Slashdot Mirror


WikiLeaks Under Denial of Service Attack

wiredmikey writes "WikiLeaks has reported that its Web site is currently under a mass distributed denial of service attack. The attack comes around the time of an expected release of classified State Department documents, which the Obama administration says will put 'countless' lives at risk, threaten global counterterrorism operations and jeopardize US relations with its allies."

870 comments

  1. attacked by whom? by Sprouticus · · Score: 3, Informative

    So who OTHER than the US government could be responsible for the attack?

    1. Re:attacked by whom? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      The aliens that don't want the notes of the US ambassador to the intergalactic union to be published.

    2. Re:attacked by whom? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's always a possibility that they're doing it themselves/hired people to do it in order to drum up business. I mean, Assange loves playing the victim card all the time - it's not much of a stretch to imagine WikiLeaks DDOSing themselves just for the publicity.

    3. Re:attacked by whom? by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 5, Funny

      So who OTHER than the US government could be responsible for the attack?

      The answer to your question is actually posted right under the story above, under "Related Stories"...

      "WikiLeaks Under Denial of Service Attack by wiredmikey (1824622)"

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    4. Re:attacked by whom? by Lunoria · · Score: 1

      Anyone who wants the US government to look bad? Everyone is going to assume they are behind it anyways

    5. Re:attacked by whom? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      by hackers who value the free world and are against biased thiefs.

      wikileaks mainly publishes leaks of government info of US... how come they don't publish stuff which embarasses india? every day there's corruption being reported in the news in india... but wikileaks covers none of it?

    6. Re:attacked by whom? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From Anonymous. Collectively, they have no bias. But they will go after anyone who paints themselves a target.

    7. Re:attacked by whom? by HelloKitty2 · · Score: 1

      The government wouldn't be this stupid, there are DDoS mitigation services that routs all traffic through their service and filters it out without causing much economic damage.

    8. Re:attacked by whom? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "At the start of a series of daily extracts from the US embassy cables - many of which are designated "secret" – the Guardian can disclose that Arab leaders are privately urging an air strike on Iran"http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/nov/28/us-embassy-cable-leak-diplomacy-crisis*

      Anyone who has communicated with the US government.

      *By no means do I present anything a news organization as fact.

    9. Re:attacked by whom? by icebraining · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Sigh, do we have to point out every single time that Wikileaks is _not_ an investigative organization, but merely posts what is sent to them while protecting the source, and that maybe they just get more data from US than from $COUNTRY?

    10. Re:attacked by whom? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This can either be because they have an agenda against the US or this could be because there are many more leakers in the US than in the rest of the world.

    11. Re:attacked by whom? by Ziekheid · · Score: 1

      1) Calling botnet owners hackers (lol'd) 2) You obviously have NO IDEA what you're talking about. Wikileaks exists longer than 1 year you know, they have leaked tons of documents in relation to other countries. The fact that the media only reported on these major leaks is not their problem.

    12. Re:attacked by whom? by 0x461FAB0BD7D2 · · Score: 1

      how come they don't publish stuff which embarasses india? every day there's corruption being reported in the news in india... but wikileaks covers none of it?

      So, you're asking why Wikileaks, an organization which leaks secrets and publicly unavailable documents, doesn't cover the publicly available and frequent reports of corruption in India?

    13. Re:attacked by whom? by Winckle · · Score: 2, Funny

      Bloody 7 digit UID members are getting uppity.

    14. Re:attacked by whom? by jellomizer · · Score: 0, Troll

      Wiki-Leaks...
      DDOS their own servers.

      Started as a small time site.
      Got a hold of some good material
      Got a lot of press
      Became really popular
      but
      Made some enemies
      Time went on...
      Fame started to fade.
      Came up with a plan
      Faked some documents
      DDOS their own servers on release date
      Make people think it was the US government

      If this guy had any morals he would have blanked out Names of the leaks to help protect the individuals. I was taught that in 8th grade. This guy is just making a point not for the fact of the point but just to put more attention to himself.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    15. Re:attacked by whom? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Goverment always has more powerfull abilities to prevent information loss (if they don't want it). They can easily operate the law :) DDoS is something strange to me.

    16. Re:attacked by whom? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps Wikileaks is attacking itself: China believes Wikileaks run by Mossad, CIA

    17. Re:attacked by whom? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Slashdot-users now...

    18. Re:attacked by whom? by oliverthered · · Score: 1

      I'd say they've got a pretty good advertising campaign going on without the need to DDOS themselves.

      --
      thank God the internet isn't a human right.
    19. Re:attacked by whom? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This guy is claiming responsibility for Wikileaks and other DDOS attacks on twitter:
      http://twitter.com/th3j35t3r

      Related article/video: https://www.infosecisland.com/blogview/2990-Exclusive-Video-of-XerXeS-DoS-Attack.html

      This was dug up at reddit here: http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/ecw40/wikileaks_currently_under_a_mass_ddos_attack/

    20. Re:attacked by whom? by flyingkillerrobots · · Score: 1

      It's always a possibility that their servers are being DDOSed by everybody trying to download the files. At a minimum, every remotely developed country's government is going to be wanting a copy, not to mention every journalist alive.

      --
      "It is a good thing for an uneducated man to read books of quotations..." -Winston Churchill
    21. Re:attacked by whom? by westlake · · Score: 1

      Sigh, do we have to point out every single time that Wikileaks is _not_ an investigative organization, but merely posts what is sent to them while protecting the source, and that maybe they just get more data from US than from $COUNTRY?

      The key words here are "merely" and "maybe."

      Which have damn little in common with the PR blasts from Assange.

    22. Re:attacked by whom? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is a good track record of ddos attacks coming from non-government entities. Wikileaks also isn't just a group that tries to spy on the US. Further, the reported releases are about communications between nations, in which case other nations might also want to keep their privacy. So I'd say every government and every criminal organization would have a reason and means for the attack.

      But wait, there's more. Not everyone agrees with wikileak's level of discretion, and they are a fairly public entity. Given that ddos attacks are within the technical means of individuals or groups, anyone wanting to be an anti-manning could have done this. So this would now include US and non-US citizens who disagree with wikileaks.

      But wait, there's more. There's also the theory that they are doing it to themselves, or that someone else is doing it to them to make it appear that someone doesn't want you to know about this info. Just the kind of advertisement to really get people's interest.

    23. Re:attacked by whom? by StillNeedMoreCoffee · · Score: 1

      Your kidding of course. This is the standard, accuse the victim of being responsible, but I guess if your a conspiracy theorist you would. This is what at least two levels down. A conspiracy by the people exposing conspiracys on themselves. Maybe a little to self referential.

    24. Re:attacked by whom? by Oxford_Comma_Lover · · Score: 1

      Any competent government that doesn't want US info on its dirty laundry aired? The US warned India, for example, that something embarassing might get out; do you really think India couldn't DDoS Wikileaks without pausing for a snack-break?

      --
      -- IANAL, this isn't legal advice, and definitely isn't legal advice for you. Also, Squee!
    25. Re:attacked by whom? by monkyyy · · Score: 1

      TERRORISTS, as the riaa/mpaa would say about the operation payback

      --
      warning pointless sig
    26. Re:attacked by whom? by monkyyy · · Score: 1

      because no one respects india

      --
      warning pointless sig
    27. Re:attacked by whom? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So who OTHER than the US government could be responsible for the attack?

      Quick, blame China, so no one will notice! ...Oh wait, too late.
      Now we'll have to discuss about US wrongdoings, damn these whistle blowers, we should shoot you for treason, even if you're not American!

      Damn wikileaks, damn free speech, now censor my comment and let CIA take over.

    28. Re:attacked by whom? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They act like an enemy of the US in a time of war?? WTF?

    29. Re:attacked by whom? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why would you whine about wikileaks not reporting on another country's corruption? Are you ashamed of being a citizen of a corrupted country? Would you feel better if wikileaks stopped exposing corruption in your country and started reporting on other countries instead? Don't you think having wikileaks expose corruption in the US is a very good occasion to improve your knowledge about what the government is doing with the taxes you are paying?

      I mean, if you got raped by someone and a third party wants to expose your rapist, are you gonna protect him asking why that third party isn't exposing other rapists instead of that one which molested you?

    30. Re:attacked by whom? by __aamnbm3774 · · Score: 1

      How about ANYONE who hates the US Government?

      There are plenty of people who want the government to look evil.

    31. Re:attacked by whom? by Extremus · · Score: 1

      Ha! These can be found in the Sub-Etha File-o-Sharing Network already.

    32. Re:attacked by whom? by Coward+Anonymous · · Score: 1, Troll

      Maybe because Wikileaks removed all non-U.S. documents from their website...

    33. Re:attacked by whom? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Isn't it obvious?

      Days ago a massive number of 'torrent' sites get hijacked. How hard is it really to play puppetmaster with certain traffic and redirect where you want it to go. Pretty obvious to me that the US Government can wield massive amounts of traffic at targets they see fit to engage.

      Cyber Warfare? Take a big whiff. This is it, alive and breathing!

    34. Re:attacked by whom? by mcvos · · Score: 1

      wikileaks mainly publishes leaks of government info of US... how come they don't publish stuff which embarasses india? every day there's corruption being reported in the news in india... but wikileaks covers none of it?

      They post lots of stuff about other countries. When they can get their hands on it. This is easily the biggest and most high-profile leak they've ever had. But it's by no means the first.

    35. Re:attacked by whom? by hedwards · · Score: 1

      Apparently. It shocks me that anybody out there honestly believes that the Wikileaks folks do anything more than collect leaked information they've been handed and finds a way to publicize it. Consequently, the fact that most of it seems to be about the US, might just be because the US is an easy target. And the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan which seem to have the most material related to the leaks happen to be terribly unpopular abroad.

      What's more shocking is that much of the material was already suspected if not specifically known. It's kind of a how dare you prove that the sky is blue sort of thing.

    36. Re:attacked by whom? by f3rret · · Score: 1

      So who OTHER than the US government could be responsible for the attack?

      A whole bunch of people around the internet.
      My bet is on some bored nerd somewhere.

      --
      Admit nothing. Deny Everything. Make Counter-accusations.
    37. Re:attacked by whom? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So who OTHER than the US government could be responsible for the attack?

      Lessee -- Saudi Arabia -- remember the 9/11 report being censored about any special treatment of Saudis immediately post-9/11? How about Turkey and all the other countries with secret prisons and who cooperated with our rendition requests? Lots of room for embarrassment all around.

      Interesting -- captcha = replete

    38. Re:attacked by whom? by Heartlessly+Hoping · · Score: 1

      If Wikileaks is not an investigative organization but merely posts what is sent to them while protecting the source... Then why does Harold Hongju Koh, Legal adviser to the State Department refuse to release the names of who would be endangered by the release as requested by Wikileaks? Was Wikileaks going to use this information to censor its release? Was it going to release the names if the State Department was foolish enough to release those names?

    39. Re:attacked by whom? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I fear not the galactic onion

    40. Re:attacked by whom? by Charliemopps · · Score: 1

      Why does it have to be someone other than the US? lol

    41. Re:attacked by whom? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This was my first thought - US Govt was second. It would be completely plausible for them to DoS themselves to keep the publicity train rolling. Third idea was some self righteous individual or group thinking they were doing someone a favor by preventing access to the site.

    42. Re:attacked by whom? by eloki · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I think you're quite right but I honestly believe that Wikileaks (or at least Assange) has some leftish anti-American bias. I think they probably would release documents from $COUNTRY if they could, but they seem to focus more on the USA.

      I'm not American but this latest release seems to have very little of actual substance. Comments on this leader or that leader are not actually directly useful to the public; it is not of direct concern to me what diplomat X thinks of leader Y in country Z. It is more geopolitically interesting that Arab leaders are urging strikes on Iran, but again I'm unsure of the importance of that information to the public.

      Every country would say unflattering things sometimes, just as in a workplace one must sometimes frankly discuss the strengths and weaknesses of colleagues. But sending transcripts of such frank discussions to a company-wide mailing list wouldn't be appropriate, and it feels as if that's what Wikileaks has done: send lots of unflattering info to everyone without it actually benefiting them or the people discussed.

    43. Re:attacked by whom? by icebraining · · Score: 1

      Citation, please.

    44. Re:attacked by whom? by makomk · · Score: 1

      Don't be lazy - take a look at the Wikileaks website. There were non-US documents on it, as you can trivially confirm by googling if you didn't know this already. They're not there now. Some of them were very revealing.

    45. Re:attacked by whom? by makomk · · Score: 1

      they have leaked tons of documents in relation to other countries

      All of which vanished from their website along with their recent refocusing on US wrongdoing. Very annoyingly, too.

    46. Re:attacked by whom? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's always a possibility that they're doing it themselves/hired people to do it in order to drum up business. I mean, Assange loves playing the victim card all the time - it's not much of a stretch to imagine WikiLeaks DDOSing themselves just for the publicity.

      That would only make sense if the leak itself weren't that interesting. But the leak has the attention of major newspapers etc. (and Slashdot!). Why DDOS yourself for the publicity if you already have the publicity?

    47. Re:attacked by whom? by Nemyst · · Score: 1

      I knew the Asgard existed.

    48. Re:attacked by whom? by jc42 · · Score: 1

      "WikiLeaks Under Denial of Service Attack by wiredmikey (1824622)"

      Or, as someone else already suggested, wikileaks is being DDOSed by lots of people who want to read the new documents. This is similar to being slashdotted, of course.

      --
      Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
    49. Re:attacked by whom? by jc42 · · Score: 1

      Sigh, do we have to point out every single time that Wikileaks is _not_ an investigative organization, ...?

      Yes, apparently we do. No surprise there.

      I do sorta wonder when we'll hear of the first "mysterious death" of someone involved with wikileaks.

      --
      Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
    50. Re:attacked by whom? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fascinating how everyone talks about arab leaders urging an attack on Iran while at the same time Israel is putting up ultimatums, even spreading rumors to the media that either USA attack Iran or they will. Im guessing they would have done by now if they wanted to do the dirty work themselves, considering all the alarmism they are spreading in the media while in the cables discussing the 5 years to nukes problem.

    51. Re:attacked by whom? by Stoutlimb · · Score: 1

      Where are these documents about other countries? I went to wikileaks.org, and I can't find them? There used to be lots of things about China, I can't find any of those things anymore.

    52. Re:attacked by whom? by omglolbah · · Score: 1

      My personal view of Assange is that he is an assbag that shouldnt be the spokesperson of anything.

      That doesnt really affect my view of wikileaks itself though. While I am skeptical to a lot of what they do and always question their motives (as one should... with anything really) I would rather they keep doing what they do than stop.

      The world is going to shit quite fast at the moment and -something- has to change. I have no clue if what wikileaks is doing is the right way, but I sure have not seen any good alternatives to forced open-ness (so to speak..)

    53. Re:attacked by whom? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The US is (still, but not for eternity) the most powerful country in the world, with its businesses and, and this is crucial, its military meddling in the affairs of most corners of the world. This is unlike almost every other country on this planet.

      It is thus, in my (and many, many others) completely justified that the US also be the most scrutinized.

      The publication now beginning to me made by Wikileaks (what's published so far is but a small part of what is to come) is part of that scrutiny.

      If the US would prefer less scrutiny, then they are welcome to meddle less with the rest of the world.

    54. Re:attacked by whom? by slim · · Score: 1

      Bloody 7 digit UID members are getting uppity.

      Bless 'em.

    55. Re:attacked by whom? by Reservoir+Penguin · · Score: 1

      I do not see a problem when a country that desires to be "the leader of the free world" is held to a higher standard and scrutinized more than let's say Iran or Venezuella.

      --
      US-UK-Israel: The real Axis of Evil
    56. Re:attacked by whom? by regularjack · · Score: 1

      I'm sure Occam's Razor would agree with you ...

    57. Re:attacked by whom? by tsm_sf · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Many people know the quote "My country right or wrong", but few seem to appreciate the context.

      The Senator from Wisconsin cannot frighten me by exclaiming, "My country, right or wrong." In one sense I say so too. My country; and my country is the great American Republic. My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right.

      - Carl Schurz

      I feel that actors like Assange perform an invaluable role in "setting right" my country. We've been for far too long operating under the assumption that anything relating to the military is sacrosanct.

      --
      Literalism isn't a form of humor, it's you being irritating.
    58. Re:attacked by whom? by poity · · Score: 1

      When's the last time you've been to wikileaks? I challenge you to find a document from a country other than the US right now on the wikileaks.org domain. Go, try.
      Oh they used to have plenty, but they've all been removed. It's all US documents all the time now.

      --
      your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
    59. Re:attacked by whom? by eloki · · Score: 1

      Yep, it's to be expected. I was doubting that Wikileaks is just a purely disinterested poster of leaks, as some /.ers have claimed.

    60. Re:attacked by whom? by shnull · · Score: 0

      progress without conflict is impossible . when all conflict is resolved there is no need for evolution. Conflict does not always require violence.

      --
      beware he who denies you access to information for in his mind, he already deems himself to be your master (SMAC-ish)
  2. Sorry. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oops, wrong IP address...

  3. Is that it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    I thought US Government was more capable than 4chan.

    1. Re:Is that it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought US Government was more capable than 4chan.

      Don't give them ideas...

  4. Guardian released leak already by devbox · · Score: 5, Informative
    1. Re:Guardian released leak already by InfiniteWisdom · · Score: 1, Informative

      If you look at his recent history, there seem to be a whole bunch of reasonable posts modded down to -1. Seems pretty suspicious.

    2. Re:Guardian released leak already by davev2.0 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Or, someone figured out he has been modbombing people.

    3. Re:Guardian released leak already by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      seems to be a lame attempt by slashdot faggots to stop others from reading it?

    4. Re:Guardian released leak already by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >If you look at his recent history, there seem to be a whole bunch of
      > reasonable posts modded down to -1. Seems pretty suspicious.

      No small number of veteran /.ers read and post AC due to moderator abuse and the complete lack of corrective action by /. admins. I suggest you lower your threshold too see what gems you find at "0". Excellent Karma, 6 digit UID here and I haven't posted a logged in comment for a year or longer.

    5. Re:Guardian released leak already by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Modbombing?

    6. Re:Guardian released leak already by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ditto. I've been a member of slashdot for 10 years, and I almost always post AC.

    7. Re:Guardian released leak already by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1

      If you look at his recent history, there seem to be a whole bunch of reasonable posts modded down to -1. Seems pretty suspicious.

      This has been a long-time problem.

      Some people will downmod stuff they don't like, but a lot of stuff gets upmodded that doesn't deserve it. I figure it all comes out in the wash.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    8. Re:Guardian released leak already by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      there seem to be a whole bunch of reasonable posts modded down to -1

      Its almost like being back at Digg, actually...

    9. Re:Guardian released leak already by quickgold192 · · Score: 1

      Like terrorism, but with 1960s custom suits and Vespas.

    10. Re:Guardian released leak already by ushering05401 · · Score: 1

      Stop posting with your karma bonus and pretty much all the mods go away.

  5. Secrecy by thehostiles · · Score: 5, Interesting

    "lives at risk" "threaten global counterterrorism operations" and "jeopardize us relations" all sounds like politicianese for "we really fucked up and don't want anybody to know about it"

    Whatever happened to justice against people who commit (war) crimes?

    1. Re:Secrecy by MadTinfoilHatter · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Whatever happened to justice against people who commit (war) crimes?

      That "justice" only ever existed for the war criminals on the losing side. Silly.

    2. Re:Secrecy by the+linux+geek · · Score: 1

      Which war crimes are you referring to?

      Before you go off on a tangent about Guantanamo, please remember that international law allows personnel captured in combat without uniforms or other means of identifying them as combatants can be dealt with under the law of the capturing country.

    3. Re:Secrecy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is politicianese for some documents are not meant for public consumption. Things like the British PM caved easily to our overtures don't make the US any friends, nor does "we were able to get the Turks to agree to XYZ provided we don't publicize it" or even something innocuous like "we agreed to give in on unpopular issue X to get the Chinese/Japanese/Indians to agree to unpopular with them issue Y/popular issue Z back home. Other correspondence might include "Minister X likes chocolate/caviar, so be sure to serve it at reception Y that could be phrased in a subobtimal manner and give offense.

    4. Re:Secrecy by thehostiles · · Score: 1

      That's why I added the parentheses. I inlcude room for the potential that war crimes were involved in anything included in this leak, but I'm not saying it's a fact.

      So in this case, I'm referring to potential war crimes.

    5. Re:Secrecy by John+Hasler · · Score: 1

      But the whole point of keeping them at Guantanamo is to keep them out of the USA and so deny them the protection of the law of the capturing country.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    6. Re: Secrecy by Black+Parrot · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Whatever happened to justice against people who commit (war) crimes?

      Apparently it's not a crime if the President of a superpower authorizes it.

      We've consistently imprisoned people for waterboarding since the Spanish-American war. We convicted Japanese for it after WWII. We convicted our own troops for using it in Viet Nam. And we've even put some civilian law enforcement officers in prison for using it in Texas.

      But suddenly it's OK...

      Bet it wouldn't be OK if someone did it to our troops.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    7. Re:Secrecy by Boronx · · Score: 1

      Waging a war of aggression is a war crime. Torture is a crime under US law and under international law when anyone does it to anyone regardless of uniform. Indefinite detention is a crime in the US.

    8. Re:Secrecy by Sepodati · · Score: 1

      Show me the war crimes in these leaked documents. Show me where the US "fucked up" in the documents, also.

      The few I read do look pretty sensitive to relations. UAE SOF and drones operating "quietly" in support of OEF. UAE pulling support could certainly be seen as threatening CT operations. Lives at risk is a stretch, but it's one of those things that's never proven right until the first guy dies.

    9. Re:Secrecy by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      But the whole point of keeping them at Guantanamo is to keep them out of the USA and so deny them the protection of the law of the capturing country.

      No, that is not the whole point. Enemy combatants don't get those protections either way, when captured in the field during a conflict. But GITMO has the benefit of being isolated (from attacks by the groups that would like to rescue their captured buddies or - preferrably - 'martyr' them while they're being held), already having excellent security, and being removed from the conflict areas without having to make a giant spectacle and terror magnet out of location near some US city.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    10. Re:Secrecy by jeff4747 · · Score: 1

      Except the SCOTUS already ruled that Guantanamo does not provide such a fig leaf.

