Julian Assange To Write For Swedish Tabloid

An anonymous reader writes "Wikileaks founder Julian Assange has signed on as a columnist for Swedish tabloid Aftonbladet. Why such a move? Maybe there's something more to be found in Swedish law when you are employed by a newspaper." Here's an account in English, including a translation of the interview that forms part of the linked Aftenbladet article.

Comments

How has he made his living

[line-bundle]

Perhaps he just needs to earn a living like the rest of us?

Re:How has he made his living

[Scrameustache]

Of course! Securing employment as a Swedish tabloid columnist: That was his plan all along!
It's so obvious, now...

Re:How has he made his living

[Ethanol-fueled]

It's much more insidious than that.

He's already been compromised. CIA operatives intercepted him in his hotel room, doped him up with rohypnol and scopolamine, and hypnotized him into destroying the credibility of himself and Wikileaks.

Now Wikileaks will fade into obscurity forever...st least until they unearth the whereabouts of batboy.

Re:How has he made his living

[aliquis]

destroying the credibility of himself and Wikileaks.

Funny how you said that considering the credibility of a evening paper such as Aftonbladet.

Whatever sell is on for them.

Re:How has he made his living

[PopeRatzo]

Do you think he flies coach?

I'll absolutely bet he flies coach. But that's not the story, is it? The story is that we're supposed to want to kill the messenger for showing what lots of us would prefer stays hidden in the shadows.

We're not supposed to know about all the greasy things our government does in the name of "national security" and we're supposed to like it that way. Any challenge to this tacit agreement between citizen and government is met with extreme prejudice, because what kind of society would we be if we actually had to account for our collective actions?

I don't think the fact that Assange is still alive should give us any indication of his personal security. There are lots of ways to neutralize a threat to the power structure. We have lots of examples of how actual assassination is no longer necessary to remove a threat. Have you noticed how much news space has been taken up demonstrating that Assange may in fact may not be a perfect human being? I don't think those stories are materializing out of nowhere. Very few news stories do any more. So the main focus becomes Assange and his human foibles instead of the massive fuck-up in Afghanistan and elsewhere.

I hope dozens of wikileaks copycats spring up around the world. This responsibility should not be in the hands of any one person. I think this is a more worthy use for the Internet than just more commerce. In a decade, things like wikileaks won't be possible, especially without a world-wide movement toward net neutrality. Some people prefer not knowing about war crimes, and I guess I can understand that, unless you happen to be one of the victims.

Re:How has he made his living

[OrangeCatholic]

>It's a shame that such a clearly talented and charismatic man has chosen a life of faux drama and hucksterism.

Yes, but what's scary is how a shallow persona has become heroic to so many computer nerds. This is the first of many Assnagel threads on slashdot that have finally gotten around to leveling the guns at him.

I read a quote from a computer nerd a few days back that said, "It's impossible to be in computer security circles and not know people who are in Wikileaks."

But what does it mean to be "in" Wikileaks? It's one person. With a fanbase rivaling Justin Bieber's in temperament.

Re:How has he made his living

[OrangeCatholic]

>This is the first of many Assnagel threads on slashdot that have finally gotten around to leveling the guns at him.

My bad, the rest of the thread is about 9/11 and Afghanistan.

OK, in each discussion on Assnagel there is one post leveling the guns at him. I tip my hat to you.

Re:How has he made his living

[Anzya]

I'm guessing though that writing a column every other month as described in the article wouldn't be enough for most people to live on :)

Re:How has he made his living

[clarkkent09]

And what exactly did he tell us about "all the greasy things our government does" and what "massive fuck up" and "war crimes" are you talking about? Care to cite any examples? I am genuinely curious because there is no way I can read all the published documents, most of which is completely routine stuff, but I figured out someone would pick the juiciest bits for us. And yet, I haven't seen anything that justifies such a drastic step as publishing classified information and quite clearly putting lives of our Afghan allies and our own soldiers a risk.

Re:How has he made his living

[digitig]

Or maybe he's jealous of how much sex Mikael Blomkvist gets.

Re:How has he made his living

[FatLittleMonkey]

And what exactly did he tell us about what [...] "war crimes" are you talking about? Care to cite any examples?
And yet, I haven't seen anything that justifies [...] quite clearly putting lives of our Afghan allies and our own soldiers a risk.

(Pardon the elisions, I wanted to contrast those two statements. I don't think I've altered your intended meaning.)

Do you see the contradiction? You have accepted without evidence the claims that the leak "quite clearly" puts soldiers at risk, but you won't accept claims that the reports detail unlawful civilian killings, instead demanding proof.

Shouldn't you extend the same skepticism to the government's claims?

That said, I think Wikileaks screwed up the release by dumping it all at once. Since the US Gov was primed for it (after the arrest of PFC Manning) they were ready to counter-attack by making the issue about the leak itself, not the contents of the leak.

It would have been better doled out in smaller event-specific lumps. (Such as the Polish mortar attack on a village. Or the US Marine panic killing of civilians.) And better to have first privately, then publicly, approached other governments (UK, other NATO, Afghan, etc) to request help with hiding names of Afghani informants. They'd probably refuse, but you'd have media reports of the attempts before anything was released.

Re:How has he made his living

[Anonymous Coward]

sources?

Re:How has he made his living

[LaminatorX]

Let's not focus on the wrong question. Which is the greater risk to lives, both those in our services and those of innocent civilians, and to the health and standing of our republic: that posed by information released in these files or that posed by the state of the war being mis-represented to the body politic?

If some informants die or similar because wikileaks didn't scrub the data well enough, that is a tragedy. However, the magnitude of that loss is much less than that implicit in hiding the poor execution of an ongoing war effort.

Which is the more applicable truism in this case, "Loose ips sink ships." or "Democracy dies behind closed doors."? Comparing the lack of sudden tactical reversals and the upsurge in authoritarian posturing since this development, it seems to me that the latter is more apropos.

Re:How has he made his living

[AlterEager]

The hoi polli have such a collective hard-on for this man that he genuinely can do no wrong

Hoi Polloi? Are you really sure that's the phrase you meant to use? "The masses", "The mob"?

Re:How has he made his living

[ramana8]

May be he is into Swedish blondes !

Re:How has he made his living

[Itninja]

It's only 'the mob' if they are against you. Otherwise, it's taken as 'the common people'. And I presume, the AC was referring to the /. community.

Re:How has he made his living

[Anonymous Coward]

http://wardiary.wikileaks.org/afg/event/2007/06/AFG20070617n853.html

HIMARS used (cluster munitions (!))
7xNC KIA --> children

looks pretty greasy to me...

http://www.military-today.com/artillery/himars.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Mobility_Artillery_Rocket_System

Re:How has he made his living

[Anonymous Coward]

The video showing a predator drone gunning down children would probably be classed in colossal fuck-ups - at least if they were your kids.

Since they are not, no one cares, amirite? Just some desert children.

There are also the numerous friendly fire incidents that have been covered up to keep the war from becoming even more unpopular - like Tillman's.

Crazy that you'll defend this 'war' (police action) even now.

Re:How has he made his living

[Anonymous Coward]

And better to have first privately, then publicly, approached other governments (UK, other NATO, Afghan, etc) to request help with hiding names of Afghani informants. They'd probably refuse, but you'd have media reports of the attempts before anything was released.

Do you have any comprehension of how absurd that sounds? Consider this:

1. Wikileaks have obtained classified documents and are intent on releasing them since they do not trust the government's account of the war.

2. The government knows that wikileaks release such documents and the juicier the better. However, wikileaks does not necessarily know which bits are the juiciest.

3. A list of informants would be very, very juicy and thus tempting to release but it could also be a false list that is intended to mislead, in case it is released.

4. In that situation wikileaks would have to trust the government to give them a correct list and the government would have to trust wikileaks not to release it.

Since the value of any cooperation would depend entirely on mutual trust and that is obviously absent, such cooperation would be as meaningful as a joint rain dance to protect informants.

Re:How has he made his living

[clarkkent09]

I think it is "quite clear" that publishing the names of Afghans who, in Taliban's view, collaborate with the enemy puts their lives (and those US troops dealing with them) at risk without any further evidence needed. Same for publishing operational details, even coordinates of ground bases etc. Basically any information that helps the enemy be even a little bit more effective in fighting us obviously also puts lives at risk.

Btw, accidentally shooting some civilians is not a war crime. You have to show intent. Are you aware of the fact that we have killed about 2% of the number of civilians Soviets have killed while fighting the same enemy for more or less similar amount of time? I think that shows that we are pretty damn careful. The only way you can reduce the number of civilians killed down to 0 (while fighting the enemy who deliberately mixes with civilians and uses them as cover) is to surrender and let Taliban take over again which would cause far greater suffering for Afghans.

Re:How has he made his living

[JockTroll]

"The hoi polli..."

I know you probably meant "hoi polloi" but this is a funny slip of the tongue, because as a cunning linguist I know that in Italian it would sound like "oy, chicken!" which tragicomically and truly describes the loserboys who shower in Assange's diarrhoe.

Re:How has he made his living

[FatLittleMonkey]

Do you have any comprehension of how absurd that sounds?

Less and less the closer you get to the end of the very text you quoted? "They'd probably refuse, but..."

3. A list of informants would be very, very juicy and thus tempting to release but it could also be a false list that is intended to mislead, in case it is released.

Wikileaks tried to redact names of collaborators. WL isn't 4chan, they aren't doing this for lulz. If the media reported that WL had asked various governments for help, the harm-minimisation would be consistent with their stated methodology. Failing to properly cleanse the reports, OTOH, made them look callous/stupid, and allowed the US Govt to steal the debate.

4. In that situation wikileaks would have to trust the government to give them a correct list and the government would have to trust wikileaks not to release it.

That's just silly. I'm not saying ask for a complete list of all collaborators, I'm saying send a copy of the soon-to-be-leaked reports and ask "are there any names/etc that you consider sensitive?" (Analogy: Say I asked "Read my original comment, and point out any spelling mistakes." I'm not asking you to send me the entire dictionary. Nor do I have to blindly trust your response.)

Since the value of any cooperation would depend entirely on mutual trust and that is obviously absent

But asking first gives Wikileaks the moral high-ground when later criticised for putting informants at risk. "We asked you for help. You refused."

(I've read that Wikileaks has made such a request to the US DoD to help cleanse the remaining 15,000 unpublished documents. But doing it now looks cheap, they've allowed themselves to lose any moral high-ground.)

Re:How has he made his living

[spmkk]

Wow, that is incredibly short-sighted.

Let's make an analogy to the corporate world for a second (as much as we all like to hate "evil corporations"). If you're a shareholder in a company, you have a vote at shareholder meetings - just like you vote in elections and referendums if you're a citizen of the country. However, that does not -- and should not -- mean that you get to be privy to every management decision and the details of every internal action the company takes. Why? Because it is imperative to the success of that company -- and to your success as its stakeholder -- that some things remain private so as to maintain competitive advantage.

Not everything single thing the company does will be something you agree with. And not everything it does will be pretty, but it's important to understand that people higher than you might have a better perspective on the sometimes-unfortunate cost of staying in business.

Yes - sometimes a government agent who has infiltrated a drug cartel or other organized crime ring has to do some regrettable things to achieve the ultimate success of an operation. If you take the "information wants to be free" approach, go full Assange and expose each instance of such an action, all it will mean is that these actions were taken for nothing.

The world isn't perfect, and sometimes there is collateral damage in performing necessary tasks in keeping your ship afloat. Total opacity isn't the right answer either, but there IS a middle ground. Unfortunately getting to that middle ground requires some genuine thinking, which neither Assange nor his supporters seem willing to do.

"Information wants to be free" is simple. "Rights come with responsibilities" is a little more complicated.

Re:How has he made his living

[FatLittleMonkey]

(It's a bit late in the thread, but if there's anyone with mod-points left wandering around, please reverse the -1 Flamebait mods to Clarkkent09's two messages. It's obvious he's expressing a genuine belief, not trying to provoke a mindless flamewar. Suppressing a poster you disagree with isn't a fair use of mod-points. Hell, we're even sort of almost vaguely on topic.)

I think it is "quite clear" that publishing the names of Afghans who, in Taliban's view, collaborate with the enemy puts their lives [...] at risk without any further evidence needed.

Accepted.

Same for publishing operational details, even coordinates of ground bases etc. Basically any information that helps the enemy be even a little bit more effective in fighting us obviously also puts lives at risk.

No. You have to work out the net effect. Unnecessary civilian deaths drive potential allies (and neutrals) towards the enemy. That puts a hell of a lot more lives at risk than two year old patrol routes. Or long established bases.

(The reports shows such effects. Apparently the US Marine shooting I mentioned was followed by civilian rioting and had local authorities begging the US to stop patrols in that area because they feared mixing angry-shouty relatives and panicky Marines. Such events provide aid and comfort to the enemy and should be treated as such. Failure to do so is to harm the US and its allies. Any commander that covers up a civilian killing should be publicly executed.)

Btw, accidentally shooting some civilians is not a war crime. You have to show intent.

Wilful disregard is enough. (Not that anyone ever enforces that one.)

My point, however, stands. You've placed unquestioning faith in unsupported claims that the reports will get soldiers killed at some hypothetical time in the future, but won't accept claims that the reports contain records of unlawful civilian killings, unless someone details it for you. (And be honest, would you even accept it then?)

Re:How has he made his living

[PopeRatzo]

a government agent who has infiltrated a drug cartel or other organized crime ring has to do some regrettable things to achieve the ultimate success of an operation.

And at some point, that operation might go "off the rails" but the police department or FBI keeps it going, keeps putting it's officers in harm's way, to protect its own image or the image of the chief.

Even the work of those "undercover agents" you describe becomes part of the public record at trial.

The war in Afghanistan is now the longest war in the history of the United States. Wikileaks is not exposing the names of secret agents or CIA operatives. This goes way beyond that. I'm not saying that there shouldn't be some effort to redact certain names or information and that Assange didn't make mistakes. But overall, I prefer having organizations like Wikileaks in the world than just saying to the government "You go ahead and do whatever you think is best. I'd rather not know".

"Rights come with responsibilities" is something we've been hearing a lot lately. We hear it in reference to wikileaks and in reference to religious freedom and in reference to the 14th Amendment. Curious, then, that when the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution they chose to leave those "responsibilities" out of the document.

"Rights come with responsibilities" is something that is most often said by people trying to limit someone else's rights.

Re:How has he made his living

[spmkk]

"You go ahead and do whatever you think is best. I'd rather not know".

It's actually more like "You go ahead and do whatever you think is best, given all the things you've considered and I probably haven't. I'd rather the enemy not know."

Or are we so humane and politically correct now that that word isn't part of our vocabulary, even in wartime?

Re:How has he made his living

[PopeRatzo]

ou go ahead and do whatever you think is best, given all the things you've considered and I probably haven't.

See, that's not the way our government is supposed to work. The military works for civilians, not the other way around.

Further, I'm all for giving skilled people the benefit of the doubt..to a point. When a war becomes the longest in our 234 year history, it's time to tug on that leash a bit to see what kind of shit they've gotten themselves into. At a time when our military and intelligence services have gotten way to powerful, I don't believe it's prudent to give them the run of the house.

Re:How has he made his living

[mcvos]

Is that why he suddenly dyed his hair and looks like Ewan McGregor?

Re:How has he made his living

[Anonymous Coward]

The Mozart of Indian music and Oscar-winning composer A. R. Rahman recently displayed a sneak peek into the making of the Delhi 2010 theme song “O yaaro India Bulaye”. He dedicated the song to the Father of Nation Mahatma Gandhi. To know more click here http://bit.ly/cLso7o

Re:How has he made his living

[Anonymous Coward]

Commonwealth Games 2010 Delhi is approaching not far away,check out the new look of the the Website http://bit.ly/cLso7o

Re:How has he made his living

[Anonymous Coward]

Delhi is ready to get a new look during the upcoming Commonwealth Games-2010 and so has the website check out the new look http://bit.ly/cLso7o

A Swedish tabloid?

[countertrolling]

Excellent! He'll find Jimmy Hoffa for sure... and expose those alien cats that try to steal my breath while I'm asleep.

Re:A Swedish tabloid?

[DarkKnightRadick]

Do the Swedish tabloids report on alien cats? I figured they'd be more worried about alien reindeer. :p

Re:A Swedish tabloid?

[oldhack]

That's no cat, you fool.

Re:A Swedish tabloid?

[Anonymous Coward]

Aftonbladet is mostly famous for not being able to use a headline that does not contain at least two of the words death, shock, naked, sex and storm.
You can hardly write an article on alien raindeer with that limit.

Re:A Swedish tabloid?

[Sir_Lewk]

Dammit, I wish we had Sex-Storms here in the states.

Re:A Swedish tabloid?

[daveime]

It's a Space Station.

Re:A Swedish tabloid?

[Ihmhi]

Meteorologists are currently predicting a warm front in my pants. Yeah, baby!

Re:A Swedish tabloid?

[KahabutDieDrake]

I find your lack of original conversation disturbing.

Re:A Swedish tabloid?

[M8e]

This is not the conversation you are looking for.

Re:A Swedish tabloid?

[Anonymous Coward]

You wet yourself?

Re:A Swedish tabloid?

[shnull]

take a closer look, it's alien DOGS

Re:A Swedish tabloid?

[DMiax]

I find your lack of original quotation disturbing

Well...

[CSFFlame]

Is he looking for support from the laws that protect journalists?

Re:Well...

[dingen]

Or maybe the Swedish tabloid just figured he was a guy who would write interesting stuff for the readers, asked him if he was available for such a position and mister Assange agreed to write them some columns.

Re:Well...

[aliquis]

It gives him a connection to Sweden. But Aftonbladets "Utgivningsbevis" would be given to Aftonbladet and the one at the top of the responsibility chain would be the legally responsible publisher of Aftonbaldet. So I don't think that alone would help Wikileaks. It would help him say whatever he wanted though, as long as Aftonbladet decided to publish it.

Re:Well...

[The Grim Reefer2]

Or maybe the Swedish tabloid just figured he was a guy who would write interesting stuff for the readers, asked him if he was available for such a position and mister Assange agreed to write them some columns.

You still believe in Santa Claus don't you? ;-)

Re:Well...

[Anonymous Coward]

You're both right.

Re:Well...

[mark72005]

Ed Hardy bikini! You'll be the talk of the trailer park (wading) pool!

Re:Well...

[Anonymous Coward]

It amuses me that some people actually believe your suggestion is unrealistic.

Some people really are fucked in the head aren't they? If there isn't a conspiracy in absolutely everything that happens in the world ever then that in itself is a conspiracy to them.

I bet when their local supermarket drops the price of butter by a few cents these sorts of people then go off on one about how it's because the CIA has infiltrated the butter factory and is feeding mind control drugs into the process of producing it and the price drop is their way of making sure more people buy it and consume their mind control drugs. As opposed to the more likely possibility that, perhaps, the price of butter has simply decreased.

