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

NO!

[Monkeedude1212]

WikiLeaks did not say what the new release of information would be about."

Oh no!

Not my top secret award winning BBQ Ribs recipe!

Re:NO!

[ducomputergeek]

Not as bad as the trouble Duke's going to be in for releasing the Bushes baked beans recipe.

Re:NO!

[larry bagina]

Also known as "the TSA files". Oh, only 7 pages... nevermind.

Re:NO!

[Un pobre guey]

The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money

Didn't that happen recently in the Capitalist/Corporatist world?

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?

[MatthiasF]

Where does "idiots with good intentions possibly causing harm" fall in to the Good or Bad scale?

Re:Good Guys or Bad Guys?

[joeflies]

Perhaps part of the problem making such a determination is the asymmetric nature of their leaks. They haven't been leaking any secrets from the Taliban or Al Quaida.

It's more a function of the people involved in the leaks and the amount of digital information available to send electronically than any editorial bias, but nevertheless, the benefactors of such leaks tend to be the same people rather than being evenly distributed.

Re:Good Guys or Bad Guys?

[amRadioHed]

I believe Wikileaks fits the chaotic-good alignment.

Re:Good Guys or Bad Guys?

[goldaryn]

Just reading up on Wikileaks, I found this stating that their main host is PRQ, a Swedish ISP infamous for hosting The Pirate Bay. So they must be the good guys :-)

Re:Good Guys or Bad Guys?

[Monkeedude1212]

That depends on your personal views.

There are those who are of the opinion that these leaks are costing lives of both Western and Middle Eastern Soldiers AND Citizens - and thus releasing this information to the public essentially gives it to our enemies who then use it against us. That these leaks are causing more deaths than necessary. Opposing that some people view that essentially partaking in this conflict, by either signing up with the army or aiding with it's intelligence you've already forfeited your right to reasonable safety. The idea being they could have stopped being an informant at any point and moved far far away - so being an informant is similar to volunteering to be a soldier.

There are those who are of the opinion that the public needs to be made aware of what our military and government are doing. That indecent acts against humanity are not justified by the goal of national security. Those who think that by exposing what is going on during the wars might bring them to an end sooner, similar to the Vietnam war. There are those who think that the safety of themselves and their family are best left up to the military, and that there are some necessary evils. They might believe that those under harm from our military are rightly deserved so based upon their previous acts of violence or terrorism.

So - evaluate it how you will, theres a reason why this contraversial issue is contraversial. Make up your own mind about it.

It essentially boils down to whether you believe in the War on Terror or not.

Re:Good Guys or Bad Guys?

[_Sprocket_]

You're really trying to get the dust kicked up early, aren't you?

Alternatively... with my meager research (reading Slashdot and other sites), I can't figure out which is the superior text editor. Vi or Emacs?

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?

[cheekyjohnson]

Free speech is causing harm!

Re:Good Guys or Bad Guys?

[iamwahoo2]

Not entirely true, Wikileaks scope of work goes far beyond the war. Most of their initial leaks were targeted against organized crime and regimes that most of us would consider to be the bad guys.

Re:Good Guys or Bad Guys?

[cheekyjohnson]

It essentially boils down to whether you believe in the War on Terror or not.

In other words, it essentially boils down to whether you're an indoctrinated drone or not. All that the government has proved lately is that terrorism works. The people lose many of their freedoms in exchange for a false sense of security, and they just accept it.

Re:Good Guys or Bad Guys?

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Wrong. They care about doing what they think is good. What they don't care about is if you agree with what they think is good.

Practically no one ever considers themselves "the bad guy" even guys like saddam hussein, idi amin and the khmer rouge all rationalized their actions as somehow being for the greater good.

Personally, I think wikileaks is well over the line into the territory of "good" -- I'm just saying the argument that someone thinks they are doing good doesn't necessarily make it so.

Re:Good Guys or Bad Guys?

[Sycraft-fu]

Well I don't think they are idiots, and I'm also not sure they have good intentions. I mean what they are doing may be somewhat dangerous and certainly stirs shit up, but that doesn't make it idiotic. Doing things for the public good, even at risk to yourself, can be something very noble and necessary. So brazen perhaps, but not idiots in my opinion.

However I'm also not sure they have good intentions. To me it seems like Wikileaks is more of an ego stoke sort of things for Assanage. Leak pretty much any and everything, just to be important.