    11. Re:Secrecy by jeff4747 · · Score: 1

      And to bring this back onto topic, none of your examples were revealed by Wikileaks.

    12. Re:Secrecy by Moof123 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Agreed. I remember that part of the brainwashing i got as a child was to describe how the USSR treated its prisoners using sleep deprivation, secret hidden prisons, etc. It readily dehumanized them to me as a young child. Now our own government readily admits (proudly at times) to doing worse. I can't help but fail to be proud of my country any more. Our leaders are no better than the soviet scum I was raised to hate, except their now us.

    13. Re: Secrecy by jeff4747 · · Score: 1

      Apparently it's not a crime if the President of a superpower authorizes it.

      It's more a matter of enforcement. If any country with a reasonably-sized military wants to flaunt international law, there's nothing to stop them. The US is not alone in this regard.

    14. Re:Secrecy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd rather like to see what happened at Mai Lai in Vietnam prosecuted under the same rules and format we applied at Nuremberg and Tokyo. Alas the USA held a few show trials on its home soil and let the only major conviction out of prison early - no hangings, no firing squads, no life in prison until death. A relative slap on the wrist for torture, rape and mass murder.

      Of course if you are the biggest bully on the block, you get to make the rules and make the rules not apply to you.

      Staggering that the International Criminal Court (ironically the idea of a brilliant American prosecutor) is good enough for people like Milosevic, Taylor or Bashir but not good enough for America's Holy Soldiers and move's the US government to pass obscenities like the Hague Invasion Act.

      Until the USA has the spine to openly and honestly examine its own dark past and acknowledge the fact that it no longer has any moral right to lead the world - as it's no better than the rest of us, then long may people like WikiLeaks thrive.

      Down with the hypocrites.

    15. Re:Secrecy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which war crimes are you referring to?

      Before you go off on a tangent about Guantanamo, please remember that international law allows personnel captured in combat without uniforms or other means of identifying them as combatants can be dealt with under the law of the capturing country.

      Torture is not legal in the U.S. neither is holding people captive without a trial.

    16. Re:Secrecy by Coward+Anonymous · · Score: 1

      Go read these documents. They are run of the mill diplomatic cables. No crimes in these documents. Kind of makes you question the point of publication...

    17. Re:Secrecy by Sepodati · · Score: 1

      lol... so it's okay for you to reference "potential" war crimes and expect to be taken seriously, but the reference to "potential" loss of lives, threats, etc. is not to be believed?

    18. Re:Secrecy by mcvos · · Score: 1

      Before you go off on a tangent about Guantanamo, please remember that international law allows personnel captured in combat without uniforms or other means of identifying them as combatants can be dealt with under the law of the capturing country.

      And I don't think Guantanamo would have been much of an issue if that'd been what happened. Instead, they were held in a lawless vacuum.

    19. Re:Secrecy by hedwards · · Score: 1

      Since we decided that the standards set out during the Nuremberg trials didn't apply to US intelligence agents. A lot of what President Bush ordered constituted war crimes. You cannot order torture no matter how significant the information is, that isn't something that international law allows, no matter how you gussy it up. You don't get to arbitrarily label it something else because you chose the other definition of torture.

      Any one of those individuals could have said no, that they wouldn't have any part of it. I am not aware of any individual ever being prosecuted for refusing a criminal order. And definitely none in the US or most of the developed world.

    20. Re:Secrecy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On the other hand, the release is a great service to the Hollywood writers looking for plausible story lines for their next blockbuster and, to be a devils advocate, to the international public whose support the US government surely would like to have for their actions. In other words, it's good for the economy and it's good for the public support of the US administration.

    21. Re:Secrecy by amorsen · · Score: 1

      How about the war crime of handing prisoners of war over to Iraqi forces, knowing that these prisoners would be tortured and/or killed.

      Note: I am not accusing the US of doing this; it has so far only been proven that Danish and British forces did it. We can hope they were the only countries to commit such war crimes.

      --
      Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
    22. Re:Secrecy by lxs · · Score: 1

      "enemy combatant" isn't an internationally recognized designation. It's a Bush-era invention to get around the Geneva convention.

    23. Re:Secrecy by the+linux+geek · · Score: 1

      That's funny, given a 1942 Supreme Court ruling which states:

      "Unlawful combatants are likewise subject to capture and detention, but in addition they are subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals for acts which render their belligerency unlawful. The spy who secretly and without uniform passes the military lines of a belligerent in time of war, seeking to gather military information and communicate it to the enemy, or an enemy combatant who without uniform comes secretly through the lines for the purpose of waging war by destruction of life or property, are familiar examples of belligerents who are generally deemed not to be entitled to the status of prisoners of war, but to be offenders against the law of war subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals.(Emphasis added) "

      The comment about "purpose of waging war by destruction of life or property [without uniform]" is relevant.

    24. Re:Secrecy by rrohbeck · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Has anybody looked at the counter argument? That long term, the release of these messages will lead to improved policies?
      Global politics has been messed up by the US since after WWII - wouldn't it be nice if that stopped?

    25. Re:Secrecy by Carewolf · · Score: 1

      Except the SCOTUS already ruled that Guantanamo does not provide such a fig leaf.

      Correct, but that is the current policy, which is not the same as the former policy. It was the former policy which lead to placing the prisoners in Guantanamo, because it was believed be beyond the reach of the US supreme court and the US constitution.

    26. Re:Secrecy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, the Bush regime dug up an old US WW2 term and used it again, still has zero international recognition though. And they definitely applied it differently from how it was used back then (when the worry was saboteurs and spies working directly for a foreign power which was a real military threat to the US).

    27. Re:Secrecy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      read charlie wilson's war - i wouldn't equate us with what the russian's did in afganastan - we don't create bomb's out of toy's to kill children.

    28. Re:Secrecy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I call BS because you are obviously not American born. This post is a bold faced lie.

    29. Re:Secrecy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      move then?

    30. Re:Secrecy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good - then GTFO.

    31. Re:Secrecy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about "national security" wich is really just plans to protect the "big" business interests at the expense of the people taxes, who are always enough for military contracts but never enough for education, better minimum wage, better social security, better infrastructures.

    32. Re:Secrecy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh how could i have almost forgot the too "big" to fail banks, sitting on hundreds of billions of capital injection from tax payers so then it after keeps foreclosuring loans and keeping everything the same, stocking up for new "investements" (schemes). It's great times for monopolies.

    33. Re:Secrecy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Agreed. I remember that part of the brainwashing i got as a child was to describe how the USSR treated its prisoners using sleep deprivation, secret hidden prisons, etc. It readily dehumanized them to me as a young child. Now our own government readily admits (proudly at times) to doing worse. I can't help but fail to be proud of my country any more. Our leaders are no better than the soviet scum I was raised to hate, except their now us.

      How would you feel if I told you Al-Qaeda was a fabrication. A lot of lids are going to be flipped over the next 5 years - grab your popcorn and your pitchforks :)

    34. Re:Secrecy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yeah right, so the only things that are kept secret are fuck-ups? wtf?

    35. Re:Secrecy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All of you hippies enjoying your Rights keep that in mind when there are no more soldiers to defend you.

    36. Re:Secrecy by sirambrose · · Score: 1

      Isn't that why we send new prisoners to Afghanistan now?

    37. Re:Secrecy by tenco · · Score: 1

      The comment about "without uniform" is relevant.

      FTFY.

    38. Re:Secrecy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Enemy combatants don't get those protections either way, when captured in the field during a conflict."

      Wrong. All men are created equal with inalienable rights endowed to them by their creator. Among these are the right to face your accuser and the right to a fair and speedy trial.

      These rights have nothing to do with being a citizen, what kind of 'combatant' you are or any other fucking excuse you think up.

  6. Administration has zero credibility by fyngyrz · · Score: 5, Insightful

    which the Obama administration says will put 'countless' lives at risk, threaten global counterterrorism operations and jeopardize US relations with its allies

    They said the Iraq war documents would put people at risk, too. They didn't, though, and the administration was forced to admit that after the release. Seems to me that Wikileaks, whatever their other merits or lack thereof, have been pretty responsible about how they handle this stuff thus far.

    I'm less concerned with these leaks than I am with the day to day constitutional trampling the feds do, using all three branches of the government to leverage their oath-breaking.

    --
    I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    1. Re:Administration has zero credibility by Mashiki · · Score: 0, Troll

      They do. If you read any of them, you'd realize that they put out the names of civilians who act as informants. I'm sure that doesn't put anyone at risk, nope none at all.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    2. Re:Administration has zero credibility by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative
    3. Re:Administration has zero credibility by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      Yes, and if you actually had read any of them instead of telling others to read them, you'd realize that in the 70k documents they published the last time there were a total of 3 informant names. One was already dead, one was a double agent and the other no longer relevant.

    4. Re:Administration has zero credibility by icebraining · · Score: 1

      That "CO2 emissions" section is misleading. CO2 emissions should be measured per capita, imho. The US have 30 times more people than we (Portugal), obviously they'll have more CO2 emissions. Emissions per capita are quite different: China is 79th, for example.

    5. Re:Administration has zero credibility by dcollins · · Score: 4, Informative

      A thorough Department of Defense analysis concluded -- Wikileaks released no sensitive source information, and to date no Afghans have been harmed or threatened from it.

      http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/10/16/wikileaks.assessment/index.html?hpt=T2

      --
      We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
    6. Re:Administration has zero credibility by Scrameustache · · Score: 3, Insightful

      They do. If you read any of them, you'd realize that they put out the names of civilians who act as informants. I'm sure that doesn't put anyone at risk, nope none at all.

      Does BOMBING THE SHIT OUT OF CIVILIANS put them at risk, asshole?

      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    7. Re:Administration has zero credibility by danhs7 · · Score: 1

      This attitude is beyond reprehensible. Firstly, people *are* put at risk. You can't publish the names of civilian informants and think it doesn't effect our national security now and ability to recruit future informants.

      Secondly, your fears are misplaced. If you don't like the federal government then you should vote them out; or run for public office yourself. On the other hand, you have absolutely no recourse to rein in an irresponsible wikileaks. What would you do if you felt wikileaks *was* irresponsible? Nothing.

    8. Re:Administration has zero credibility by js3 · · Score: 0, Troll

      how do you know lives haven't been put at risk? Are you privy to the vast intelligence network of people who keep you safe everyday?

      --
      did you forget to take your meds?
    9. Re:Administration has zero credibility by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      whereas countless Afghanis have been murdered by US drone operators.

    10. Re:Administration has zero credibility by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It may be that somebody wants those people killed - either the leakers, or Wikileaks if it is really an arm of the CIA.

    11. Re:Administration has zero credibility by SETIGuy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You can't publish the names of civilian informants and think it doesn't effect our national security now and ability to recruit future informants.

      How about we don't put the names of civilian informants in documents that can be easily leaked? Even in stupid spy novels they are smart enough to use code names or non-descriptive identifiers in diplomatic cable. Maybe then it would be easier to recruit informants. When recruited to be an informant, I might ask "are you going to transmit my name along with everything I tell you?" If the answer is "Yes" I would tell the recruiters to fuck off.

    12. Re:Administration has zero credibility by 0111+1110 · · Score: 2, Informative

      I have read some, and I didn't see any names of informants. Maybe you should point out exactly which cables you are referring to.

      --
      Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
    13. Re:Administration has zero credibility by SETIGuy · · Score: 4, Interesting

      how do you know lives haven't been put at risk? Are you privy to the vast intelligence network of people who keep you safe everyday?

      Not a clue, although our government has said no lives were put at risk by the prior leak. On the other hand, with the leak of Valerie Plame's name everyone we ever shared a meal with her or washed her car was suddenly suspected of being complicit in espionage.

    14. Re:Administration has zero credibility by patjhal · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      What about CO2 emissions per square kilometer, I would prefer that metric used rather than encouraging over population.

    15. Re:Administration has zero credibility by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This clown isn't interested in investigations or the search for truth. He is a blind idiot who stands in line and does as he is told. We are doomed because he outnumbers us by approximately 96 to 1, or more.

    16. Re:Administration has zero credibility by Mr.+Freeman · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Why are you and everyone else so mad about wikileaks here? Your anger is completely misdirected. Wikileaks didn't steal the information it got leaked. Common sense tells us that it doesn't matter whether it's wikileaks or some other anonymous post on some website, the information is already out there and available to the parties that wish to use it to do harm.

      We should really be asking ourselves WHY THE FUCK CAN'T THE GOVERNMENT KEEP THE NAMES OF CIVILIAN INFORMANTS CONFIDENTIAL?!

      --
      -1 disagree is not a modifier for a reason. -1 troll, flaimbait, redundant, overrated are NOT acceptable substitutes.
    17. Re:Administration has zero credibility by jeff4747 · · Score: 3, Informative

      How about we don't put the names of civilian informants in documents that can be easily leaked? Even in stupid spy novels they are smart enough to use code names or non-descriptive identifiers in diplomatic cable.

      Congratulations! You've identified the difference between "raw" intelligence and intelligence reports. They will indeed have names like "Curveball" in the intelligence reports, but the raw intelligence includes the person's name.

    18. Re:Administration has zero credibility by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Specific source / examples?

    19. Re:Administration has zero credibility by Teun · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Per area is a bit nonsensical unless you weigh in the type of vegetation on that area.

      The (vast) majority of CO2 emissions is from human activity and that's what we want to control, per capita because we're all equal.

      --
      "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
    20. Re:Administration has zero credibility by Teun · · Score: 1
      Ah murder, that's a strong word during an armed conflict.

      Although the US army has during the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld years lost most of it's previous moral standing they are still well above the terrorists they encounter and pursue.

      --
      "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
    21. Re:Administration has zero credibility by rainmouse · · Score: 2, Insightful

      how do you know lives haven't been put at risk? Are you privy to the vast intelligence network of people who keep you safe everyday?

      Apparently anyone who reads wikileaks is privy to this information.

    22. Re:Administration has zero credibility by 0111+1110 · · Score: 1

      Congratulations! You've identified the difference between "raw" intelligence and intelligence reports. They will indeed have names like "Curveball" in the intelligence reports, but the raw intelligence includes the person's name.

      .
      Is that supposed to be reassuring to the informants?

      --
      Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
    23. Re:Administration has zero credibility by clarkkent09 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Actually these latest leaks make me suspicious that the whole thing was leaked on purpose. Iraq and Afghanistan leaks, for all the screaming and hollering of the anti-war crowd, actually don't contain any damning evidence of war crimes. Even books like Generation Kill contain more information about civilian deaths and that was published years ago and made into a frigging mini series and nobody cares. The most embarrassing thing for the US government is that it allowed the leaks to take place, but they can live with that. Look at the latest leaks though:
       
      North Korea supplies Iran with long range missiles
      Arabs, including Saudis, Jordan, Bahrain and UAE urge US to bomb Iran
      Pakistan is refusing US efforts to remove dangerous fissile material that could fall into terrorist hands
       
      ... so far strengthening the case for attack on Iran, which I think is the main intention, then, just for good measure....
       
      Confirmation that Chinese government spies on Google
      Gaddafi is corrupt
      Putin is not as tough as he present himself, Medvedev is to him like Robin to Batman...
      Ahmedinejad is refrred to as Hitler, Kim Jong Il as impaired from a stroke...
       
      Nothing particularly embarrassing to the US, but a lot that is embarrassing to others

      --
      Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
    24. Re:Administration has zero credibility by Yvanhoe · · Score: 1

      The fact that it is a total and not a per capita makes the "prisonners" part a lot more shocking.

      --
      The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
    25. Re:Administration has zero credibility by Yvanhoe · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yes. "Killing" is more accurate.

      --
      The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
    26. Re:Administration has zero credibility by Culture20 · · Score: 1

      Putin is not as tough as he present himself, Medvedev is to him like Robin to Batman...

      Wait, the actual relationship (Medvedev is Putin's ward and protégé who breaks off from Putin to be a political leader in his own right, in Blüdhaven)? Or the farcical relationship (Medvedev and Putin play dress up in an underground bunker)?

    27. Re:Administration has zero credibility by oliverthered · · Score: 1

      don't both parties need to be armed for an armed conflict.

      Or do you mean war,
      in which case 'war crimes' and 'crimes against humanity' are the terms used.

      --
      thank God the internet isn't a human right.
    28. Re:Administration has zero credibility by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, but who cares, they are not Americans.

    29. Re:Administration has zero credibility by clarkkent09 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Let me fix that for you: Does BOMBING THE SHIT OUT OF INSURGENTS WHO USE CIVILIANS FOR COVER puts civilians at risk, asshole? Yes.

      --
      Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
    30. Re:Administration has zero credibility by maestroX · · Score: 1

      Well, any informant for the american culture in Irak would know to not provide his real name anyhow but use Mr. White, Mr. Orange or Mr Pink and wear a George Bush mask to prevent revealing his real identity.

    31. Re:Administration has zero credibility by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      A thorough Department of Defense analysis concluded -- Wikileaks released no sensitive source information, and to date no Afghans have been harmed or threatened from it.

      That's what a government source said, so how do you know it's not another lie? Isn't it possible that they are covering up that Afghans have been murdered? I mean if US informants are murdered due to an information leak that could dissuade others from working for the US.

    32. Re:Administration has zero credibility by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "When recruited to be an informant, I might ask "are you going to transmit my name along with everything I tell you?" If the answer is "Yes" I would tell the recruiters to fuck off."

      Then they simply publish you had been recruited and your name. - job done your neutralised & out the game.

    33. Re:Administration has zero credibility by ushering05401 · · Score: 1

      Begins as the first, ends as the second. This became inevitable when we went to a nuclear economy ;)

    34. Re:Administration has zero credibility by sturle · · Score: 2, Insightful

      which the Obama administration says will put 'countless' lives at risk, threaten global counterterrorism operations and jeopardize US relations with its allies

      They said the Iraq war documents would put people at risk, too. They didn't, though

      The Iraq war put people at risk as well, but the administration tries to hush that down. According to some sources even more innocent lives were lost in the war than in the aftermaths of the Wikileak.

    35. Re:Administration has zero credibility by amorsen · · Score: 1

      Iraq and Afghanistan leaks, for all the screaming and hollering of the anti-war crowd, actually don't contain any damning evidence of war crimes.

      The leaks contain proofs of Danish and British war crimes.

      --
      Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
    36. Re:Administration has zero credibility by Threni · · Score: 1

      It's odd - I can see it mentioned in a few papers, but there's nothing on the website. I don't want to read recycled crap in the Gruaniad; when's the download going to be available?

    37. Re:Administration has zero credibility by LordNacho · · Score: 1

      Surely, with security operations being so large, it needs to be written down somewhere who's who. Or else you get cases like in the Infernal Affairs trilogy where the informants only contact is killed. Makes for an exciting movie though.

    38. Re:Administration has zero credibility by rtfa-troll · · Score: 1
      From the editorial

      The state department knew of the leak several months ago and had ample time to alert staff in sensitive locations. Its pre-emptive scaremongering over the weekend stupidly contrived to hint at material not in fact being published.

      So the State department is actually deliberately making this worse than it needs to be.

      Nor is the material classified top secret, being at a level that more than 3 million US government employees are cleared to see, and available on the defence department's internal Siprnet.

      And this means that basically all of the foreign countries knew this stuff, so the only people being kept in the dark were the general population.

      --
      =~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();
    39. Re:Administration has zero credibility by Sepodati · · Score: 2, Interesting

      WHY THE FUCK CAN'T THE GOVERNMENT KEEP THE NAMES OF CIVILIAN INFORMANTS CONFIDENTIAL?!

      It was confidential, dumb ass. It was on a private network. Do you speak in "code" when privately talking with your friends about things that you'd like to keep private? If you have a reasonable expectation if privacy, you don't.

    40. Re:Administration has zero credibility by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well done, you have just showed your ignorance when it comes to climate change. That isn't necessarily your fault, there are too many powers in world who want you and me and everyone else to not grasp the concepts surrounding climate change.

      The real problem with global warming is that human beings are making a major short-cut in part of the carbon cycle. We are taking carbon out of the ground, and moving it to the atmosphere much faster than it would ever occur naturally (apart from something like a volcano appearing in the middle of Saudi Arabia). When plants capture CO2 released from burnt oil the carbon is moved to the biosphere, not back into the ground where it came from. Most carbon that is in the biosphere moves back to the atmosphere (and back and forth), and very little carbon that humans have caused to be released is locked up again in rocks. The rate man is moving carbon out of rocks doesn't come near the rate nature puts carbon back.

      Vegetation type, animal farts, and stuff like that are all used by those who benefit from the fossil fuel industry to distract from the damage the fossil fuel industry is doing. If more people understood climate change, then there would be considerable pressure to stop mankind's use of oil for fuel, though that would lead to economic disasters. So many who benefit more from the world's economic systems than others (ie the rich) purposefully misrepresent the situation, and they let the ignorant do the rest - they will repeat mindlessly what the TV has told them.

      If a large percentage of the people on this planet understood climate change tomorrow, we wouldn't just see the end of a few oil companies. Anyone who has money invested in the oil industry would stand to lose, and that includes many pension funds, private and national, so for many or even most people in the west the oil industry is a necessary part of their future. Banks and finance entities of course have lots tied up in oil, as they tend to be the largest shareholders in any industry. The cost of raw materials for non-fuel use of oil stands to rise if oil as fuel was rejected, effecting all sorts of petrochemical companies.

      Of course, if the people of this planet did demand oil stop being used for fuel, we would see rapid development of nuclear power, both fission and fusion, renewable energy sources, recycling of existing plastics, etc., and lots of valuable companies in those fields would pop-up. Its just those who benefit from the status quo now don't want to risk their position, so do anything to stay there. Just as the selfish, greedy, and powerful have acted throughout history really....

      CO2 emissions per person is irrelevant if people are using biofuels (like is widespread in Brazil, or even just people heating their homes with wood fires). Oil use per capita is a better yard stick.

    41. Re:Administration has zero credibility by jhoegl · · Score: 2, Interesting

      So we would trade one danger (carbon) for another (radiation).