Re:Well...

[Yvanhoe]

If it is like my country (France), he needs a paid job in a registered newspaper to be recognized as a journalist.

Re:Well...

[aradnik]

my bet is that along with military secrets he got some leaks of nude celebs

Re:Well...

[Arancaytar]

That's far too... likely.

No wacky conspiracy? I don't believe it. :P

Re:Well...

[Z00L00K]

Provocative messages will sell more, and Wikileaks is provoking. Especially the US.

And Aftonbladet is a left wing tabloid press paper which means that they also like to annoy right wing people. And the US is from the European perspective (in most cases) a right-wing country.

Porn, provocation and popular politics sells! As soon as Wikileaks falls into obscurity he will have to look for some other source of income since the press won't be interested in his opinion anymore.

But there are several laws in Sweden that can protect him and his sources. If he can claim to be a journalist and publish stuff it's even illegal for the authorities to search for his sources. Doesn't matter what he do publish, it's illegal enough to have been problematic in the past for the career of policemen and politicians.

If a journalist on the other hand do publish something that's incorrect or exceeding the limits of journalistic morale the offended person can be filing a complaint at Pressens Opinionsnämnd, which can decide if the article was exceeding the moral limits and require the newspaper to post a "correction" later. To be into writing an illegal article - that requires something REALLY offensive, which I doubt that what Wikileaks has posted can be considered as.

Re:Well...

[Compaqt]

Are you serious, or just surmising?

First of all, I don't agree that there should be any special protections for journalists. Everybody should have the right to say what they want, and to be able to protect their privacy.

But I never thought that there would be a difference in protection for a columnist vs. a "journalist". After all, isn't a columnist free to speak his mind? You could say that a columnist actually needs greater protection because he is the one who is usually speaking against government officials, not journalists, who fancy a notion of impartiality.

And why wouldn't a columnist be allowed to do original research? Is there a law that says columnists can only form their opinions based upon the news in the AP newswire, and they can't receive information from sources directly?

Re:Well...

[Eli Gottlieb]

Well, given Aftonbladet's history of supporting their reporters no matter what kind of crap they turn out, this will let Assange leak whatever he wants quite freely.

Re:Well...

[envirotex]

He has recently stated that the law will not provide the protection they had first estimated so it makes sense that this is a stopgap until Wikileaks license application comes through. Here is an interview from Aug14th 2010, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QgtOtrFVGPg

Relevance???

[Gothmolly]

So his site hosted some content provided by someone else, and now we care what he does in his personal life?

I know, I know, I'm a troll, blah blah blah.

I'm MUCH more interested in the people who provide the CONTENT for Wikileaks. This guy is just another Drudge.

Re:Relevance???

[qbzzt]

I'm sure the CIA is also much more interested in the people who provide the content for Wikileaks. Unfortunately, that's harder to find and publish.

Re:Relevance???

[BatGnat]

I wonder if the CIA actually was to get their hands on a list of all the people who have "donated" to wikiLeaks, and wikiLeaks was leaked a copy of the document, would wikiLeaks publish it....?

Re:Relevance???

[qbzzt]

A more interesting question is whether any documents on wikiLeaks are already fakes donated by agents of one government or another.

Re:Relevance???

[GameboyRMH]

Good point. I was just thinking the other day that, say, the US government could release "leaked" "Iranian" papers on their "nuclear weapons plans" to WikiLeaks. The leak would be more credible coming from a third party than if the US government said they obtained them. Iran would deny that the papers are real...just as they would if the papers WERE real. And this could help justify the US going to war with Iran.

But luckily that won't happen as the US is chin-deep in two other wars at the moment. But a technologically capable group of nutjobs ("fuck up their shit" anarchists/right-wing militia) could do the same thing just to stir up some shit.

Israel, on the other hand, probably has the available resources...

Re:Relevance???

[qbzzt]

The US could, even more easily, "leak" US papers on Afghanistan. After some senior Taliban commanders appear as collaborators with the US, the Taliban will stop trusting wikiLeaks.

Re:Relevance???

[GameboyRMH]

Hahaha, good idea, they should really do that. Worst case scenario, the Taliban finds out the US tried to spread some disinformation. Yawn. Maybe the Taliban stops trusting WikiLeaks, and stops searching the leaked docs for info that could help them. Best case scenario, it undermines the Taliban's trust in their leaders.

Much better idea than the "Haha Osama is teh ghey! LOLZ!" hoax video...

Re:Relevance???

[Eli Gottlieb]

Good point. I was just thinking the other day that, say, the US government could release "leaked" "Iranian" papers on their "nuclear weapons plans" to WikiLeaks. The leak would be more credible coming from a third party than if the US government said they obtained them. Iran would deny that the papers are real...just as they would if the papers WERE real. And this could help justify the US going to war with Iran.

Silly person. The fakeness of a document on Wikileaks is in a quantum superposition: it's however fake your political biases make you think it should be.

Re:Relevance???

[gox]

the US government could release "leaked" "Iranian" papers on their "nuclear weapons plans" to WikiLeaks.

It's almost impossible to fake such a leak as there are too many people with knowledge and power who don't have conflicts with Iran (I'd guess especially within the reach of WikiLeaks guys), so the real news would possibly be that "some people tried to fake intelligence on Iranian nuclear weapons program" or such.

They could as well try to take over WikiLeaks. :-) Replace them with CIA agents, silently, over a couple of years.

Also, if confronted with such a "leak", I would count on the fact that there are a huge number of organizations with too many dissimilar multidimensional interests. You can usually read the truth, not from a single source, but through views of multiple agents.

So, all in all, I don't think this kind of strategy would work. But who knows...

Read the title and thought ...

[pmsr]

... well, it must be Aftonbladet.

Tabloid?

[bsDaemon]

Does the term 'tabloid' have the connotation of 'Weekly World News' in the rest of the world as it does in the United States, or does the term still have to do with the tabloid format as opposed to broadsheet when doing pre-press layout? Just curious as to what sort of reputation this paper has.

Re:Tabloid?

[hpa]

Aftonbladet used to be a serious newspaper, but these days they're definitely a tabloid in every sense of the world, although not yet as far down the morass as the U.S. ones.

Re:Tabloid?

[CRCulver]

The major tabloids in the Nordic countries are to the "serious newspapers" what the New York Post is to the New York Times: less detailed articles, more "infotainment", a tendency to pounce on any small news item about crime or the private lives of politicians and declare it the collapse of society.

Re:Tabloid?

[Hadlock]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aftonbladet

Tabloid has different connotations in Europe. Tabloid is more of a printing size than a rating of journalistic value. It looks like the publication he'll be writing for is on par with the New York Post or one of the many English tabloids like The Sun.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tabloid

Re:Tabloid?

[Anonymous Coward]

The newspaper has some serious journalism, but also entertainment non-news of various B or C-rate celebrities and such. Their specialty in all cases seems to be how to phrase the headlines as misleadingly as possible (and pause videos in the most compromising and misleading frames possible for use as pictures) to attract people to read the articles which are usually much less interesting than the headlines would have one think. They also enjoy making up new double words (like 'nude shock', 'sex attack' or 'death cheese'.) All in all, their reputation is probably not as good as Dagens Nyheter or Svenska Dagbladet, but it could

Re:Tabloid?

[mdemonic]

I usually dont bother complaining about modding.... but why is down this modded down? I personally don't know about aftonbladet, but his description fits the two biggest norwegian newspapers, VG and Dagbladet, like a glow. Each time I read one of the dramatic double words I die a little bit inside.

Re:Tabloid?

[AnonymousClown]

I wondered that too ... and afraid of it.

Get this, someone in Area 51 leaks alien photographs and Julian publishes them. Now what? And what if, just what if, the alien is having Tom Cruise's baby.

We'll never believe it because now Julian is working for a Swedish National Enquirer and Tom gets his alien baby.

Re:Tabloid?

[bsDaemon]

it's not down-modded. ACs post at 0 by default. It just hasn't been up-modded.

Re:Tabloid?

[nomadic]

Actually, "tabloid" in the United States generally refers to papers like the NY Post and the NY Daily News, so pretty much the same meaning over here.

Re:Tabloid?

[CRCulver]

Native speaker of US English here. I've only heard "tabloid" used to refer to things like the National Enquirer and Weekly World News, i.e. publications that don't even pretend to be thoughtful journalism.

Re:Tabloid?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah...those are secondary papers. Tabloids in the US are those gossip magazines printed on shitty newspaper with the aliens on the front covers.

Re:Tabloid?

[Frosty Piss]

Their specialty in all cases seems to be how to phrase the headlines as misleadingly as possible (and pause videos in the most compromising and misleading frames possible for use as pictures) to attract people to read the articles which are usually much less interesting than the headlines would have one think...

So, baically like Slashdot?

Re:Tabloid?

[mark72005]

Ballmer in shocking nude alien reindeer stomping death shock!

Re:Tabloid?

[Jedi Alec]

They also enjoy making up new double words (like 'nude shock', 'sex attack' or 'death cheese'.)

Do they also provide instruction on where to obtain these...nude attacks and death cheeses? Who needs sharks with friggin's laser beams attached to their heads when you can have killer cheese?

And no, just using milk from China to make it doesn't count, I'm talking cheese that bites back, baby!

Re:Tabloid?

[Anonymous Coward]

...But we still won't know whether the real father is Elvis or Michael Jackson...

Re:Tabloid?

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, then Aftonbladet does not fit into that category.

What do you call something that claims to be thoughtful journalism but obviously isn't?

Re:Tabloid?

[Sir_Lewk]

Fox News ;)

In all seriousness though, I'm not sure there is exactly a word for that. "like a tabloid but with things that actually happened" might be the best way to say it unfortunately. There are definitely similar papers here, and they'd probably be usually referred to as tabloids, but to describe something that is previously unknown as "a tabloid" would get the wrong idea across.

Re:Tabloid?

[Anonymous Coward]

A magazine

Re:Tabloid?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think that looking at the front page of their website, especially the pictures, should easily demonstrate to you what kind of publication this is, even if you don't understand the language. Tabloids aren't any more sophisticated here in Scandinavia than in the rest of the world, and the negative connotations the word brings are rightly so.

Re:Tabloid?

[RDW]

In UK English just 'tabloid' would be fine here. My impression was that even in US English there's a distinction between 'tabloid' (NY Post, etc.) and 'supermarket tabloid' (National Enquirer):

In UK English just 'tabloid' would be fine here. My impression was that even in US English there's a distinction between 'tabloid' (NY Post, etc.) and 'supermarket tabloid' (National Enquirer style):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supermarket_tabloid

Re:Tabloid?

[RDW]

Hmm, looks like Martians Made Me Mess Up My Post! I should write to the Daily Sport about it...

Re:Tabloid?

[ProppaT]

Basically a tabloid. Traditional tabloids are a medium for yellow journalism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_journalism

Re:Tabloid?

[Compaqt]

The thing is, why should "tabloid" mean sleazy?

After all, it's just a paper size.

Is there something inherent in a huge, unwieldy piece of paper that makes suitable for "serious news"?

Or is it that broadsheets are meant for people reading the news at their desks?

And tabloids for people that need their paper to take up as little space as possible because they're working class people on the bus/subway/train? And the latter sort would be more interested in non-serious news?

Re:Tabloid?

[Maarx]

Oh, then Aftonbladet does not fit into that category.

What do you call something that claims to be thoughtful journalism but obviously isn't?

We call it a rag, or sometimes, just "crappy newspaper".

We've got newspapers, we've got rags, and we've got tabloids. Tabloids are what you find in the supermarket checkout and tell you things like Oprah just had her 23rd secret child and that aliens have infiltrated the government.

Re:Tabloid?

[Anonymous Coward]

Does the term 'tabloid' have the connotation of 'Weekly World News' in the rest of the world as it does in the United States

No. Though the term is used enough to be known in many places it usually only refers to the format outside of the USA. Nevertheless, there IS a correlation between that format and the junk rags even outside of the USA.

Re:Tabloid?

[Eli Gottlieb]

Now a full-season anime!

Re:Tabloid?

[Anonymous Coward]

Aftonbladet used to be a serious newspaper, but these days they're definitely a tabloid in every sense of the world, although not yet as far down the morass as the U.S. ones.

Not in every sence of the word. The content of AB is a bit schizofrenic. Most content is very low brow, much like tabloids in US and UK (but only almost as bad), but then whole sections in the paper (like the editorial page and the sections about culture and politics) is very, very serious and high brow. Other articles, depending on content, is educational and lecturing intended to educate the masses (whenever I read Aftonbladet, I can't decide if I hate the cheap gossip and paparazzi pictures of celebrities, or the lecturing most).

It is a bit like Playboy during its early years. Most people bought Playboy for its pornographic images and articles (as people buy AB for its gossip and paparazzi pictures, and of course its TV guide), but not all of its content was sexually oriented and some content was rather high quality (not only as pornography).

Re:Tabloid?

[mcvos]

The worst, most sensationalist Dutch newspaper, with screaming headlines and unreadable layout, publishes on broad sheet, whereas some reasonable quality newspapers publish in tabloid size.

Swedish Law

[cappp]

I'm not a Swedish law expert, and if someone has a better grasp they should correct me, but it would seem that there's a clear legal advantage to being a journalist. The Freedom of the Press Act includes the following in Chapter 1, Article 1:

All persons shall likewise be free, unless otherwise provided in this Act, to communicate information and intelligence on any subject whatsoever, for the purpose of publication in print, to an author or other person who may be deemed to be the originator of material contained in such printed matter, the editor or special editorial office, if any, of the printed matter, or an enterprise which professionally purveys news or other information to periodical publications.
All persons shall furthermore have the right, unless otherwise provided in this Act, to procure information and intelligence on any subject whatsoever, for the purpose of publication in print, or in order to communicate information under the preceding paragraph.

What I found more interesting was the stuff buried down in Chapter 7 where it's noted that

Art. 4. With due regard to the purpose of freedom of the press for all under Chapter 1, the following acts shall be deemed to be offences against the freedom of the press if committed by means of printed matter and if they are punishable under law:

4. unauthorised trafficking in secret information, whereby a person, with-out due authority but with no intent to assist a foreign power, conveys, consigns or discloses information concerning any circumstance of a secret nature, the disclosure of which to a foreign power could cause detriment to the defence of the Realm or the national supply of goods in the event of war or exceptional conditions resulting from war, or otherwise to the security of the Realm, regardless of whether the information is correct; any attempt or preparation aimed at such unauthorised trafficking in secret information;

That would seem to suggest that if Swedish defence is undermined by WikiLeaks then there are grounds for prosecution. As far as I know Sweden doesn't have forces in Iraq but they do have people in Afghanistan.

Re:Swedish Law

[copponex]

You'd have to make an argument that the Afghan state presents a clear and present danger to Sweden. Just imagine - a mostly tribal society, who scarcely make $500 per year per person, massing a military force and successfully overpowering the Swedish defense forces. After marching through either through Russia, or attacking via air corridors through Europe, or getting permission from Iran or Pakistan to build a naval base, and then building a navy to be stationed there.

The only people credulous enough for that argument are American voters.

Re:Swedish Law

[Anonymous Coward]

They were definitely taken in, but there's no need to oversell it. American voters believed that a tribal society being funded by a billionaire might be able to launch a nuclear weapon. That's not quite the same thing.

Re:Swedish Law

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, nowadays most average sized motorcycle clubs would probaby overtake the "Swedish defense forces" in a matter of hours. :p

Re:Swedish Law

[cappp]

I have no idea about the standard for danger under Swedish law but that section is written really broadly. All you have to show is "detriment to the defence of the Realm or the national supply of goods...or otherwise to the security of the Realm." Hopefully a Swedish legal expert can jump in there but depending on how high a bar the courts set, it would appear that it wouldn't be all that difficult really.

Re:Swedish Law

[qbzzt]

The only people credulous enough for that argument are American voters.

I wonder why people in the US are so credulous as to believe they can be attacked by what appears to be civilians, rather than a regular military force. Maybe because last time the rate was approximately 150 casualties on our side, to each one of theirs?

Re:Swedish Law

[LordLucless]

Ahh, but you're using the actual definition of defence. I would be unsurprised if endangering troops in Afghanistan was considered a detriment to the defence of the realm, in that, if the soldiers were killed in Afghanistan the "defence force" as a whole would be weakened.

Re:Swedish Law

[copponex]

Yeah. All of those middle class Saudi Arabians committed a horrific crime. I'm really glad we forced the Saudi government to help us bring the remaining criminals to justice, and root out and prosecute all of their enablers. Oh wait: we didn't punish Saudi Arabia at all, or even get them to sign an extradition treaty. And where did all of the money come from?

Financing of the Plot
To plan and conduct their attack, the 9/11 plotters spent somewhere between $400,000 and $500,000, the vast majority of which was provided by al Qaeda. Although the origin of the funds remains unknown, extensive investigation has revealed quite a bit about the financial transactions that supported the 9/11 plot. The hijackers and their financial facilitators used the anonymity provided by the huge international and domestic financial system to move and store their money through a series of unremarkable transactions. The existing mechanisms to prevent abuse of the financial system did not fail. They were never designed to detect or disrupt transactions of the type that financed 9/11

Oh man. We totally nailed that one. It's a good thing Al Qaeda are so dumb, or they'd keep finding friendly states with zero infrastructure, and using them to launch attacks so we get stuck in intractable war after intractable war, eventually bleeding our treasury dry.

We'd never be dumb enough to fall for it, though. Right?

Re:Swedish Law

[aliquis]

That's complete bullshit.

http://www.globalfirepower.com/
http://www.globalfirepower.com/country-military-strength-detail.asp?country_id=Sweden

Defense Budget: $7,000,000,000 [2008]

Fit for Military Service: 3,336,983 [2008]
Active Military Personnel: 34,000 [2008]
Active Military Reserve: 262,000 [2008]
Active Paramilitary Units: 38,650 [2008]

Total Land-Based Weapons: 540
Total Aircraft: 744 [2003]
Helicopters: 150 [2003]
Total Navy Ships: 77

Good luck with that.

Sure we've lowered military budget and defenses since the end of the Soviet union but it would still be a bitch for them to actually take over anything.

The current government also added 20,000 more police men/women.

I would agree upon that we should use the police and/or military to end all military organizations asap instead of only accusing individuals and let the organizations roam on. But if we did it's not like they would have plenty to push back with.

Re:Swedish Law

[Anonymous Coward]

Yea, totally crazy that some bunch of tribalists could gather the funds and training necessary to hijack airplanes and fly them into Swedish buildings and kill anybody.

Re:Swedish Law

[Anonymous Coward]

On September 11 democracy also paid heavily. We now know the terrorists;

        * came from Tunisia, Algeria and Saudi Arabia.
        * Trained in Yemen, Sudan and Afghanistan.
        * Met in Indonesia and Malaysia.
        * Were funded through Italy and Germany.
        * And were taught to fly in America.

