vlm · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Video taken from the point of view of the designating laser (if it was ground based) can be back-tracked. Even if the video is from the launcher information on the designator used can be determined & be useful in many cases. The less al-queda knows, the better.

      Which is why they wait a couple weeks before publicizing. They have either very specific or general knowledge that our guys on the ground will have rotated out of that area by the time the publicize the video. Its entirely possible the guy that leaked the video wanted to watch CNN the day its released on his day off so provided them with a demand, which they are honoring.

      If, in an alternate history, you shot an AA gun precisely straight upward from Ploesti Romania in early August of 1943, you could have theoretically hit the plane my grandfather was flying, although in our timeline he was OK. That's top secret knowledge, say, in July of 43. Kind of secret that day back in 43. A couple weeks later, its in the newspapers. In 2010, its just a wikipedia page.

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
  9. Re:Wikileak is a brand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    SHUT THE FUCK UP, MORON.

  10. Impeach George Bush!!! by Vinegar+Joe · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This proves he's a war criminal/fascist dictator!

    --
    "The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
  11. Re:Impotent Slashdotters - all talk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    But but but I just got on the Starcraft 2 beta! And there's all this anime I need to watch! Anime!!! Don't you see? That's WAY more important, and I'm sure someone else will do it.

  12. Don't announce. Just DO by russotto · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If you've got some hot information that you know governments will try to suppress, why the heck would you give them a few weeks to do so? Just put the information out right away; then it's too late to be effectively suppressed.

  13. No way! by LanMan04 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Which is worse? Something not supposed to be classified NOT being leaked, or something SUPPOSED to be classified being leaked? I, and most people, would say the latter.

    I disagree. That's like saying:

    "Which is worse? Someone NOT guilty of a crime being convicted, or someone guilty of a crime NOT being convicted? I, and most people, would say the latter."

    I would assume (not trying to build a strawman) that this would be your general line of thinking. I'd rather have the occasional "oops, we should have classified that" than "we're being safe and classifying everything (including stuff that's classified and shouldn't be).

    An occasional blunder to not classify something that should have been secret is less dangerous to a free society than having everything locked up (probably embarrassing things too). I have a friend who works for the DoD in an intelligence role. He once said, and I quote, "No one ever got fired for over-classifying information". That is a mindset we need to change.

    --
    With the first link, the chain is forged.
  14. Re:Godwinned already by Rogerborg · · Score: 2

    Second both of those sentiments. Actually, the Gestapo treatment would be a bullet in the head and a dirt nap. Since Wikileaks used a greengrocer's apostrophe in "computer's", I hope they get billed for the bullet. Even Hitler was scrupulous about his grammar.

    --
    If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
  15. Think again by westlake · · Score: 2, Insightful

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

    The essence of principled civil disobedience is that you accept the consequences of your actions.

    You do not proclaim yourself to be above the law.

    If only because for the first - and quite possibly the last - time in your life, your words will be taken at face value.

    Where there is no respect for law, the dissident - the inconvenient - the unwelcome - the dangerous - simply disappear. What you have is government by the Mafia. The Ku Klux Klan. The Death Squad.
       

  16. Re:[citation redacted] by ae1294 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Maybe that's the point. They've been under serious surveillance for awhile now so maybe they wanted everyone else to know...

    There really should be some sorta law...

  17. Message to the government of the USA by Alain+Williams · · Score: 2, Insightful
    If you are going to feel embarrassed when someone exposes things that you have done, the solution is quite simple: don't do bad things.

    It is not just the USA - look at how Israel has been caught forging British passports so that it could a Hamas leader. Governments do dirty deeds and then pretend that they did not. The world would be a better place if governments where run by honest, decent people - from top to bottom.

  18. Advertisement by kangsterizer · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Why do you think everyone else in ANY industry are pre-announcing what they do?
    Products, goods, actions, whatever..

    You need to create the expectation for your information to last long enough. Otherwise, its going to be on the news for 2 days and gone and forgotten even if it was rather sensationalist.

    We're at Slashdot, ever thought about Apple's marketing? It's all about that; Rumors, expectations, then a big announcement.. and actual product availability month later.
    You did not think it was related to their success?

    The other points are irrelevant. What wikileaks want, is to share some specific information with the population. To be shared in the fastest and widest way possible, you've to do like the "big boys" and use advertisement tactics. No way around it (unless they discovered aliens exist, maybe).

  19. Re:Don't announce. Just DO by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If you've got some hot information that you know governments will try to suppress, why the heck would you give them a few weeks to do so?

    Well, a few reasons come to mind:

    1. The information may be dangerously time-sensitive to those who provided it. For example, if it is an image of a building, that means that troops may be in the area. If you give it a few weeks, the troops will be gone and it may be safe to show the footage.
    2. While I love my blogs and such, the Mainstream Media is really the way to get information out. But they need some time to get everything together. Giving them some notice means a better chance that reporters will be allocated.
    3. Something like this will generate a lot of publicity for WikiLeaks which survives on donations. Assuming it's true, it's worthwhile to organize how you're going to present the information to generate the most publicity possible for your organization.