      I agree with most of your statement, but I dont believe the choice you put in there is really all that spectacular.
      What about wind turbines/water turbines/solar?
      Dams have issues as well, so lets not talk about that.
      Harness what Nature gives us, not destroy it.

    42. Re:Administration has zero credibility by jhoegl · · Score: 1

      Better than death by IRS building.
      http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/19/us/19crash.html

    43. Re:Administration has zero credibility by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whoah there! You would have to include religious fundamentalist in that to even come close to losing the #1 spot!

    44. Re:Administration has zero credibility by internewt · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If that puts civilians at risk, then the obvious solution is to not bomb. But I guess that isn't a possibility for warmonger-apologists like you?

      The only reason putting civilians in the way is an effective strategy for some groups is because imperialists still proceed to drop bombs or otherwise open fire when there are civilians in the way!

      --
      Car analogies break down.
    45. Re:Administration has zero credibility by Merls+the+Sneaky · · Score: 1

      You should still tell them to fuck off because they can say "no" then do it anyway.

    46. Re:Administration has zero credibility by Nikker · · Score: 1

      You should be asking why people working in the Military are leaking this info to begin with. The thing I find confusing is as a civilian is why are these people ratting themselves out? Maybe these people really are concerned about what is happening around them?

      --
      A loop, by its nature, continues. If that didn't make sense, start reading this sentence again.
    47. Re:Administration has zero credibility by BitZtream · · Score: 1

      because with any reasonably sized amount of data you can figure out who the code words are referring to?

      Because people need to know who you're talking about?

      Its not like there weren't encrypted when sent, a guy inside, with access to them leaked them. Someone who would have easily had the information to decipher the code names.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    48. Re:Administration has zero credibility by IamTheRealMike · · Score: 1

      Really? So why is "raw intelligence" being sent around the globe and made available en-masse to over 3 million people? No matter which way you slice it, the DoD ends up looking incompetent.

    49. Re:Administration has zero credibility by rilister · · Score: 3, Insightful

      According a Guardian report:
      http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/nov/28/us-embassy-cables-wikileaks
      Over 3 MILLION people have access to this private network. The big story to me is that if this material is really significant, why is the US so incredibly bad at keeping it secret?

      Wikileaks is not some kind of 'superspy' organization with resources and techniques beyond the imagining of say, a moderately competent nation state. If they could get full access to this 'damaging' information, then I find it hard to imagine that China, Russia, France and most of the western world couldn't either.

      Either this is really sensitive material and this is a wake up call that giving 3 million people access to a sensitive database is a poor strategy, or it's not that damaging anyway and the US foresaw this possibility and thought the risk/damage was acceptable.

      --
      'This writing business. Pencils and what-not. Over-rated if you ask me. Silly stuff. Nothing in it' - Eeyore
    50. Re:Administration has zero credibility by BitZtream · · Score: 0, Troll

      Why are you and everyone else so mad about wikileaks here? Your anger is completely misdirected. Wikileaks didn't steal the information it got leaked.

      When someone shoots your wife, and I tell you I know who it is, but I'm not telling you because I'm protecting my sources ... are you not going to get mad?

      No, its not the same thing, but the point is.

      Common sense tells us that it doesn't matter whether it's wikileaks

      Apparently you don't have any common sense, it matters that its wikileaks because they are sharing it. It would matter if it was some other website as well, except we'd be shouting at them instead of Wikileaks. Its simple cause and effect. Its really not hard to understand. You get mad at the people doing things that make you mad. If they weren't doing it, no one would be upset at them.

      We should really be asking ourselves WHY THE FUCK CAN'T THE GOVERNMENT KEEP THE NAMES OF CIVILIAN INFORMANTS CONFIDENTIAL?!

      Because a traitor with access to the information leaked it ... Do you know what a leak is? Have you been actually following any of this? It happens, in the past it wasn't as big of a deal actually, he and everyone with the information would have simply disappeared and no one would know. We stopped (openly) assassinating people however, which in my opinion was stupid.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    51. Re:Administration has zero credibility by Carewolf · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The leaks contain proofs of Danish and British war crimes.

      The last leak contained the needed evidence. It assumed the new will also reveal more, but nothing on this has been reported yet.

      Also, please remember the war crime commited by Danish and British soldiers is primarily: Handing over prisoners to foreign states that engage in the use of torture. Where the foreign state in question is the United States of America.

      Let me repeat that: It is now considered a war crime to hand over enemies of the US to the US, because of the way the US treats them.

    52. Re:Administration has zero credibility by Kagura · · Score: 3, Informative

      The official Wikileaks release is out. Also, scroll down and mod this comment more highly as it is not a troll, and is simply representative of moderation abuse here on Slashdot. The post is well-written and not inflammatory. Promote other ideas on Slashdot instead of squashing them, even if you disagree.

    53. Re:Administration has zero credibility by Muros · · Score: 1

      I don't know why you're ranting at the guy. He just said emissions per person is a more meaningful statistic than emissions per area. This is true. Yes, the source of the emissions does count, obviously introducing new carbon into the cycle from burning oil or coal is bad, re-using the stuff thats here aready by growing biofuel crops is good. That is nothing to do with his point. His point was that emissions per area will be lower in sparsely populated areas, while those people can still be the biggest culprits.

    54. Re:Administration has zero credibility by funwithBSD · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And terrorists never do THAT, they only hit legitimate Military targets while wearing clearly marked uniforms.

      Sorry, War is Hell (tm). All the more reason to press harder to end the conflict sooner, less civilians will be harmed that way.

      Playing "nice" when the other side does not is a good way to stretch it out indefinitely. Wonder what they would do if we abandonded all our bases and moved into civilian areas only. I doubt they would move out of civilian areas to keep civilians safe.

      Oh, and pointing out problems of one side without acknowledging that the other side is a problem is also hypocritical.

      --
      Never answer an anonymous letter. - Yogi Berra
    55. Re:Administration has zero credibility by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The burning of coal releases more radiation into the environment than the nuclear industry, though I do agree that fission ain't perfect - though the French have developed technologies that massively reduce the amounts of nuclear waste, and various modern reactor designs are much safer than past things - not that past reactors were as dangerous as anti-nuclear activists would have you believe. They (rightly so) didn't want to see nuclear weapons, but attacking nuclear power outright was misguided, IMHO. Nuclear power stations no doubt make plenty of plutonium for weapons, but the protesters could have demanded the power stations are implemented in a different way, rather than out-right saying "No" to nuclear power.

      The thing is, nuclear power is a technology that exists right now that could provide a lot of energy that currently comes from oil, and human desires for energy is not going to go down. We need to keep the energy flowing whilst we move off fossil fuels, and fission is a possible stepping-stone. As much as I criticised people for parroting the TV, I saw a programme where a futurologist had worked out how much energy man wants, whilst taking into account how big fission power plants are. IIRC, there isn't enough space on all the land on Earth to provide our energy needs into the future with fission! So fission is a possible stepping-stone, at best.

      We know fusion is possible (the Sun and H-bombs show that), and considering how fast fission went from theory to being implemented, I think the development of fusion power could go quite a bit quicker than it is (hasn't fusion power been 20 years away for about the last 50 years?). I don't want to be critical of the science being done into fusion, just as a species we could be doing more. Of course, much of the development of the fission energy industry was underpinned by countries seeking sources of plutonium, and we don't have those kinds of pressures in existence now to drive fusion tech (which is a good thing, in many ways - no arms race to MAD. We are just still sitting at MAD, which is a kind of stability :| ).

      In that post I wasn't really trying to suggest all possible alternatives though, I wanted to highlight how I feel climate change is misrepresented by those who don't want to see the end of oil. When I mentioned "renewable energy sources" and "etc." I was hoping to capture all the alternatives like wind, wave and solar.

      (FFS slashdot: "It's been 42 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment". /me hits up a proxy).

    56. Re:Administration has zero credibility by mug+funky · · Score: 3, Interesting

      nuclear plants don't make plutonium. a vanishingly small number of reactor types can make useful (for weapons) plutonium, but those tend to be not so efficient for generating power.

      most of the dangerous reactor designs of the past have been designed deliberately to avoid making anything useful. that's the main reason there's so much waste. it was the safest, most efficient design possible with crippling regulations in mind. re-evaluating those regulations with modern designs in mind is essential for nuclear to become safer and far more efficient (think 98% less waste, and what's left is short-lived rather than long-lived fission products).

    57. Re:Administration has zero credibility by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If that puts civilians at risk, then the obvious solution is not to hide behind civilians. It's only an effective tactic if it works.

    58. Re:Administration has zero credibility by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was ranting at that guy because he came across as an example of someone giving off an incorrect message about climate change. I've written probably half a dozen posts like it on various discussions, and fucked them off because it was well OT or the post just wasn't coming together right. Teun just happened to be in the way this time when I decided "fuck it, it's getting posted".

      When he said "Per area is a bit nonsensical unless you weigh in the type of vegetation on that area" he made the vegetation a variable. But I think the type of vegetation is largely irrelevant, for the reasons spelled out in your parent post.

      I don't deny that different types of vegetation can absorb CO2 at different rates, but the important figure is how fast nature can remove carbon from the biosphere/atmosphere, not how fast it can move carbon between atmosphere and biosphere. And I don't think any natural processes can cope with what man is doing: moving carbon directly from rocks into the space where we live.

    59. Re:Administration has zero credibility by ohiovr · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What would you do if you felt wikileaks *was* irresponsible? Nothing.

      Well you could have a massive denial of service attack on them....

    60. Re:Administration has zero credibility by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And terrorists never do THAT, they only hit legitimate Military targets while wearing clearly marked uniforms.

      Well, that's why we call them terrorists. Last I checked, no Western country uses that label for its own armed forces. Do you suggest we reconsider that?

      Sorry, War is Hell (tm). All the more reason to press harder to end the conflict sooner, less civilians will be harmed that way.

      Well, in the course of the conflict so far, even by the most pessimistic estimates, US has killed orders of magnitude more civilians in the countries it had invaded, compared to how many Americans died from the hands of terrorists.

      I'm also very curious to hear what, exactly, you consider an "end of conflict", especially in Afghanistan. Given that the other side is not a conventional military, there isn't a single guy there who can sign a surrender order.

    61. Re:Administration has zero credibility by SkeeZerD · · Score: 1
      "Raw" Intelligence vs. Intelligence Reports...

      zOMG....you just released classified information and put *countless* lives at risk! Prepare to be DDoS'd!

    62. Re:Administration has zero credibility by Teun · · Score: 2, Insightful
      You have a lot of words but say nothing new.

      We all know that if there is a problem with CO2 emissions it's from fossil fuel and not from biofuel.
      Whether you like it or not capturing said CO2 with plants is still the fastest way to take it out of the atmosphere and that's why I asked for the type of vegetation on the land area.
      You say CO2 captured by plants is still in the biosphere and I take you mean it's not properly disposed off?
      It doesn't matter, our present problem is the increase of atmospheric CO2 and vegetation does lower it.

      All coal deposits have started to accumulate that way, it took hundreds of millions of years and now we're releasing it again in less than 2 centuries.

      --
      "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
    63. Re:Administration has zero credibility by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Posting to undo incorrect mod. Yep, it works even if you AC post while logged in.

    64. Re:Administration has zero credibility by Teun · · Score: 1
      You are right in the natural process of plants capturing CO2 not being able to keep up with the present burning of fossil fuel.

      But when someone claims the per area CO2 emissions are a better criteria than per capita he is way off and THAT's what I was commenting on.

      --
      "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
    65. Re:Administration has zero credibility by Barefoot+Monkey · · Score: 1

      They do. If you read any of them, you'd realize that they put out the names of civilians who act as informants. I'm sure that doesn't put anyone at risk, nope none at all.

      They do? I couldn't find any names when I looked through them. Could you provide a line number where I can see an example for myself?

    66. Re:Administration has zero credibility by Teun · · Score: 1

      I purposely avoided the term 'war', according to international law it takes nations to declare a war, in the case of Afghanistan it's impossible to declare war against the armed groups nor do these groups have the standing to declare war on the US.

      --
      "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
    67. Re:Administration has zero credibility by jeff4747 · · Score: 2, Informative

      So why is "raw intelligence" being sent around the globe and made available en-masse to over 3 million people?

      It isn't. That stat was presented as the number of people who can get on SIPRNET. But not everyone on SIPRNET has access to the information.

      The gentleman who leaked the information was an intelligence analyst. Thus he had access.

    68. Re:Administration has zero credibility by ToasterMonkey · · Score: 1

      I'm less concerned with these leaks than I am with the day to day constitutional trampling the feds do, using all three branches of the government to leverage their oath-breaking.

      Wow, best Us vs. Them I've ever read. I have a picture in my head of a Ganon-looking "fed" wielding an unholy triforce of doom.
      I love the way you toss in "They" and "administration" as vague references to the entire federal government.
      You should have gone all the way with "fed" singular, as opposed to "feds", and try to make an Obama reference next time.

    69. Re:Administration has zero credibility by Anachragnome · · Score: 1

      "...Also, scroll down and mod this comment more highly [slashdot.org] as it is not a troll, and is simply representative of moderation abuse here on Slashdot..."

      How about you simply let the post stand on it's own merits? I think the vast majority of the /. community are capable of deciding whether or not something is "well-written and not inflammatory". In fact, some might actually take offense at being told how to moderate. Moderation-steering is abuse as well.

    70. Re:Administration has zero credibility by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      in fact wikileaks itself cannot know if those documents are real: by now assange & c. can be fed disinformation, a classic would be portray an enemy agent as a double and watch his credibility sink, or even his life taken by his same people. That`s why there could not be lots of consequences.

    71. Re:Administration has zero credibility by Dravik · · Score: 1

      She was no longer a clandestine operative when her name was leaked, and it was well known that she used to be an operative in her social circle. That's why no one was ever charged with a crime, the information was no longer secret when leaked.

      --
      The purpose of language is communication, If the idea is clear the grammar ain't important
    72. Re:Administration has zero credibility by dryeo · · Score: 1

      Are you actually advocating summarily executing someone for practicing their First Amendment rights? And America claims to be about freedom.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    73. Re:Administration has zero credibility by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cleared != Need To Know

      An amazing concept.

    74. Re:Administration has zero credibility by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Im sorry to tell you, but they wont "fuck off" when they understood that you have some information they really or might possibly want to have. They will do everything from blackmailing to including be a threat to your and your family, friends and other people/animals/whatever you might care about safety and life.

    75. Re:Administration has zero credibility by toleraen · · Score: 1

      Why would someone release that preview DVD they got of an unreleased movie? Or of a bootleg copy of the next awesome Guns 'n' Roses album? Or a PDF of Harry Potter part 8?

      Because they're people, they realize what kind of power they're holding, and stupid people crack and want to brag about it.

      Remember when you were a kid and you snuck a peak in your parents closet and saw that Nintendo you were going to get for christmas, and it was so difficult not to brag to all your friends that you were getting it, but you ended up cracking and telling your neighbor billy, and your jerk neighbor billy cried to his parents that he wasn't getting one and your parents found out that you found out and then you got the belt? Kind of like that, too.

    76. Re:Administration has zero credibility by jc42 · · Score: 1

      When recruited to be an informant, I might ask "are you going to transmit my name along with everything I tell you?" If the answer is "Yes" I would tell the recruiters to fuck off.

      Sure, they understand that. That's why they'll tell you "No", no matter what they intend to do.

      --
      Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
    77. Re:Administration has zero credibility by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What kind of state do you have if 1 in 100 (thats 1% of the population) is working for the government trying to control the population...let it come to you slowly....you are almost there...

    78. Re:Administration has zero credibility by vxice · · Score: 1

      How about this, wikileaks goes through every page of the report with the help of multiple well established news organizations redacting names of informants. Then sending the documents to the US gov asking for their input and only receiving demands that none of it be published. Each media outlet having much credibility double checks and forwards any new suggestions for redactions to the rest of the group and subsequently submits its redacted version to State for input and implementing the recommendations on a case by case basis and forwarding to the other media groups. Why wont these terrorist take these simple steps why? Oh what? Really? They did that? I have only had the time to read a hand full of the reports but effort was made to redact source names and some potentially damaging information.

      --
      every anarchist is a baffled dictator. Benito_Mussolini
    79. Re:Administration has zero credibility by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      If that puts civilians at risk, then the obvious solution is to not bomb.

      Do you have any alternative to bombing other then letting the terrorist thrive to plot more attacks and put more innocent lives in danger? I mean seriously, what is the other options here? Going in and shootng them- well now there is bullets flying around that aren't limited to a small area?

      The only reason putting civilians in the way is an effective strategy for some groups is because imperialists still proceed to drop bombs or otherwise open fire when there are civilians in the way!

      And you line of think would probably change that to "because they know they won't be killed there. Which is more dangerous, having the terrorist know and understand that if they hide in civilian populations, that civilians will be killed, or having terrorist know that if they hide in civilian populations, they won't be killed? Terrorists already intended on killing innocent civilians-

    80. Re:Administration has zero credibility by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who said anything about terrorists?

    81. Re:Administration has zero credibility by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's understandable that, back when all that info was on paper, and had to be hand sorted, each document needed all the info. But now we have these wonderful things called computers. There ain't a damn reason to send informants real names across. They can give them a code name and have a database with all the used/unused codenames and even little datetime stamps next to them, and reuse them to their hearts content. And everyone will still get their precious info.

    82. Re:Administration has zero credibility by dave420 · · Score: 1

      So what is it called, then, when armed people kill the shit out of a bunch of innocent folks? Something awesome, I'm sure.

    83. Re:Administration has zero credibility by jhoegl · · Score: 1

      My point is that this is a process that destroys a carbon atom to obtain heat, thereby creating heat to steam water to run turbines.
      In the examples that I gave, energy is harnessed from nature, and therefor nothing is destroyed or is a harmful by-product of the energy created.

    84. Re:Administration has zero credibility by nospam007 · · Score: 1

      "and various modern reactor designs are much safer than past things"

      Call me again, when they're able to get insurance for their reactors.

    85. Re:Administration has zero credibility by Sepodati · · Score: 1

      Over 3 MILLION people have access to this private network.

      It's not some large, flat, wide-open network. Just like the Internet, there are tiers, firewalls, vpns, etc.. So there were restrictions in place to ensure confidentiality, but someone violated the trust that was given to them.

      Users are the biggest problem, just like on any other network. How do you stop someone who decides to "go rogue"?

      The other "problem" that contributed to this is everyone wanting to share data and use common databases after 9/11. You can bet this leak will stop that kind of coordination and force everyone back into their own stovepiped networks from now on. Yay!

    86. Re:Administration has zero credibility by Kyusaku+Natsume · · Score: 1

      Some people in USA and western Europe are eager to support wars in the name of "freedom" as long as others put the battlefield, casualties and they are out of harms way. For them dropping bombs on wedding parties are just innocent mistakes. They still are in the mindset that they need to destroy the village to save it.

      --
      Mexico: 100% conservative's America now!
    87. Re:Administration has zero credibility by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 1

      Hell, push out Fast Breeder reactors and on site reprocessing plants, and you get essentially self-fueling reactors. The best part is these reactors can nuclear waste into fissile material. It's win win, apart from for the oil industry.

      Anyway, we're off topic... Government sucks, Wikileaks isn't the antichrist.

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    88. Re:Administration has zero credibility by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      My sig would seem appropriate here.

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    89. Re:Administration has zero credibility by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 1

      This reminds me of the episode of Frasier where he and Niles are visiting a health spa. They're Gold members, or something, but need to get into the Platinum member area, invite only. So they wile away and scheme and plot, eventually to get in and find there is another door for Diamond level service. I guess that's the Ladies of Questionable Morals and Coca Leaf Extract area.

      3m people with access means that this is Gold level material. The real Bad Things(tm) will be waaaaay over in Diamond level. Probably locked in a personal safe behind an old painting, not stored on any government / corporate network.

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    90. Re:Administration has zero credibility by xenobyte · · Score: 1

      You forget one important word: "knowingly"

      There is no evidence that the police units that received the prisoners actually engaged in torture. They were suspected of torture but those suspecting it had political reasons to make false accusations of this nature so their claim is suspect at best.

      --
      "For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong." -- H.L. Mencken (1880-1956) --
    91. Re:Administration has zero credibility by mrogers · · Score: 1

      Do you have any alternative to bombing other then letting the terrorist thrive to plot more attacks and put more innocent lives in danger?

      So your justification for killing innocent people is that not doing so would put innocent people in danger? Want to take a minute to ponder that logic?

      I mean seriously, what is the other options here?

      This might sound a little extreme, but the other option is not to invade and occupy an ungovernable country. Fine, the U.S. wanted to destroy Al Qaeda's base in Afghanistan. That was accomplished by the end of 2001. What the fuck are large numbers of NATO troops still doing in Afghanistan nine years later?

      Does the U.S. seriously think that "nation building" is either (a) possible, or (b) going to keep Al Qaeda out of the country? If so, I've got bad news: nation building is not possible (Afghanistan has never been a nation state and won't be one in the next 100 years, political power is divided among too many tribal, ethnic and religious groups), and nation building is not going to keep Al Qaeda out (Bin Laden is quite happy sheltering in Pakistan, which is, guess what, one of the most advanced nation states in the region). The only sane solution is for the U.S. to go the fuck home and launch the occasional special forces raid against any Al Qaeda bases that might emerge... which does not require a permanent presence on the ground or widespread civilian casualties.

      That is the other option.

    92. Re:Administration has zero credibility by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, we are not all equal. 50,000 starving villagers are not equal, in terms of CO2 usage vs the justification of it, to 50,000 factory workers. How about amount of CO2 as it relates to the amount of useful work a country does for the world economy?

    93. Re:Administration has zero credibility by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about you don't tell them your name in the first place....

    94. Re:Administration has zero credibility by Dilaudid · · Score: 1

      This is bullshit. There are 4 causes of climate change - manufacturing, heating/cooling, cars, and planes. As long as people keep flying, driving and buying stuff they don't need we'll keep heading down the abyss. Blaming the oil industry is like blaming Hitler's chef for WWII, they may provide the chemical energy, but we are the ones that fuck up the environment with it. Biofuels won't make a significant difference to the environment - about 6% of our current energy use could be made up with them, according to this expert.