There can only be one response: Attack Iraq!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fvOrPd_fqCA

Re:Swedish Law

[sumdumass]

Yea, and why we are dumb enough to fall for that, lets also forget that after 9/11 we knew where Al Qeada was and we asked for either the ability to go after them or to have the Afghan government deliver them to justice and were told no, they were going to protect them. But hey, lets not let verifiable history get in the way of your rant. I mean according to you, we should have ignored the physical location of Al Qeada, the physical location of their training camps and recruitment centers, we should have ignored the Taliban government not only offering but giving them safe haven, and instead attacked some location that we seemed to have traced supporters from.

Here is a hint for the mentally challenged. Just because someone from a country does something, it does not mean that country supports the act or that the act was done on their behalf. I have personally attempted (in a drunken stupor) to piss all over Buckingham palace but that doesn't mean the US was behind it. The fact is that we knew where Al Qeada was, there was a government protecting them, and we rightfully displaced that government. Saudi Arabia did not fight us on finding the culprits, in fact, they helped locate them as a government. I'm sorry that you can't see a difference there, but the rest of the sane world does.

Re:Swedish Law

[mjwx]

You'd have to make an argument that the Afghan state presents a clear and present danger to Sweden. Just imagine - a mostly tribal society, who scarcely make $500 per year per person, massing a military force and successfully overpowering the Swedish defence forces.

This occurs, Sweden remains neutral.

Re:Swedish Law

[copponex]

The Taliban would be ready to discuss handing over Osama bin Laden to a neutral country if the US halted the bombing of Afghanistan, a senior Taliban official said today. Afghanistan's deputy prime minister, Haji Abdul Kabir, told reporters that the Taliban would require evidence that Bin Laden was behind the September 11 terrorist attacks in the US.

"If the Taliban is given evidence that Osama bin Laden is involved" and the bombing campaign stopped, "we would be ready to hand him over to a third country", Mr Kabir added. But it would have to be a state that would never "come under pressure from the United States", he said.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/oct/14/afghanistan.terrorism5

Here's the current wanted page for OBL. I guess we still don't have any evidence for 9/11:
http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/terrorists/terbinladen.htm

Here's a note to anyone unfamiliar with how the law works: in order to prosecute a criminal and have them extradited from a foreign country, you have to present evidence to the ruling government. If you can't produce evidence, they are under no legal obligation to allow you to extradite anyone.

I guess the next time Cuba or Venezuela tries to extradite terrorists who've blown up Cuban airliners who are living in Miami, you won't mind if they drop some ordinance around Palm Beach until we capitulate.

Re:Swedish Law

[Anonymous Coward]

Whoosh!

Re:Swedish Law

[KahabutDieDrake]

Drop away. Imagine the redevelopment contracts! It'll be a boon year for some lucky construction conglomerate.

Re:Swedish Law

[sumdumass]

I'm not sure what your point is. Or is it possible that even after you posted part of your link, you either didn't read it or do not comprehend what is actually says. Perhaps I can explain it to you. Let me know if you get lost.

The Taliban would be ready to discuss handing over Osama bin Laden to a neutral country if the US halted the bombing of Afghanistan,

First, this fails to address anything I said because it's after the decision had already been made to remove the Taliban from power for protecting Al Qeada and Osama Bin Laden. Second, the decision to remove the Taliban from power was made before this statement was made and it was made because Taliban refused to go after either OBL or AQ. The Taliban also prevented us from going in after them. Third, we didn't just want Osama, we wanted the entire organization called Al Qeada which Osama was the leader of. Handing us the leader and allowing the terrorist organization to remain simply isn't acceptable. Fourth, they didn't want to turn Osama over to the US, they would only turn him over to a disinterested third party country and that isn't acceptable. Finally, there is no reason to believe the statement had any merit behind it as it was a ploy to avoid being dethroned from the seat of government, an ultimatum already presented to them with the Taliban clearly choosing to protect Osama and Al Qeada.

Your second link is a non-issue too. More and more evidence of Bin Laden's involvement in 9/11 comes in all the time. There is already a solid indictment against him so there is no need to mess with another and possibly give up sources of information until he is in custody. Furthermore, it's pointless to even bring that up as it's not just Bin Laden that we were after.

I guess the next time Cuba or Venezuela tries to extradite terrorists who've blown up Cuban airliners who are living in Miami, you won't mind if they drop some ordinance around Palm Beach until we capitulate.

Perhaps you should go back to third grade reading and work on your comprehension skills a bit. Everyone involved was captured and trialed except for Posada who escaped after being acquitted in a military tribunal. Posada ended up gaining asylum because of the threat of torture if he was extradited which is consistent with international law (read treaties that the US, Venezuela and Cuba are part of). There is no parallel there because neither Bin Laden or Al Qeada faced such a threat if prosecuted in the US in 2001.

And yes, I do happen to mind if Cuba or Venezuela drops ordinance in Miami. If you somehow see a parallel between that and 9/11, then you are more fucked then I thought. If they do, I fully expect war just like what happened in Afghanistan and I fully expect Cuba or Venezuela to lose. I also expect that should this ever happen, that the US government go all out and instead of redeveloping the territory and giving it back, that we keep it and rape the resources in the lands.

Re:Swedish Law

[a_n_d_e_r_s]

Wikileaks has applied for a newspaper-registration in Sweden. That mean that Wikileak will get additional protection and treatment like any newspaper here in sweden.

Why Sweden you ask ? Well Wikileak are partly hosted in Sweden and one Swedish political party - the Pirate party has said they are willing to give Wikileaks internet access.

The Pirate Party is probably the only political party in the world with their own AS number http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autonomous_system_(Internet) thus they are one of the networks that are connected to other networks that all together form the Internet.

Re:Swedish Law

[cappp]

Thats what I was wondering about really - if Assange becomes a contributor to a newspaper, and draws on wikileaks as a source for his columns, does that perhaps meet the standard of "author and contributor" as defined in the Freedom of Press law. So essentially I'm wondering if this job in itself can be used to shield WikiLeaks in the event of it failing to achieve newspaper-registration.

Re:Swedish Law

[HungryHobo]

"There is no parallel there because neither Bin Laden or Al Qeada faced such a threat if prosecuted in the US in 2001."

of course, they wouldn't torture them on US soil, they'd have sent them over to gitmo or some other facility first.

If you don't remember the UK stopped sending prisioners to the us a while back because

"Given the clear differences in definition, the UK can no longer rely on US assurances that it does not use torture " - Foreign Affairs Select Committee

Remember a while back when the US government decided that it's not torture, it's freedom tickling as long as it's the US doing it?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7515517.stm

Lets make the situation clearer for you- say American terrorists killed a lot of people in another country.

Random scenario, lets say some crazy chirstian sect who think the muslims are taking over the world blew up the Royal Méridien Hotel and killed a few thousand people.
Lets say the people who carried out the bombing were mostly mexicans with a few canadians in the mix but no americans took part.

So the UAE demands the united states turn over the leader and members of one of the crazy terrorist chirstian organisations, probably the ones responsible but not certain.

The UAE offer no evidence, they offer no proof at all that people they're demanding are responsible.

At this point what should the US do?

1:Just hand over US citizens with no proof that they've committed any crime?(Would this even be constitutional?)
2:Demand proof that they're actually responsible rather than just hand over US citizens on the good word of an unfriendly forgien government?
3:Tell the UAE to fuck off.

Now lets say the UAE had a much stronger military than the US.

Now lets say the US has demanded proof, would the correct course of action for the UAE now be to

1: Give proof?
2: Bomb the shit out of some US cities to show that they really mean buisness?
 

Re:Swedish Law

[AlterEager]

You'd have to make an argument that the Afghan state presents a clear and present danger to Sweden.

If they can present a clear and present danger to the USA surely they can present a clear and present danger to tiny little Sweden.

Oh, I see what you did there, sorry...

Re:Swedish Law

[tnk1]

There are other ways besides direct military action that one state can become a threat to another state. NATO didn't go into Afghanistan because of oil or resources, they went in because they were harboring and supporting an asymmetric warfare organization known led by a certain Mr. Bin Laden. The success of the mission to date, or lack thereof, is the result of the then Afghan "government" supporting and housing a group that was a clear and present danger to the United States and other countries.

So, yes, Afghanistan as a state could pose a clear and present danger to Sweden, even if Afghanistan's official armed forces can't even get near Sweden.

Re:Swedish Law

[sumdumass]

of course, they wouldn't torture them on US soil, they'd have sent them over to gitmo or some other facility first.

If you don't remember the UK stopped sending prisioners to the us a while back because

And of course you knew all that in 2001 because of what? Nothing indicated that the US would have sent them to some other facility or that they would be subject to torture at all at the time. In fact, all indications were that they would be put on a very public trial. Furthermore, absolutely no one at the time was making the claim even close to torture by the US.

So I have to ask, are you purposely interpreting history through the eyes of future events or is the time line and facts just that difficult?

At this point what should the US do?

1:Just hand over US citizens with no proof that they've committed any crime?(Would this even be constitutional?)
2:Demand proof that they're actually responsible rather than just hand over US citizens on the good word of an unfriendly forgien government?
3:Tell the UAE to fuck off.

I will skip the fact that your scenario is not only a logical fallacy, it doesn't really resemble the actual situation. But yes, the US should hand over all foreign members of the organization involved and any US citizen that an international warrant has been issued for if their criminal justice system is similar enough to the US's that they would receive a fair trial. Another note on that is with the duality clause in the existing UAE treaty which requires the actions to be criminal in both jurisdictions, there is also the jurisdictional clause which allows the citizens of a state to be held for trial in that state if the crime's penalties are simular enough in scope.

And yes, the US does extradict it's own citizens as was the case with John Demjanjuk in recent times.

Now lets say the UAE had a much stronger military than the US.

It doesn't matter.

Now lets say the US has demanded proof, would the correct course of action for the UAE now be to

1: Give proof?
2: Bomb the shit out of some US cities to show that they really mean buisness?

I'm not sure what your point is. Every conflict or war in the world is started by demands of some sort that the other side doesn't think is reasonable or doesn't comply with. So the correct course of action is to weight your options and respond to anything that happens. The US thought that getting a hold of Bin Laden and his organization to which we already had an international indictment out which more then serves as proof was important enough in the effort to stop future attacks that removing the government's protecting him and his organization from power and attempting to capture them directly was worth a war.

Most certainly, if the UAE bombed the US, there would be a war, a serious war. If the UAE didn't have a legit enough reason, that war would involve our allies coming to our aid which negates your entire stronger army scenario. And No, the US did not just state we want Al Qeada with no proof and then start bombing after we were refused. That line of absent thinking does a discredit to history, any resemblance of facts, and the men and women on both sides of the fight that have laid down their lives,

You act as if there wasn't any existing warrants out for Bin Laden or members of Al Qeada, This is where your hypothetical fails miserable in any comparison to the start of the Afghanistan war as international warrants were already in play at the time the US demanded the Taliban hand over Bin Laden. Do you remember Bush's statement of "you are either with us or against us, if you aid or protect terrorists, you are against us"? Do you even know what that was about? It was about existing warrants being issued for most of the major players in organizing 9/11 and those

Re:Swedish Law

[aliquis]

military organizations? Of course I meant criminal organizations.

Speaking of people in Afghanistan that's another issue. Sure if tens-hundreds of thousands of people walked over we would have an issue.

But in that case I assume most people would become much more nationalistic than they are now after more than 200 years with no wars.

We had compulsory national service but just ended it / will end it in current time, I however haven't done it but almost all people of my age (born 1979) has.

If I actually felt threatened by an invader I would however want to get a gun myself to.. soo.

I know it has been said the same about the US. That it would be a bitch to take it over because more or less everyone got a gun / there are plenty / easy access, so good luck trying to beat those quarter billion people with guns in their hands :D

Re:Swedish Law

[elrous0]

We didn't think of them as much a danger either; until they knocked down our World Trade Center, destroyed a large section of out Pentagon, took down 4 airliners, and killed 3,000 of our people--all in the course of about 2 hours. Religious fanatics are always dangerous to the secularized West. Hell, they're always dangerous *in* the secularized West.

ALIEN DEATHSHOCK REINDEER INVASION

[AffidavitDonda]

Alien deathshock reindeers storming Stockholm. All the secret files now on Wikileaks!

works good enough...

Re:ALIEN DEATHSHOCK REINDEER INVASION

[The Archon V2.0]

Alien deathshock reindeers storming Stockholm. All the secret files now on Wikileaks! works good enough...

And it'd probably be the most-clicked-on Wikileaks item ever.

Re:This Guy

[MichaelSmith]

Assange didn't release the information. His source did, and could have posted it raw on the internet.

Tor Worm

[Anonymous Coward]

To support the Iranian people in 2008, I ran a Toir relay. I eventually ran one to help with WikiLeaks. I used my neighbors Internet connection over WiFi (which I helped pay for). - he didn't care. But, ICE ended up raiding his house looking for kiddy porn. Of course, they didn't find any and I have since learned that this is a hazard with running these relays. Though, the warrant mysteriously disappeared and there is no record of the raid, so this makes me think that the FBI/ICE is raiding Tor Relay operators under the guise of anti-child porn, imaging their drives and then dropping the case.

So, how do you fight back against something like this? I have created an autoinstalling version of Tor that is automatically set to operate in Relay mode (/w uPNP enabled). I just place this autoinstaller in a dozen locations on the web and change the payload url of an existing worm out with this. Imagine how overwhelmed the thugs in ICE would be if 10,000 Tor Relays popped up overnight.

Re:Tor Worm

[Pedrito]

Link or it didn't happen.

Re:Tor Worm

[Anonymous Coward]

That is why they want to give the President the right to shut down the Internet.

Re:Tor Worm

[Anonymous Coward]

Do it.

Re:Tor Worm

[Americano]

Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) raids places looking for child pornography now? I would've thought that'd be a matter for the FBI, since they have primary jurisdiction over child pornography investigations & enforcement.

Sorry, but this story sounds pretty sketchy.

Re:Tor Worm

[Mashiki]

The entire story is sketchy because you have the right idea. ICE has no care or dealings with kiddie porn, they deal with immigration, lack thereof, or employment of illegals. Even kiddie porn the FBI doesn't deal with unless there's a major reason(such as a ring), it's left to the state level(state police, or even local enforcement).

Re:Tor Worm

[Anonymous Coward]

Read the GGP post again. He thought the pornography charges were falsified to allow access to the household. But I do think he is full of shit.

Re:Tor Worm

[Anonymous Coward]

Try to find tor relay program for home router firmware alternatives like openwrt. People usually have their home routers on 24/7.

Re:Tor Worm

[Anonymous Coward]

I ran a Toir relay (...) I used my neighbors Internet connection over WiFi (...) ICE ended up raiding his house looking for kiddy porn (...) I have since learned that this is a hazard with running these relays.

I really don't know what i should call you first: complete idiot or spineless, back-stabbing asshole.

If you're not ready to take on risks yourself when helping others, DON'T FUCKING DO IT, RETARD!

Re:Tor Worm

[Anonymous Coward]

A quick googling shows the link is on this page:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rickrolling

Re:Tor Worm

[Americano]

And yet he was modded +4 interesting. Why? Because his unsubstantiated lies go with the prevailing nutter wisdom that the government is watching our every move in order to stifle free speech.

Frankly, I'm shocked that FBI and ICE didn't shut down his ability to post to slashdot, too! After all, if they can show up and raid outside their jurisdiction with a search warrant that doesn't exist, it seems to me that cutting him off from repeating the story to credulous mods on slashdot would be their next highest priority.

Re:Tor Worm

[gox]

I just place this autoinstaller in a dozen locations on the web and change the payload url of an existing worm out with this. Imagine how overwhelmed the thugs in ICE would be if 10,000 Tor Relays popped up overnight.

If you want to help them create a case against on-line privacy and anonymity, fine. Otherwise, just, don't.

However, you could start a "run an exit node from your grandma's apartment" campaign.

Re:This Guy

[siddesu]

You sound angry, but your anger is directed at the wrong people.

Instead of asking for the extradition of Assange, you should be asking for the court martial for the officers (high and low) who are in charge of IT security of the US army.

You should be asking for hefty refunds from the companies (undoubtedly laced with a lot of former brass) that were paid money to supply the hardware and software for the said information processing. Maybe they should cover part of the costs for helping your informants.

Those "heroes" are the people who are responsible for the data leakage and for the danger to everyone who is assisting them in Afghanistan.

Re:This Guy

[Kev Vance]

You can't *start* a thread by Godwinning it! That's what Hitler would have done!

Proper translation into Swedish-

[Overzeetop]

"Essunge-a elreedy vurks veet zee Noo Yurk Teemes, zee Gooerdeeun, und Der Speeegel. Boot he's nut yet vurked es a culoomneest fur uny poobleeceshun. Sterteeng noo thet veell chunge-a. Essunge-a met Efftunbledet's ideetur in cheeeff Jun Heleen yesterdey. Bork bork bork! 'It's nu cueencidence-a thet I'm gueeng tu be-a vreeting fur a Svedeesh peper. Hurty flurty schnipp schnipp! Zee Svedeesh poobleecist cooltoore-a und Svedeesh lev hefe-a sooppurted us frum zee begeenning', seeed Essunge-a."

(-chef, that is. What? You knew somebody had to do it!)

Re:Proper translation into Swedish-

[kosmonot]

Assange is a creepy dude. And my sïster wås bïtten by a møøse once.

Re:Proper translation into Swedish-

[MartinSchou]

That looks more like Dutch than Swedish.

But then again, the Swedish Chef also sounds a lot more like he's speaking Dutch than Swedish

Re:Proper translation into Swedish-

[BrentH]

This reads nor sounds remotely like a Dutch person speaking English. This sounds like the typical (north) European accent as heard exclusively on American TV ;)

Re:Proper translation into Swedish-

[Per Wigren]

No, THIS is what Swedish sounds like.

Re:Proper translation into Swedish-

[Per Wigren]

Nah, he is clearly imitating a Frenchman trying to speak English...

Re:This Guy

[vux984]

I am sure the informants thought they were providing the information anonymously.

The information the informants provided us also led to lost innocent lives. Are they despicable traitors with no common sense too?

Funny how Assange is a despicable traitor "journalist" who gets compared with a Nazi.

But you probably view the informants themselves as heroes yet they are no different. Think about that for a second. Informant: by definition they are people embedded within within a group, informing that groups ENEMY information about the group.

Suppose it were an american telling the taliban information -- he would be an 'informant' too. If a person leaked documents with his name... what exactly would you say about THAT?

Remember that the information our informants provide us runs do lead to innocent people getting killed too. They give us names and addresses and the locations people will be... and we drop a bomb... and maybe we hit the guy we're looking for. Maybe we kill some innocent children near by too... or maybe the information was bad and we bombed a factory making bed sheets killing a bunch of innocent people.

the perfect Swedish publication for Assange...

[Tumbleweed]

The perfect Swedish publication for Assange would be Millennium! :)

Re:the perfect Swedish publication for Assange...