What I mean by that is it is quite clear that not all those diplomatic messages had anything to further the public good by being released, and certainly not enough to outweigh releasing classified material. There is just no way that all of them were:

1) Things people didn't already know.
2) Things they really needed to know.
3) Things that didn't have the potential to cause harm to innocents if released.
4) Things where the public's need outweighed the government's right to keep things secret.

I'm not saying some weren't I have read them, though if there were any like that in there nobody has pointed them out to me, I'm saying not all were. That Wikileaks dumped them all out says to me that it was more of an ego stoke "Look how badass we are," kind of thing more than a "Wow this is really important and the public really needs to know this," kind of thing.

So personally I think they aren't idiots, but aren't well intentioned.

Re:Good Guys or Bad Guys?

[lennier]

That Wikileaks dumped them all out says to me that it was more of an ego stoke "Look how badass we are," kind of thing more than a "Wow this is really important and the public really needs to know this," kind of thing.

Interesting.

Why would your gut reaction to an NGO transparently presenting facts, instead of selectively filtering and editorialising, be "an ego stroke"? For me, it's the exact opposite. I see ego stroking in media organisations to the extent which they don't reveal their raw data and instead try to present me a filtered, massaged, sexed-up commentary.

But then, perhaps you're assuming that the United States military has some kind of ethical high ground by default? Me, I look at the world since 2003 with the awareness that the US President began a major war of choice, which is a war crime, by point-blank lying to the United Nations - and the people responsible for this disaster have never been prosecuted. So my assumption is that the United States military has lost all its credible need for secrecy and the people need to know the full extent of their crimes so even if it's too late for justice to be done, at least awareness of the awfulness of what was done in our name won't be buried forever.

Re:Good Guys or Bad Guys?

[Oxford_Comma_Lover]

> The government has no right to keep secrets.

Yes and no. Leaving aside the rather massive issue of where rights come from, there is still a little more nuance here.

First, clearly there are times when information can't or shouldn't be publicly disseminated. Perhaps the name of a teen who was raped should be withheld from the local papers; perhaps prosecutors should not tell the media everything they know about an investigation so that they will not contaminate a jury pool; perhaps police officers should withhold a lurid detail from the description of a crime so as to tell the real criminal from a copycat or imposter.

There are more controversial areas of secrecy: the placement of agents within foreign governments or industry; cryptanalysis techniques developed at NSA that make cracking certain codes easier, or the mere fact that an old code has been cracked; the exact position of every defensive emplacement in Korea; the technology used in the F-22. The public dissemination of this information at the time it is acquired will, to some extent, compromise our ability to predict or respond to threats to the nation.

That being said, I agree that the government should not be able to keep any secret indefinitely, and that in the meantime, all government secrets should be subject to civilian oversight. Anyone who legitimately encounters classified information should also be able to bring an action against the government arguing that the information should be public, if they believe it is being classified erroneously, negligently, or with reckless disregard of the people's interest in knowing the information. A jury should be used, and the procedure should be sealed unless the claimant wins, or after a default period of several decades. Some other procedural safeguards should also be employed.

Re:Good Guys or Bad Guys?

[chrb]

I've yet to have someone show me the information that was not previously publicly known, that came to light because of this, that was so important for the public to know.

The Iraq War leaks provided details of 15,000 previously unknown civilian killings, along with the location and circumstances. That kind of information is invaluable to the Iraq Body Count Project.

That Wikipedia article contains many more "previously unknown or unconfirmed events that took place during the war". One that stands out is:

A number of the documents, as defined by Al Jazeera English, describe how US troops killed almost 700 civilians for coming too close to checkpoints, including pregnant women and the mentally ill. At least a half-dozen incidents involved Iraqi men transporting pregnant family members to hospitals.

I can't recall the U.S. military admitting to killing 700 civilians.

And what about this leaked report:

"On May 14, 2005, an American unit “OBSERVED A BLACKWATER PSD SHOOT UP A CIV VEHICLE,” killing a father and wounding his wife and daughter, a report said, referring to a Blackwater protective security detail.