    95. Re:Administration has zero credibility by RMH101 · · Score: 1

      I read your post earlier and thought this unlikely. I've just come back after reading some of the UK papers at lunch, and now think you have a point. If you read the headlines, the editorial comment and the substories, the recurring theme is that Iran nearly has The Bomb, and if/when they do become a nuclear superpower, the rest of the middle east will follow and hilarity ensue. It talks of the Saudis and the Israelis pushing for a preemptive military strike on Iran and backs it up with various horrendous scenarios that might come to pass should this not happen.
      If someone has just become interested in this since the Wikileaks scandal broke, an dthey pick up a paper/turn on the TV then they're going to be hearing "Iran nearly has teh bomb" over and over again. In terms of political damage to the US - sure, allegations of spying at the UN (who didn't think this happened anyway?) and a few others, but you could read it as embarassing countries outside the US more whilst furthering its the US's agenda as a precursor to another war in the middle east...

      Of course, I *hope* I'm wrong.

    96. Re:Administration has zero credibility by Teun · · Score: 1

      Diplomacy with other means.

      Or for the less cinical: Armed Conflict.

      --
      "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
    97. Re:Administration has zero credibility by radtea · · Score: 1

      All the more reason to press harder to end the conflict sooner, less civilians will be harmed that way.

      Someone sane might suggest that it was all the more reason to not get into conflicts in the first place, and to walk away when you realize you're in a war that was predicated on lies, like the illegal American invasion of Iraq.

      --
      Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
    98. Re:Administration has zero credibility by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Things is Iraq was not in a war before we invaded. Yes, Saddam did do a lot of nasty stuff, but for the majority of people living there life was not that bad compared to how it was after the war started. Don't misunderstand: I am not defendign Saddam. What I am saying is that war was not the best way to fix the situation. We have to take responsibility for what happened because of our actions, and while the "war is hell" excuse does have some credibility when looking at the the actions of some of our soldiers the blatent disregard of on-going torture and accidental but preventable killing of civilians needs to be addressed.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    99. Re:Administration has zero credibility by Nikker · · Score: 1

      You gotta be a special kind of stupid. How many times did you find your Christmas present before the day you were supposed to and got sent to prison? These people have families possibly kids and a wife/husband do you really think they want to spend that much time behind bars and miss all of that? Grow up a bit and realize these are grown ups. Why is it your parents don't come home every night from work with a secret stash of company info and post it to their blogs?

      Any way if you are right and people with secret information in their control have some sort then there are people with much more information then these isolated few have access to. There is the acronym soup agencies, I'm sure NSA,FBI, et al all have much more information then one tech military guy so they must be uploading this stuff by the TB.

      --
      A loop, by its nature, continues. If that didn't make sense, start reading this sentence again.
    100. Re:Administration has zero credibility by toleraen · · Score: 1

      Lighten up, Francis; the Nintendo bit was a joke. I'm not saying everyone does it, but there are the "special kind of stupid" group of people that you are lumping me into that would. Not everything is a huge conspiracy though; look at the guy that was involved with the Iraq leak. He was just an idiot, not some anti-war insider protester that you're alluding to.

    101. Re:Administration has zero credibility by QuantumPion · · Score: 1

      nuclear plants don't make plutonium. a vanishingly small number of reactor types can make useful (for weapons) plutonium, but those tend to be not so efficient for generating power.

      most of the dangerous reactor designs of the past have been designed deliberately to avoid making anything useful. that's the main reason there's so much waste. it was the safest, most efficient design possible with crippling regulations in mind. re-evaluating those regulations with modern designs in mind is essential for nuclear to become safer and far more efficient (think 98% less waste, and what's left is short-lived rather than long-lived fission products).

      This is incorrect. Regular light-water reactors indeed do create a significant amount of reactor-grade (i.e. not weapons grade) plutonium. The breeder ratio for a typical LWR is around 0.6. A substantial portion of the fission energy generated comes from plutonium created in the core.

      LWR's were not specifically designed to avoid making plutonium, they were designed to make the most economically efficient use of low or naturally enriched uranium. The reason why there is a relatively large volume of spent fuel is because reprocessing was outright banned by the government. France uses the same LWR reactor designs as the U.S. but reprocesses their waste into a much smaller volume.

    102. Re:Administration has zero credibility by gfreeman · · Score: 1

      How do you stop someone who decides to "go rogue"?

      Not WikiLeaks's problem. Their problem was what to do if you are given evidence of a mass-government coverup that is killing innocent civilians. They chose to go public, YMMV.

      --
      Ceci n'est pas un sig.
    103. Re:Administration has zero credibility by Sepodati · · Score: 1

      evidence of a mass-government coverup that is killing innocent civilians

      Which cables show that? Please provide links.

    104. Re:Administration has zero credibility by Scrameustache · · Score: 1

      Some people in USA and western Europe are eager to support wars in the name of "freedom" as long as others put the battlefield, casualties and they are out of harms way.

      In the USA, western Europe, and every damn where else. The emphasis is on the "some people". There's also, everywhere, some people who are willing to stand up for peace and justice.

      I applaud those people.

      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    105. Re:Administration has zero credibility by gfreeman · · Score: 1

      http://cablegate.wikileaks.org/cable/2010/01/10SANAA4.html

      AQAP STRIKES: CONCERN FOR CIVILIAN CASUALTIES

      Para4. (S/NF) Saleh praised the December 17 and 24 strikes against AQAP but said that "mistakes were made" in the killing of civilians in Abyan. The General responded that the only civilians killed were the wife and two children of an AQAP operative at the site, prompting Saleh to plunge into a lengthy and confusing aside with Deputy Prime Minister Alimi and Minister of Defense Ali regarding the number of terrorists versus civilians killed in the strike.

      --
      Ceci n'est pas un sig.
    106. Re:Administration has zero credibility by Nikker · · Score: 1

      All I'm trying to say is right now there is a big push to rip apart the middle man for the actions of the source. I know I might have hurt your feelings and I apologize.

      --
      A loop, by its nature, continues. If that didn't make sense, start reading this sentence again.
    107. Re:Administration has zero credibility by IMightB · · Score: 1

      What I'd like to know is how many civilians have been killed by the hands of the "terrorists/taliban/religous fanatics" compared to the US Military.

    108. Re:Administration has zero credibility by Sedated2000 · · Score: 1

      I thought it was that they were sending them to Iraqi soldiers, knowing that Iraqis were beating and abusing them? Or have I misunderstood?

    109. Re:Administration has zero credibility by Sepodati · · Score: 1

      Here's a news article published two days after the attack on the 17th.

      http://www.ufppc.org/us-a-world-news-mainmenu-35/9231/

      If there was a "mass-government coverup" you wouldn't have known about the civilian deaths until the cables were released. Or is the disagreement on numbers all your concerned about? One is too many.

    110. Re:Administration has zero credibility by oliverthered · · Score: 1

      megalomania

      --
      thank God the internet isn't a human right.
    111. Re:Administration has zero credibility by oliverthered · · Score: 1

      genocide then.

      --
      thank God the internet isn't a human right.
    112. Re:Administration has zero credibility by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      So your justification for killing innocent people is that not doing so would put innocent people in danger? Want to take a minute to ponder that logic?

      Wow.. Your serious? I ask you for your alternative and you attempt to ignore that by twisting my words around. How hard was it for you not to come up with an actual intelligent response? I mean did you have to start over several times or did you ignore the reality of your failed logic and just immediately jump to something else as if your knee jerked so hard, it gave you a black eye?

      And no, my justification is not that not doing so would put innocent people in danger. It's that it puts less people in danger as well as limiting the amount of terrorist activities. You see, there is a difference and if you would actually think about it, perhaps even answer the question, you would see it.

      This might sound a little extreme, but the other option is not to invade and occupy an ungovernable country. Fine, the U.S. wanted to destroy Al Qaeda's base in Afghanistan. That was accomplished by the end of 2001. What the fuck are large numbers of NATO troops still doing in Afghanistan nine years later?

      Do you purposely limit your world view in order to keep your beliefs? The US wanted to remove the Taliban also because it was giving safe harbor. The US isn't attempting to occupy Afghanistan to any extent beyond allowing a government chosen by the people of Afghanistan to establish and to refuse safe harbor for al qeada and the Taliban. And no, that wasn't accomplished in 2001- it wasn't accomplished in 2010.

      Perhaps if you would give full consideration of the entire story, your opinions might not be so WRONG.

      Does the U.S. seriously think that "nation building" is either (a) possible, or (b) going to keep Al Qaeda out of the country?

      Why would we need to think anything along those lines?

      If so, I've got bad news: nation building is not possible (Afghanistan has never been a nation state and won't be one in the next 100 years, political power is divided among too many tribal, ethnic and religious groups), and nation building is not going to keep Al Qaeda out (Bin Laden is quite happy sheltering in Pakistan, which is, guess what, one of the most advanced nation states in the region).

      Actually, it has. It was as recently as 1995 until 2001. Before that, it enjoyed a long time rule under the ottoman empire. In fact, the territory known as Afghanistan was only established after the fall of the ottoman empire.

      As far as keeping Al Qaeda out, well, it's going to happen one way or another. If you are right and it's serisouly not possible for Afghanistan to organize for it's own protection, then the US is doing it a favor by taking steps to keep an oppressive occupation like that of the Taliban and Al Qaeda out.

      The only sane solution is for the U.S. to go the fuck home and launch the occasional special forces raid against any Al Qaeda bases that might emerge... which does not require a permanent presence on the ground or widespread civilian casualties.

      No, the only sane solution is to pursue terrorist and those that wish to support them to the ends of the world where they find it much harder to operate. If civilians get killed, that's a tragic mistake but allowing it to establish itself means more civilians will be dead. I would rather trade the lives of someone who supports terrorist directly or indirectly then suffer the loss of lives due to the actions of the terrorists. If you think different, I suggest that's a problem with your mental faculties not mine or the rest of the world's.

    113. Re:Administration has zero credibility by miserere+nobis · · Score: 1

      The ICC? Obviously, because the U.S. is not subject to it. For which I, as an American citizen who rather likes the idea that courts cannot convict people of, and punish people for, crimes poorly defined by nebulous, non-representative, international, pseudo-governmental organizations, am fairly glad. Which isn't to say I am uninterested in justice, merely that courts with the power of legal enforcement, but lacking a very clearly defined, and democratic, legislative process that writes the laws those courts are enforcing-- a judicial system with no real corresponding legislative branch-- are a very dangerous sort of thing to have in the world.

      As for American laws, however, the President is supposed to be subject to those, but unfortunately Gerald Ford decided that what the nation needed most was the end of a scandal rather than the just resolution of it, and, in pre-emptively pardoning Richard Nixon, created the precedent that the President won't ever have to face prosecution for crimes committed in office, a precedent that Barack Obama seems uninterested in overturning, as will, I suspect, every future President who will one day be a former President with enemies. And thus we end up with a Chief Executive power who is above the law-- another very dangerous sort of thing to have in the world.

    114. Re:Administration has zero credibility by dcollins · · Score: 1

      So totally agree with that last paragraph. I would give you many mod points if I had them.

      --
      We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
    115. Re:Administration has zero credibility by Carewolf · · Score: 1

      It's both. The latest revelation was regarding iraqi forces, while it is well known that prisoners had been handed over to US troops.

    116. Re:Administration has zero credibility by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Uh, any decent nuclear power plant (for civil power) aims for a high burn-up ratio; enhanced burn-up reactors are essentially breeder reactors, turning "blankets" (or components of fuel bundles) of fertile 238U to fissile 239Pu via neutron capture. There are very few commercial light water reactors which obtain less than half of their MW(t) from 239Pu fission. Modern ones gain 75% or more of their per-charge heat from bred fuel.

      Careful monitoring of the arrangement of piles (including the construction of rod components) in high burn-up PWRs makes extracting plutonium for weapons use difficult. However, it is certainly feasible chemically, and may be cheaper than uranium isotope separation, although the cost of (usefully) weaponizing a plutonium mass also mitigates against that approach.

      However, on-line pile rearrangement is certainly an attractive way to breed useful isotopes of all varities, including ones directly useful in weapons-making. This is often used by AECL's competitors in their marketing and representations to regulators -- a modern CANDU with CANFLEX could in principle be subverted to rapidly breed easy-to-extract weaponizable fissiles. (It's a "SMOP", programming and physics). Most of AECL's customers are much more interested in the civil power generation advantages, namely the enormously high neutron and fuel economies of CANDU+CANFLEX, easier-to-manage waste products, and even (in South Korea) the direct use of PWR waste products (DUPIC) and (in India) the reduction of aged weapons materials all while generating electricity.

      BARC (in India) has been exploring CANDU+CANFLEX as an off-the-shelf substrate for a commercial civil power version of their experimental thermal breeder reactor, although heavy lobbying from U.S. interests make it safer to bet that they will build their own equivalent based on their post-CIRUS work and openly published information (from, amusingly, the US nuclear regulator's review of advanced CAANDU designs, for instance).

      What you have right is that there is an expensive trade-off between thermal power output (and thus electrical output) and useful isotope breeding that is especially high in current PWR and BWR designs (mainly because almost no PWRs or BWRs allow for on-line core rearrangement because of the need for the while core to be kept in a high temperature environment; the tube-and-calandria system which was the result of the inability to construct a safe large pressure vessel has the advantage of being able to kill, cool and eject individual fuel bundles at will, unlike the all-or-nothing approach in light water reactors). There is no particular reason other than cost why on-line fuel management (including moving of elements in and out of the pressure vessel) could not be done in PWRs or BWRs though. The largest chunk of cost would be in demonstrating safety, but once that is spent, the PHWR design would be dead as a doornail, since light water designs with online fuel management would gain most of the advantages of CANDU+CANFLEX while retaining the greater thermal power output of light water reactors, without needing to deal with D2O.

  7. This Slashdot entry... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...is certainly not going to help!

  8. Can't be the USofA by Picardo85 · · Score: 0

    They've said that they are unable to wage cyber war ;-) but they like paying others for doing their dirty work for them. So i'm guessing they've rented a botnet.

  9. Countless? by mangu · · Score: 4, Funny

    the Obama administration says will put 'countless' lives at risk

    Who would have guessed the US military has aleph-one people working for it?

    1. Re:Countless? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's more than the brazillian army

    2. Re:Countless? by sFurbo · · Score: 1

      All of the sudden, the deficit doesn't look that big, all things considered.

    3. Re:Countless? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      aleph > 0

    4. Re:Countless? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Enumerate the employees by the employee numbers forming an infinite indexed table. Take the diagonal of this table and try assign that to an employee. It's obvious as an afterthought.

    5. Re:Countless? by FrootLoops · · Score: 1

      Any cardinality higher than aleph-zero is uncountable. I suppose aleph-one is by far the most popular example, though. Who knows, maybe the US has a cardinality between the two working for it? (Yes, that's a continuum hypothesis joke :).)

    6. Re:Countless? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the Obama administration says will put 'countless' lives at risk

      Who would have guessed the US military has aleph-one [wikipedia.org] people working for it?

      Not necessary. To be "countless", one has simply to fail to count. As in, "You can be sure that we will never 'count' the number of Iraqi civilians killed to satisfy Bush's pud-thumping ambition."

    7. Re:Countless? by jc42 · · Score: 1

      Heh. As someone with a couple of math degrees, I laughed.

      Of course, when a government spokesman says that something "will put countless lives at risk", what they mean is "We won't let you count them."

      So "countless" is really just a mispelling of "uncounted".

      --
      Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
    8. Re:Countless? by Legion303 · · Score: 1

      To be fair, aleph-null is also uncountable.

  10. NID / NWO others by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    NID / NWO others

  11. Possible attacker by kju · · Score: 5, Informative

    One self proclaimed "Hacktivist for good" claims responsibility for the DoS-Attack: http://twitter.com/th3j35t3r

    He threatened before that he would do that when Wikileaks releases, see last comment on http://th3j35t3r.wordpress.com/2010/09/17/wikileaks-insurance-policy-expired/

    1. Re:Possible attacker by Sprouticus · · Score: 1

      so a 14 year old who still thinks leet speak is cool took out wikileaks website? Really?

    2. Re:Possible attacker by Ziekheid · · Score: 1

      Just some random guy who thinks he's right about the world and uses terrorism himself to make his point. It's ironic really. Also it's not special if one can take out such a site using a DDoS, I could teach my mother how to do that, there is 0 skill involved.

    3. Re:Possible attacker by kju · · Score: 1

      Andreas Bogk, long-time member of the german Chaos Computer Club and well connected to many people claims that this guy is actually capable of doing such an DoS: http://twitter.com/andreasdotorg/status/8940380875653120

    4. Re:Possible attacker by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The fact that the largest website in the world could be shut down by a 15 year old created widespread panic. - https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Mafiaboy

    5. Re:Possible attacker by Ziekheid · · Score: 1

      Apparently he is saying it IS NOT a DDoS which is slightly interesting to say the least. I'd have to come back on my previous claims that this attack involves no skill at all. It's still wrong what he is doing and counts as terrorism in my book.

    6. Re:Possible attacker by c0sine · · Score: 1

      I wonder when/if someone will bring criminal charges against this deepsh*t for his apparent cyber-terrorism acts?

      --
      Take care, Cos
    7. Re:Possible attacker by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      Terrorism! Oh no! When absolutely anything is labeled as terrorism, it instantly becomes bad. Including DDoSing a website and causing it to go down temporarily.

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    8. Re:Possible attacker by hedwards · · Score: 1

      I'm a bit curious as to why Twitter allows people to tweet about illegal activities.

    9. Re:Possible attacker by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Just some random guy who thinks he's right about the world and uses terrorism..

      Terrorism? Really, you're still trying to misuse that word? Picture me, directly in your field of vision, laughing at your utterly brain-washed ridiculousness.

    10. Re:Possible attacker by IHateEverybody · · Score: 1

      Digital paper trail for when the Feds busy them.

      --
      Does this .sig make my butt look big?
    11. Re:Possible attacker by IHateEverybody · · Score: 1

      Damn autocorrect. Bust them. It creates a digital paper trail for when the Feds bust them.

      --
      Does this .sig make my butt look big?
    12. Re:Possible attacker by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wonder when/if someone will bring criminal charges against this deepsh*t for his apparent cyber-terrorism acts?

      Is it crime or terrorism? Democracy afford due process for criminal judgment, terrorism forgoes democratic encumbrances in the name of defense. Which type of society do you want to be a middle/lower class citizen of?

    13. Re:Possible attacker by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The New York Times is publishing it.

      Whatcha gonna do about THAT, "kju", AKA "jester" ? Let's see you set THEM up with a DOS
      attack, you little fascist cunt.

    14. Re:Possible attacker by maratumba · · Score: 0

      "Just so we are all straight and clear - wikileaks hit is not a 'Distributed' DoS, its a simple DoS - I dont use intermediaries or botnets."

      from the tweet mentioned above.

    15. Re:Possible attacker by kju · · Score: 1

      Are you brain damaged? I have nothing to do with that guy.

    16. Re:Possible attacker by Barny · · Score: 1

      That sounds like Terrorist talk citizen, please report to a termination booth to have your molecules reassigned to less terror related food products.

      All praise the Computer!

      --
      ...
      /me sighs
    17. Re:Possible attacker by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "for good"? I wonder what type of "Hacktivist" he would be back when the Vietnam Pentagon papers were released. Wikileaks is doing a great service to the public not only of the USA but around the world as well, as it shows how other governments work as well.

      That hypocrit sociopathic scum should be sent to the front lines in aphghanistan.

    18. Re:Possible attacker by nadaou · · Score: 1

      just because someone claims credit for something has no relevance to whether they are actually involved or not. even when it's something that makes them look really bad. lots of folks free admit to murders they didn't commit, under no pressure from the cops. humans are weird, go figure.

      --
      ~.~
      I'm a peripheral visionary.
    19. Re:Possible attacker by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      shill? pawn? false front?
      first captcha: strategy

  12. Funny stuff. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    "and jeopardize US relations with its allies"
    Wiki leaks is just releasing information.. sounds like to me they're doing things the other countries wouldn't approve of; thus ruining relations. So they don't want anyone to know about what they ( the U.S. ) does in secret.. BUT If someone is willing to expose such information, they blame it on the site. lol~

    It's like a kid stealing from a store and his brother that was with him tells on him, then the kid who stole blames it on his brother for telling everyone what he did. /laugh

    1. Re:Funny stuff. by Sepodati · · Score: 1

      You make the (wrong) assumption that it's hidden because it's wrong. I don't want every email between my friend and I released to the public and it's not because I did something wrong. It's because they are private, frank discussions between my friend and I. Maybe I admit I peed to bed until I was 21. Or I thought about cheating on my wife. Nothing illegal, but I still expect a level of privacy. This is what we're encountering here, for the parts that I've read, at least.

      If you can find evidence of illegal activities in the documents, then I'll support the prosecution of those involved.

    2. Re:Funny stuff. by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      Your post isnt clear, are you claiming that no country ever has any reason to have any secret information?

  13. These documents should not be released. by Kagura · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I have glanced at a few of the documents on The Guardian, and I can categorically say that these documents should not have been released. This should a huge level of irresponsibility on the part of WikiLeaks for releasing the entire database rather than incriminating files. The files are all SECRET rather than TOP SECRET, but there are very sensitive official files in here that have no business seeing the light of day within their classification timeframe, such as HUMINT documents.

    Several years ago I supported WikiLeaks and what they stood for, even donating, but after this latest continuation of their anti-American campaign I cannot support them any longer. These documents are far too strategically damaging to the U.S. and its public/not-so-public allies to have been revealed in bulk.

    Keep in mind that the only source of information regarding the alleged DDOS is the Wikileaks Twitter page. Wikileaks also went down the last times they released this information.

    1. Re:These documents should not be released. by devbox · · Score: 1, Insightful

      So just because this time the information is damaging to US it should not had been released? Why is it worse than when the information is about Russia, Iraq, China or other supposedly "bad" countries?

    2. Re:These documents should not be released. by thehostiles · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Simply labeling something as "Anti American" won't get you any credit or support on the slashdot community.

      I strongly suggest you find better arguments for your position.

    3. Re:These documents should not be released. by Kagura · · Score: 1, Insightful

      The Iraq and Afghan dumps were only "a little harmful" and barely worthy of classification. These cables, on the other hand, are strategically damaging the U.S., its interests, and its allies. Wikileaks should be exposing corruption, wrongdoing, and illegality. It shouldn't take what appears to all outside observers as a vendetta against the U.S.