[Anonymous Coward]

For the uninitiated, Millennium was the publication that Mikael Blomkvist worked for in the movie "The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo."

Re:the perfect Swedish publication for Assange...

[Tumbleweed]

For the uninitiated, Millennium was the publication that Mikael Blomkvist worked for in the movie "The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo."

And in the book. :)

Re:This Guy

[hnangelo]

And it's SWEDEN, not Switzerland.

Should ...

[AresTheImpaler]

He should work for the Millennium magazine in Stockholm...

Re:This Guy

[BJ_Covert_Action]

We could dub this tactic Blitzkrieging a thread. =)

Re:Sold Out

[Darkness404]

Bullshit. The only person he put at risk are the warmongers running this country. If I invest in a company I have a right to know the financial details of the company, but yet when I'm forced to "invest" in a war suddenly they can obscure all the details?

A democracy becomes nothing more than a mob if information is not released, if the government wouldn't release it, I applaud Julian Assange for having the balls to post it so the world can make a rational decision on whether it is worth it to continue the war.

Re:This Guy

[Anonymous Coward]

Looks like someone didn't like the OP, didn't like your response, and decided to spend two of their mod points making that known. Too bad they could not bring themselves to forgo moderating in this thread and actually find the balls to post a response instead of taking the chickenshit way out.

So why won't google translate translate the websit

[Snaller]

I think that's a more interesting question.

Re:This Guy

[Darkness404]

Democracy can only work if people have access to -all- the information available to make an informed decision. Tainted information be it from media bias or government secrecy undermines it. How do you know what the Taliban does? We are fed propaganda every day. No, I'm not saying that the Taliban are nice people, that we should support them (though we did) or that the conventional view is wrong, but think about where you get your information from and you will find that you really could have been fed pure lies. Without information, how do you make that decision?

It is important to end imperialistic wars because it -always- bites us in the ass later on. These ever so evil Taliban fighters? Oh wait we supported them against the "evil" USSR. Saddam Hussein? Oh wait we helped him too...

If you think the US supports human rights you are sadly mistaken, imperialistic wars like the wars in the middle east and Vietnam have -always- ended up in a net loss for human rights and a net loss for the world.

Re:Sold Out

[Darkness404]

Yes, because killing civilians and continuing imperialistic wars has really made the world a better place! Look back 30 years, how the hell do you think the Taliban got into power? Oh wait, back then Russia was the "bad guy" and fundamentalist Islam was the "good guy" so we ended up supplying them with guns, bombs, etc. How do you think Hussein got into power? Oh wait we helped him get into power... How do you think that all these dictators running most of South America got into power?

The sooner we end the wars the better it is for the US and the rest of the world.

Re:This Guy

[Darkness404]

Why don't we be angry at "our" government for forcing us into this war despite popular opinion and history against it (want to know why Saddam and radical Islam control the middle east? Look back to the 80s when we were actively funding them).

Re:This Guy

[sycodon]

When we got into Afghanistan, everyone was for it. Well, maybe not code-pinkos, but the vast majority of Americas supported it.

Re:This Guy

[aliquis]

Sign up now and help protect the ocean reefs of Austria!

Ummm actually

[Sycraft-fu]

You seem to have a bit of a selective memory, regarding the incidents after 9/11. When the US went to war with Afghanistan, it has the support of the international community. It was Iraq that various countries protested and/or questioned.

Now that doesn't mean it was a good idea, but this arrogant attitude that only the American voters would believe that Afghanistan was a legit target with regards to 9/11 is revisionist history.

Re:This Guy

[sycodon]

Good thing we are not a Democracy then eh? You and your friends deciding which skate park to go to is a democracy,

Re:Sold Out

[Darkness404]

But carry on. Keep obsessing and feeding the vain egotistical schmuck. Keep giving him the power to dictate and jerk you around like a dog on a leash. Put him on a pedestal as an authority and praise his name like he's some new messiah. When you find out you've been wasting your time and people get hurt you might learn.

Yes, because we all know that imperialistic wars historically have always been great, right? Oh wait... they haven't. Explain to me how by using facts and reason I'm being led like a dog on the leash.

FACT The US helped arm and fund Islamic radicals in the 80s.

FACT The US is wasting tons upon tons of money in these imperialistic wars

FACT The US has killed many civilians in this imperialistic war

Explain to me how using facts and reason is making me be a sheep? Lets see here the argument in favour of the war and the "troops" goes as follows:

We were attacked by Islamic terrorists on 9/11 THEREFORE we must invade 2 countries, kill lots of civilians, cause mass chaos and waste money and if you don't support this you are "Un-American" because terrorists are bad.

Now granted, 30 years ago the argument was:

The Communists have an atomic bomb!!! THEREFORE we must invade countless countries, support various Islamic organizations and right wing dictators and waste money if you don't support this you are "Un-American" because COMMUNISM IS EVIL JUST PURE EVIL

These documents only echo history, imperialistic wars waste taxpayer money, kill innocents, support murders and decline standards of living.

I'm not worried

[blhack]

Keep in mind that Christopher Hitchens, who I think is absolutely brilliant, is a contributing editor for Vanity Fair, a pop culture magazine.

Re:I'm not worried

[Anonymous Coward]

And now he's dying of cancer. CANCER. I don't claim that they're related, but if you look at the statistics you'll find some utterly SHOCKING statistics.

Re:I'm not worried

[Vintermann]

Christpher Hitchens, who is most famous for his atheism, writes for a magazine named after a village in a puritan Christian allegory. It's a strange world.

Re:This Guy

[5pp000]

No, the leaker, Bradley Manning, was an insider. I don't think you can put it all on the IT security people, although some review and revision of procedures may be in order.

The GP's concern is valid if there's any truth to the suggestion that informants' lives have been endangered. The Pentagon certainly wants us all to think so, but I have heard some interesting counterpoints, for example, that the identities of the informants are actually fairly well-known already. Could be true, and I certainly don't trust the Pentagon.

Despite that, I don't agree that the GP should wind up as -1, Flamebait. As somebody's sig always says, there is no "-1, Disagree" moderation on Slashdot.

Re:This Guy

[Darkness404]

We have a republican form of government that in essence boils down to a democracy. Ask people why they voted a certain way and the vast majority of people voted because of a few "key" issues, issues like abortion, global warming, stem cell research, wars, taxes, etc. So yes, we do have a democracy when it comes to wars, think of how many people voted for Bush the second term rather than any other candidate simply because they supported the war or some other single issue.

The vast majority of races for congress, governor, president, etc. have come down to basic democracy on a few issues.

Re:This Guy

[Darkness404]

...Only because we were lied to and were impulsive. If people thought we would still be actively fighting a war in Afghanistan in 2010, I can guarantee you that it wouldn't have much support. If people actually remembered their history and realized that we keep funding the people who we fight a generation later, and this was widely proclaimed through the media, there wouldn't be much support. But alas, the American people was essentially told that the fighting would be over in a few weeks and the mainstream media was too sensationalized to actually look at history so "we" got stuck with the war.

Re:This Guy

[sycodon]

We have a republican form of government that in essence boils down to a democracy

I have a blue car, which in essence boils down to a red car.

That's how much your statement makes.

Re:This Guy

[vux984]

Do you actually comprehend what sort of people the Taliban are, and what they do to people who, for example, teach their daughters to read?

They are certainly no worse than serial killers in America. When was the last time police justified killing innocent American's in order to reach a serial killer by saying "Do you actually comprehend what sort of person he is. What he does to people? Sure I got a bunch of innocent children killed... but you don't understand... he was really bad."

You've never heard the police say that because it goes against everything we stand for. It ridiculous on its face. Yet if those innocent people aren't American's its somehow different? Who's moral compass is broken?

Oh wait... we're at "war" with them, right. And that makes it right how?

Are we at war with them because they are bad people who treat there daughters poorly and violate what we feel are their essential human rights? Of course not, we were even happy to SUPPORT them and PROVIDE THEM WEAPONS AND MONEY when they were serving our political interests... they weren't "nicer" back then, and they haven't really changed at all.

There is plenty of brutality in the world... Darfur springs to mind. Are we doing much about the genocide there? Hmm... nope. Genocide is bad too, right? I'd say it's even worse than medieval thinking about the education of women and outdated policies on beard length. Only a complete idiot would seriously argue that we are in afghanistan because the taliban are 'bad people'. The world is full of bad people. Yet we are in afghanistan while we write 'stern letters' to groups who are much worse.

If we were in Afghanistan to make it a better place, you might have leg to stand on. But we're not, and we're not going to make the world safer as a whole by invading other countries. Even if you WIN more innocent people have died due to the invasion than you would ever have saved by invading.

So far 15,000 to 30,000 *innocent civilians* have died in Afghanistan as a result of the war we are waging in Afghanistan. According to multiple sources we are actually killing more civilians than the Taliban are.

Good thing we are there making things better. Although I'm not sure exactly how killing innocent people more effectively than the 'bad people' makes us the 'good people'. Maybe we should stop.

Re:This Guy

[sycodon]

"sense".

Re:Sold Out

[Liquidrage]

And what does him being a charlatan with a video and posting the names of informants have to do with whether a war was just or not? Was WWII just? Was Dresden OK? Is there anything close that Dresden in Afghanistan or Iraq?

Did you know Communism was evil? I'm an atheist, I don't have the same "right" or "wrong" moral view you might think I have. But under any definition the Soviet's were fucking evil. Stalin = GWB? You're fucking insane if you go that route. The Taliban did blow up the Towers. The US should have gone in there. Iraq is more muddled, but at the same time Saddam never should have been allowed to stay in power. You know, France loved financing his regime, but whatever. Imperialism is bad. Tell that to the Moors when they tried to conquer Europe. If the world was all hippy's I'd love to stop military spending. But you know, until that happens I'd rather the US be the power then say Iran. I know I know. 6 of 1 half a dozen of another. Just two sides the same coin. Be glad there are people that make sure you have internet access if though you shit on them.

In closing, make the world a better place. Just don't be so fucking naive you write crap you just did without context.

Re:This Guy

[sycodon]

If only we could tell the future we could make such better decisions. Is that what you are saying?

Re:Sold Out

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree with the sentiment of your post and most of what you say is true; that said, it might be worth noting that none of the current South American dictators (or, more generally speaking, not-so-democratic regimes) were installed through US intervention or support, direct or otherwise. Quite the contrary: many of the current oppressive, not-so-democratic regimes in South and Central America have come to power in part by riding the wave of a strong anti-globalization, anti-capitalistic, anti-US sentiment. The only regime still in power in Latin America since the days the US used to install dictators in this part of the world is Cuba's, and that case was quite the opposite.

It did happen. It just hasn't happened in a while.

Re:Sold Out

[Anonymous Coward]

I played you suckers like a piano. Julian Assange is doing the same only you can't see it. Maybe you'll wise up and understand this someday instead of performing like trained seals.

That's Zen and the art of irony, BTW.

Re:This Guy

[_Sprocket_]

Democracy can only work if people have access to -all- the information available to make an informed decision.

Really? All or nothing, huh? Then how do you work out the need for secrecy and intelligence which, in turn, has proven to be a major part of any nation's security

I can agree that we need good information. We need to be wary of propoganda. We need proof to back up claims. And we need oversight of all aspects of government. But that is hardly access to all information available.

It is important to end imperialistic wars because it -always- bites us in the ass later on. These ever so evil Taliban fighters? Oh wait we supported them against the "evil" USSR. Saddam Hussein? Oh wait we helped him too...

If you think the US supports human rights you are sadly mistaken, imperialistic wars like the wars in the middle east and Vietnam have -always- ended up in a net loss for human rights and a net loss for the world.

Ahhh. You're one of these people who believe that the US operates in a vacuum; that there are no other players on the world stage. You believe that the US elects to get involved just out of a mean spirit. And if the US would only bury it's head, nothing bad would ever happen in the world. Just like in the 1930s.

Re:Sold Out

[Darkness404]

WWII wasn't just because the entire European front (and a lot of the pacific front) could have been avoided if we hadn't been imperialistic to begin with. If we hadn't screwed up the Treaty of Versailles, Hitler wouldn't have come to power because of the fact that Germany's economy wouldn't have been in shambles and people wouldn't be looking to nationalism to solve their problems.

Did you know Communism was evil? I'm an atheist, I don't have the same "right" or "wrong" moral view you might think I have. But under any definition the Soviet's were fucking evil. Stalin = GWB? You're fucking insane if you go that route. The Taliban did blow up the Towers. The US should have gone in there. Iraq is more muddled, but at the same time Saddam never should have been allowed to stay in power. You know, France loved financing his regime, but whatever. Imperialism is bad. Tell that to the Moors when they tried to conquer Europe. If the world was all hippy's I'd love to stop military spending. But you know, until that happens I'd rather the US be the power then say Iran. I know I know. 6 of 1 half a dozen of another. Just two sides the same coin. Be glad there are people that make sure you have internet access if though you shit on them.

Yes, the Soviets did do evil things, so did the US, so did the UK, so did Germany, etc. All governments are corrupt by definition. If you look at the reasons why the Taliban had the resources to blow up the towers is because we funded it yes, our tax dollars went to support the very people who we are fighting.

Theres nothing wrong with defending a country from foreign attacks, but defend it, don't go out looking for a fight. When we go out looking for a fight, we end up paying for the bullets that they use to shoot at us with. I'm not a "hippie" I'm not a pacifist, I do however know history and history isn't on the side of those who wage imperialistic wars, especially the US. Get out of the middle east and the rest of the world, cut military and domestic spending by a lot, decrease taxes and watch the economy grow leaps and bounds.

Anonymous Coward

[Anonymous Coward]

Reading this, I am stricken by how many people refer the the US as a democracy. IT'S NOT A DEMOCRACY!!! Never has been, never will. Our founding fathers made sure of that.

It's a Constitutional Republic.

Now back to your local news.....

Re:Anonymous Coward

[Vintermann]

Republic means only rule by a law (a written constitution) as opposed to a king. China is a perfectly good republic. The US is also, in common usage of the term, and unlike China, a representative democracy. Now aren't you happy you're not just a republic, but a democratic republic?

This whole "it's not a democracy" BS was just started by idiots who think republican vs. democrat is some sort of dichtonomy because the US parties are named that - and they feel that the one named "republicans" is the only legitimate one.

Re:Anonymous Coward

[Anonymous Coward]

Well you're a fucking moron who doesn't know the meaning of the words you're using.

Democracy is the democratic control of the state. I.e. the opposite of dictatorship.
A republic is the opposite of a monarchy.

Re:Anonymous Coward

[ptbarnett]

This whole "it's not a democracy" BS was just started by idiots who think republican vs. democrat is some sort of dichtonomy because the US parties are named that - and they feel that the one named "republicans" is the only legitimate one.

The modern Republican Party didn't even exist until 1854, when it was formed from an anti-slavery coalition. The debate about the differences between a republic and a democracy began long before that.

Today, this meme usually arises when someone is protesting against the unchecked expansion of government power. It's about the question of whether a majority vote is all that is needed.

Back in 1928, the Army published a training manual that made the distinction between the two:

First, a Republic:

Authority is derived through the election by the people of public officials best fitted to represent them. Attitude toward property is respect for laws and individual rights, and a sensible economic procedure. Attitude toward law is the administration of justice in accord with fixed principles and established evidence, with a strict regard to consequences. Avoids the dangerous extreme of either tyranny or mobocracy.

And next, a Democracy:

A government of the masses. Authority derived through mass meeting of any, for direct expression. Results in mobocracy. Attitude toward property is communistic--negating property rights. Attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate, whether it be based upon deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice, and impulse, without restraint or regard to consequences. Results in demagoguism, license, agitation, discontent, anarchy."

FDR is alleged to have ordered all copies of this training manual destroyed in pursuit of Depression-era legislation.

A bit of hyperbole? Yes, but the point is that the conflict isn't about the naming of political parties. It goes back quite a while, even to several of the founding fathers of the US. With a bit of Googling, you can find lots of quotes in which they contrast a democracy and a republic.

Re:Anonymous Coward

[Vintermann]

FDR was a sensible man, to ban such BS from army training manuals. At that time the republican party most certainly existed as such, and it's hard to see something like that as anything other than partisan propaganda.

Anyway, I'll grant you that: The abuse of the terms is older than the republican party. So it was not accurate of me to say it was invented for that purpose. Hatred of democracy, in the sense of Athenian democracy is very, very old. But for a long time now democracy has been synonymous with electoral democracy. Electoral democracy has also co-opted the goal of Athenian democracy of popular representation.

But, while they didn't exactly invent it, people calling themselves republicans have most certainly excavated and kept alive the false dichtonomy, as a form of empty-headed partisan stupidity.

I'll point out that Athenian Democracy, sortition, hasn't been seriously tried for 2400 years. Most people, including those who wrote on it, didn't have a clue about it. Those who rant Cartman-like about how the US is a republic not a democracy least of all.

Re:This Guy

[Darkness404]

No, I'm saying that there are 3 situations, none of them are good things.

A) "Our" leaders deliberately lied to the American people to get support for the war

B) "Our" leaders are too incompetent to actually win a war that needed to be fought

or C) "Our" leaders lied to the people, then are too incompetent to actually win the war they wanted to get us into.

Which one is it? "Our" leaders either lied to the American people are incompetent, which ever one it was, they shouldn't be leading the country.

Re:This Guy

[siddesu]

Come on, if you are a minor clerk in a local office of a large international bank, there's no way in hell you'll end up with all the sales and PR communications of the bank over a 5 or 6 year period. NO WAY AT ALL.

So, how is it possible that a lowly bolt (or nut) in the mighty US army machine did just that? Only one way - criminal negligence on the part of his superiors, and those who work for them.

I am sure that the of the people who are responsible for this are the same people who are leveraging all their Pentagon power to shift the blame from the sick sheep to the healthy one.

They, and not Assagne are at fault and should be blamed for eventual harm done, because keeping those data safe is squarely THEIR responsibility, not Wikileaks'. Wikileaks' responsibility, whatever their agenda is, is leaking data.

Too bad the lot of you people who pay for those jerks are ready to bend over and swallow whatever BS they dump your way, when, instead, you should be thinking something along the lines of "OMG HOW MANY LOWLY SOLDIERS HAVE GOTTEN RICH BY SELLING THIS SHIT TO PEOPLE WHO DONT LEAK IT"

Alas, patriotism kills reason.

Or they could board a plane

[SmallFurryCreature]

Hijack it and crash it into a swedish landmark.

Bit silly to say Afghanistan isn't a threat when it has been unable to stop its citizens from starting wars.

Re:Or they could board a plane

[copponex]

Bit silly to say Afghanistan isn't a threat when it has been unable to stop its citizens from starting wars.

Here's a list of the 9/11 hijackers. Not a single one of them is an Afghan citizen. No Iraqis on the list, either. The vast majority were from Saudi Arabia and the UAE. As of today, nearly 9 years after 9/11, we still do not have an extradition treaty with either nation. Even if we had discovered evidence to charge someone with, we could not extradite them to face charges for their crimes.

