Wikileaks Vows Release '7x the Size' of Iraq Leak

CWmike writes "WikiLeaks has promised to release a load of information seven times bigger than the Iraq War Logs, which raised the Internet group's profile around the world and caused some nations to take notice of the issue of leaks of top-secret documents online. In a note on Twitter, WikiLeaks said, 'Next release is 7x the size of the Iraq War Logs. Intense pressure over it for months,' and asked supporters to continue donating to the cause. WikiLeaks did not say what the new release of information would be about."

Comments

Good Guys or Bad Guys?

[Literaryhero]

So with my admittedly meager research (reading Slashdot and other sites), I can't figure out if the Wikileaks people are good guys or bad guys. Which is it?

Re:Good Guys or Bad Guys?

[Zumbs]

Indeed. The same asymmetry can be seen in the media: The Pentagon and the US government get to spread their probaganda to a much, much larger degree than Afghan rebels, Taliban, Al Quaida or whoever else "we" are fighting at the moment. On a more practical level, I would also hazard the guess that the secrets of the Pentagon are accessible to a much larger group of people than the secrets of the Taliban. Not to mention that the format is likely more convenient.

Re:Good Guys or Bad Guys?

[ducomputergeek]

Something I've often wondered is if they had some sort of damning stuff about the Israelis or say Putin if they would be as keen to release it. The US is more about character assassination and working the propaganda angles. Mossad will just kill you and the KGB(or whatever three letter acronym they're using these days) will find a creative way of killing you.

Assrange should take a lesson from Gerald Bull. Eventually, if you piss off enough of these people, one of them will come for you. And in the end, the only question will be, whom actually did it with enough plausible deniability for all.

Re:Good Guys or Bad Guys?

[gknoy]

You're marked funny, but I think that's spot-on.

They do things which they believe are in the best interests of humanity in general.
They do some diligence (some argue not enough) to sanitize it so people don't get further endangered as a result.
They feel that Not Acting harms more than acting, so they act and release information in the interests of disclosing corruption, false propaganda, or things which are Unknown to the public at large.
They do this despite knowing that it will get them on the shit-lists of influential governments. They seem to try to stay legal, but it appears that they are willing to publish things which you or I would be unable to get away with publishing.

This anthropomorphizes Wikileaks a bit more than I probably should. It seems like their modus operandi is "Expose corruption and lies, even if it's against the law someplace", but that may just be my perception. They're like Robin Hoods of the information age.

Re:Good Guys or Bad Guys?

[amRadioHed]

Yeah, I was only half joking. It does really fit them well.

Re:Good Guys or Bad Guys?

[Anonymous Coward]

Just when I was wondering whether the CIA was still an effective government agency, responses like this prove that tax dollars are being well spent on good ole' fashioned character assassination and changing public discourse from the topic to the messenger.

How dare those morally questionable 'wiki-leakians' release information that has not been shown to have harmed any informant or risked any soldiers lives in Iraq and brings to light some of what actually happens in a war zone to those who haven't been in one.

The government has been wasting far too much time and resources lately 'protecting' us from all this knowledge, when they should be busy planning which country to invade next! So it is good to see an effective government agency fighting the good fight to discredit whatever information gets released before they even know what it is.

Re:Good Guys or Bad Guys?

[amorsen]

The Iraq leak showed that Danish soldiers were patrolling with a few token British soldiers, so that the Danish soldiers would not have to capture anyone. This was done because there was worries that prisoners captured by the Danish forces could not be handed over to the Iraqis. It was known that the Iraqis tortured and killed prisoners who had been handed over.

So basically the Danish forces knew full well that they were complicit in torture, and the government felt it could avoid blame by just bringing British soldiers with them -- enabling them to truthfully say "no, we have not handed prisoners over to the Iraqi forces" when asked in Parliament. And the excuse of the Danish soldiers? "We were just following orders". Right, I wonder where we heard that one before.

Unfortunately members of the Parliament are immune to prosecution in Denmark, so we cannot try them for war crimes. Maybe once the government changes, but I bet the new government won't allow it, just like George Bush hasn't been indicted even though we have his written confession.

Re:More Grandstanding and blatant self advertising

[PitaBred]

I'm not sure I'd want to show up for an International arrest warrant if a government official that still retains a fair bit of clout was calling for my treatment as an enemy combatant. I'm sure that a trip to Guantanamo Bay would be completely off the table, right?

I really hope it's not more US stuff

[gman003]

Com on, there's got to be more data than stuff related to the US. Do something on the PRC, or Russia, or the UK, or almost anything. You've proved your point - the US is far from perfect. Now can you point your crosshairs at some other country for a change?

I want to see saddam's docs

[Anonymous Coward]

here's what I want released, while we're in a release anything kinda mood... How about someone release the documents we captured from saddams oval office? They were referred to as the harmony docs, and were being translated by the FMSO. Remember the october surprise in the 2004 NYTimes: "bush leaks saddam's nuke primer on web"? I saw many of those docs... WMD specs, bio/chem training manuals, evading un inspectors. How 'bout releasing those?

Re:Have All The Other Pages Been Read Yet?

[Un pobre guey]

Yes, a lot like the way "investors" is used these days.

Re:Really? "boredwiththis"?

[victorhooi]

heya,

Well, let's see...their last release was a big fat wad of....boring? Seriously *sigh*. Basically, the spark notes version was:

1. War is ugly, war involves killing people
2. Occasionally we will accidentally hit our own people
3. Some people do not cope well with the stress, and get desensitised.

I'm fairly sure all of the above are things that we've managed to learn in the...oh....10,000 odd years that humans have been waging war on each other?

Oh right, and we learned that the Taliban has no qualams about using human shields or killing civilians to make it's point and scare the populace. Gee, whoop de do. Everybody talks about how the US caused a few tragedies (because they still are tragedies), and completely ignores the fact that the opposition is basically committing free-scale genocide...*shakes head*.

That is why I have lost respect for Wikileaks - they've basically turned into a anti-US drone, with a one-track agenda.

Cheers,
Victor

Re:Aljazeera != Aljazeera

[bogjobber]

Anyone that thinks CNN has a left-leaning bias is giving them too much credit. MSNBC has a left-leaning bias. Fox has a right-leaning bias. The only thing CNN is biased towards is cultural outrage (ie Nancy Grace and Glenn Beck's old show), kidnappings, and murders.