    4. Re:These documents should not be released. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Give a specific example. If the truth is damaging to the US and/or "its allies" how is that anyone's fault but their own? At what point did it become wrong to show someone in a bad light when it's all true?

    5. Re:These documents should not be released. by durrr · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I say they are right in being released. It shows what the 'private' core of politics really stands for. Deception, supression, paranoia and intent to manipulate everything as much as possible.
      Sure, it erodes the level of trust in politics and goverment, but they deserve no less, they should've never been allowed to be the closed club of friends they are while enjoying even the rather shabby trust of the people they recive today.

      This reveals how bad it have become, should we hide it all and let it get even worse? In my opinion it's better to expose the flaws before the bridge collapse, even if doing so would result in said bridge being demolished.

    6. Re:These documents should not be released. by dangitman · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Congratulations, AGENT-KAGURA on your successful work in the cyberspace battlefront managing this latest "event." Your work will not go unnoticed by the Overseer. 2MWPQB56

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
    7. Re:These documents should not be released. by Kagura · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Bradley Manning, the disgruntled private who was demoted from the rank of Sergeant prior to leaking this information, should be given the harshest penalty possible (excessive prison sentence) for the sole purpose of discouraging this type of behavior in the future. An honest whistle-blower who reveals true wrongdoing will lose their job when found out, but they won't be prosecuted for releasing the information. However, deciding to release all classified information you can get your hands on is not whistle-blowing. It is nothing short of displaying a reckless disregard for any consequences.

    8. Re:These documents should not be released. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The merits of an action reside with the action.

    9. Re:These documents should not be released. by thehostiles · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      What part of espionage, secrecy and govenment spying isn't wrongdoing?
      Nontransparent governments may be legal, but in my opinion, it's still wrong.

      Besides, apparently some of President Bush's activities are included. If he did any major wrongdoings in office, he should be made to face the consequences.

    10. Re:These documents should not be released. by E+IS+mC(Square) · · Score: 3, Insightful

      so patriotism wins over the truth?

    11. Re:These documents should not be released. by Kagura · · Score: 0

      I think the current status quo, Pax Americana, is the least disruptive and most beneficial to all parties involved. It's not perfect and eventually there will be something better, but for many years to come there are no alternatives on the table that are equal or better. I do not believe the strategic position of the U.S. should be degraded in this way.

    12. Re:These documents should not be released. by onionman · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Bradley Manning, the disgruntled private who was demoted from the rank of Sergeant prior to leaking this information, should be given the harshest penalty possible (excessive prison sentence) for the sole purpose of discouraging this type of behavior in the future. An honest whistle-blower who reveals true wrongdoing will lose their job when found out, but they won't be prosecuted for releasing the information. However, deciding to release all classified information you can get your hands on is not whistle-blowing. It is nothing short of displaying a reckless disregard for any consequences.

      I agree completely, and I hope your post gets modded up to make this discussion more visible. What Pfc Manning did was not whistle-blowing; it was a vindictive response to his own demotion. He took it upon himself to endanger numerous people just to satisfy his own ego, and he probably didn't think through the full ramifications of his actions.

    13. Re:These documents should not be released. by John+Hasler · · Score: 1

      ...there are very sensitive official files in here that have no business seeing the light of day within their classification timeframe, such as HUMINT documents.

      Then the US government should have kept them secret. Wikileaks didn't break in to the State Depeartment offices and rummage through file cabinets. Some US government employee copied these files. Wikileaks didn't pay him to do so. Why did he do it and why was he able to get away with it?

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    14. Re:These documents should not be released. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You are so full of yourself. Governments around the world do illegal things and get pissed off when they are found out. It's too bad this poor individual has to pay the price. These documents are only embarrassing because the actions they reveal are an embarrassment.

    15. Re:These documents should not be released. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So this is the "Web 2.0" strategy of the US forces? Pose as a "concerned citizens" and spew nonsense? At least TRY to be creative ;)

    16. Re:These documents should not be released. by hebertrich · · Score: 1

      Maybe the US don't want to show how crooked they are but we from outside have more than a right to know.
      It's not OUR problem it's the problem of the Bush era and it's legacy.
      Time to have the straight dope from the US , not incessant lies and deceit.
      We're supposed to be allies but you guys behave like we're the enemies.
      Thank goodness Wikileaks is letting us know how crooked , deceitfull and totally out of line the US has became since 9/11

      Don't cry for the US .. it's just fair return for all they did and do.

    17. Re:These documents should not be released. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey, you pirated the words out of my mouth!

    18. Re:These documents should not be released. by 0123456 · · Score: 1

      Some US government employee copied these files. Wikileaks didn't pay him to do so. Why did he do it and why was he able to get away with it?

      Why do you think it was a 'he'? This 'leak' could potentially be very valuable to, say, some high-level State Department official who wanted to run against Obama for the Democrat nomination in 2012.

    19. Re:These documents should not be released. by buchner.johannes · · Score: 1

      Exposing what was talked about freely in private, can jeopardize international relations, and be easily misunderstood out of context. And keeping friendly international relations and a mutual understanding, across cultural and religious borders, is of utmost importance in todays world.

      --
      NB: The message above might reflect my opinion right now, but not necessarily tomorrow or next year.
    20. Re:These documents should not be released. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What brand of tin foil makes the best hat?

    21. Re:These documents should not be released. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Congratulations, AGENT-KAGURA on your successful work in the cyberspace battlefront managing this latest "event."

      Is this what you are referring to -- claims that Assange may be a shill for the pentagon:

      Wikileaks, Legitimate Whistleblowers or CointelPro?

    22. Re:These documents should not be released. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That guy did not work alone or among machines, if there were problems this serious, then they should have been spotted and solved long ago. And how the hell did a private get access to those documents?

      It seems there are much more serious problems in the US Army than one disgruntled soldier.

    23. Re:These documents should not be released. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ya, this is at least as bad as killing 100,000s of people, committing war crimes [aggressive war, torture], assassinating citizens and families of terrorists of the battlefield. Oh yeah!!

    24. Re:These documents should not be released. by Scrameustache · · Score: 5, Informative

      The Iraq and Afghan dumps were only "a little harmful" and barely worthy of classification. These cables, on the other hand, are strategically damaging the U.S., its interests, and its allies. Wikileaks should be exposing corruption, wrongdoing, and illegality. It shouldn't take what appears to all outside observers as a vendetta against the U.S.

      You're not making sense, they're exposing corruption, wrongdoing and illegality, and you complain that they're doing it to someone you'd rather think of as uncorrupted. Boohoofuckinghoo.

      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    25. Re:These documents should not be released. by theVarangian · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Wikileaks should be exposing corruption...

      That is exactly what these documents allegedly contain. US diplomatic reports of corruption and other shenanigans in practically every country where the USA has an embassy. This is only damaging to the US because it can't keep a lid on other people dirty laundry it's the people who own the dirty laundry that will be most affected.

    26. Re:These documents should not be released. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is nothing short of displaying a reckless disregard for any consequences.

      Just here to say that the word reckless means disregard for any consequences.

      Posted by your local Department of Redundancy Department.

    27. Re:These documents should not be released. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The truth shall set you free.

    28. Re:These documents should not be released. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >and its allies

      The documents reveal that US diplomats have been instructed to spy on "allies". If anything, this leak is helpful for anyone dealing diplomatically with the US.

    29. Re:These documents should not be released. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      so patriotism wins over the truth?

      And what truth is being shown here? That some diplomatic thinks the Russian government may be linked with the mob? That some British royal did something inappropriate?

      What, exactly, is releasing all of these documents accomplishing? What problem is being solved? What corruption is being exposed? What injustice is being brought to light?

    30. Re:These documents should not be released. by capnkr · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It is not only damaging to the US; you should take off your blinders and RTFA.

      Example: You will read, just like Iran (and, of course, Muslim fundies that support them) will, about Saudi and other Gulf states calling for the US (or whomever) to do whatever it takes to erase the Iranian nuclear weapons threat.

      The short term result? Increased destabilization of an area of the world that really, really does not need that. Slightly longer term - war, quickened by this release. A war that otherwise might have been avoidable, or conducted on more favorable terms to those who don't want Iran to have nukes - which includes parts of Europe that are in range of their missiles, as I recall.

      I hope I am wrong. I have a gut feeling that I'm not.

      --
      "...there are some things that can beat smartness and foresight. Awkwardness and stupidity can." ~ Mark Twain
    31. Re:These documents should not be released. by snl2587 · · Score: 1

      Nontransparent governments may be legal, but in my opinion, it's still wrong.

      This view tends to be thrown around here a lot, but it's a little too simplistic. Having a government that's open to the people is one thing; exposing to the world that your ambassador thinks a critical strategic ally is a dick is quite another.

    32. Re:These documents should not be released. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I don't understand - a penalty for what? For exposing the truth of the government's action and deceits in a series of wars that a majority of the population did not support?

      A government for the people and by the people cannot exist if the government controls the people by only giving them selective information on what it is doing.

      Manning is a hero. He put his life and career on the line to get out information that could help people understand what their government is involved in.

      Selling lies to its citizens in order to convince them to continue to support the massacres of thousands of people is corruption. Just because those that control public opinion have excused it, doesn't mean its alright.

      If you believe in democracy like our government here in the U.S. professes, then you should stand by those attempting to bring truth to democratic governments. A democracy of a controlled public is not really a democracy.

      Free Manning!

    33. Re:These documents should not be released. by Black+Parrot · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The Iraq and Afghan dumps were only "a little harmful" and barely worthy of classification. These cables, on the other hand, are strategically damaging the U.S., its interests, and its allies.

      Didn't your daddy ever tell you the story about the little boy who cried 'wolf' ?

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    34. Re:These documents should not be released. by unity100 · · Score: 4, Informative

      What wikileaks is doing is un-American and is the same as supporting terrorism

      tell me what do you classify the things below as :

      http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/US_ThirdWorld/dictators.html

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

      dont give us 'supporting terrorism' bullshit.

    35. Re:These documents should not be released. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      These cables, on the other hand, are strategically damaging the U.S., its interests, and its allies.

      And?

      All you seem to have backing your complaints is mindless nationalism. 'Don't do that, it'll make poor little America sad.' "What is right" is not defined by what makes things convenient for US politicians and bureaucrats. You're going to need a better reason than merely that it puts some people in power in a poor light.

    36. Re:These documents should not be released. by Kagura · · Score: 0, Troll

      GGP got modded up highly for saying I was a Pentagon astroturfer... Really? This passes for an insightful comment nowadays?

    37. Re:These documents should not be released. by Mitchell314 · · Score: 1

      Everybody thinks they're the good guys.

      --
      I read TFA and all I got was this lousy cookie
    38. Re:These documents should not be released. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's called transparency. You know, the thing that politicians always talk about but never deliver. Times up.

    39. Re:These documents should not be released. by MightyMartian · · Score: 3, Insightful

      As I said on another thread, diplomatic dispatches are supposed to frank and honest assessments. What you're advocating ultimately will lead to the fogging of information as diplomats and their staff begin self-censoring out of fear that Wikileaks will reveal what they said. What Assange and his cronies have done won't make us safer, it will make things more dangerous. Our governments need accurate information, not self-censored tripe.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    40. Re:These documents should not be released. by peragrin · · Score: 1

      Notice How it is only the USA though. Britain, France, Russia, China, Germany all have similar dealings all governments do.

      But only the USA gets these kinds of attacks. Only the USA getting the Blame.

      Remember Britain and france at one point carved up the world. What kind of corruption was in those deals?

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    41. Re:These documents should not be released. by MightyMartian · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I'm wagering that there's more than that in there. I'm wondering, on the smaller scale, how you would feel if everything you said about your wife in private were to be dropped on her lap. That's one form of damage from these releases.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    42. Re:These documents should not be released. by ScentCone · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This reveals how bad it have become

      You don't even understand what you're talking about, do you? Do you even understand the relationship between embassy staff and the executives for which they work, back in their home countries? Do you understand their need to be able to communicate frankly, in private, while important negotiations are taking place? Do you have any idea the appropriate difference in tone in behind the scenese communications about other countries, and the public communication with those countries? You either do, and you're a pathetic troll, or you don't and you're pathetically ignorant. Either way, grow up.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    43. Re:These documents should not be released. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      should be given the harshest penalty possible (excessive prison sentence) for the sole purpose of discouraging this type of behavior in the future. An honest whistle-blower who reveals true wrongdoing will lose their job when found out, but they won't be prosecuted for releasing the information. ... deciding to release all classified information you can get your hands on is not whistle-blowing.

      That's exactly right. He released a bunch of stuff that said SECRET in big bold letters at the top, knowing full well it would have serious consequences on his country and the rest of the world. I'd be surprised if they don't hang him for treason already, let alone if anything happens with Iran in the next few years.

    44. Re:These documents should not be released. by Cwix · · Score: 2, Funny

      I use Reynolds Recycled. http://www.reynoldsrecycled.com/index.html

      I get all the protection of a regular foil hat, but the warm fuzzy of knowing I'm not harming the environment.

      --
      You are entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts.
    45. Re:These documents should not be released. by Improv · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Fine talk from an Anonymous Coward. If you're going to call for somebody's execution, you should at least be willing to put your name behind the call.

      --
      For every problem, there is at least one solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.
    46. Re:These documents should not be released. by thehostiles · · Score: 1

      agreed, but it does get rid of the whole "what is it that you want from me" deal between ambassadors.

      I simply think that people should be able to stand next to their beliefs and be willing to accept the consequences for their political actions.

    47. Re:These documents should not be released. by CharlyFoxtrot · · Score: 1

      Long live the status quo. Give me convenience or give me death !

      --
      If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error.
    48. Re:These documents should not be released. by SteveFoerster · · Score: 1

      And remember... we're the good guys!

      --
      Space game using normal deck of cards: http://BattleCards.org
    49. Re:These documents should not be released. by thehostiles · · Score: 3, Interesting

      If I may elaborate, I believe that this leak is morally wrong if it includes future plans and strategies that could be implemented in various situations, but the parts that are of past affairs should be known so that people can be held responsible for their mistakes.

    50. Re:These documents should not be released. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's that bullshit? Obviously you should go after their loved ones and relatives instead. Kids of these days..

    51. Re:These documents should not be released. by E+IS+mC(Square) · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So, if these leaks don't show anything of substance, why this hue and cry over Wikileaks and Assange? You can't label him irresponsible and at the same time claim there is nothing in the 'leaks'.

    52. Re:These documents should not be released. by Improv · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Rubbish. He should be commended. We have far too little access to information as-is. Anytime someone risks their career and safety to let us see what's going on, it's precious. Bravo to Bradley, we appreciate your sacrifice.

      --
      For every problem, there is at least one solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.
    53. Re:These documents should not be released. by jeff4747 · · Score: 1

      Why did he do it and why was he able to get away with it?

      Considering he's in jail awaiting trial, you have an unusual definition of "get away with it".

    54. Re:These documents should not be released. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Bradley Manning should be given a medal, not a prison sentence. It's brown-nosers like you who help keep the world the bad place it is today.

    55. Re:These documents should not be released. by Tumbleweed · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Bradley Manning, the disgruntled private who was demoted from the rank of Sergeant prior to leaking this information, should be given the harshest penalty possible (excessive prison sentence) for the sole purpose of discouraging this type of behavior in the future.

      Noone should ever be punished more harshly 'as an example', but only on the merits of what they deserve. If you want to send a message, write a letter.

    56. Re:These documents should not be released. by diegocg · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Lol. It's not like Iran don't know that Arabia Saudi is an USA ally and wants to nuke them. The situation is not going to be worse than already is.

    57. Re:These documents should not be released. by 0111+1110 · · Score: 1

      Several years ago I supported WikiLeaks and what they stood for, even donating

      I don't believe you. These cable leaks are perfectly within the aims of the original wikileaks. A lot of them are even quite dull.

      --
      Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
    58. Re:These documents should not be released. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Anti American is good enough for me!

      It's time to take out that asshole.

      Is that you, Senator McCarthy?

    59. Re:These documents should not be released. by Tumbleweed · · Score: 1

      But only the USA gets these kinds of attacks. Only the USA getting the Blame.

      Dude, the jealousy is inevitable. We have the best fast food franchises in the WORLD, and everybody knows it. I'm sorry, Philippines, but Jollibee? Seriously? Something is way wrong with that 'spaghetti'.

    60. Re:These documents should not be released. by snl2587 · · Score: 1

      Er...it kind of does. Does exposing personal views of Arabic leaders supporting action against Iran count? How about exposing private cables between the U.S. and South Korea planning a unified Korea after waiting out an economic collapse of North Korea?

      Even if it's just banter between nations about things people had already figured out anyway...does it really need to be exposed? Wrong-doings...yes, those should be exposed. But I think Wikileaks found the line it had been straddling for a while and took a big leap over it.

    61. Re:These documents should not be released. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Pax Americana? Pax?

      You need to learn some history my friend: Iran-contra, Cuba missile crisis, Bay of pigs, Chile assassination of democratically elected Allende and installation of dictator and human rights abuser Pinochet, and hundreds upon hundreds of others.

      America isn't interested in peace per se - it's interested in itself and will murder, rape and enslave anything that stands in its way.

    62. Re:These documents should not be released. by IamTheRealMike · · Score: 1

      Yes this whole "people should govern themselves" business can be rather messy and complicated, can't it. Benign (?) dictatorship does tend to result in stability .... along with a lot of other less desirable things.

      You realize that's what your "pax americana" argument boils down to, right?

    63. Re:These documents should not be released. by Sique · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Me and my wife are not elected to work in your interest. That's a big difference.

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    64. Re:These documents should not be released. by rainmouse · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Leaking gossip seems to me to be rather less likely to destabilise a region than unmanned drones killing women and children as by product of collateral damage.

    65. Re:These documents should not be released. by gtbritishskull · · Score: 1

      Oh... so if everyone else is doing it, then it is OK. If corruption is rampant then don't try to fix it. I'm sure that will make the world a better place...

      People like you are the democracy ends up just as corrupt as any other form of government. There is no point in giving "the people" power. The majority is just going to squander it anyway.

    66. Re:These documents should not be released. by Lehk228 · · Score: 1

      How the fuck is endless war "PAX AMERICANA" to you? unless you actually used it to mean "looking out for US corporate economic interests and israels interests, to hell with how many brown people we have to kill and terrorist retaliations we have to suffer in order to do it"

      --
      Snowden and Manning are heroes.
    67. Re:These documents should not be released. by Sique · · Score: 2, Insightful

      To quote "The Fifth Elephant" from Terry Pratchett: "Diplomat is another word for spy." What are you thinking diplomats are doing during their time?

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    68. Re:These documents should not be released. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Obviously. Our aren't you proud of your country? Don't you want America to win? Are you some sort of commie?

    69. Re:These documents should not be released. by diegocg · · Score: 1

      The strategic position of the U.S. is being degraded because of what the U.S. does (above all, USA might not be able to buy good military equipment in the future due to the economic problems caused by unnecesary wars). Wikileaks is helping the U.S to maintain its strategic position - by encouraging them to behave well in the world.

    70. Re:These documents should not be released. by Sique · · Score: 5, Informative

      The basic reaction in the german Spiegel forum about the U.S.'s opinion of german politicans was: "Nothing new to see here. Just my opinion being confirmed." I guess this is generally true for most other countries.
      Or to put it differently: If the U.S. assessment was widely different from what most people were thinking anyway, I would have been wondering if the U.S. diplomats and the world were living in parallel universes.

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    71. Re:These documents should not be released. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's probably a stooge

    72. Re:These documents should not be released. by epyT-R · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's too bad you don't realize that you're not defending what america stands for, only the organization that pretends to: the US government.

    73. Re:These documents should not be released. by gtbritishskull · · Score: 2, Insightful

      In the US? Of course it does. We aren't constrained by those annoying little "facts".

    74. Re:These documents should not be released. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      True, but I think you misunderstand...it's not an accident that the 'private' core of politics is like that.

      Good luck to Wikileaks because once they are ultimately successful, they will be murdered...then we'll start over again.

    75. Re:These documents should not be released. by qmaqdk · · Score: 1

      How is having diplomats collecting "internet and intranet ‘handles’, internet e-mail addresses, web site identification-URLs; credit card account numbers; frequent-flier account numbers; work schedules, and other relevant biographical information.” from officials in allied countries "least disruptive and most beneficial"? Allied countries which have no motive nor means to threaten the US.

      --
      My UID is prime. Hah!
    76. Re:These documents should not be released. by unity100 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      there are no 'secrets' or 'treason' in exposing wrongdoings of a government that goes against a country's founding ideals and constitution.

      period.

      traitors are those who call for continuance of that kind of violation, under ANY justification. like you. you betray your country's founding ideals.

    77. Re:These documents should not be released. by unity100 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      yes. they should be able to communicate frankly while engaging in filthy stuff that goes against their country's founding ideals, constitution, international bill of human rights, and modern ideals of liberty and freedom.

    78. Re:These documents should not be released. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I think the current status quo, Pax Americana, is the least disruptive and most beneficial to all parties involved. "

      So what you're saying is that you don't have any relatives in any of the countries where the US
      has been killing civilians by means of inaccurately targeted drone-fired weapons ?

    79. Re:These documents should not be released. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would not be surprised to learn that Assange operated a death camp in 42 and is one of those Nazis on the run with a fake identity.

      I think I'd be a little surprised. He must have managed to have knocked about 50 years off his age.

    80. Re:These documents should not be released. by Sepodati · · Score: 1

      US diplomatic reports of corruption and other shenanigans in practically every country where the USA has an embassy

      Which cables show that? Provide links. Why weren't those cables released specifically instead of the whole gossip pile?

      Most of these appear to just be private conversations and info, not anything illegal. You expect a level of privacy in conversations or emails between you and your friend, even though you're not planning anything illegal, right?

    81. Re:These documents should not be released. by Kagura · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      That's like saying a con-artist or thief does is doing a community service by teaching people to be more careful with their money, or that a rapist teaches victims to be more careful next time.