Re:Or they could board a plane

[miffo.swe]

It was Saudis that hijacked the planes and chrashed them 9/11, not afghanis. Look it up, afghanistan taliban had nothing to do with it but sadly for them they hadnt extensive ties with the US government as the saudis has.

Re:Or they could board a plane

[Anonymous Coward]

As of today, nearly 9 years after 9/11, we still do not have an extradition treaty with either nation. Even if we had discovered evidence to charge someone with, we could not extradite them to face charges for their crimes.

Are you sure you really want an extradition treaty with them? Put another way, if a US citizen travels to Saudi Arabia, violates local laws there and then returns home, do you really want the FBI to come in and arrest him and put him on a plane to Saudi Arabia so he can be tried there?

Or do you mean that it should only be *us* being able to have *them* extradited?

Re:Or they could board a plane

[Eli Gottlieb]

So.... can we get on with it and invade Saudi Arabia already? Everyone knows they're the financial and ideological powerhouse behind much of the world's Islamist terrorism.

Re:This Guy

[Concerned Onlooker]

" You believe that the US elects to get involved just out of a mean spirit. "

No, I'm sure he believes that the US elects to get involved out of the interest of making it easy for some corporations to make money. If it happens to result in the oppression, torture and murder of the people of other countries is of no consequence to the US. That the US is a defender of freedom and human rights is a HUGE PR gag.

Wow, easy on the kool-aid

[SmallFurryCreature]

We saw the video. It showed very clearly how the US deals with unarmed civilians. Only a total fool would deny it.

The truth, it hurts doesn't it?

gosh, go undercover with the US army. You mean emigrate to the US, enlist, be assigned to afghanistan, film? Oh you mean go with some US troops who know they got a reporter with them and capture them on video behaving as if there was a reporter present?

Just how big a fool are you?

Re:Wow, easy on the kool-aid

[Anonymous Coward]

It was very clearly an attack on an insurgent RPG team that the journalists had teamed up with. Go watch it again.

Re:Wow, easy on the kool-aid

[Anonymous Coward]

We saw the video. It showed very clearly how the US deals with unarmed civilians. Only a total fool would deny it.

One, cherry-picked video out of hundreds, probably thousands or more. Wow, this clearly must be the rule rather than the exception, I'm glad Mr Assange pointed it out to us so we can believe this happens all the time. I don't suppose he would be willing to post a video of UN forces being fired upon by Taliban hiding among groups of school children, or woman being strapped with explosives and detonating among groups of Iraq's own civilian peoples.
Clearly this one side of the story was enough to convince you of the bigger picture. The question is, just how big of a fool are YOU?

Re:Wow, easy on the kool-aid

[Woy]

Just how big a fool are you?

He is a paid fool. A bunch of them came out of the woodwork when the U.S. lost bladder control over wikileaks.

Re:Wow, easy on the kool-aid

[Anonymous Coward]

"One, cherry-picked video out of hundreds, probably thousands or more. Wow, this clearly must be the rule rather than the exception,

We won't ever know as all those non-embedded foreign journalists keep getting shot, by the Afghans ;)

Re:Wow, easy on the kool-aid

[Liquidrage]

You mean the video with the people with guns? Oh, I thought you watched the video. Guess not. Good thing you got modded insightful. Collateral Murder had multiple people with guns in the video. 100% known fact. No, not the camera equipment that looked like a gun. There were people with guns there. Guns were found after it was inspected and visible in the video.

But your post and rating is typical of slashdot's current group-think. It's just a shame so many people choose to be ignorant.

Re:Wow, easy on the kool-aid

[gox]

So, you're saying that the U.S. military helicopters have the right to kill random people on the ground with guns, without any identified threat, without warning. I don't have any problem with that, as long as you don't resort to the moral rhetoric as the justification of this war. This is an ordinary aggression of a power to subdue its opponents.

The "no identified threat" part isn't true though. They, ahem, identified a threat to the 'copter -- the camera equipment (so you're either wrong or go back to the above paragraph). An honest mistake. Until you start killing the civilians who try to help the injured, that is.

We were able to see this, because it has been recorded. And because a reporter to a western agency was killed. And because the agency wasn't content with the excuses given and didn't give up the case. And because somebody had the courage to risk this much to leak the video.

Can you guess, going backwards through this list, multiplying the possibilities, how much cruelty must have been done? (This came to me when I first saw the leaked Abu Gharib abuse pics.)

Re:This Guy

[siddesu]

Well, yours is more of a value judgment, so is harder to justify.

I prefer obvious arguments, based on more or less objective, professional criteria. Those are usually easier to prove, and harder to deflect.

And I am lazy.

Re:Sold Out

[Americano]

A democracy becomes nothing more than a mob if information is not released

And average people who know nothing about the context of a massive steaming dump of information dropped in front of them will often reach the wrong conclusion about the story that data tells. What's your point?

Have you actually looked at the type of documents included? Please explain how something like this gives anybody who isn't in the military or familiar with military reporting formats the ability to understand what's going on in Afghanistan - yes, this is an actual entry, taken from http://wardiary.wikileaks.org/afg/sort/type/enemy_action_0.html

"S3 REPORTS: SUMMIT 09 B CO ELEMENT SALUTE REPORT AS FOLLOWS: S- 3-4 PAX, A- SMALL ARMS FIRE, L-IVO 42 SWB 3910 1617, U-UNK, T-0415Z, E-AK-47."

So, I can tell you that this SALUTE report from the Bravo Company operations officer reports 3-4 enemy personnel targeting the unit with small arms fire at some grid location around 4:15 am GMT, equipped with what appears to be AK-47's.

Now please, tell us - is the war worth continuing? What value does THIS type of data have in civilians determining whether or not the war is worth continuing? What's that? You can't tell from this data?

Then tell me, what's the value of publishing this data, rather than someone who can understand it in context spending time analyzing it, redacting appropriate portions (i.e. informant names,locations,villages...), and writing a thoughful and scholarly article explaining what this data actually means?

Re:I hate this guy

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, a nobody on the internets with a login handle "Saint" wants other people arrested for feeling self-important. My ironymeter just assploded.

Re:Sold Out

[Americano]

Your overly-reductionist, bumper-sticker-slogan rhetoric does not help your case. You are guilty of arguing in exactly the same overly-simplistic, naive, uninformed way that you are declaring the people disagreeing with you are.

Out of curiosity - do you get a fee from somebody every time you use the phrase "imperialistic war" in print? You seem to have really latched onto that one.

What you can look forward to

[SuperKendall]

Every month, he provides the name, address and exact GPS coordinates of someone in the witness protection program!

Re:This Guy

[geekboybt]

Except Manning wasn't a lowly clerk. He is/was an intelligence analyst, as in, one who is assigned and allowed to read all of the intelligence and analyze it. To correct your bank analogy, you'd have an auditor, not a "minor clerk."

Re:This Guy

[sumdumass]

The problem is, the source that leaked the information only told a few people about it. That's still bad, but then taking that information and endangering the lives of innocent people and telling crap loads more people just to get your names in the paper/news, is enough reason to be angry at Assange too.

You are right though, we shouldn't be angry at just him, but currently, he is the only one not being punished for his part. There is nothing stopping us from being angry at the entire lot responsible and wanting them to pay. I mean sure, the people who leaked the information should be executed for treason, the people who allowed it to happen by not enforcing existing policy or somehow letting that policy break down should be punished to a lesser extent, and by all means Assange should by trialed, convicted, and shot dead (or at least imprisoned for the rest of his natural life), for his role in making the problem so much more worse.

There is simply no reason why Assange should go unprosecuted.

Re:This Guy

[Eskarel]

Well, I personally always thought that if we'd tread a little more softly instead of trying to find someone to go to war with about 9/11 we might have avoided the whole thing, though I understood how we got into the war once we'd gotten to that point.

Why we did our usual proxy fighting using the so called "Northern Alliance" who were really a bunch of opium growing warlords who weren't really all that much better than the Taliban they were replacing I don't really know. I would have thought that the whole Osama/Sadaam thing would have taught us that the enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend.

I'm even more surprised that anyone is shocked that after supporting the expansion of a bunch of warlords and then installing a corrupt puppet(who we lost the strings for) didn't result in economic and governmental stability. Or for that matter why we keep insisting that we want people to have democracy and then trying over and over again until we get democratic results we like.

Re:He's only fit for op-eds

[Anonymous Coward]

As an Australian I am proud of Mr Assange, and frankly dont give a fuck what you think. We have been dragged into your silly wars of revenge.

Truth hurts eh?

Man at least someone is paying attention

[Chitlenz]

Am I the only one who looks around these days and wonders where the hell we went wrong? Look around you folks, because we the geeks are the last remaining american product this side of hollywood. The guy in the white house is too cool to solve pretty much anything, and the last guy was about the dumbest, most self-interested shill in history. At least this Assange guy is trying to preserve some semblance of the truth, so people of the future can learn from it (not that knowing the truth has really helped much before). I think the guy deserves protection, and good for him if he back-doors his way into it. He is serving the public whether they like it or not, which is ballsy and will probably end badly, but hey more power to him.

I find it fascinating that we are losing Afghanistan to the most primitive people on earth, and at the same time ONE GUY is able to stymie the entire Intelligence community by telling the truth about it. So with these facts before us, what exactly is worth 700$Billion per year that we spend on defense? Oh and lest we forget, even with google maps we haven't found Bin Laden's cave either. I think we as a country are wasting our time, and letting our best resource (young people) learn lessons in war and imperialism that we should have learned from Vietnam years ago. 10 years... my god.

Re:Man at least someone is paying attention

[Somewhat Delirious]

I agree completely. One of the most worrying things about the US government and a lot of the American citizens supporting it is that they don't seem to be able to learn from history. Just look how many of the wars they have been involved in have been succesful with regard to their objectives, look how many of the internal conflicts and power struggles they have gotten involved in have come back to bite them in the ass. Yet they keep doing the exact same thing time and time again.

What I also found interesting was Assange's remark: "Journalists have to be more on their guard about what's said about us." There may be even more that I have missed but at least to of the articles that have been going around in the media last week (mostly uncritically reproduced from the news wires without any comments or attempt to verify them) are obvious us spin.

1. The letter from Human Rights organisations criticizing Wikileaks for allegedly realeasing the names of hundreds of Afghan informants. This story was spun to have had Amnesty International as one of it's signees. A later statement from an AI spokeswoman made clear that this was not the case. She said that AI had not taken an official position on the Wikileaks Afghan war release and that all that had happened was that one low ranking member had been involved in private Email communication with Wikileaks about that matter. The true signees of the letter are not independent NGO's they are all either funded by the US government, the Afghan government or have very close ties to the US government.

2. The letter from "Reporters sans frontières" giving the same criticism (and in a very contradictory and muddled way at that: arguing that you shouldn't release secret military information because it might lead to a crack down on the freedom of the press is nonsensical at best if you are an organisation that's supposed to have freedom of the press as it's primary goal. What are you going to release then? Anything that the involved powers that be have no objections to?) is completely untrustworthy.

First of all this organisation has been linked to the CIA and even been accused of being a CIA front. One of it's directors has admitted that a large part of the organisations funding comes either from the US government or from organisations with very close ties to that government. Lucie Morillon, RWB's Washington representative, confirmed in an interview on 29 April 2005 that the organization has a contract with US State Department's Special Envoy to the Western Hemisphere Otto Reich who was involved in Whitehouse propaganda under Reagan and a former board member of Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation, which was formerly known as the School for the Americas, and described in 2004 by the LA Weekly as a “torture-teaching institution”. According to Amnesty International, the School in the past has produced training manuals which advocated torture, blackmail, beatings and executions. One of Their founders has openly condoned torture in the French press. Of course a name like "Reporters sans frontières" sounds very idealistic and independent (who would imagine that an originally French press freedom organisation would be in bed with some of the more shady parts of the US government. Unless you checked of course, and most of this info can be found on Wikipedia) but that's just a superficial appearance and designed to be.

Re:Man at least someone is paying attention

[Anonymous Coward]

ONE GUY is showing the balls to take the info that other principled guys are giving to him, and stand up to the the entire Intelligence community, and the global military industry, and the global politician community, and several major multinational corporations, by telling the truth about it.

FTFY.

Don't miss out all those other stakeholders.

Re:Man at least someone is paying attention

[AlterEager]

I find it fascinating that we are losing Afghanistan to the most primitive people on earth

Well, there's your problem, right there. If you go around dismissing people as "primitive" without bothering to spend even a minute finding about these so called "primitive" people then don't be supprised when they kick your ass.

Re:This Guy

[siddesu]

"Allowed to read all of the intelligence"

Don't be silly.

The job description (http://www.us-army-info.com/pages/mos/intelligence/96b.html) says the scope of his "intelligence" is his immediate battle command.

For Mr. Manning, that'd be "all of the intelligence" related to battle operations of his support battalion in some backwater in the Eyerack.

Instead, he got US diplomatic telegrams, reports about shit all over Afghanistan and what not, for years.

And, as far as bank positions are concerned, he wouldn't be an auditor, but a junior analyst of a major NYC bank in Dumbfark, Nebraska.

His reading material would include crop-dusting industry sales brochure, not the insider information about the portfolio of risky assets a major client wants to short-sell to small investors.

Re:This Guy

[SakuraDreams]

Democracy can only work if people have access to -all- the information available to make an informed decision. Oh wait we supported them against the "evil" USSR. Saddam Hussein? Oh wait we helped him too...

So you're saying the USSR wasn't evil? Wow you bought the propaganda you're so strongly against.

Re:Sold Out

[_Sprocket_]

Look back 30 years, how the hell do you think the Taliban got into power? Oh wait, back then Russia was the "bad guy" and fundamentalist Islam was the "good guy" so we ended up supplying them with guns, bombs, etc.

The Taliban as they are now didn't exist 30 years ago. The US supported various mujahideen factions. In the power vacuum left by Soviet withdrawl, those factions fought each other. Pakistan wanted both influence in the region and to stop hijacking of their trucking routes in to the country so they put heavy support behind a small student group that, in turn, fought various mujahideen who causing problems. That's how the Taliban got in to power.

The notion that the US is behind the Taliban is, at best, a very loose interpretation. Certainly, US influence was felt in the region and armaments were probably left over from the fight with the Soviets. But ironically, if the US was truely involved in an imperialistic war, there would have been no opportunity for the Taliban. As it is, the US lost interest in Afghanistan as soon as the Soviets left and left it to fall in to chaos.

How do you think Hussein got into power? Oh wait we helped him get into power...

Saddam got in to power by being a major political leader in a group that overthrew the former government via a coup. He then consolidated his power over several years before managing to take the leadership reins from the ailing leader at the time. He further cemented his position by having a number of members in his political party denounced as traitors and executed.

Saddam managed to get Soviet support early on. However, Iraq later cracked down on Iraqi communists and Iraq began to favor the West. The French were major supporters and consequently the vast majority of Iraq's military armament comes from Soviet and French sources.

The US certainly supported Saddam's Iraq. It was a modernized, secular government in a region that lacked many similar examples. It countered Iranian influence in the region. And, to some extent, supporting Iraq helped counter Soviet influence as well. However, the notion that the US put Saddam in to power is absurd.

The sooner we end the wars the better it is for the US and the rest of the world.

I completely agree. But it would seem the world is not that kind of place and won't be any time soon.

Re:This Guy

[Anonymous Coward]

How you got 'tell the future' from 'stop ignoring history' I'm not sure, but I don't think it is what he was saying.

Re:This Guy

[_Sprocket_]

No, I'm sure he believes that the US elects to get involved out of the interest of making it easy for some corporations to make money.

One fallacy is as good as another, I suppose.

Re:This Guy

[sumdumass]

I find a few things in your post somewhat disturbing. Namely that you actually believe what you are posting as well as people moderating you up for it.

Democracy can only work if people have access to -all- the information available to make an informed decision

Actually, no- you do not need all the information for a democracy to work. I hasn't been until recently in history that even half of the people could read, let alone read well enough to know and understand the policy problems and purposed solutions. And even today in most democracies, America included if you want to count the republic as a democracy, most people don't give near enough time to understanding the political problems within a nation. In most well off countries that do not have mandatory voting, turn out is either low considering the number of eligible voters and more often or not, elections are decided on a single issue rather then all the information.

How do you know what the Taliban does? We are fed propaganda every day.

The same way we know our history. Someone writes it down, it get circulated by print, voice or a number of other methods, then if it's wrong, people object to it. If it's not wrong, it stands uncontested. This is the same method that was used to know a hurricane hit the gulf coast, that the English lost the revolutionary war, that the Indians lost to the Americans, that Napoleon lost to the English and so on. And yes, there was a lot of propaganda in there too, but it was objected to, and we have a pretty accurate accounting of history.

No, I'm not saying that the Taliban are nice people, that we should support them (though we did) or that the conventional view is wrong, but think about where you get your information from and you will find that you really could have been fed pure lies. Without information, how do you make that decision?

No, we didn't support the Taliban outside of humanitarian aid and a few million dollar to get them to stop producing drugs. It's not like we ever endorsed them or anything which is what it appears that you are attempting to make out.

It is important to end imperialistic wars because it -always- bites us in the ass later on. These ever so evil Taliban fighters? Oh wait we supported them against the "evil" USSR. Saddam Hussein? Oh wait we helped him too...

Wow, just Wow, I guess the easiest way to get propaganda out there is to just cater to the pissed off idiots. First, we never supported the Taliban against the USSR. That is nothing but a complete fabrication pass on by idiots who think it sounds good or something but never bothered to do the slightest bit of research on it. The Taliban did not even exist until several years after the USSR pulled out of Afghanistan. The Mujaheddin is what we supported against the USSR and they became the Northern alliance in which the Taliban threw out of power. Second, we did not help Saddam Hussein much at all. We supplied Iraq with a few dozen trucks and relaxed weapons restrictions against them at the request of Kuwait who was paying Iraq for defense. The relaxation of the weapons restrictions allowed them to purchase weapons from US suppliers but Iraq favored Russian arms.

If you think the US supports human rights you are sadly mistaken, imperialistic wars like the wars in the middle east and Vietnam have -always- ended up in a net loss for human rights and a net loss for the world.

I'm pretty sure by now that you have no clue what imperial or imperialistic means. Neither of the two words apply to the wars you have mentioned.

Now, I know you are reading from an "I hate America" hand book you obtained from your friend somewhere on the internet. For this reason, I will challenge you to find the definition of imperialism, imperialistic, imperial, and then attempt to make an h

Re:This Guy

[5pp000]

We'll just have to disagree about who bears how much responsibility, but as for your parting shot:

Alas, patriotism kills reason.

you are way, way off base. Actually I'm glad this material got out. I was just pointing out that the post that started this thread has a point that is potentially valid and deserves discussion, even though I disagree with it. It should not have been modded into oblivion.

