Slashdot Mirror
Obama Wants Allies To Go After WikiLeaks
krou writes "Coming on the back of human rights groups criticizing WikiLeaks, American officials are saying that the Obama administration is pressuring allies such as Australia, Britain, and Germany to open criminal investigations against WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, and to try limit his ability to travel. 'It's not just our troops that are put in jeopardy by this leaking. It's UK troops, it's German troops, it's Australian troops — all of the NATO troops and foreign forces working together in Afghanistan,' said one American diplomatic official, who added that other governments should 'review whether the actions of WikiLeaks could constitute crimes under their own national-security laws.'"
Anyone read the Jump 225 Trilogy by David Louis Edelman? This garbage sounds like a page right out of those books... The govt needs to keep their mouths shut and their hands off before they end up looking even stupider than they already do. Information wants to be free. If wikileaks dies, it's not like something else won't come up to replace it.
I'll do the Glenn Greenwald thing and point out the pathetic "stenographic reporting". When you anonymously quote a political body supporting itself as news, you are a tool of that political body. Here are the sources cited in the article:
American officials say
Officials tell The Daily Beast
American officials confirmed last month
Now, the officials say,
an American diplomatic official
a Defense Department official marveled.
American officials say.
An American military official tells The Daily Beast
For the sake of argument, let's assume that releasing these documents was morally and/or pragmatically wrong/harmful. I'm not entirely convinced of that, but I'll cede the point for this discussion.
What actual *crime* was committed in releasing these documents, that would justify a criminal investigation, limited travel, and general harassment by the government? Certainly the person with original access to the documents committed a crime in releasing them to unauthorized persons, but once that happened, what further crimes have occurred that would justify governmental interference?
From TFA: "The initial document dump by WikiLeaks last month is reported to have disclosed the names of hundreds of Afghan civilians who have cooperated with NATO forces". Has anyone checked if this is true? Are the names of Afghan civilians in the disclosed documents?
The issue is less "information should be free" and more "this just signed some people's death warrants" with some of the posted information. Civilians whom, probably under the assurance of anonymity and safety, gave the US information. Now, someone leaked their names, Wikileaks posted it, and those same civilians are now in the cross hairs. Of course, we'll arm chair philosophize about the ethics, reasoning, logic, etc, about this whole thing, because men won't come in the night to kill us and our families as a result of some jackass claiming we told someone something.
Obama vs Bush:
Obama vs Cheny:
Simon.
Physicists get Hadrons!
So having Gitmo just as bad as it was is "better" than before?
Well, no NEW Gitmos have opened; and no NEW pointless, unwinnable wars have been started; and no NEW states secrets policy is more stringent than anything that came before. So yeah, I'd say this is marginally better. Not good, but standing in place is preferable to constantly stepping backward.
Also, North Korea did their missile testing repeatedly before and we did nothing then, too. What exactly would you have us do? Yet another trillion-dollar war we can't win?
So instead of redacting names, why don't they just replace the names of the informants with the names of some Taliban fighters and start an internal war. Am I the only one who thinks spreading FUD into their ranks might be better than handing over our informants?
Do not argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.
Perhaps leaking everything you can get your hands on it's always the best thing to do. Just a thought.
Why don't you start it? You can publish your income, what route you take to work. Anything embarrassing in your past? Oh' post that too. While we are at it how about your address, SSN if you have one, and bank account with routing information. What if I went through your trash and published whatever I find. Next I pay people you trust for dirt and publish that too. Anything I can get my hands on to use your phrase. Those are all illegal acts but I shouldn't be prosecuted. Hey! I'm just doing what I think is right, so I can ignore any laws. Not all information should be public. It may sound like a good idea to the feeble minded and anarchists, but not all secrets need be published.
As George Bush and Hillary Clinton both so eloquently pointed out "Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists." and "Every nation has to either be with us, or against us. " respectively.
As Orwell put it: "If you hamper the war effort of one side you automatically help that of the other."
The logic is inescapable. When people take sides and start shooting at each other then they are going to start noticing who you line up with. There is no free press in war.
You can only win a war that doesn't exist in the history books.
War was never declared. There is no clearly defined enemy. There is no victory condition. There is no exit strategy.
Afghanistan is a conflict, not a war. Calling it a war gives it undue merit (and we ourselves haven't lived up to the standards that a 'lawful' war would require).
"There are faceless and nameless people in power."
And some of them own/employ mercenary companies.
"Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
You know, I was starting to believe this as true just because its reported everywhere. But can anyone point me to _one_ civilian name, let alone a "comprehensive list". Google just gives me the run around. Every link says it's "reported to have a list" but there is no evidence that I can find. Sounds like it's BS made up to turn people against WikiLeaks. Then again, maybe someone can prove me wrong?
Are you going to take up arms and march on Washington?
Didn't think so.
But here's a dangerous question for you to ponder (dangerous in the sense that when I asked it in another forum, I was accused of making death threats and being a terrorist):
How many people, armed, and descending on seats of government with the intent to kill treasonous legislators, judges, and executives, after deciding that no other recourse for their grievances was possible would it take for you to rise up and join them?
10? 100? A thousand? A million? A force larger than the standing military forces combined? How many?
Realize that to do this, you (a) have abandoned all hope in justice being available in the present government, and (b) have embraced the notion of dying on your feet for your beliefs instead of living on your knees: the liberty you might secure probably won't be your own. That's a heck of an altruistic stance to take.
In Liberty, Rene
How about their credit scores? How about their social security numbers? Why isn't the theft of their identities treated as a netional security concern? Why isn't the buying and selling of their medical records, shopping history, the web pages they surf all a matter of national security?
Why is Wikileaks being targeted, but not TransUnion, Experian and Equifax? The government can't have it both ways (well yes, they can and often do), as it seems they are setting a double standard. It's OK to publish information about the troops if you're selling it to advertisers, but not OK to publish on Wikileaks?
Who's to say that the information TransUnion is selling is any less a threat than what's in those redacted documents? Imagine a soldier with a bad credit history being pressured to do something against national interests by someone claiming they can "fix" the credit history of the soldier...
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
I think many people in my country in Europe don't really know how to judge this, because they don't really understand what Wikileaks is and the US goverment's spin/propaganda machine is pretty dominant in the European medias. As far as I'm concerned, it is 100% clear to me that Wikileaks is a media like the press and that Julian Assange should be protected completely from persecution because he is acting as a journalist and was only disseminating information whose confidentiality was already broken. If journalists who publish confidential material are treated like terrorists, something is going in a very wrong direction, and although the law makes a difference I personally don't think it matters much whether you are formally accredited as a journalist or de facto fulfill the role of a journalist. But it seems to me that not so many people in Europe regard Assange as a journalist, partly due to the way the US government has spinned the news. Also, I doubt that many people here are aware of the fact that the US government is mainly angry about the way the documents got published.
Here is how it usually works. Government officials and contacts blackmail journalists: "If you do not ask us before publishing X you or even your paper will be a persona non grata at the White House. If on the other hand you publish the bits we approve, you get other bits of news for free. Oh by the way, I just had lunch with your boss, editor in chief of Y, a few days ago..." Assange doesn't seem to play by this game and that's why they want to crucify him. But as I said, I don't think people in Europe are more aware of this than in the US, and the public is probably split according to their general agenda towards the US.
I have in fact perused the data, and while it is overwhelming, I can assure you that I have yet to run across a single one with a name on it. I would like to know, exactly how many names were released, and examples. This entire thing stinks of craftily made government PR machine (the MMM included), to demonize Wikileaks. When they say it endangers troops, I call the bullshit, as they are simply using the age old tactic of misdirection of the public to focus ire at Wikileaks in order to minimize their fallout. Make no mistake, the real issue here is not Wikileaks, or that the documents were leaked (as I have explained in other posts, they tell those of us aware of the situation anything new, we always knew the war was going badly and that Pakistan is a problem) The issue is that we should not be there in the first place. If I send a squad of men to rush a machinegun next minutes before Arty is supposed to drop, and then someone says "Hey, I have information that this guy is sending guys unnecessarily to their deaths" Who is really endangering troops lives here? It is the entire military chain of command, and the politicians who are a threat to our troops well being! As I posted before, "Bottom line, Iraq and Afghanistan are literally not only unwinnable (barring decades and more of perseverance) but were and are indeed mismanaged, misunderstood, unnecessary, and even morally questionable."
"It's ok, I'm completely secure as long as my iron is off"
I suggest to you that 51 million Americans, armed with clubs and the odd rifle, descending on each seat of state and federal government on a few hours notice, could overthrow it. Especially with another 50 million ready in the countryside.
Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan have proven that conventional military does not do well against guerrilla forces. They have technological might, but not agility.
In Liberty, Rene
As I just said... Where are these names? I can't find any informants names... Admittedly i haven't read everything... but you know perhaps a little citation would be helpful.
If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
Everyone should read War is a Racket, written by Marine Major General Smedley Butler in the early 1930s:
--
make install -not war