    82. Re:These documents should not be released. by mcvos · · Score: 1

      This is exactly what I thought. If the US is afraid that this release will damage their reputation with their allies, then doesn't that mean that maybe they shouldn't have done those embarrassing things in the first place? The leak reveals that they just haven't been very good allies.

      The first thing I heard of was that apparently the US had supplied the PKK with weapons, which is completely stupefying if it's true. And apparently Turkey may have known about Turks supplying Al Qaeda-in-Iraq with weapons and not stopping it. WTF? Has the word "ally" completely lost all meaning?

    83. Re:These documents should not be released. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, not insightful, more like plainly obvious. It doesn't look like you joined too long ago. So... how much are they paying you?

    84. Re:These documents should not be released. by misexistentialist · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Maybe dangerous for a weapons or oil extraction contract or for some assistant deputy's lofty ambitions to become deputy of some worthless department. Any pretensions that the state department or intelligence community are serving national security are laughable.

    85. Re:These documents should not be released. by peragrin · · Score: 1

      um you made a self defeating post. You argued that democraies need this insight to remain uncorrupted, but then you go on to say the majority of people will just squander the power anyways.

      So which do you then want democracy or are you just unsure of what your price is for corruption is yet.

      I never said it was or is okay. I am just pointing out that the only country attacked like this is the USA. Are you really naive and stupid enough to believe that these things don't happen in every government.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    86. Re:These documents should not be released. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe the other countries lack heroes that are willing to put themselves on the line to protect democracy and their country by bringing the people the truth.

    87. Re:These documents should not be released. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you safer by being groped at an airport?
      Are we safer by bombing the shit out of 2+ middle eastern countries?
      No, we're not. We MUST have some leverage vs our government to prevent them from taking actions that DIRECTLY incite violence against us.

      Our governments need a swift kick in the face. It's supposed to be of the people, for the people, by the people. Currently they are purely self-serving plutocrats who couldn't give a shit if we live or die so long as they live in their massive mansions and have the freedom we all innately should have.

    88. Re:These documents should not be released. by ScentCone · · Score: 1, Troll

      But they should not be able to communicate frankly when discussing Saudi Arabia's funding of terrorism, or China's deliberate sabotage, even as they work on a way to publicly discuss such things? Never mind, you're a blowhard, and can't imagine that a diplomat would ever be involved in anything that's not "filthy." Interesting choice of word, there, actually. You should get in a little supportive time with someone who will let you talk about your issues in private. Um, unless you think there should be no privacy between people as they discuss sensitive things ... which is apparently how you think.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    89. Re:These documents should not be released. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The US government is the largest imperialist nation-state in the history of mankind. The word 'terrorism' is just an obfuscatory label for actions that resist this imperialism. In the end, revealing the truth will put mankind forward, not backward. If the US government wants to lie and intimidate the other nations living on this planet, there isn't much the rest of us can do, but I will NOT weep for them once the scope of their tyranny comes to light. Rome burned, and so will Washington. I relish that they must now reap what they've sown.

    90. Re:These documents should not be released. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      kagura has a uid lower than the guy tryingto lambast him. were way past 1.8 million uid now, how long ago was 800k? lol

    91. Re:These documents should not be released. by Sepodati · · Score: 1

      Because there is an expectation of privacy, even when everything involved is legal. Something can be embarrassing and legal. Do you want every email of yours released, even though there's nothing illegal in them?

      As with all of these releases, WIkiLeaks should have released the specific documents that show corruption, injustice, war crimes, etc.. They're looking like nothing more than a gossip rag at this point.

    92. Re:These documents should not be released. by mcvos · · Score: 1

      I like Pratchett's misspelling: "the truth will make you fret"

    93. Re:These documents should not be released. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bradley is the true hero of this story. He sure will pay, however, he can live on knowing that he did the right thing.

    94. Re:These documents should not be released. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The line is so incredibly thin between life as we know it and complete and utter anhilation, that it does no one any good to have these little schmucks tugging this way and that on it doing nothing to protect the rights of humanity to just get along_ these fucking assholes should be dealt harshly with.
      No /. censorship..

    95. Re:These documents should not be released. by ivoras · · Score: 1

      These cables, on the other hand, are strategically damaging the U.S., its interests, and its allies. Wikileaks should be exposing corruption, wrongdoing, and illegality. It shouldn't take what appears to all outside observers as a vendetta against the U.S.

      Like 99%+ of people who read this, I have no idea what you are talking about. Care to give an example? You don't need to directly quote a document, but you will need to write enough details so someone who is an impartial observer (simply because he has no detailed knowledge of whatever's going on in there) can reach a conclusion.

      --
      -- Sig down
    96. Re:These documents should not be released. by clarkkent09 · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      Are you sure that your government keeping some secrets in not in your interest? How many informants will come forward with information about terrorist plots that might kill you and your family if they know that their name could end up on WikiLeaks?

      --
      Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
    97. Re:These documents should not be released. by hedwards · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You must be new here. I mean they did call it the "Patriot Act" for a reason. I doubt it's a uniquely America thing, but people get so bent out of shape over the little lapel pins when the same morons wearing them pass crap like the Patriot Act.

      It's a strategy that's worked well for fascists for a really long time and I doubt that will change anytime soon.

    98. Re:These documents should not be released. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This might be shocking to you but there are actually quite a number of people who don't talk about their friends, family and loved ones behind their backs.

      To suggest that that is a normal and acceptable behavior reflects poorly on your character.

    99. Re:These documents should not be released. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps you'd care to explain why Assange released documents if "anti-American" doesn't cut it for you? A distraction from certain allegations in Sweden, perhaps? Revenge for insufficient ego pampering after the last set of leaks?

    100. Re:These documents should not be released. by Totenglocke · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I disagree. I think he's a hero because he's standing up for the notion of "government of the people, by the people, and for the people". You can't have a democracy (or a democratic republic, which the US technically is) if the government keeps most of the important information about what the government does a secret.

      --
      "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
    101. Re:These documents should not be released. by suomynonAyletamitlU · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm wondering, on the smaller scale, how you would feel if everything you said about your wife in private were to be dropped on her lap.

      You'll pardon me for being a pragmatist since I don't have experience in love (as I'm certain experience would completely negate a pragmatic argument, no matter how true), but if your relationship is sustained by the fact she doesn't know what you said or what you feel, either you're a dick, or she's psycho--or you fear she's psycho / she fears you're a dick, which means you aren't even sure of the other's personality. Any of those might indicate that your relationship, and the friendship that's behind it, is shaky. Of course, given the divorce rate here in the US, I suppose those things do happen quite a bit.

      If governance is running on the same shoddy model, that should be changed. I'm not saying it can be (easily or otherwise) anytime soon, but it should be.

    102. Re:These documents should not be released. by MyLongNickName · · Score: 1

      Exactly how does leaking information about how the Saudis want to see military action against Iran expose the "out of line" US government?

      --
      See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
    103. Re:These documents should not be released. by Totenglocke · · Score: 1

      Well, I disagree with your view on Wikileaks, but it's nice that people on slashdot are finally noticing what those of us who express minority opinions have known for years - when there's a political discussion on slashdot, the minority view will almost always be modded down, in good part because the lower your karma, the fewer posts you can make, and thus it makes it look like one side "wins" the argument because the mod system prevents the opposing view from being able to post comments.

      This is why I think they need to devise some sort of accountability system (such as having to post an explanation for WHY you modded as you did) for people with mod points.

      --
      "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
    104. Re:These documents should not be released. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, actually the managers and systems security people who decided to make the information widely available, ignoring "need to know", and who did nothing to either prevent or track downloads should be given the harshest penalty possible. If you fail to lock up your chickens, you've got no cause for complaint if you lose them to a chicken thief.

    105. Re:These documents should not be released. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How exactly was Halie Salassie a dictator?

    106. Re:These documents should not be released. by T+Murphy · · Score: 4, Funny

      I was going to mod you up, but then realized modding you down would help you make your point... ultimately I didn't know what to do and posted instead :/

    107. Re:These documents should not be released. by Totenglocke · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'm wagering that there's more than that in there. I'm wondering, on the smaller scale, how you would feel if everything you said about your wife in private were to be dropped on her lap. That's one form of damage from these releases.

      Perhaps people should try being honest?

      --
      "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
    108. Re:These documents should not be released. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, you're a blowhard and need to grow up.

    109. Re:These documents should not be released. by ultranova · · Score: 1

      I have glanced at a few of the documents on The Guardian, and I can categorically say that these documents should not have been released.

      No, you can't categorically say that a quarter million documents shouldn't have been released just because you sampled a few of them. That's a ridiculous claim.

      This should a huge level of irresponsibility on the part of WikiLeaks for releasing the entire database rather than incriminating files. The files are all SECRET rather than TOP SECRET, but there are very sensitive official files in here that have no business seeing the light of day within their classification timeframe, such as HUMINT documents.

      WikiLeaks is not an American website, and as such is not responsible for enforcing US government's classification system, thus not caring about them does not make it irresponsible.

      Several years ago I supported WikiLeaks and what they stood for, even donating, but after this latest continuation of their anti-American campaign I cannot support them any longer. These documents are far too strategically damaging to the U.S. and its public/not-so-public allies to have been revealed in bulk.

      You are, of course, free to make your own decisions. Of course, to do so sensibly requires information, which WikiLeaks is in the business of supplying. It does so without pro-American bias, which seems to be what you mean by "anti-american campaign".

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    110. Re:These documents should not be released. by Sique · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The probability that I will die from a fishbone stuck in my throat is about 10,000 times higher than falling victim to a terrorist attack.
      And I don't stop eating fish.

      So what?

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    111. Re:These documents should not be released. by unity100 · · Score: 1

      But they should not be able to communicate frankly when discussing Saudi Arabia's funding of terrorism, or China's deliberate sabotage, even as they work on a way to publicly discuss such things?

      had there been no secrecy in the world, noone would be able to commit evil deeds on a large scale. that includes whatever saudi arabia, china are doing.

    112. Re:These documents should not be released. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Anonymous Coward should be EXECUTED by torture and subsequent beheading for recommending execution by torture and subsequent beheading. This kind of speech has no place in a free nation and must be dealt with in the harshest of terms.

    113. Re:These documents should not be released. by LurkerXXX · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Maybe he released them because that's what Wiki leaks does???

      And also because someone SENT THEM TO HIM. If someone sends him incriminating documents from Brazil, I think he'd publish those as well.

    114. Re:These documents should not be released. by thehostiles · · Score: 0, Troll

      No, my beef with "Anti American" is because it is implying that something is "wrong" simply because it is of an opposing view.
      "Anti-American" holds no weight. It is an empty statement.
      The mere act of criticism of American ideals, values and goals (if there are such things) is labeled "Anti-American". This goes against all logic that things this important _should_ be critically viewed and examined by the public to determine if our politicians actually are doing as good a job as they say they are.

    115. Re:These documents should not be released. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, you don't understand what you're talking about, do you? You're a pathetic troll, and you are pathetically ignorant. You should grow up.

    116. Re:These documents should not be released. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      I'm wondering, on the smaller scale, how you would feel if everything you said about your wife in private were to be dropped on her lap.

      Yes, that would be embarrassing if that was you telling your girlfriend how your wife lays like a log during sex while giving your girlfriend a bunch your wife's family money. Which is more like what is in these files.

    117. Re:These documents should not be released. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The wars in Iraq and Afganistan are un-American, what this man did was heroic. Sadly he will not be given the parade he deserves.

      There is no such thing as too much information when it comes to the killing of tens of thousands of civilians. The more information the better.

      My great country has a history of supporting the wrong people, dictators and killers, for the wrong reasons. If we have diplomats saying bad things about world leaders, why wouldn't you want to know that?

      People need to understand this or there will never be real change.

    118. Re:These documents should not be released. by mgabrys · · Score: 0

      Well it could have been worse - they could have actively promoted and fabricated false-intel to start a pointless war which would kill thousands of people and cost over a trillion dollars to the United States. That would have been inexcusable there. Whew! Close one!

    119. Re:These documents should not be released. by funkylovemonkey · · Score: 1

      I think the comparison is apt. There are all sorts of things I don't tell my wife, not because I'm a bad person or I don't trust her, but for the sake of our relationship. For instance I don't tell her when she works hard on dinner and it turns out terrible. My first thought may be "This is the worst thing I've ever tasted," but I would never tell her that. Similarly I don't tell her every time I think another woman is attractive or if I think she's in the middle of an argument with a friend and she's probably being the unreasonable one. The same goes the other way, I'm sure she has thoughts that she keeps to herself along the same vein. It's called a relationship. However if all those private thoughts over the years were suddenly dumped out on her in succession without context our relationship would most likely be heavily damaged. From what I've seen that has come out so far, most of it fits in that category. Frank discussions of allies that just aren't flattering, some of the messiness of diplomacy, etc...

    120. Re:These documents should not be released. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would not be against executing Manning for treason. I am also a little surprised that the douchebag Assange and his ego are still alive. However with leaking information about Russia and the mafia there, here is hoping he will turn up in several boxes shortly. While many think we here in the US are evil scum of the earth, the fact of the matter is you can now bet your paycheck that the Russian mafia is looking for this guy--and he won't be sent to some posh Gitmo resort when he is found.

    121. Re:These documents should not be released. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To me it does seem to be exposing wrongdoing and illegalities

    122. Re:These documents should not be released. by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1

      Bradley Manning, ... should be given the harshest penalty possible ... for the sole purpose of discouraging this type of behavior in the future.

      Perhaps forcing him to spend his days going through enhanced pat-downs at TSA checkpoints? Though that should probably be reserved for the innocent...

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    123. Re:These documents should not be released. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you fail to protect your loved ones, you've got no cause for complaint if you lose them to a mugger, rapist, or murderer.

    124. Re:These documents should not be released. by Schadrach · · Score: 1

      Since I'm not a major political figure or high ranking corporate officer who can pay off those watching to not look at me, no, it's entirely reasonable to assume that anything I say at any time might be recorded by the government or private interests for future use against me. My only saving grace is that I'm generally pretty boring, so it's not likely anyone is really watching (though remember: if you have brown skin and are a friend of anyone with political opinions, the government will consider you a potential terrorist threat and put a tracker on your car).

    125. Re:These documents should not be released. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Umm, here's a thought. Don't say those things about your wife? If you are constantly trashing your wife to the cute secretary at work, and your wife finds out about it, she should be upset.

      Simply saying that you want to keep your conversations private isn't a good reason to keep your wife in the dark.

    126. Re:These documents should not be released. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      These cables, on the other hand, are strategically damaging the U.S., its interests, and its allies.

      Allies. You mean partners in crime.

      Do not forget that wikileaks offered the government an opportunity to sanitize names out of these docs. The gov't refused. So, cut off your nose to spite your face. The gov't turned down a chance to mitigate damages. So if any names are revealed and the named are assassinated, their blood is equally on the hands of anyone who refused the opportunity to get the names redacted.

    127. Re:These documents should not be released. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      [...] should be given the harshest penalty possible (excessive prison sentence) for the sole purpose of discouraging this type of behavior in the future.

      I don't want to pull a Godwin, but there's a good reason this argumentation would be dismissed pretty much everywere in continental Europe... Don't know about the US though.

    128. Re:These documents should not be released. by clarkkent09 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It is not the responsibility of the government to stop you from choking on a fish bone but it is to stop attack on US citizens.

      --
      Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
    129. Re:These documents should not be released. by Xyrus · · Score: 1

      It's one thing to be able to have frank private discussions. It's another to have frank private discussions about illegal activities that you are either participating in, encouraging, or deliberately ignoring. the ends do not justify the means.

      Of course, ignorance is bliss. A lot of people either don't want to know or don't care what shadowy things our government may do. As long as it doesn't affect them or doesn't interrupt their Facebook text-fest about Dancing With The Stars they could care less.

      --
      ~X~
    130. Re:These documents should not be released. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The releases give a more detailed picture about what the US is actually up to, Kagura. People of the world deserve to know. How are you supposed to form an accurate picture of whats happening if nobody talks about anything until 50 years after it happened?

    131. Re:These documents should not be released. by Zumbs · · Score: 5, Insightful

      An honest whistle-blower who reveals true wrongdoing will lose their job when found out, but they won't be prosecuted for releasing the information. However, deciding to release all classified information you can get your hands on is not whistle-blowing. It is nothing short of displaying a reckless disregard for any consequences.

      The leaks did reveal true wrongdoing. The Danish government has consistently been claiming that the Danish army did not turn over prisoners to torture at the hands of the Iraqi or Afghan armies. However, the leaks showed that not only did the Danish army turn over prisoners, they adopted a practice of embedding a couple of Brittish soldiers into their units. Whenever they caught someone, the Brittish soldiers would do the arresting and subsequent turning over of prisoners. This obvious attempt by the Danish army to circumvent the rules shows that they knew that they were doing something wrong. Unfortunately, the wikileaks documents did not show how far up this travesty goes, but one can hope this release sheds some light on the issue.

      --
      The truth may be out there, but lies are inside your head
    132. Re:These documents should not be released. by ushering05401 · · Score: 1

      Interesting post right up until "Free Manning."

      The cascading implications of this disclosure actually indicate that "Free Leonard Peltier" is the superior battle cry.

      Doubt is the long term opponent, and simple faith does not sooth sophisticated minds - a true shortcoming of Sophistry in times of epic crisis.

      At some point there needs to be some signs and wonders for the overly educated. Peltier would fit the bill as a symbolic reparation to an indigenous population that has proven capable of harboring organizations of armed, disenfranchised people without seeing sermons of violence cover the land.

      Manning should sit as long as the responsible instigators remain hidden. They should all be held accountable for the outcome, not the action.

      It won't take long for a majority of people to arrive at the stunning conclusion that the leaks demonstrate an economy of governance that lacks the means to satisfy their communities without reformation.

      Since we aren't just going to die when that happens, I suggest standing with the spirit of the Magna Carta, the idea of the Constitution, and the wisdom of Lincoln at Gettysburg.

      At that point Manning can walk.

      If we fail to get there it doesn't really matter what happens to any of us. The dream of the U.S. will be beyond reach and controlled secession should probably be embraced to head off the chaos.

    133. Re:These documents should not be released. by russotto · · Score: 1

      How is having diplomats collecting "internet and intranet 'handles', internet e-mail addresses, web site identification-URLs; credit card account numbers; frequent-flier account numbers; work schedules, and other relevant biographical information." from officials in allied countries "least disruptive and most beneficial"? Allied countries which have no motive nor means to threaten the US.

      The fact is gentlemen DO read other gentlemen's mail, and have for a very long time. Spying on one's allies is pretty normal.

    134. Re:These documents should not be released. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, in this case it would be: the bystander-witness makes the rapist's wrong-doings public. Hint: the USA are the rapist.

    135. Re:These documents should not be released. by russotto · · Score: 1

      The files are all SECRET rather than TOP SECRET, but there are very sensitive official files in here that have no business seeing the light of day within their classification timeframe, such as HUMINT documents.

      Wouldn't source information be TOP SECRET?

    136. Re:These documents should not be released. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most interesting. Your second reference shows the emblem of Operation Gladio. It interprets the motto "Silendo libertatem servo" as "In silence I preserve freedom". That may be the desired interpretation of those who support the organization, but an equally valid translation of that Latin fragment would be "I serve by silencing freedom."

      Odd that my captcha is "pedantry".

    137. Re:These documents should not be released. by Sique · · Score: 1

      But I personally are less concerned about terrorist attacks than I am about the daily risk of being alive.

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    138. Re:These documents should not be released. by BitZtream · · Score: 1

      Wow, you've got a REALLY narrow view of the world, don't you?

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    139. Re:These documents should not be released. by huiwe · · Score: 1

      Time to leave your wife if thats what your doing behind her back, she deserves better, or if she doesn't, you do.

    140. Re:These documents should not be released. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am just pointing out that the only country attacked like this is the USA

      What do you mean 'attacked like this'?

      All countries pretty routinely suffer various leaks about government corruption, military abuse, etc etc. So if it's the act of secret information being leaked to the press/public that you think is always US-oriented then you're absurdly ignorant.

      The only thing different about this (and the previous big release of Afghan War documents, which is really all part of the same leak) is the scale. So if it's the scale of the leak to which you're referring to then yes, the US is the only one to have such a large leak occur so publicly, but then again that's because it's the only leak of such size and detail to occur as far as I am aware. Working with a single data point and coming up with '100% of these attacks are against USA' is just stupid.

    141. Re:These documents should not be released. by unity100 · · Score: 1

      equivalents of gladio were founded in all countries which were members of nato. probably also in countries which were allied or affiliated with nato too.

    142. Re:These documents should not be released. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How does it serve democracy when a government keeps secrets?

    143. Re:These documents should not be released. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He should be EXECUTED by torture and subsequent beheading,

      I see you hold our Constitutional protections in minimum high regard.

      This is no less than an act of war against the united states of america

      On a level with lying the country into an elective war by cherry-picking intelligence of possible WsMD?

      How many American military and mainly Iraqi civilian lives did Bush piss away into the desert sands in trying to "avenge" 9/11?

      What an incredible return on investment did Bin Laden get for a million or so -- billions (actually trillions) in disruption to the American economy. And every day, we increase his ROI on our civil liberties by letting the TSA pissants force us to knuckle under to their jackbooted Nazi search procedures.

      USA PATRIOT ACT, my ass -- it should rightly be called "The Osama Bin Laden Eulogy for the American Way of Life."

      You are a risible sap.

    144. Re:These documents should not be released. by Kagura · · Score: 1

      Read what the original poster said instead of making non sequitur statements... please.

    145. Re:These documents should not be released. by AmonTheMetalhead · · Score: 1

      Maybe the rest is just better at keeping secrets?

    146. Re:These documents should not be released. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You think Anonymous "should" do such and such, because "blah blah blah".

      The world doesn't work that way, you don't get to decide. Ever.

    147. Re:These documents should not be released. by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 1

      What you're advocating ultimately will lead to the fogging of information as diplomats and their staff begin self-censoring out of fear that Wikileaks will reveal what they said.

      Competent diplomats do this anyway. Haven't you ever seen "Yes, Minister"? If anything, this will bring an end to the cadre of incompetents who have taken over civil services in recent years.