Re:Sold Out

[sznupi]

Are you really so stupid? How could the data be "properly analyzed" if it isn't available in the first place?

Ohhh, I see it, you want only the good guys doing the analyzing...

Re:This Guy

[Darkness404]

The threat of the Soviet Union was -much- less of a threat than what we have with Islamic radicalism, when did the Soviets attack on US soil? They never did, did the USSR have spies? Of course they did. Did they have rockets pointed at our major cities, yes of course they did. But we had the exact same thing, theres no doubt we had missiles pointed at Russia, we had spies, spy planes, satellites, etc. Did the Soviets commit huge human rights abuses? Yes, but so did we. Or are you forgetting things like the Japanese Internment Camps, the Tuskegee Syphilis Study, and various other human right abuses.

Not to mention that the entire paranoia completely neglected the fact that Communism in the form that the USSR practiced, could never be sustainable.

Re:Sold Out

[Americano]

I see. So the only possible alternatives in your mind are:

1) Wikileaks rushes to publish this dump of information, unedited, barely (and poorly) reviewed & redacted, in a massive dump of information to anybody in the world who wants to snag a copy, knowing that 99% of the people in the world who might be interested will be completely unable to understand what story the data tells;

2) Nobody ever sees the data, ever, because the government is manipulating us all.

How about the dozens of other ways this information could be made available to *news outlets* and academics for review & analysis, after a thorough scrubbing to remove names/locations/etc. of people who this data could cause harm to if their names are found in it? You know, the responsible-but-boring route which wouldn't get Mr. Assange's name in all the papers and give him a little public attention.

But yes, I can see where you'd consider MY thoughts stupid, when you've clearly thought through everything and distilled it to absolute black-and-white clarity and accounted for every possibility.

Re:This Guy

[Anonymous Coward]

Shut up brave AC.

Re:This Guy

[KahabutDieDrake]

I think it's past your bed time kiddo. Don't worry, when you wake up everything will be right as rain in the lollypop forest.

In other words, please get a grip on reality, and maybe just a tiny bit of perspective. That would be just great. Thanks.

Re:This Guy

[Jedi Alec]

Ask people why they voted a certain way and the vast majority of people voted because of a few "key" issues, issues like abortion, global warming, stem cell research, wars, taxes, etc.

Is that why they voted X or Y, or just the justification they use for voting whatever it was their parents voted on? Most of the political analysis of the US I've seen seems to indicate that the better part of the country pretty much always votes the same party, with a relatively smaller amount of swing votes that need to be pandered to in order to seal the win, which is one of the reasons the nuts on the fringes get such a disproportionate amount of attention.

Canard?

[copponex]

Talk about canards. Using fancy sounding words cannot change history.

Say what you will about the merits of the Iraq expedition, it was at least in the consideration stage in the Clinton administration and would have happened with or without 9/11.

According to some people, Iraq presented no threat to the US. Doesn't sound like preparations for invasion to me. Maybe you're confusing that policy with the policy presented by Project for a New American Century. They begged Clinton to invade Iraq, but he ignored them. Probably because, as this guy Dick Cheney once said, the US could quickly find itself in a quagmire if it invaded.

9/11 was not presented as one of the major factors in the decision by anyone worthy of attention.

SHENANIGANS.

Not only did Cheney and Bush repeatedly make the connection, they had to specifically recant their opinion years later. They made the accusation so many times, and through so many propaganda arms, that by the time the war came around, 70% of Americans believed there was a link.

I'm sure in the bizarro fantasy land where the (R) means infallible, you'll just pretend that none of that happened. Which is alright, if you're not interested in reality.

Now, go home and get your shine box.

Re:Canard?

[Eli Gottlieb]

That's not shenanigans at all. Bush and Cheney have never been worthy of attention!

Re:Sold Out

[sznupi]

Yes, now I can better see where your thoughts are stupid. You don't get it how you can't have "this information made available to *news outlets* (//which they did as the first thing) and academics for review & analysis" in a transparent way without "the stoopid masses" also having access to most of it.

Assange & public attention? Without checking, do you even know how the man looks?

Re:Sold Out

[MartinSchou]

If you look at the reasons why the Taliban had the resources to blow up the towers

What towers? Do you mean the World Trade Center?

First of all, they weren't blown up - they collapsed after two hijacked air planes were crashed into them. Saying "blown up" conjures up a picture of either a bombing raid or demolition attempt, neither of which were the method used.

Secondly, the Taliban are an Afghani group. How many Afghans were involved in the hijacking of those planes? None of the hijackers were Afghanis, and no verifiable information has been given to indicate, that the Taliban were involved in the planning.

You seem to have somehow mixed a strange web of misinformation together. The towers were blown up (sounds like the "CIA arranged controlled demolition" conspiracy theory) by the Taliban (sounds like the "hijackers were from either Afghanistan or Iraq" nonsense that quite a lot of Americans believe in).

Yet you realize that the US did a lot of funding for the Taliban during the USSR occupation. True, but those resources weren't used to attack the US - they were (and are being) used to fight the foreign troops (now and then) in Afghanistan.

Re:This Guy

[furball]

Which one is it? "Our" leaders either lied to the American people are incompetent, which ever one it was, they shouldn't be leading the country.

We voted those leaders in. You did vote right?

The fault has always been with the voters.

Re:Sold Out

[Americano]

I'm stupid because you have difficulty understanding simple English words?

The thing you don't seem to realize is that new outlets & academics, having these things known as journalistic and/or professional standards & ethics, would tend to be less likely to identify people who might then be harmed as a result of their disclosure. But instead of full review & redaction, then disclosure to news agencies for analysis & review, Mr. Assange went with the option to dump the data on a web site for download by anybody, with (apparently) only the most cursory of review & redaction. Mr. Assange is, clearly, unfettered by such nonsense as professional standards.

Assange & public attention - yes, the two go quite well together, don't they? And yes, I'm well aware what he looks like - his image has been plastered all over the news for the past couple weeks, I'd have to be trying NOT to see him to not know what he looks like. Have you been living under a rock the past few weeks, that you wouldn't know what he looks like?

As far as your claim that "they did as the first thing" - bullshit. They dumped data on the news outlets because they new it would get them publicity. There was no collaboration or review of the data prior to Wikileaks publishing it, pretty much all those news outlets got to do was say, "Holy shit, he's got a lot of data he's making public!" -- in other words, the wikileaks "pre-sharing" was STRICTLY a publicity stunt.

Re:This Guy

[Darkness404]

Yes I voted, and no none of those leaders I voted for got in (well, aside from a few local elections) and yes, the people who I voted for would have opposed the wars from the start.

Not to mention that a lot of the problems aren't with elected officials but rather the unelected "advisers" or bureaucrats.

Re:Sold Out

[sznupi]

Yeah, you desperately want to look at it in a certain way...

Review & redaction took place. Journalists got the data first (did you forget already that this is what you'd like to see, in one previous post?) Oh, could be better of course, sure - for example if the US specifically didn't turn down the offer of providing guidance.

And generally one has to want to know how he looks, I assure you. Heck, while "Wikileaks" certainly got hold of public imagination, with him it's usually "Assange-who?"
Well, perhaps unless it's specifically about US media; a circus anyway.

me too!

[commodoresloat]

of course that's because that's the only Swedish tabloid I'd ever heard of.

Re:me too!

[Gnitset]

We've got Expressen too.

Re:This Guy

[Americano]

Did you bother to read the job description you linked? Where does it say what the scope of his intelligence is? Because I'm seeing a lot of language that says things like, "Receives, produces and disseminates intelligence reports containing information obtained from all sources."

I think you're simply assuming that "intel analyst" must have some arbitrary restrictions that you've kind of made up to make it seem like PFC Manning was able to circumvent all kinds of safeguards due to lax oversight. His job description is pretty clear that, as an intel analyst, he would be allowed to analyze intelligence from "all sources" and deliver reports on the same.

huh?

[commodoresloat]

It's not all, "bork bork bork"?

Re:Sold Out

[Anonymous Coward]

So your argument in shorter form seems to be that only simple information should be published, anything that needs processing or analyzing should be kept secret?

Re:Sold Out

[sznupi]

With the amount of meddling in the past, can you really blame some places for certain amount of "anti-globalization, anti-capitalistic, anti-US sentiment", perhaps "overreacting" in their blowback?

Re:This Guy

[Americano]

various other human right abuses.

List more of the "various other" human rights abuses the US has perpetrated. You listed two, and then started hand-waving - you don't get to skate on that by listing two lapses and then declaring the US a habitual offender. Back the statement up, please.

Re:This Guy

[worf_mo]

You could simply ask the Swiss and they might help, but I wouldn't hold my breath.

Re:Sold Out

[Americano]

Review & redaction took place.

Really? He reviewed them? And why, even after that review, have news outlets been able to find specific names, GPS coordinates, and other "personally identifiable data" within hours of getting access to the data? Several outlets have reported this, and Wikileaks has not disputed those claims at all, and in fact the only response was "Well it's not our fault."

Clearly their "review" and "redaction" process leaves quite a bit to be desired. Why? because they rushed to publish this data without spending the time doing a thorough job. In journalistic circles, that would earn you a huge blow to your credibility; Unfortunately, Mr. Assange is not a journalist, and he seems to have been granted some sort of infallible geek hero status here on Slashdot.

Yes, with him until he scored a public relations victory, it used to be "Assange-who". Let's be honest - this leak is all about him being able to gain some public attention. You just admitted that nobody really knew who he was prior to all this - and I'm sure that bothered him to no end, being just another yappy anti-war activist with a big agenda and no power to make that agenda a reality.

He saw the big prize, and he went for it. Now he's gotten a lot of publicity - let's hope the negative tone of some of it prompts him to develop some ethical & moral standards, instead of harming people in order to accomplish his activist goals.

Junk newspaper

[turbotroll]

Aftonbladet, often nicknamed "Aftonhoran" ("The Evening Whore") is a miserable tabloid of nearly non-existent intellectual value. A typical issue looks more like a prop from the movie "Idiocracy" than a real newspaper from a civilized country.

Even a quick glance at its website clearly reveals its true values (or lack thereof), even to those who aren't native Swedish speakers.

Re:Junk newspaper

[danerthomas]

The funny thing about the nickname "Aftonhoran" is that Aftonbladet recognizes its validity. Try surfing to http://www.aftonhoran.se/ and see what happens.

Re:Junk newspaper

[BetterThanCaesar]

A friend and I once created a web site called "Hata Aftonbladet" ("Hate Aftonbladet"), parodying Aftonbladet's focus on "easy" reporting, sensational news and celebrity gossip. That even got us an interview on national radio. Nevertheless, I have to say they do provide at least 30-40 % real news, and Assange's columns will be read by a lot of people, especially among the lefties, who are traditionally anti-US.

Here are the current news topics from the main page of the web site:

• Stockholmians to get help from butlers

  A new proposition from the Social Democrats - Commuters to get help with cleaning, parking and child-keeping.

• Suspected of attempted murder on infant

  30-year-old woman arrested in Lund - Allegedly tried to kill infant

• Aimed at the audience - to save himself

  Norwegian star in violent crash - flew into the audience: "They took most of the damage" Five people to hospital

  See the crash here

• "I've been so unsecure"

  Sanna Nielsen - on the shyness and the idol, Celine Dion.

• Pretty - but where's the feeling?

  Testing the new Hyundai ix35 - This is how good the replacement for Tuscon is.

• Back to work in four simple steps

  Vacation depression? Here are the tricks to give you a new start.

  Good to hunt for jobs during the summer

• He can get the power to turn off the Internet

  Extra power to Obama - American senate passes new law

  Obama want top meeting about North Korean

  Bank death in US claims new victims

• On in three rejects new job at Saab

  Offered to return to work in Trollhättan - but rejected. Union president: "Very surprising"

Compare this with the "serious" newspapers, which have maybe 60-70 % real news in their web editions.

Re:Junk newspaper

[turbotroll]

The funny thing about the nickname "Aftonhoran" is that Aftonbladet recognizes its validity. Try surfing to http://www.aftonhoran.se/ and see what happens.

Yeah, I know about the existence of that domain. Now I heard two stories about it, one which claims that it is owned by Aftonbladet itself, and the other which says that it is owned by a detractor who sometimes points it to his blog and sometimes to the original site. Not sure which one is true.

Anyhow, the domains point to different name servers, but then again it doesn't have to prove anything.

Re:Junk newspaper

[Anonymous Coward]

eeeeh...

that's not how it works.

Re:Junk newspaper

[AlterEager]

Wow, what a crappy whois server:

$ whois aftonhoran.se
# Copyright (c) 1997- .SE (The Internet Infrastructure Foundation).
# All rights reserved.

[...]
state: active
domain: aftonhoran.se
holder: aftonh0702-00001
admin-c: -
tech-c: -
billing-c: -
created: 2005-03-14
modified: 2010-03-25
expires: 2011-03-14
nserver: ns3.loopia.se
nserver: ns4.loopia.se
dnssec: unsigned delegation
status: ok
registrar: SE Direkt

Re:Junk newspaper

[jarek]

I have to disagree on "nearly non-existent intellectual value". To actually imply that there may, at any instant in time, be anything resembling intellectual value is simply too far from the truth. If anything, it represents negative intellectual value since with every published word the readers are presented complete lies dressed up as dumbed down news reports. Regrettably, this strikes a resonance with a large part of the Swedish population who simply, for the sake of not rocking the boat, prefer the lies as it allows them to align their support with any constellation that seems to be the most inconvenient to be against at the moment (pretty much the WWII history repeating it self).

Re:Junk newspaper

[turbotroll]

Extremely well written. Thanks for following me up!

Re:Sold Out

[sznupi]

Yes, yes, only rushed (missed again how some could have easily helped?) - I guess that's why not all documents were released then?

Nobody really knows still who he is. Well, again, except people who are told they "should be concerned"...

Re:Sold Out

[Americano]

No, my argument in short form is that "if you're going to leak data, you have a moral responsibility to prevent harm to people identified in that data as a result of your leak."

He didn't do that, and in fact his response when it was pointed out that he had was "Oh well, that's too bad."

This isn't hard, you should really try to keep up.

Re:This Guy

[siddesu]

"but currently, he is the only one not being punished for his part."

I was not aware that the superior officers of Mr. Bradley Mannings were arrested and facing court martial or other disciplinary action. Can you provide a link?

"There is simply no reason why Assange should go unprosecuted."

Under the laws of which country could that happen, and what would be his crime?

Re:This Guy

[ozmanjusri]

Except Manning wasn't a lowly clerk. He is/was an intelligence analyst, as in, one who is assigned and allowed to read all of the intelligence and analyze it.

So PFCs (which I understood to be Private, First Class) are high-ranking people in the US military, are they?

Re:This Guy

[siddesu]

Well, it is written in the first paragraph - his job was to support his _immediate_ command.

Anything that doesn't support his immediate command is quite obviously outside of the scope his duties.

Re:This Guy

[Anonymous Coward]

I think it is wrong for the Swiss to protect him.

Speaking as a resident in Sweden, this quote made my day.

Re:This Guy

[Anonymous Coward]

Yep, they are the third highest rank ... from the bottom.

Re:Sold Out

[gssgss]

The notion that the US is behind the Taliban is, at best, a very loose interpretation.

To me it is a very basic strategy. 1. give power to the enemy of your enemy with weapons until there are no enemies. 2. When they have won, you exterminate them. This way you are saving the people from the attrocities they did, thus appearing as "good". 3. Profit!!

How do you think Hussein got into power? Oh wait we helped him get into power...

I guess the case of South America is difficult to say so... It is so blatantly obvious.

However, the notion that the US put Saddam in to power is absurd.

The public (and staged) execution of Saddam matches number 2 (see profit scheme) to me.

Re:This Guy

[Anonymous Coward]

"Now, thanks to the acts of a "journalist" (I use that term in the very loosest sense), these informants are in danger."

[citation needed]

redundant

[Anonymous Coward]

If he's going to write for Aftonbladet, then all credibility drained away quicker than the free space of a new hard drive.

Re:This Guy

[Anonymous Coward]

"Flamebait", because he's once again mentioning these "informants" that have been exposed, but, once again, no citations.

Names of exposed informants or GTFO.

Re:This Guy

[siddesu]

"Actually I'm glad this material got out"

I think you should be. Wikileaks has done your country a service by showing your military's IT security is quite bad, and the understanding of the issues by senior brass is on the level of every other PHB out there.

Given this leak, it seems quite likely that other intelligence services are able to access information from similar security failures on all levels of your command, and it is certain that they would not be so kind as to inform you of the fact that you're leaking.

So you should thank Assange for getting a free indication that so much is available from the lowest ranks, and ask the top brass WTF are they doing with your money.

Re:Sold Out

[_Sprocket_]

To me it is a very basic strategy.
1. give power to the enemy of your enemy with weapons until there are no enemies.
2. When they have won, you exterminate them. This way you are saving the people from the attrocities they did, thus appearing as "good".
3. Profit!!

By all means - don't let history get in the way of a good conspiracy theory backed up by a Southpark joke.

Re:This Guy

[vux984]

No, we didn't support the Taliban outside of humanitarian aid and a few million dollar to get them to stop producing drugs. It's not like we ever endorsed them or anything which is what it appears that you are attempting to make out.

Just an excerpt...

"From 1994 to 1997 the United States was well-disposed toward the Taliban. In October 1994 US Ambassador to Pakistan John C. Monjo, accompanied by Pakistan's interior minister, visited Taliban-controlled Kandahar without informing the official Afghan government, led at the time by Burhanuddin Rabbani. In September, 1996 American Undersecretary of State for Southern Asia Robin Rafel called the Taliban conquest of Kabul a "positive step." To be sure, US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright condemned the Taliban's policy toward women in November 1997, but no sanctions were threatened. Washington obviously accepted a power that appeared to guarantee stability by taking up the tradition of a state founded on Pashtun tribes. The embassy of the anti-Taliban government in Washington was closed in 1998." ...

"The pressure that the Americans brought to bear on the Taliban after 1998 was obviously intended not to topple the regime, but to have it break with bin Laden. The sanctions against the Taliban that the Americans proposed in the United Nations Security Council in December 2000 had one objective alone: bin Laden's expulsion. They made no mention whatever of the Taliban's policies. The implicit deal on offer was a trade of bin Laden's extradition or simple departure from the country in exchange for acquiescence in the Taliban's policies in Afghanistan and the tacit promise of international recognition to satisfy the Taliban and their Pakistani backers."

http://www.ip-global.org/archiv/volumes/2002/spring2002/early-american-support-for-the-taliban.html

That all sounds like an 'endorsement' to me.

Re:This Guy

[Anonymous Coward]

A resident of which intelligence service exactly?

hi there from Langley

[Anonymous Coward]

> Even a quick glance at its website clearly reveals its true values (or lack thereof), even to those who aren't native Swedish speakers You mean like Murdoch's the SUN `newspaper' :) Should you people in Langley, Virginia be reading slashdot on company time ;)

Re:Sold Out

[DrugCheese]

A democracy is exactly a mob. Democracy is 5 people telling 4
other people what to do. Democracy = mob rule.