The military never publicised that soldiers had observed Blackwater contractors shooting up civilian vehicles. Or the numerous other indiscriminate killings by Blackwater that the troops observed. What about this incident report, after contractors drove into a neighborhood in the northern city of Erbil and began shooting at random, setting off a firefight with an off-duty police officer and wounding three women:

"“It is assessed that this drunken group of individuals were out having a good time and firing their weapons,”"

Did the military ever voluntarily reveal that drunken contractors had gone out to have a good time shooting in a civilian neighbourhood, resulting in women being harmed?

There have been civilian casualties and the government knows. To this I can only say: DUH! It is war, it is nasty business.

Well, it wasn't supposed to be a war. The war was supposed to have been won, and this was supposed to be a peacekeeping and nation building operation. The troops and contractors and other actors are not meant to be operating under war time rules of engagement. But the leaks show that, amongst many individuals, there is a disregard for life and the rule of law.

The gunship video. If you think that's a war crime, it only shows your ignorance of the rules of war. I see nothing in that video illegal.

I've already commented on the legal issue. It is not as clear cut as you seem to think. But here's the most important issue: it is not for you or I to determine whether these men are guilty or innocent. That is a job for judges in a military court. Where is the prosecutor in this case? In any reasonable judicial system, a prosecutor would decide whether or not to pursue a court case against these individuals, and he would have to justify this decision to the public. Consider if an identical situation happened in the United States - a group of individuals, some armed - but in a state where open-carry is legal - are shot up by a police/army helicopter. A group of passing "Good Samaritans" stop to help a few minutes later, and they also get shot up. And not only is there no prosecution, there is not even an attorney general giving a reason for not pursuing a prosecution. At the very least, that is what we would expect from a civilised society that follows the rules of law.

Donating

[Hatta]

Wikileaks accepts donations by mail. If you're paranoid, and you should be, buy a postal money order with cash and drop it in a mailbox. No return address!

Re:Donating

[Asic Eng]

I used my credit card. If I can somehow be associated with Wikileaks, then I'm proud of that association.

Re:Donating

[Foobar of Borg]

Other countries have Security Services...some of which are known for their ruthless efficiency.

Not to mention, fear, surprise, and an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope.

Re:Donating

[timeOday]

Social Security, Medicare, and the US Post Office are all quite efficient.

That is, if you compare them to real-world standards (private industry and other governments), instead of an idealized standard of perfection. (E.g. people who carp about medicare fraud without ever considering that insurance fraud affects all insurers).

Leaks are Symmetric

[Roger W Moore]

Perhaps part of the problem making such a determination is the asymmetric nature of their leaks....It's more a function of the people involved in the leaks

No - it is more a function of how best to release the information to stop the organization. If you worked for the Taliban et al and were disgusted at their behaviour your best bet to stop that behaviour would be to secretly leak information to western governments who will then act to stop attacks. If you released it via Wikileaks your own organization would know that the information has been released and switch the attack to somewhere else and after an attack the information is public anyway.

Compare that to someone disgusted with the behaviour of a western government. The only people to whom these governments are somewhat accountable is their electorate. Hence, to stop the behaviour you are unhappy with the only choice you have is to leak the data publicly so that their electorate get to see it and demand an explanation and changes. So I would argue that the leaks might well be symmetric but that the terrorist leaks are more effective when kept secret and western government leaks more effective when made public.

Aljazeera != Aljazeera

[allcoolnameswheretak]

Careful, it is important to discriminate the Aljazeeras on the internet.

There is "english.aljazeera.net", which is a more or less factual, reliable news source from an arab perspective (think arab CNN). This is the "real" Aljazeera with the global TV channel.
Then there is "aljazeera.com", which is a trashy islamist/extremist propaganda website disguised as a news outlet (think FoxNews).

I Wrote Some of the Leaks

[bkmoore]

I served in Iraq twice and found many of the documents I wrote on Wikileaks, just check for Haditha from August 2006 to April 2007 or Karmah from Jan 2008 to August 2008. I wrote most of those. The funny thing is that all of these documents already actually available in unclassified form from the Marine Corps Historical Society in Quantico Virginia. The unclassified version from the Historical Society have the names, places, and weapons capabilities redacted. Which are the exact same redactions made by Wikileaks. So my question to the media is why haven't you been taking advantage of these documents from the archive? Why is this news when Wikileaks releases them? I think most journalists simply are too lazy to go through archives and just latch on to a story when it has some entertainment value. For all of the low-level documents Mr. Assange released, he has broken very little new ground. That is probably because most of it was already available from the military.