      --
      May the Maths Be with you!
    148. Re:These documents should not be released. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're quite funny. I am so sure that all the other governments of the world (yours included) are veritable founts of openness. They never tell lies and don't countenance deceit. Oh, wait - that was in Narnia or some other fantasy. We live in the real world where all governments use lies and lack of transparency as tools.

    149. Re:These documents should not be released. by suomynonAyletamitlU · · Score: 2, Insightful

      not because I'm a bad person or I don't trust her, but for the sake of our relationship.

      Actually, that IS a lack of trust. To phrase it differently, if you don't do these things, the relationship will die, even if you meant well; you can be working hard in other ways, but they will be meaningless in the face of these otherwise insignificant things. You don't trust her to receive your words as you mean them, or you think that she will give up a good thing because you mention another woman's tits.

      If she says, "Tell me what you think" or "tell me what you're thinking about" and you don't because you are afraid she will get mad, you don't trust her. It's the very definition of the word.

      This says nothing whatsoever about whether you SHOULD trust her or not, only that you do not.

    150. Re:These documents should not be released. by TFAFalcon · · Score: 4, Interesting

      And soldiers who kill civilians should be put on trial for war crimes. Why do they get an automatic pass, and a person who reveals their actions should go to jail?

    151. Re:These documents should not be released. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I might be exactly what you describe, because I can't see it. What we need is respect for each others opinions, ideology, traditions and culture. If we had that then politicians would have nothing to hide. I doubt these documents will involve information other than government business, without the lies and deceit. That's great I think. Unless you can give me an actual example of some government business which is best kept secret, to serve the democracy.

    152. Re:These documents should not be released. by Merls+the+Sneaky · · Score: 1

      Considering I don't say things about my wife that would be damaging to our relationship even when she isn't present, go ahead, knock yourself out.

    153. Re:These documents should not be released. by TFAFalcon · · Score: 1

      If it's part of an official document it can hardly be described as 'private'.

    154. Re:These documents should not be released. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Callingthe US a tyrannical state will get you lots of credit and modpoints however. Oh how we are so much better than the rest of the internet. /. Is turning into just another asshole...

    155. Re:These documents should not be released. by jordan_robot · · Score: 1

      The probability that I will die from a fishbone stuck in my throat is about 10,000 times higher than falling victim to a terrorist attack.

      Thanks dude, no more fish for me.

    156. Re:These documents should not be released. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If anything, it points out that 3/4 of that those so-called "classified" documents should never have been "classified" in the first place, does it not?

    157. Re:These documents should not be released. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This IS sarcasm, right?

    158. Re:These documents should not be released. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe if you gave a shit about your wife, stopped beating and cheating on her there wouldn't be a problem?

      - nobody cares about your privacy or well being when you're being a douche.

    159. Re:These documents should not be released. by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      You do understand, right, that when two diplomats talking to each other about how their countries are going to deal with the crazies like the despots running North Korea, or Venezuela, or Iran, that they need to be able to keep those conversations from the crazies in question? Never mind. I see that you think that Iran only kills pro-democracy protestors because other countries talk privately among themselves. And that you think North Korea only enslaves its own people, and continues to push counterfeit currency, drugs, and weapons out into the world for cold cash because South Korea wants the ability to talk, in private, with the allies that help to defend it? Do you have any idea how ridiculous you sound?

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    160. Re:These documents should not be released. by horza · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Democracy faces threats from without and within. Transparency is all very well fighting the threats from within, but history has shown that if you give the foreign enemy details about your placements, logistics, tactics, and weaknesses then this is a bad thing.

      Equally important is that war is, and has always been, as much about propaganda as men in the field. This is not a good or a bad thing, just the way it is.

      Wikileaks is an anti-censorship publication, but even they have tried to act with a modicum of journalistic integrity. Even the US military had to admit the last leak was redacted enough not to intentionally cause any loss of life.

      However, Manning was given a trust. The rules were in black and white, which he put his signature (ergo his honour and his bond) behind. We've not learned his motives yet, whether altruism or some petty vengence, but he definitely betrayed the trust that was placed in him. He dumped the information completely unredacted with no knowledge or certainty as to what Wikileaks would do with that information. He certainly deserves his punishment. Maybe he will think it was worth it? We don't know but he was in the wrong. Hero? Certainly not. Martyr? Only history will tell, but in my opinion unlikely.

      Phillip.

    161. Re:These documents should not be released. by onionman · · Score: 1

      Well, I disagree with your view on Wikileaks...

      Actually, I don't have a problem with Wikileaks. They are very clear about what they stand for, and there is a very great need in the world for an organization such as Wikileaks. My issue is with Pfc Manning.

      But, I certainly agree with the rest of your post. Far too many people are just using a substitute for the "-1, I disagree" mod (which is missing for a reason). Some sort of meta-modding would be nice.

    162. Re:These documents should not be released. by Montezumaa · · Score: 1

      It is pasted time that you, and those like you, quit blaming Bush and start putting blame on Obama as well. That is not to say that Bush did not make mistakes, as I am quite sure he made a lot of mistakes(for which, we, as the general public, are aware of a lot of Bush's mistakes), but Obama is just as guilty of making mistakes. A lot of mistakes.

    163. Re:These documents should not be released. by PCM2 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      If that's true then I'd love to see an example of how the U.S. government is fulfilling its responsibilities.

      Some guy gets on a plane with a bomb strapped to his body and we only find out about it when he detonates it, injuring no one but himself. Result? The U.S. government takes away more of our privacy and dignity and arguably withdraws freedoms from every citizen, in order to make the claim that it is stopping attacks on U.S. citizens.

      Meanwhile, somewhere at an ATM in Oakland, California, a man is hit on the head with an aluminum baseball bat and two young men walk away with his money, ID, and cell phone. The man later dies of complications due to skull fracture. Where was the U.S. government?

      --
      Breakfast served all day!
    164. Re:These documents should not be released. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I saw your post in another thread and slightly agreed, I've now changed that stance.

      A friend of mine lies compulsively while picking up chicks, he also likes to make fun of them but then add "at least I'm honest", trying to do the bad boy thing or something.

      Funny thing is, honesty does not excuse tact or manners. Or as one girl has put it. Honesty doesn't excuse you from being a complete asshole.

      If you want to be brutally honest and quick to the point that's fine but if you think that means you should be able to put things in the disgusting and disturbing manner these guys have, you are sorely mistaken and deserve whatever flack you get.

    165. Re:These documents should not be released. by PCM2 · · Score: 1

      Then again, if you and I have a business relationship (the closest thing to a diplomatic relationship that two individuals are likely to have), I probably don't give a crap what you say about me behind my back, so long as you're earnest and respectful to my face. If I know that you can't personally stand me but that you always strive to appear respectful, it shows that I wield power in the relationship.

      --
      Breakfast served all day!
    166. Re:These documents should not be released. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      will lead to the fogging of information as diplomats and their staff begin self-censoring out of fear

      You mean like all patriotic Americans have to self-censor out of fear of having their communications (if they disagree with government policy) intercepted without Constitutionally-guaranteed court supervision?

      It's about fucking time.

      I assert equal right as a citizen to conduct frank and honest communications without anti-Constitutional government oversight.

    167. Re:These documents should not be released. by TFAFalcon · · Score: 1

      But these aren't private emails. They are messages between government officials. And they should have no expectation of privacy for things they say as part of their jobs.

    168. Re:These documents should not be released. by IICV · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Given the incidence rate of terrorism in places that aren't currently destabilized, I would be totally okay with that informant not coming forward - because statistically, he is significantly more likely to be providing us with a false positive than a true one.

      Seriously, you have to be pragmatic about these things; what's more important, the guy who may or may not blow some people up maybe if a ton of (very well-funded!) intelligence agencies fail in their jobs, or the fact that our government is right now sending American troops to die for absolutely no reason?

    169. Re:These documents should not be released. by ironjaw33 · · Score: 1

      Me and my wife are not elected to work in your interest. That's a big difference.

      The vast majority of US government workers (as well as those mentioned in these releases) are not elected officials, but private citizens.

    170. Re:These documents should not be released. by Johann+Lau · · Score: 1

      I'm wondering, on the smaller scale, how you would feel if everything you said about your wife in private were to be dropped on her lap.

      I wouldn't even consider myself a worthy boyfriend, MUCH LESS a husband, if that would be *any* problem whatsoever? Sure, you might say things in a bit unflattering ways, but assuming she is not extremely stupid, your wife would understand. Especially since she's doing the exact same thing.

      Now if you cheat on her or disrespect her, well, then the problem is not the disclosure, but your actions. And the sooner the disclosure happens the better, so she can have a relationship with someone actually worth her time.

      When people use the ridiculous excuse of terrorism to spy on citizens, it's all "but you ain't got anything to hide, have you?", but hey that goes tenthousandtimesfold for those who start wars.

    171. Re:These documents should not be released. by Johann+Lau · · Score: 1

      well, then it should hang itself because it clearly is attacking US citizens 24/7. with the help of bootlickers like you.

    172. Re:These documents should not be released. by Anachragnome · · Score: 1

      "It is not only damaging to the US..."

      You are absolutely correct. This latest release is damaging to everyone that set themselves up in a role that the general public does not condone.

      This is the true value of these documents--accountability. When our governments no longer see themselves as accountable to those that they govern, they should be dragged out under the full glare of the public eye and treated accordingly.

      I do not give a shit WHO is involved so long as they are held accountable.

      Short-term results being a shooting war? Who do you suppose will be shooting who? I think most people are capable of deciding which side they are on and now they get to see which side everyone else is really on.

    173. Re:These documents should not be released. by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      Diplomats are not normal civil servants. Often they are as much part of the intelligence community as they are emissaries. In the long history of diplomacy, frank communiques to the home office have been key to making foreign policy decisions.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    174. Re:These documents should not be released. by MightyMartian · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Oh yes, people are being dragged off the street because of an email about how they think Obama is a dick.

      You guys are so full of shit, so addicted to your hyperbolic paranoia that you can't even see how utterly moronic your statements are.

      I'll stand by what I say. I think just dumping hundreds of thousands of communiques between diplomats in foreign embassies and the State Department is a bad idea. It will sow distrust with allies, will make diplomats and embassy staff fearful to honestly communicate their observations and opinions, and for what?

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    175. Re:These documents should not be released. by nanospook · · Score: 1

      perhaps some people's view of the world is more than "my country" against "your country". If the human race get's its shit together and works for humanity rather than their little piece of the pie, then we have a much greater chance of surviving a world that is being stripped of resources..

      --
      Have you fscked your local propeller head today?
    176. Re:These documents should not be released. by nanospook · · Score: 1

      Following the anology.. maybe your wife would re-evaluate your marriage if she knew what you were saying about her to others? The government has become too secretive and too "we know what is best for you, so shut up or we will charge you". It will be interesting to see if there is any meat to these leaks..

      --
      Have you fscked your local propeller head today?
    177. Re:These documents should not be released. by yoder · · Score: 1

      Queue violin.

      --
      "In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act!" -- George Orwell (Eric Arthur Blair)
    178. Re:These documents should not be released. by yoder · · Score: 1

      Bingo. In a perfect world the punishment would fit the crime. That, however, has not been the case in the US for far too long.

      --
      "In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act!" -- George Orwell (Eric Arthur Blair)
    179. Re:These documents should not be released. by baegucb · · Score: 1

      You need to read how the mod system works. As far as I know, noone is ever prevented from posting anything* (well, possibly copywrited Scientology docs aside). You get modded up or down, causing your comment not to be seen or not seen with default viewing settings, depending how random moderators view your posts. You might want to start here:
      http://slashdot.org/faq/com-mod.shtml#cm510
      (*there are a couple other minor reasons such as malformed HTML etc. that may cause it not to appear)

    180. Re:These documents should not be released. by Tumbleweed · · Score: 1

      Bingo. In a perfect world the punishment would fit the crime. That, however, has not been the case in the US for far too long.

      The biggest problems with the American legal system, as I see them, are that it's adversarial, and that it's a 'legal' system, not really a 'justice' system. The Judge in a trial is there to make sure both sides behave as they compete to win for their side, not to win for the truth, insofar as it can be determined, and to pronounce judgment at the end. It's a system of who has the best legal representation and loopholes. The prison system is also now a large industry, and a for-profit influence on the legal system is guaranteed to corrupt. Combine badly-designed 'three strikes' laws, and badly-thought out sentence requirements and judgeship-for-life, and you've got one big steaming pile.

    181. Re:These documents should not be released. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm wagering that there's more than that in there. I'm wondering, on the smaller scale, how you would feel if everything you said about your wife in private were to be dropped on her lap. That's one form of damage from these releases.

      How DO you talk about your wife? If you have such contempt for her that it must be kept hidden, you goddamned deserve the consequences of her finding out.

    182. Re:These documents should not be released. by ridgecritter · · Score: 1

      I disagree with your assumption that the threat of publication will necessarily cause intragovernmental communications to be less than candid. And even if that were true, it is something that needs to be changed. Employees of our government need to be trained and rewarded to provide accurate information without regard to whether their communications may be disclosed.

      Secrecy provides a haven for incompetence and evil. I'd rather we deal with the inconvenience and hassle of transparency. I think the long term result will be a better world than we have now.

    183. Re:These documents should not be released. by ridgecritter · · Score: 1

      I think the circumstance you posit, being a matter of individual personal opinion unconnected to governmental business, is not applicable to the Wikileaks release. Better if you support your opinion with argument based on relevant data.

    184. Re:These documents should not be released. by akeeneye · · Score: 1

      Commended? He should be promoted.

      --
      The man who dies rich dies disgraced. -- Andrew Carnegie
    185. Re:These documents should not be released. by Dhalka226 · · Score: 1

      What do you think the practical effects of these leaks are? Maybe a minister or two in various countries have to resign. China might actually execute a few of them (to hell with proving they were actually guilty). In most cases, there will be no change -- no change at all, much less effective change that isn't just swapping one corrupt person with another.

      So now, by and large, we have somebody who is not only corrupt but pissed at us for saying so. We still have to work with these people; remember, these leaks come from diplomatic cables, meaning they are in places where the US has official diplomatic presence. It's incredibly rare that we would close up shop and leave, nor is it necessarily in our interests to do so even if they are irrepairably corrupt; we're there for a reason.

      And that, quite frankly, is the most innocuous possible consequence. Before I came here, a headline in my CNN news feed was (paraphrasing) "Leaked documents expose talks between US and Israel about Iran." I just rolled my eyes and moved on. I didn't even want to know. Now we're in territory that, hyperbole aside, really can get people killed.

      Take North Korea as an example. They are, as a matter of course, belligerent. It's not only their negotiating strategy to make people give them things so they don't look like the totally inept, careless regime they are, but also a show of bravado to their own military so that they don't simply slit his throat and take over, which would be somewhat similar to how Kim Jong Il's father ended up in power. Politics, right? Right. So the United States and South Korea decide that it's good to remind the North that getting any extra belligerent is a poor idea, and do so as war games and joint exercises. They even let slip that they're debating bringing in a carrier strike group as part of the operations--a carrier being the most visible and most potent projection of power in any arsenal short of nuclear weapons (which you can bet are also in theater on a submarine or two, but we're just not going to announce that). A carrier that they probably do not want to bring and have no intentions of bringing, but which gives them a bargaining chip--they can give the "concession" that the aircraft carrier they likely had no intentions of moving in won't be moved in. In any event, this makes China get uppity and they release a statement about operations in their "exclusive economic zone," a wording that carefully avoids calling it their territorial waters because they know it is not. Politics. Emboldened by China's statement and assuming they have a necessary degree of Chinese protection, North Korea decides that the only logical response to "watch how belligerent you are" is to become more belligerent, and they begin to shell an island under dispute, killing South Korean soldiers and, if one were going to be technical, once again violating the cease fire that ended the Korean War -- though nobody is actually going to get technical about it. This is, incidentally, after the North sunk a South Korean naval vessel and killed dozens more of its soldiers. The South has declared that if North Korea pulls any shit like this again, they're going to retaliate. And if there's anything we know about North Korea, it is that they would not let a retaliation go un-retaliated against. What shape that might take, nobody knows. Whether or not it puts the 30,000 US troops in South Korea in the middle, all but guaranteeing and necessitating US involvement in a counter-attack and quite possibly kindling anew the Korean War, nobody knows. And if that should happen, whether or not nuclear weapons become involved again -- nobody knows. Kim Jong Il is plenty crazy enough to use them, and once there are nukes in the air I don't see how the US can possibly react other than to launch their own en masse and obliterate the North permanently.

      Politics. And people are dead, with the strong likelihood of more coming. It is a dangerous game, and this is only one of the latest episodes.

    186. Re:These documents should not be released. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Somebody with high security clearence thought these documents were suitable for release. I would rather wikileaks released them as they were leaked rather than making their own subjective judgement on all 1.6GB of text data.

    187. Re:These documents should not be released. by Totenglocke · · Score: 1

      Wrong. Your karma limits your number of posts per day. The higher your karma, the more you can post (I believe excellent gives unlimited posting). If you have bad karma you're limited to 3 posts per 24 hours, good karma is 20-something posts per 24 hours.

      Don't believe me? Ask cowboyneil.

      --
      "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
    188. Re:These documents should not be released. by baegucb · · Score: 1

      Thanks. I didn't know that. My karma has always been excellent.

    189. Re:These documents should not be released. by dbIII · · Score: 1

      No, they will just have to start getting rid of the political appointees and put adult supervision in place so that an intern with a axe to grind can't find and wander out with the nations secrets.
      The cynic in me says that perhaps lives are really at risk - it may expose treason from Wolfowitz or others putting them at risk of the death penalty (which will of course never happen no matter what is found).

    190. Re:These documents should not be released. by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      So I'm to believe no one here has confided in a friend about another friend or loved one, and would be embarassed if that confidence was somehow betrayed.

      Well, I tip my hat to all the perfect people of Slashdot. Clearly I am a heel in comparison to such saintly specimens.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    191. Re:These documents should not be released. by afabbro · · Score: 1

      Simply labeling something as "Anti American" won't get you any credit or support on the slashdot community.

      I suspect not, given how anti-American the typical Slashdot college kid is.

      --
      Advice: on VPS providers
    192. Re:These documents should not be released. by NurturingFather · · Score: 1

      Do you know how ridiculous you sound? You sound really ridiculous ScentCone.

      --
      I am the most supportive person ever, fags.
    193. Re:These documents should not be released. by theshowmecanuck · · Score: 1

      I hear a lot about wikileaks releasing huge piles of information basically stolen from the United States, but I have yet to hear of anything being published by them on the same scale from countries like say, Russia (who kill reporters, shut down news stations critical of the midget Putin, kill anyone with any sort of following that speaks ill of said midget Putin), China (don't need to say anything about these fuckers), Syria, Iran, etc. etc. etc. This says to me that wikileaks, and in particular Asange is basically just an anti American organization that throws in just enough on the others just as a way to say "hey, we go after everyone." Yeah, right. Personally, I agree that America is essentially reaping what has sown, but to say that wikileaks has any real interest in exposing the bullshit other countries pull is a load of horseshit. i.e. It is just an anti American organization. OK by me, but call a spade a spade. OK?

      --
      -- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
    194. Re:These documents should not be released. by IronSight · · Score: 1

      Perhaps people should try being honest?

      Perhaps, but people are too chickenshit these days to be honest. They never learned the basic rules of integrity. Integrity means doing the right thing no matter how hard. The people who do these leaks have integrity to stand up against an army of liars. Fuck your public facade, man up and tell us the truth. You will be respected for it. But the US won't. They will continue what they have done since probably before vietnam. They will make up some bullshit to cover up their bullshit because they are too cool to have integrity. And then they will wonder why all the rest of the world hate us. Then when we are getting invaded like berlin because we were acting like genocidal nazi's we will all cry, "why?", because we don't know why, our government didn't tell us their secrets.

    195. Re:These documents should not be released. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Discouraging stupidity is impossible.

    196. Re:These documents should not be released. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Err, I don't say shit about my wife that I don't want her to hear. Period. I live my life assuming that *everything* I say or do will get back to her eventually. If you're criticising your wife in private, perhaps you should be rethinking your marriage altogether. These criticisms should be discussed with *her*.

    197. Re:These documents should not be released. by internettoughguy · · Score: 1

      . I'm wondering, on the smaller scale, how you would feel if everything you said about your wife in private were to be dropped on her lap. That's one form of damage from these releases.

      Jeez, it's this simple; don't fucking gossip.

    198. Re:These documents should not be released. by Q-Hack! · · Score: 1

      Somebody with high security clearence thought these documents were suitable for release. I would rather wikileaks released them as they were leaked rather than making their own subjective judgement on all 1.6GB of text data.

      To make a minor correction to your post: Somebody with high security clearance, who did not have release authority, took it upon himself to release classified documents to the world. Whether or not WikiLeaks should have used their subjective judgement on the data will be a point of contention for many years.

      --
      Some days I get the sinking feeling Orwell was an optimist.
    199. Re:These documents should not be released. by mabhatter654 · · Score: 1

      if the Private/Sergent had access to the conversations they were probably on government owned computers/networks. Meaning that somebody COULD put in an FOIA request for these materials... but how would a journalist know what to ask for when a lot of the stuff happening is relayed between "underlings" while the actual decisions were made by Brass in person or over the phone, never in writing.

      From reading this, it looks more like somebody was doing this for revenge, not patriotism. Of course if it was REALLY dangerous, or important, a CIA team would be at WikiLeaks hosting and simply take it, and the maintainer would be given a "suicide". It might upset the Swedes for about 5 minutes, but what can they really do? It's kind of like when we rendition suspected terrorists sympathizers from Spain a few years back. If this was anything other than a nuisance, somebody would be waking up dead by suicide.

    200. Re:These documents should not be released. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You've got to be kidding. There's been no direct military strike on Iran. In the meantime Iran could just start launching missiles, and others would retaliate.

      This bullshit about total transparency under all circumstances is downright asinine. The real world doesn't work that way, and people do die when certain information gets leaked.

      I can agree that sometimes we need certain information to get out, to keep people in check. Wikileaks, however, has no sense of discretion. Only arrogant negligence.