I completely agree with you though. I think only in extreme times, like war, should information be secret. Unfortunately the government agrees with me and keeps us constantly at war.

Re:This Guy

[HungryHobo]

Ever worked in IT security?

it's "default permit" vs "default deny"

"default permit" is where you give everyone access to everything unless you're given a good reason not to.

"default deny" is where you only give people access if there's a good reason to.

"default permit" is terrible. It sounds nice but any system bases on "default permit" is doomed to failure when it comes to security.

It shouldn't be possible for one person to grab a copy of the entire database unless they're at the very top of the chain of command, if the leaker had the word "general" or similar in their title this might be excusable but otherwise it means the security systems failed spectacularly.

For every oddball who'll shout it to the world there's many more who'll just hand over a USB stick in exchange for a wad of cash.
It shouldn't be possible for anyone that junior to have the keys to the kingdom.

Re:Sold Out

[Vintermann]

Four newspaper got the data in advance, for review, analysis and help in scrubbing. But they took too much time, wikileaks weren't happy with the delays. So they released the whole thing, arguing that more lives are saved from immediate release, than would possibly be lost from undiscovered, uncensored informant names.

(The fact that their likely informant was arrested may also have been a factor, they might have been legitimately worried about spooks trying to shut them down).

And before you smear Assange further, maybe you should get out and do something to fight oppressive governments yourself.

Re:I hate this guy

[Saint Stephen]

Typical slashdot groupthink

Re:This Guy

[Anonymous Coward]

"If people thought we would still be actively fighting a war in Afghanistan in 2010..."

More Assange in Swedish media

[TheHonch]

An interview for swedish television on http://svtplay.se/v/2107548/julian_assange_om_kriget_i_afghanistan And a chat in the more respected newspaper DN http://www.dn.se/nyheter/chattar/wikileaks-grundare-julian-assange-chattade-1.1154564

Re:This Guy

[tenco]

...Only because we were lied to and were impulsive.

Must.. get.. picture.. of 5 year old.. out of my ... head.

Re:Sold Out

[Anonymous Coward]

You've made some good comments and I agree with what you've had to say. In that respect this "troll" has been worthwhile.

I'd also like to add that similar attention seeking by David Cameron with his continually trying to hype up the deficit and releasing massive amounts of information in the COINS database to the public is not so different to Julian Assange's wheeze.

The Republicans and Tea party mob are using similar tactics all under the fig leaf of "common sense" and "freedom". No. They just want control and attention, and will tell any lie and stroke any vanity to get it.

These forces of "change" cannot deliver change because they have not changed themselves. This just makes them part of the problem.

Re:Sold Out

[Americano]

(missed again how some could have easily helped?)

This argument is ridiculous on its face, and is only made by clueless fuckwits who are struggling to justify his shitty review and redaction process because they feel that any harm caused is justified by giving the american government a black eye, even if it means more civilian deaths in afghanistan.

Do you think he would have been happy with the military's redaction of the documents? Since they are classified documents, he would have received back entirely-black pages. The military does not acknowledge his right to have the documents in the first place, so why would they help him publish them? Their stance is "You can't publish any of it," so redaction for them would have meant complete destruction of the documents.

If you want to violate an organization's policies, you don't ask them to help you do so. Might as well ask PETA to help you kill some dolphins.

So instead of doing the responsible thing and spending the time required to thoroughly review the data (even though he didn't have help from the people who the data was stolen from), he apparently figured it'd be more fun to put peoples' lives in danger and besides, he could probably get some donations and make a little name for himself.

I guess that's why not all documents were released then?

~70,000 documents were released. ~15,000 were held back. They didn't do a good job of reviewing the original 70k, why should we believe they'll do any better with the remaining 15k in the 3-4 weeks since the 70k were released?

Once again: he rushed to publish because he knew it would garner him some publicity. The remaining 15,000 or so documents will be released just in time to keep the story alive and get some more money flowing into his bad joke of an organization.

Re:Sold Out

[gssgss]

There is some precedent, or is this a conspiracy theory too? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1954_Guatemalan_coup_d'%C3%A9tat

Re:This Guy

[tnk1]

Assange didn't release the information. His source did, and could have posted it raw on the internet.

All that means is that Assange is guilty of being an accessory or part of a conspiracy to commit the breach in regulations and Federal law. Last I checked, both of those roles were illegal as well.

Indeed, by providing an infrastructure that is supposed to be more secure and advertising itself, he could even be considered to be soliciting release of classified material. Again, I imagine there are some laws against that as well. It certainly would be considered to being instrumental to the release of the information.

The person who leaked the documents could well have released it raw on the Internet but, think about what "raw" actually means. If you are not a specialist in security when it comes to using the public Internet, it probably means that you do not have an adequate knowledge of how to avoid being tracked down by an agency like the US Military. Therefore, if you are at all thoughtful, you will consider "raw" posting to be a significant hazard based on your inability to properly secure your identity.

Wikileaks may well be providing a needed and necessary service to the people of the world, but that doesn't change the fact that what is being done is most definitely illegal and that responsibility for the release is most definitely on the shoulders of the Wikileaks staff in addition to the original leaker.

Re:Sold Out

[Americano]

Not familiar enough with Cameron's behavior to have an opinion really - it's enough work keeping up with all the spin state-side. :) But yes, I agree - Republicans, Tea Partiers, and to a large extent, the Democrats as well, are all so busy spinning the public and trying to latch on to power that it's more or less impossible that anything will actually "change".

I know I'm just burning karma here with my comments, but I'm tired of watching the same old bullshit, FUD, and misinformation get spouted here on Slashdot, and accepted by most as if it's gospel truth.

Re:Sold Out

[Liquidrage]

OMG. Yes, comparing the US evils to the Soviets. Great one. Shows the mindset of fucktards like you so clearly.

It's amazing you place the blame on anything but the Germans in your write up. As if they weren't responsible for their own actions. They were forced into it. You might know history, but you clearly don't know how to compare/interpret it.

Re:This Guy

[tnk1]

You sound angry, but your anger is directed at the wrong people.

Instead of asking for the extradition of Assange, you should be asking for the court martial for the officers (high and low) who are in charge of IT security of the US army.

Certainly, some heads should roll in the IT Security department and with the contractors, but the reality is that leaks are going to happen, no matter what you do. Anyone in IT Security can tell you that the only sure way to prevent release of material from now until forever is to not have anything worth leaking to begin with. Their failure does not excuse the illegal actions of the leaker and the co-conspirators. Failing to do your job is not the same thing as intentionally leaking or posting the material when you didn't have to. I would say that if I was forced to choose between the security people and the leakers, I would be entirely justified in my anger at the leaker more so than the security people.

Re:Sold Out

[Americano]

Four newspaper got the data in advance, for review, analysis and help in scrubbing.

I'm confused. You say they had help from four different newspapers in scrubbing the data, and it's documented that they've had offers from other organizations (Amnesty International among them). And yet, Mr. Assange has repeatedly stated that they had "no help" in scrubbing the data, and that they're just a poor, overburdened organization without the resources to do that work. So which is it?

So they released the whole thing, arguing that more lives are saved from immediate release, than would possibly be lost from undiscovered, uncensored informant names.

Yes, and they provided a HORRIBLE justification as to how they felt lives would be saved. Please detail for me the exact method by which lives will be saved by them rushing to publish this leak - will it:
1) Force NATO militaries to withdraw early? (No)
2) Provide some sort of insight into exactly how the intelligence we're gathering is flawed enough that it would lead us strike at a civilian? (No)
3) Make everybody around the world lay down their arms, hug, and break into a spontaneous rendition of "Give Peace a Chance"? (No)

So, serious question, I'd really like to know your answer to it: How does "immediate release" of this data do anything to save any civilian lives? There has to be an actual logical process by which you can show 'lives will be saved', or the claim is false, and the person making that claim is - at best - wrong, and at worst, guilty of exactly the kind of deception and spin that they claim to be fighting against. I can sit here and claim that my farts cure cancer, but unless I have some actual supporting evidence, it just makes me a crackpot nutter.

And before you smear Assange further, maybe you should get out and do something to fight oppressive governments yourself.

Should I join the Marines? That'd certainly give me a chance to fight oppressive governments, wouldn't it? I mean shit, I'd say the men and women of the various NATO militaries are doing more to fight oppressive governments than Julian Assange is!

Re:This Guy

[kevinNCSU]

High Ranking people don't read through 90,000 pieces of intelligence documents and analyze it, they have low ranking people do that and present to them key facts and trends in power point slides. This outrage that a PFC (Specialist before demotion) would have access to the low level intel reports is like asking why a Software Engineer with a just a few years with the company has access to your SVN repository when CLEARLY that should only be allowed to Vice Presidents and above.

Re:This Guy

[Americano]

Selective reading much? His job is to "support his immediate command" - meaning, he provides analysis and reports to his "immediate command". That does not mean that he can only see data related to the company he's assigned to.

What the fuck good would an intel analyst be if you blindfolded him and told him "You can only look at the data that guys in your own company have submitted"? The role of an intel analyst is to review data, look for patterns, look for significant changes in tactics, equipment, etc., and then report on that to his commanders. That doesn't mean that only data submitted by his unit is available to him, because if that were the case, his job would be a pointless waste of time.

Re:This Guy

[Americano]

No, it's a case of social engineering, which is something that IT Security really can't do much to prevent against with fancy programming. The only thing they can do is educate people about the risks and possible methods that could be employed.

The military's intelligence system is not a "default permit" system - only people with specific clearance are allowed to access data on it. The problem is that THIS GUY was given a PERMIT to be in the system, and then decided that taking data from that system and leaking it would be a good idea.

It shouldn't be possible for one person to grab a copy of the entire database unless they're at the very top of the chain of command, if the leaker had the word "general" or similar in their title this might be excusable but otherwise it means the security systems failed spectacularly.

Right... because CEO's and CTO's are the only ones in any IT organization with root / admin access, right? I usually page my CFO when I need a new account created on a UNIX box, and my CIO when I need to get a new account created in an Oracle database.

What we have here is someone who was granted admin access who decided that he was going to leak data. There is no way to protect against that programatically without making it impossible for the hundreds of other analysts to do their job. This leak would not have had the scope it did if he wasn't the intelligence community equivalent of a pissed off sysadmin.

Re:Sold Out

[_Sprocket_]

It is a conspiracy theory when applied to Afghanistan. You can not take one piece of history and apply it equally to every other event in history.

Of course, if I were you, I'd have picked the US involvement in Iran over this. But then, Guatemala doesn't hit home for me.

Re:This Guy

[sumdumass]

I'm not sure what your point is there. Not acting against the Taliban is not supporting it or endorsing them. And stating that something that is somewhat better then the previous situation is a posative step is not supporting or endorsing it either.

Further more, dealing with bad people to gain access to even worse people for criminal prosecution when those bad people have yet to violate a law in your jurisdiction is not an endorsement or support of those people in any significant way. The closest thing listed that could be considered support or an endorsement would be the deal offered which never came to fruition so at best, the claim of a conditional endorsement could be made but the conditions were never satisfied.

That unless you want to interpret all those people who discover their nice model neighbor is actually a serial rapist is endorsing that behavior when the say comments about how he seemed like a nice quiet guy or because they paid him to do some yard work or something around their property.

Re:This Guy

[Anonymous Coward]

Defacto democracy? Yeah, that's a real good one, alrighty.

    First off, since many have evidently forgotten, Bush actually LOST the popular vote the first go around, albeit by the narrowest of margins. In spite of this, the man used a legal quirk, coupled with help of questionable legality from officials in a state being led by a family member (remember ol' Jeb, in Florida?) and further supported by a decision spearheaded by justices in the Supreme Court who were selected, by Bush, even though his "victory" hadn't even been decided at that point, to "confirm" his hold on the office.

    Secondly, given the prior state of affairs, can you even make a serious arguement that the "reelection" of Bush was anything but a rigged proxy vote intended to consolidate the man's "legitimacy" after the fact? Widespread reports of "irregularities" regarding voter tallies, reports of votes being cast by deceased citizens, outright examples of voter FRAUD, which crossed party lines, but conveniently resulted in a Republican win (although NOT the landslide they were expecting, hmm) and reports of intimidation at the polls.....good God, Panama had cleaner elections than this with Noriega, and those were dirty as hell!

Democracy, my ass, the good ol' U. S. of A. had been reduced to little more than yet one more banana republic ruled by a fascist tinpot dictator and his cronies for 8 years. Obama's subsequent election thereafter was either the result of a "bugout" by the perpetrators of an apparent coup, or a complete and utter statistical fluke of the wildest sort....I suspect it was the latter, as McCain was the one they likely expected to win and groomed for the job. Judging by the degree of obstructionism, disinformation (the "birther" bullshit, for one) and just plain whacknut idiocy being peddled by the likes of the former regime and their sympathizers, it's seems rather obvious to me, at least, that either Clinton or McCain were the ones who were seriously expected to fill the office. The actual result was essentially, "OMG, how in the HELL did THIS happen??"

    Since then we've seen a very obvious "bugout" of those with the most to lose from a change in the status-quo. How many American names have been opening bank accounts in places that are exempt of U.S.authority? How much of our production capacity has been moved over to places that have not so long ago avowed the destruction of American society?

Now, maybe.....MAYBE, there is a fragment of democracy still present at the local level on elections, but then, the recent court decision on campaign financing by corporate entities effectively erases that, too, doesn't it? The borders are being sealed, as well, with talk in some places on building the equivalent of the Berlin wall on our borders. The airports are already under close scrutiny, so if any were hoping to leave for someplace civillized, your options have now become something out of an Orwellian nightmare. Hell, our "beloved dear government" has even gone so far as to authorize sending the FBI into foreign countries to abduct and imprison "persons of interest".

Oh, and it's not even about one party versus another, anymore, this is about institutionalized corruption at ALL levels of governance, the only difference being where the money's coming from, these days. How fortunate, we all are (sarcasm), that our current administration is filled with caring, elected officials that actually listen to the voters on the issues. Hmph, the reality is, that while our "current" electees may have honestly given a damn, they've been captured by the system and it's inherent corruption, same as the previous lot, and are now in it for themselves. I guess that's stability for you.

They are ALL rotten to the core.

Re:Sold Out

[Anonymous Coward]

Cameron is another personality type like George W. Bush. The Conservative Party are the British equivalent of the Republicans. The Tea party are the equivalent of the astroturf campaign run by William Hague.

They all just want control, attention, and to suck capital out of the system. Labour and the Democrats swing between being disorganised and trying to out Tory the Tories (Tory is a nickname for the Conservatives that's derived from the middle Irish "robber baron".)

People follow leaders which is why the fake certainty and charisma of Tories (and Julian Assange) is hailed as "convincing" and "in touch"). It plays on stereotypes and petty grievances so how is this better or different?

I've been watching politics on both sides of the Atlantic and Slashdot very carefully. There's definitely been topics which look like deliberate plants in an attempt to swing the tech audience who have a strong and influential presence online. Slashdot is being played by extremists and sociopaths and they need to understand that.

But, anyway, thanks for that. You made some high value and level comments people needed to read, and I enjoyed reading them.

Re:This Guy

[Anonymous Coward]

You obviously don't do serious security work, and are unfamiliar with even basic standard solutions for identity management and data protection.

Americano indeed. Dumb, but loud.

Re:This Guy

[Anonymous Coward]

So PFCs (which I understood to be Private, First Class) are high-ranking people in the US military, are they?

He had Top Secret/Sensitive Compartmented Information clearance, which is its own sort of high rank.
The only people with a 'higher' form of security clearance are those handling nuclear secrets, weapons, or command & control systems.

Re:This Guy

[siddesu]

It isn't an outrage, it is a quiet laugh (as in, laughing in disbelief).

Also, I wasn't aware large software companies give junior code monkeys access to the CVS root.

Re:This Guy

[Americano]

And how, pray tell, does "identity management" and "data protection" work when the person (identity) viewing the information (data) is not only authorized to do so, but it's part of his JOB to be looking at that data for 40+ hours a week?

Please, enlighten us, Mr. AC. Tell us what standard solutions out there would have prevented this leak?

Put up or shut up, twit.

Re:This Guy

[Eli Gottlieb]

Well, I personally always thought that if we'd tread a little more softly instead of trying to find someone to go to war with about 9/11 we might have avoided the whole thing, though I understood how we got into the war once we'd gotten to that point.

Well we could have just gone to war with Saudi Arabia, the country that actually gave us al-Qaida, Wahabbism, and most of the bloody 9/11 hijackers.

Re:Sold Out

[Vintermann]

1) Force NATO militaries to withdraw early? (No)

Yes. It shows the war for what it is without whitewashing, making the war less popular, making the cost of maintaining it higher in terms of popular support, which means it's less likely that it gets extended again and again and again.

2) Ensure better behavior from soldiers and officers? (Yes. The worse ones know that atrocities will more likely get out, the good ones know they have a channel to leak said atrocities.)

Re:Sold Out

[Americano]

Please provide citations for your assertion that this has somehow altered the course of the war, and the plans for troop drawdowns. I've seen nothing to that effect; if you can't provide any evidence that this is happening, I think we can agree that this is what's known as "wishful thinking".

As for your "ensure better behavior from soldiers and officers" - again, please provide some links to information *in these leaks* detailing "all of the atrocities" that we are committing? I mean after all, since wikileaks is providing the information documenting this stuff, you should be able to provide links to it because you've actually seen the documentation... right?

Or have you just been accepting the word of people like Mr. Assange who assure you that bad things are happening, but don't deign to offer you proof of those things? If that's the case, I'd say that makes you pretty gullible, wouldn't you agree?

fun

[Anonymous Coward]

It surprises me that Assange chooses Aftonbladet, that paper is considered pure crap journalism here in Sweden, just take a look at the horrible design & content of thier web page http://www.aftonbladet.se/...
perhaps it could be that Aftonbladet has a tendacy to not really have high standards and source control in their publications... that could be fun, since there won't be any limit in how amazing Assange's stories can be...

Also, Assage had a public chat session with another Swedish news paper today; You can read the Q/A here:

http://www.dn.se/nyheter/chattar/wikileaks-grundare-julian-assange-chattade-1.1154564

If I were military intelligence

[mischi_amnesiac]

I would have used code names for my informants and the like to cover them, like for example the Stasi did in east germany (IM Klaus Meyer or something).

Mew, I should have joined the army instead of going to college - I could have done so much for their intelligence service...

Re:If I were military intelligence

[mischi_amnesiac]

Sorry, I meant meh. Guess it all reads silly now.

Re:Sold Out

[Eli Gottlieb]

The US certainly supported Saddam's Iraq. It was a modernized, secular government in a region that lacked many similar examples.

It was a totalitarian, fascist dictatorship!

