Slashdot Mirror


Wikileaks Receiving Gestapo Treatment?

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."

15 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 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 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!
    6. 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).

    7. 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

  5. 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.

  6. 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

  7. 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.