Re:This Guy

[sumdumass]

I was not aware that the superior officers of Mr. Bradley Mannings were arrested and facing court martial or other disciplinary action. Can you provide a link?

You probably won't be completely aware of it either. The US military doesn't generally deal punishment in civilian law as they have their own laws and punishment procedures. You generally will not hear of specific military members being punished unless the crime crosses into the civilian rule of law or someone thinks it's to their advantage and is in a position to know.

However, there is a clear distinct difference between failing to do one's job correctly or efficiently and purposely doing an act that is not only illegal, but deadly to your own countrymen. If you can't see how one deserves an internal review, removal from command, or some sort of punishment while the other is so much more severe it's on another level entirely, then I don't think you should be discussing this.

Under the laws of which country could that happen, and what would be his crime?

US laws for one, but it appears that Australian laws which he claims to be a citizen of and possible other country's laws too. You see, the problem for Assange is that NATO troops are involved which include troops from other countries as well as NATO being key parts of their national defense forces. The entire purpose of NATO is to make sure allied countries are secure in their sovereignty by ensuring support from allies in an effort to avoid the domino effect that allowed WWII to get to the scale of a world war before other countries would step up and do something. So as long as a country is a member of NATO or has troops in Afghanistan, whether just for humanitarian aid or for war/peacekeeping, then any actions that place them in danger whether it's NATO troops or their country's troops, places their national defense in danger. An country that has laws pertaining to this, will have laws applying to Assange whether they decide to prosecute or not.

Re:Sold Out

[_Sprocket_]

It was a totalitarian, fascist dictatorship

Well, yes. It was. But the trains ran on time.

Don't get me wrong. I don't support the Saddam regime nor am I advocating sympathy for the devil. But if you want to look at the history with the intent to understand the situation, you have to look at the broad scope of things. And you have to consider the viewpoints of the actors involved. It's complex. But then, much of history (especially in the Middle East) is.

Re:This Guy

[Anonymous Coward]

I think it is wrong for the Swiss to protect him.

Swiss? Right continent, wrong country. (You fat, ignorant, Venezuelan bastard!)

Re:This Guy

[siddesu]

Hehe, you don't give up easily, but the AC is right. In any organization that deals with secret data there are two criteria that determine access:

1. clearance - which says how sikrit data you can access and

2. compartmentalization - which says who sees what, regardless of the clearance. this is also known as "need-to-know".

The rule is that even if you have clearance, you do not have access unless you also have a need-to-know.

Both are top-down things - you receive clearance and need-to-know judgment, you don't generate it yourself.

In the case of Mr. Manning, the scope is his combat battalion, in a village 80km from Baghdad.

What he needs to know is information that will be immediately useful to him to support his battle commander.

Anything else would be a distraction that will make him less effective doing his work - which is to prepare his battalion commander to better kill brown people.

This "anything else" almost certainly includes access to the happenings in remote villages in Afghanistan and certainly includes US embassy cables.

He saw more than he needed, he got distracted by bleeding heart shit like caring for brown people, data got leaked - it is that simple.

I can only guess how exactly are the US army intelligence communications implemented, but from the wired article it seems like it is a message system where anyone with clearance can read AND save all messages on any kind of media.

When I was in the military (and it was a long time ago when 16 bit computers were big deal and NATO was the enemy) compartmentalization was bigger than clearance.

To get a copy of a classified report, you needed authorization (ordinarily, a direct order) from a superior. Since copy facilities were also guarded well, that was quite enough to protect large-scale leakages from the low ranks. I am sure it was similar in the US army.

A properly organized computerized system should have worked just like that --

1. it would have had all classified information tagged with both need-to-know and clearance

2. it would have validated both against the ID of the person logged into it before allowing access and

3. it would have not allowed unauthorized copying of data on private media without doing something that would look unnatural and easy to spot.

If the sikrit communication system wasn't designed along these lines, the Pentagon people who ordered such system and the suppliers who were paid to advise them are clearly responsible.

Even if it was designed as it should have been, it is obvious that it was badly misused. So the officers in charge in the Eyerack - from the lowly and upwards to the commander who allowed the low-ranking officers to slack it - should be held responsible.

It is obvious how a properly designed and implemented system would have prevented a huge leak -- the helicopter video would probably have been leaked by Manning anyway, but Assagne would have had to work much, much harder for the Afghan reports or the embassy cables.

Instead of focusing on the real problem and solving their shit, the Pentagon is projecting ire and PR on an insignificant entity like the Wikileaks (incidentally, raising their profile).

Maybe Iraq wasn't a Bush fault after all.

Re:Sold Out

[Anonymous Coward]

The Taliban did blow up the Towers.

No they didn't. Al-Qaeda did. There are/where ties between Taliban groups in Afganistan and Al-Qaeda. But saying that "The Taliban did blow up the Towers" is as retarded as saying that "USA created the concentration camps in Nazi Germany" (there where ties between Nazi Germany and USA as well).

Re:This Guy

[Americano]

I can only guess how exactly are the US army intelligence communications implemented,

You can only guess, because you don't know fuck-all about how the US military works, and how security access works? Yeah, I'd say that's pretty much the sum of things here.

What a shock - somebody who doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about, but isn't afraid to write a page or two all about how he thinks it might possibly work today, based on his own irrelevant experiences 30 years ago - HERE, on SLASHDOT?

Re:This Guy

[Anonymous Coward]

"there is a clear distinct difference between failing to do one's job correctly or efficiently and purposely doing an act that is not only illegal, but deadly to your own countrymen."

As a NATO country citizen, I find it appalling that the US army senior command has purposely done an act (developed and implemented a system that lets the lowest nut out there collect and leak info on all NATO operations over a decade) which is deadly to my countrymen.

Seeing how many Americans are ready to defend this purposeful act of endangering our troops in the field, I think it may be time that my country should re-evaluate the need for such allies.

"US laws for one,"

US laws now apply to foreign citizens outside of the US? Then why do you have a problem with the Taliban applying their laws in New York?

"but it appears that Australian laws [smh.com.au] which he claims to be a citizen of"

One thing that "appears" from that link is that the Pentagon is well-connected to ex-military (now lobbyists) in NATO countries.

Another thing that "appears" is the said lobby groups have failed to come up with specific laws that justify prosecution of Assagne.

"The entire purpose of NATO is to make sure allied countries are secure in their sovereignty by ensuring support from allies in an effort to avoid the domino effect that allowed WWII to get to the scale of a world war before other countries would step up and do something."

Nothing of the sort.

The sensible purpose of NATO was defense from military attack on a member state. That was a reasonable goal, although it failed spectacularly in the only real war NATO had to deal with - the short one between Turkey and Greece. I'll let you figure out why it failed the way it failed yourself.

It stopped being sensible with "peacekeeping" operations that ended up opening a Wahhabist enclave in Europe, and got completely crazy with the "war on terra", which brought is in the current quagmire.

Both policies were a result of American pressure -- first, against Russia, which antagonized Russia and brought KGB back to power; and then as an inept response to the 9/11, which removed an ugly, but secular regime in Iraq and replaced it with a mess, radicalizing Islam from Indonesia to Turkey.

Well done, my NATO allies.

Re:This Guy

[siddesu]

It is so good that you refuted all my points with facts and logic :)

And yep, I can only guess, but, unlike you, I have enough knowledge that my guess is reasonable.

Re:This Guy

[Americano]

You have offered nothing factual or logical to refute, just a long, incoherent ramble about how you assume the system SHOULD work, based on your irrelevant experiences with some other military from 30 years ago.

You clearly have no idea what an intel analyst does, or how the system works, so what points, exactly am I supposed to refute?

If you could offer a shred of evidence to support your suppositions, wild-ass guesses, and assumptions, that would help. But as it is, you've stated clearly that you know nothing about the intel systems, the military, or really the situation in Afghanistant, and you've stated clearly that everything you're saying is assumption based on about a thimble-full of facts which you've managed to glean about the case - though apparently not enough to understand what an intel analyst does, and why "only stuff happening in their immediate vicinity" is not the only things they're allowed to see.

You see, when you're analyzing enemy capabilities, you look for trends - have the enemy forces started demonstrating new tactics in other places? Have the enemy started showing up with unexpected equipment or other capabilities? You look for unexpected peaks or valleys in your data, which indicate holes in your understanding of the capabilities of your enemy.

If all you're looking at are the 20 reports filed within 10 miles of your operating area, you are not doing your job. If the enemy in the eastern mountains suddenly starts showing that they're equipped with shoulder-fired missiles and armored vehicles, that's important data you won't see 80 miles away, until some of your own support aircraft are shot down.

Do you understand that "intel analysts" are granted access to intelligence for *precisely* the reason that they are supposed to be sifting through it, making connections, looking for things that are out of the ordinary & indicative of some change in the dynamics of the conflict? In addition, intel analysts are charged with entering operational data into the computer systems - how do you think the paper reports get into a form Mr. Assange can make money off of?

Re:This Guy

[siddesu]

"If the enemy in the eastern mountains suddenly starts showing that they're equipped with shoulder-fired missiles and armored vehicles"

And you talk about wild-ass guesses and assumptions and incoherent ramblings :D

Can you explain _coherently_ how are the communications of US embassy in Iceland relevant to the battle commander of a small unit in Eyerack?

Can you explain _coherently_ what is the relevance of intel on the operations of a small Taliban group on the Pakistan border two years ago relevant to Mr. Manning's battalion, strategically located 2500km away in the Eyerack?

I'm all ears, kiddo.

Re:This Guy

[Americano]

Eyerack

First, the country has a name, it is spelled 'Iraq'. Learn to spell it properly if you wish anybody to take your arguments about events IN that country with a shred of seriousness.

And you talk about wild-ass guesses and assumptions and incoherent ramblings

Yes, I do talk about them, because that's all you've offered.

Can you explain _coherently_ how are the communications of US embassy in Iceland relevant to the battle commander of a small unit in Iraq.

It's not. How Manning got his hands on it is certainly curious - whether the information was mis-classified, or he broke into an area of the system where he was not supposed to be. That's one memo - through Mr. Lamo, the informant, we know that he claimed he copied 260k documents and sent them to wikileaks; Wikileaks has denied receiving them - who do we believe?

Can you explain _coherently_ what is the relevance of intel on the operations of a small Taliban group on the Pakistan border two years ago relevant to Mr. Manning's battalion, strategically located 2500km away in Iraq?

I'll say it again: ENEMY CAPABILITIES. Trends in your enemy's apparent capabilities are useful when you are fighting an enemy, as you may well be able to deduce. Given that one of the main insurgent groups that we have been fighting in Iraq calls itself "Al Qaeda in Iraq" and was operated by one of Osama Bin Laden's lieutenants... why would you ever think that the tactics, operations and capabilities of Taliban & al Qaeda forces would be irrelevant to somebody fighting a group which is in communication with (and at least partially influenced, trained, and motivated by) the enemy 2500 km away?

HOPE EYE WUZ ABULL 2 ECKSPLAIN DAT FUR YOO CLEERLEE, sport. Don't get any sikrits in your Eyerack now.

Re:This Guy

[Americano]

* Note for clarity: "he claimed he copied 260k" = "PFC Manning claimed that Manning copied 260k..."

Re:This Guy

[victorhooi]

heya,

Sorry, but you're just reporting another silly lie, that reveals your ignorance and eagerness to jump on the DOWN WITH THE US bandwagon (no, I'm not US, but I dislike ignorance).

The US didn't "support" the Taliban - they didn't even exist in the 1980's. The US supported the Afghan Mujahideen (which simply mean "freedom fighter in Arabic), who were opposing the Soviets. At the time, they were just rebels fighting to kick the Soviets out.

The Taliban only really arose in the 1990's - they came to power in 1996, and lasted until 2001.

Now, you could argue that some of the people we trained and equipped went on to join the newly formed Taliban movement. But that's like claiming that because we helped train the Afghan police now, and they later decide to use those skills and form a new Islamic movement that kills US civilians, that we're somehow to blame. There's no way that the US in the 1980's could have known that the Taliban would rise and become what they did, or that they would be as barbaric and cruel as they turned out to be.

The things the Taliban did were horrible - and sure, the US and the other Western nations aren't the world's police, but I don't think anybody rational is actually mourning the Taliban's demise, or praying for their return.

If you are, then I have nothing but pity for you.

Cheers,
Victor

Re:This Guy

[siddesu]

"It's not. How Manning got his hands on it is certainly curious"

So, you agree with my point that Mr. Manning had access to intelligence that he did not need to know, eh? Good.

" - whether the information was mis-classified, or he broke into an area of the system where he was not supposed to be"

Heh, so we realize now that it is only possible because of lax security procedures or bad system design? Also good.

Since the rest of my argument follows logically from these two assumptions -- the leaks happened because of bad system design and bad security policies, and you've agreed to both, I'm sure you can now figure it out without further help from me, and see where you were wrong.

Cheers, Americano intelligento experto :D

Re:This Guy

[siddesu]

I would say that if I was forced to choose between the security people and the leakers, I would be entirely justified in my anger at the leaker more so than the security people.

So, you say criminal negligence which exposes people's lives to risk is somehow less reprehensible than exposing the said negligence? Your standards, I like them.

Re:This Guy

[Americano]

The rest of your argument does not follow logically from those two statements at all. Your argument is that the only reason this could have happened is because of lax security or a poorly designed system, and therefore:
1) PFC Manning had access to data far beyond and above his role as an intel analyst;
2) It is the fault of IT Security & the people who built the system that this leak happened;

Your one example of a cable from Iceland that he *might* have leaked (I have not seen any confirmation of this, and in fact have seen wikileaks deny that they received the "260k" diplomatic documents that PFC Manning claimed he had leaked to Mr. Lamo, which would presumably have included this memo) is not enough evidence to declare that he had access - IN THE INTEL SYSTEM - to see, and leak, that memo. It's possible, and it bears investigation - and I'm certain that the military is investigating this leak fully to find and plug holes like this, should they exist.

Which brings us to the Afghan War Diaries. The leaks of the data pertaining to Afghanistan, you have failed to demonstrate in the least that he "should not" have had access to, and I notice that you have glossed over my response to that, wherein I explained quite clearly and coherently why and how he would have had access to that data.

So at this point, what we know is that Manning leaked 90k documents *about Afghan operations.* You have failed to show that he had access to data far above and beyond what he would have needed for his job, and you have failed to show that his job would have required access to the 90k documents he's alleged to have leaked.

Thus, you have failed to advance your point that the blame for the leak lies with the IT security people, rather than with PFC Manning's social engineering attack.

In your rush to shift the focus away from Mr. Assange and his role in publicizing the names of Afghan civilians who have cooperated with the NATO military forces there, you have ignored the arguments which effectively undermine your points. Not surprising, this is Slashdot, after all, but still, maybe you should try addressing an argument before you declare it irrelevant - it helps with the whole "chain of logic" thing required to prove a point.

Re:Sold Out

[gssgss]

Fair enough. I have not a lot of confidence, to say the least, in any government after some historial facts like that of Guatemala (every country has its own pearls -and time), but I agree it is not the best fit fot Afghanistan. When I see the stories about psyops and similar intelligence groups http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_Operations_(United_States) I wonder if there are more hidden pearls. I have to stop referencing wikipedia each time ;-P

Re:This Guy

[tnk1]

So, you say criminal negligence which exposes people's lives to risk is somehow less reprehensible than exposing the said negligence? Your standards, I like them.

When the method of "exposing the negligence" is to willfully carry out the precise action that the regulation/law is trying to prevent, with the widest possible scope, I would say that yes, "exposing" the negligence is worse than the negligence.

There are many other ways that you can "expose negligence" in document security other than releasing thousands of documents to the widest possible audience on the Internet.

Additionally, we all know that this has nothing to do with exposing security negligence and everything to do with making a political point on the part of the leaker.

Re:Sold Out

[_Sprocket_]

I have not a lot of confidence, to say the least, in any government after some historial facts like that of Guatemala (every country has its own pearls -and time), but I agree it is not the best fit fot Afghanistan.

It really does get to be this forest of mirrors situation. Where are the realities and where are the deceptions? What deceptions exist from real conspiracies and what are created by our own perceptions and / or fantasies? This is the obvious down-side of these kinds of activities. Because the US has been involved in this behavior (with varying degrees of success) in the past, people (such as yourself) are inclined to be suspect that behavior in all future dealings.

I don't find the existence of these operations in themselves to be discomforting. Any actor in geopolitics will employ these tactics to one degree or another. The US would be foolish to not consider these tactics as well.

The issue is when to employ any given action. The problem with a lot of these historical events (including the one you linked to) is that actions were taken based on entirely incorrect assumptions. Its even possible that sometimes actions were taken with less stringent requirements for proof since these actions weren't perceived as having the same cost as conventional military activity.

Re:This Guy

[Glock27]

Actually someone blew three mod points modding me down. Idiots abound all right. ;-)

Re:This Guy

[siddesu]

"and you have failed to show that his job would have required access to the 90k documents he's alleged to have leaked."

Well, I've been saying exactly the opposite all the time - his job most definitely did not require access to all the shit he leaked.

"You have failed to show that he had access to data far above and beyond what he would have needed for his job"

Well, it is obvious, unless to the poor in spirit. Your wild suppositions that the US army in the Eyerack and Afghanistan are facing an "enemy" that has common tactics has no factual basis.

Afghanistan is not Iraq, the alleged Al Qaeda is not a single entity with united command, Al Quaeda and the Taliban are not the same thing and there is little evidence they share a whole lot of intelligence of tactics.

Even if that weren't so, dumping the same tens of thousands of raw reports on everyone everywhere is the most inefficient way to go about "knowing your enamy!11!!".

That's why they have local analysts, so they actually analyze and send out analytical reports, not drawn everyone in raw data.

Re:This Guy

[jmccay]

I know this is a little late, but I will reply anyways because this is the first time I have checked back on my post (frankly, I don't care what a bunch of liberal keyboard jockeys think). The people at wikileaks could have used some brains and realized they were endangering the lives of people. Just because you can do something, doesn't mean it is the right thing to do. My anger was directed at the right people because without a sucker to post the information publicly, the information would have gotten little attention. I stand by my original claim. If these guys were reporting behind the lines in Germany, they would be the type of "journalist" who would publish the names of the Ally informants in Nazi German newspapers. Also, they probably would use the lame excuse of "we just published the information" when the Nazi's rounded up the informants and killed them. Grow up people and realize that freedom of information has a cost--you have to be intelligent to handle it. You can't just say what ever you want. You are not a "hero" just because you get information and post it that supports your idea that something is wrong. Hero's have the brains to think that innocent people may get hurt and they filter the information first. If they contacted the Obama administration first, they would probably have helped them because it is something Obama would have supported. I hope the whole staff at wikileaks pays some price--how ever many that may be!

Re:This Guy

[siddesu]

Well, true, the Wikileaks leak did not only expose security negligence, it exposed quite a lot of criminal negligence with respect to human life.

Than one I'll concede.