    201. Re:These documents should not be released. by Sepodati · · Score: 1

      They're private messages between government officials. That's why they're sending these on a classified network. It's reasonable to expect a level of privacy from the general public.

    202. Re:These documents should not be released. by rerogo · · Score: 1

      The 1st Century Pax Romana wasn't actually peaceful. In fact, in that time the Romans conquered all of England, large parts of Asia Minor, Palestine, and Mesopotamia. Pax Romana actually refers to the relative paucity of civil war in the early Roman Empire. (As in, it only happened once or twice.)

      So saying "Pax * implies no wars are being fought anywhere" is untrue to the concept of Pax *

    203. Re:These documents should not be released. by RAMMS+EIN · · Score: 1

      ``Our governments need accurate information, not self-censored tripe.''

      Yes, I very much agree. And so do our populations. And in neither case are insults and offensive wording very helpful.

      So there are several things here. First of all, having a good view of the whole picture is crucial to making the right decisions. Secondly, rousing emotions and withholding part of the information impedes getting a good view of the whole picture.

      What I have seen from the US government in the last, say, 10 years, has been quite a bit of playing on emotions, withholding information, and even outright lies.

      Two wars were started. Osama Bin Laden has not been caught, and terrorists are still active. No weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq that I am aware of. The USA declared victory in Iraq, and I think most of the bloodshed has actually come after that point.

      The real number of casualties, the crimes against humanity, the existence of certain prisons and the interrogation methods being used there have all been swept under the rug by the USA and its allies.

      WikiLeaks has been showing the world what has really been going on. The fact that they can _shock_ the world by releasing a video of military personnel shooting civilians is telling to me. It looked like a tragic accident to me. This is what war is really like. Such accidents happen.

      Other releases by WikiLeaks have forced governments to admit that the real death toll of the wars was higher than had been suggested before, and that the wars weren't going as successfully as they had been portrayed. This information has sparked new discussions about the strategy to follow from that point onwards. Almost simultaneously, people have started calling WikiLeaks irresponsible, have started calling for them to be shut down. Julian Assange's reputation has been dealt a great blow - perhaps entirely through faults of his own, I don't know.

      So yes. We need accurate information, not censored tripe, cooked-up propaganda, and inflammatory words. Yet, censorship, propaganda, and inflammatory words is what we have been getting from governments. Remember: the first casualty of war is truth.

      Has WikiLeaks gone too far with their releases? Perhaps they have. But they have certainly shown us evidence that governments were trying to hide from us. Evidence that might well have led us to think differently about the wars we have entered into. I am glad someone is doing that job. And if our governments had been honest and truthful, whatever WikiLeaks could have been released would have been a boring rehash of what we would have known already. So perhaps WikiLeaks have gone too far, but, the way I see it, they have also done good and important work. Precisely _because_ we need accurate information.

      --
      Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
    204. Re:These documents should not be released. by Majik+Sheff · · Score: 1

      Rubbish. He should already be room temperature. His actions were not some act of martyrdom, they were the self-styled petty revenge of a child given too much access.

      You bleeding heart fucks can mod me down but you'll only be proving that you're just as immature and short-sighted as Manning.

      --
      Women are like electronics: you don't know how damaged they are until you try to turn them on.
    205. Re:These documents should not be released. by Internetuser1248 · · Score: 1

      if you give the foreign enemy details about your placements, logistics, tactics, and weaknesses then this is a bad thing.

      This would be a valid argument if such an enemy existed. The current foreign enemies to the US are mostly imaginary, except for a few rogue nations with little power to harm the US, and some random groups of angry peasants with absolutely none. Would you care to enlighten the rest of us as to what enemy you were referring to specifically?

    206. Re:These documents should not be released. by Majik+Sheff · · Score: 1

      Not the AC in question, but I will put my name on my own call. This scumbag should have been swinging from a rope the day after he took "credit" for the leak.

      --
      Women are like electronics: you don't know how damaged they are until you try to turn them on.
    207. Re:These documents should not be released. by Improv · · Score: 1

      Whatever the actual reason that inspired it, it was a good act. Every frank view we have behind the curtains is valuable. Shame on you for trying to defend the blindfolding of humanity.

      --
      For every problem, there is at least one solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.
    208. Re:These documents should not be released. by shaitand · · Score: 1

      He and every other soldier also swore an oath to defend the constitution and the people of the United States. That trumps any other obligation to the government and military.

      If he believes his superiors are classifying information in a way that ultimately hurts the people and betrays the spirit of the constitution he has a duty to take action and that might mean leaking that material.

    209. Re:These documents should not be released. by HungryHobo · · Score: 1

      not this bullshit again.

      Wikileaks only has what people send it.
      It's an english language site for the most part so that rules out much of the world, you probably wouldn't even hear about the sites existence in the most repressive countries in the world.

      Americans have more of a culture of exposing corruption and the american government is unlikely to torture or kill the family of someone caught leaking documents.

      Yes wikileaks has a large number of documents related to the US, the united states section has over nine thousand but most of those are the Congressional Research Service Reports who's publishing is unambiguously good for Americans.

    210. Re:These documents should not be released. by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      Are you stupid, or naive, or just trying to spread FUD?

      Do you SERIOUSLY believe that Iran does not know that the Saudis want them squashed? Get a frigging clue, dude. You sound like a 7th-grader, complaining that Sally told Rachel that Mabel doesn't like Heather, when in fact the whole school (except for you, apparently) knows they have been mortal enemies since kindergarten.

      Give it a rest. The players already know who they are, and who the other players are. The DIFFERENCE is that for once in the last 100 years, the PEOPLE who are actually paying for it all, might have a clue for a change what it's all about.

      If you don't think that's a good thing, then please move to Botswana or somewhere, where the general public might believe the same. (Not picking on Botswana; I just picked a country name out of the air.)

    211. Re:These documents should not be released. by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 1

      Diplomacy is the art of sweet talking the guy facing you while cocking a pistol behind your back.

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    212. Re:These documents should not be released. by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 2, Informative

      Mod parent up. By now we should ALL realize that the idea that "American" is whatever the politicians advocate, is just so much BS. Read the Constitution. Read the Federalist Papers (and the Antifederalist Papers if you are so inclined). LEARN what it's all about. It ain't what they're telling you.

    213. Re:These documents should not be released. by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      Not really. They exist to do what they do. Their subjective judgment (by their own admission) carries very little weight. Data gets released. They disseminate the data. It's a very simple and well-understood process: it's what American journalists used to do.

    214. Re:These documents should not be released. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's merely a theory.

      It's just as likely that the people who are the source of the embarassing reports- i.e. a Saudi King pushing for war against Iran, the US pushing for Slovenia to take a guantanamo detainee if they want a US presidential visit, or Hilary Clinton pushing for spying on UN diplomats, will think twice before pursuing such action in future.

      Why do you think the diplomats will change their actions but no one else will?

      Either the net result is that people will think twice which is a good thing, or they wont. It makes no sense to suggest that one group of people will but others will not. Do you think the King of Saudia Arabia will make such requests of the US if he fears a US diplomat might leak it not knowing whether the diplomat will or wont censor in future? If he does do so in future then he'll have to do so by being able to justify that should it be leaked, if he can't justify it publicly he shouldn't be making the demand.

      If you believe the ability to push for things like war behind the scenes is better than ensuring accountability and justification to the people when pushing for war then there's really no helping you. How many of the worlds problems do you think occur at every level because people can't be honest to each other? How do you think the Iranian leadership feels now that they've found out that their arch enemy, America, has actually been resisting war against it, whilst it's neighbours want it's blood? Don't you think that might make it think twice in pursuing a course of assault on America when it's largest threats are much closer to home?

      The fact is you simply don't know what effect the leaks will have, and suggesting they'll make things worse is idiotic- you simply do not know that, they could just as likely make things better.

      I suspect the real concern of many people like you isn't really that this will make the world a worse place, but that it's just another step forward in America's waning influence in the world and that's really what scares the shit out of people like you.

    215. Re:These documents should not be released. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      problem is, the US are dealing with OTHER countries' ideals, constitutions, and non-americans' human rights etc. and treating them like shit.
      And that's my summary of the US international conduct as disclosed in these papers. (yes, I spent the whole morning reading them and trying to get a cohesive picture of what it's all about)

    216. Re:These documents should not be released. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      History has shown, that the real enemy is within. The citizens must always be vigilant if they want to stay free from those who assert authority. This is the lesson of history.

      A closed government is never ever a good idea whether for "war security and enemies abroad" or "for your own good".

      They only thing that's bad about this, is so many people are on the side of "hear no evil......". I really assumed people were smarter than that.

    217. Re:These documents should not be released. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can set up /. to effectively ignore mods, making listening to mods 100% optional. You can't however do that with a government "its top secret" mod.

    218. Re:These documents should not be released. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It seems there are much more serious problems in the US Army than one disgruntled soldier.

      You mean, like, the whole killing thousands of innocent civilians-thing?

    219. Re:These documents should not be released. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      " Do you understand their need to be able to communicate frankly, in private, while important negotiations are taking place?"

      Do you understand that these so called executives are morons and incompetent?

    220. Re:These documents should not be released. by Dilaudid · · Score: 1

      Perhaps drones are a good thing compared to the Taliban - I don't recall them being great friends of women, they tended to aim their ordinance at them rather than hit them by accident. I do like wikileaks, I think it makes the free west stronger, but it doesn't seem to be possible to leak much information out of regimes like Venezuela, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, North Korea or Iran which I think in some people's minds reinforces a prejudice that somehow America is the biggest villain in the world. America is a great country and wikileaks is built on American (actually - whisper it - DoD) technology. Reading their website, I get the impression wikileaks might agree with me.

    221. Re:These documents should not be released. by Dilaudid · · Score: 1

      Most people agree that the legal system exists to protect society (among other things). If setting an example discourages others from committing crimes, then by setting an example the legal system is doing it's job. In this case, I think they should not pursue Manning, but that's not relevant.

    222. Re:These documents should not be released. by xenobyte · · Score: 1

      There's no evidence that the inclusion of British soldiers in patrols (they were never part of any units or similar) was done solely to circumvent international law. Making joint patrols makes sense in so many ways, both strategic and logistically.

      Basically, it makes all the sense in the world to turn over prisoners to the local authorities following an arrest. It would be wrong to create a parallel legal system with own courts and prisons. If the local authorities employ torture or similar it is their problem and the international community needs to take it up with them. It's plain stupid to simply not hand over prisoners to them and think it's all fine. They need to stop using torture and that's all there is to it.

      --
      "For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong." -- H.L. Mencken (1880-1956) --
    223. Re:These documents should not be released. by RingDev · · Score: 1

      diplomatic dispatches are supposed to frank and honest assessments.

      No, they are not. The purpose of diplomacy isn't honest or frank communications.

      The purpose is to take what ever communication steps are needed to secure the best possible outcome for the organization. You show respect to those you detest. You show strength to those you fear. You show weakness to those you want.

      It's the GAME of statesmanship. And a couple of players will get their knuckles cracked for it. But more diplomats will step in, better players, to smooth things out. Because each nation still wants what's best for it. Each nation with still play their part.

      The hope though, is that no nation sees open warfare as the best possible outcome. And at the moment, certain elements of the US have a lot to gain from a new war.

      -Rick

      --
      "Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
    224. Re:These documents should not be released. by Scrameustache · · Score: 1

      our government is right now sending American troops to die for absolutely no reason?

      There is an inner logic, it's simple and elegant, but it's cruel and antithetic.

      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    225. Re:These documents should not be released. by Scrameustache · · Score: 1

      I'm wagering that there's more than that in there. I'm wondering, on the smaller scale, how you would feel if everything you said about your wife in private were to be dropped on her lap. That's one form of damage from these releases.

      Well, if I had been murdering people to provide for her, I would personally be unhappy about being exposed, but it would be required of justice to expose me so.

      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    226. Re:These documents should not be released. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good thing we have you to decide what goes against our country's founding ideals and constitution.

      So can we now hang spies (those that hand our secret information to others) from the nearest tree? That was all the rage back in the day. No trial needed, being a time of war and all.

      Hyperbole is awesome!

    227. Re:These documents should not be released. by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      Do you know how ridiculous you sound?

      Why? Because I'm advocating the ability to retain some privacy in diplomatic communications? And because I'm calling the prior poster an idiot for his contention that the fact that we have private communications between diplomats is the reason that there are "evil deeds on a large scale" in the world? You're calling ME ridiculous?

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    228. Re:These documents should not be released. by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      they could care less

      I always wonder why people say that, when they mean the exact opposite (could not care less, right?).

      Regardles: so, your contention is that the best way to decide which communication should be allowed to be frank and private is to have government employee steal the data, provide it to a foreign person with a highly politicized agenda, and then have that person pick and choose the documents that best support his agenda while he published those secret communications in the press?

      Here's a better approach. Elect people you trust, and don't re-elect the ones you don't. Your elected legislators run the oversight committees that review and entirely control the purse strings for every bit of the operations that are in discussion here. Think Nancy Pelosi was too lax in her casual blow-off of CIA briefings that she later found her constituents thought were important? Throw her out for not sharing your priorities. Don't think that the incoming congressional majority is going to be thoughtful enough about what is and isn't appropriately kept in the form of back-chanel communications between the US, China, the Russians, et al? In two years you'll have a chance to vote differently.

      Having an egomaniac like Assange line up his chosen leaks to further his own agenda and self agrandizement is hardly the right way to approach it. Which illegal activities do you suppose you've busted a US diplomat in the middle of, as he's privately discussing which particular Arabs seem to be funding AQ? And how do you suppose Assange has helped to keep that important information flowing when he decides to make public information that may get an informant or on important inside-the-finance-world source killed for their trouble?

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    229. Re:These documents should not be released. by Tumbleweed · · Score: 1

      Most people agree that the legal system exists to protect society (among other things). If setting an example discourages others from committing crimes, then by setting an example the legal system is doing it's job.

      The 'example' best set by a justice system is to fairly and consistently enforce the laws. If one person is given a particular sentence, then people who commit a similar offense should receive a similar sentence. The 'example' I replied to was someone saying this person should receive a more harsh sentence than they would otherwise, which is not consistent with justice.

    230. Re:These documents should not be released. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Government employees already fog reports and minimize what they put in writing because of Freedom of Information Requests. This will just drive information sharing to telephones, if anything.

    231. Re:These documents should not be released. by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      It's my understanding that documents marked Secret are at least to some extent exempt from such requests, or at least heavily censored if they're cleared.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    232. Re:These documents should not be released. by Xyrus · · Score: 1

      so, your contention is that the best way to decide which communication should be allowed to be frank and private is to have government employee steal the data, provide it to a foreign person with a highly politicized agenda, and then have that person pick and choose the documents that best support his agenda while he published those secret communications in the press?

      That's not what I'm saying in the slightest. I'm saying that, currently, the general public has no way to know what shady/illegal activities our government may be performing in the name of national interests. Democracy relies on a well informed populace, and deliberately hiding behind the "state secrets" mantra when trying to hide the hypocrisy of our foreign relations defeats that purpose.

      Here's a better approach. Elect people you trust, and don't re-elect the ones you don't.

      And how exactly are you supposed to be able to discern this when these activities are happening behind closed doors with no public knowledge? Politicians are very good at saying one thing and doing another, especially when said politician can do something without anyone knowing about it.

      A well loved priest can still be a pedophile when the church doors close.

      Having an egomaniac like Assange line up his chosen leaks to further his own agenda and self agrandizement is hardly the right way to approach it.

      I never claimed it was. But information is information, and now we have information we didn't have before. Typically this kind of information isn't released for decades and by then it is far too late to do anything about it. The information is useful, despite the messenger.

      Which illegal activities do you suppose you've busted a US diplomat in the middle of, as he's privately discussing which particular Arabs seem to be funding AQ?

      Personally none. But just from the initial release we already know that a blind eye has been turned in at least one instance.

      And how do you suppose Assange has helped to keep that important information flowing when he decides to make public information that may get an informant or on important inside-the-finance-world source killed for their trouble?

      Stop it. The same things were said with the Iraq and Afghan documents and it was much ado about nothing. So far nothing has been revealed that will get anyone killed. Embarrassed, certainly, but not killed.

      I understand that some things need to be kept secret, but shady dealings and illegal activities should NOT be. That information SHOULD be made public so that we, the people, can make informed decisions.

      --
      ~X~
    233. Re:These documents should not be released. by unity100 · · Score: 1

      So can we now hang spies (those that hand our secret information to others) from the nearest tree?

      benedict arnold wasnt hanged.

      what you speak of would be true, if your country was true to its founding ideals, rather than being a bitch at the hands of rich private interests.

    234. Re:These documents should not be released. by PennMan · · Score: 1

      I disagree. I think he's a hero because he's standing up for the notion of "government of the people, by the people, and for the people". You can't have a democracy (or a democratic republic, which the US technically is) if the government keeps most of the important information about what the government does a secret.

      Give me the name of one hero who committed esponage. Yes, stealing secure, compartmentalized defense information is espionage. Releasing it, where an enemy or a potential enemy can obtain possession, is considered consorting with that enemy.

    235. Re:These documents should not be released. by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      I'm saying that, currently, the general public has no way to know what shady/illegal activities our government may be performing in the name of national interests.

      Of course they do. That's the whole point of having three branches of government, which serve as checks on each other. The whole point of having legislative oversight of executive activies is so that locally elected representatives - who are routinely up for re-election or change - can sound off if they see something being done by the executive branch that they think merits action.

      But information is information, and now we have information we didn't have before ... The information is useful, despite the messenger

      So how is this any different than publishing the IDs and home addresses of every under-cover narcotics cop? After all, one of them is very likely up to no good, no matter how many others are doing hard, dangerous work that demands anonymity. Too bad, right? We need information! All of it! All the time! There is no such thing as a single trustworthy government employee, right, and only the New York Times can be trusted to know what information can be held back!

      No, really. What's your point? You're saying that people can't be trusted to do work that involves secrecy, so you're trusting other people to judge what's appropriate, while completely throwing out the very real, critical strategic and tactical value of not having everything you do or say broadcast to your adversaries, or to the enemies of those you're trying to protect.

      I understand that some things need to be kept secret

      Do you, really? Your solution seems to be to review all of the horses as they run out of the barn, and then to close the door later.

      Stop it.

      Why? The current load has already identified an Iranian informant. Do you suppose that the Mullahs' regime, which kills people who protest against them, will just say, "Oh well, information is information!" and let people like that be? I see.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    236. Re:These documents should not be released. by sac13 · · Score: 1

      Meanwhile, somewhere at an ATM in Oakland, California, a man is hit on the head with an aluminum baseball bat and two young men walk away with his money, ID, and cell phone. The man later dies of complications due to skull fracture. Where was the U.S. government?

      Busting MM farmers...

    237. Re:These documents should not be released. by Zumbs · · Score: 1

      There's no evidence that the inclusion of British soldiers in patrols (they were never part of any units or similar) was done solely to circumvent international law.

      Then why did they do the arresting? If they are in a Danish unit, it is the Danish unit that should do the arresting.

      Basically, it makes all the sense in the world to turn over prisoners to the local authorities following an arrest. It would be wrong to create a parallel legal system with own courts and prisons. If the local authorities employ torture or similar it is their problem and the international community needs to take it up with them. It's plain stupid to simply not hand over prisoners to them and think it's all fine. They need to stop using torture and that's all there is to it.

      And what do we do until they stop using torture? Your strategy results in torture becoming an acceptable part of the occupation that just happens. We close our eyes and ears and continue to turn over human beings to monsters.

      Fortunately, it is against Danish law to turn over someone - anyone - to torture. And to my knowledge it is also against a number of international conventions and treaties. This is why the British government and army are being sued by a few of the survivors of torture.

      --
      The truth may be out there, but lies are inside your head
    238. Re:These documents should not be released. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Perhaps people should try being honest?

      That would require people who can take the truth, especially about themselves.

      We all like to lie to ourselves about who and what we are. We like to listen to those who flatter us - which is a form of lying. We like to hear what we think of as the truth, not about what's actually true.

      Proverb where I live: Children and fools speak the truth.

    239. Re:These documents should not be released. by StikyPad · · Score: 1

      As long as the attack comes in the form of battery by other people directly, and not, say, attack by the flu, or cancer, or AIDS. Those people can just suck it up and buy healthcare that's designed not to help them, but to turn a profit, amirite?

    240. Re:These documents should not be released. by theshowmecanuck · · Score: 1

      whatever

      --
      -- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
    241. Re:These documents should not be released. by StikyPad · · Score: 1

      That's not a by-product of collateral damage; that is collateral damage.

    242. Re:These documents should not be released. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Several years ago I supported WikiLeaks and what they stood for, even donating, but after this latest continuation of their anti-American campaign I cannot support them any longer. These documents are far too strategically damaging to the U.S. and its public/not-so-public allies to have been revealed in bulk.

      And the truth be goddamned.

      Listen, fuckup -- if it's being done in my name, I have an absolute right to know about it. Fuck anyone who says differently.

    243. Re:These documents should not be released. by Xyrus · · Score: 1

      Of course they do. That's the whole point of having three branches of government, which serve as checks on each other. The whole point of having legislative oversight of executive activies is so that locally elected representatives - who are routinely up for re-election or change - can sound off if they see something being done by the executive branch that they think merits action.

      That is probably one of the more naive statements I have seen in regards to our government. Were you sleeping during the past decade? Nothing like a congress to rubber stamp anything the executive desires.

      Any politician fighting the good fight makes enemies on both sides of the aisle, pretty much ensuring they stay irrelevant. In the meantime, politicians focus the public's attention on useless wedge issues instead of more important matters. They WANT to keep the population in the dark. If some covert action will help funnel money to the politicians corporate sponsors, do you really think they'll raise a stink about it? Unlikely to say the least.

      Checks and balances these days only go as far as the politicians CHECKING to make sure they have high BALANCES.

      So how is this any different than publishing the IDs and home addresses of every under-cover narcotics cop?

      Because they're not doing that. It's also unlikely that a foreign diplomat would be killed over calling Germany's chancellor a bitch.

      You're also comparing a single individual to the government. Government policy can affect thousands to millions of people. If the government is indeed doing illegal activities that is far more nefarious than any NARC gone bad.

      We need information! All of it! All the time! There is no such thing as a single trustworthy government employee, right, and only the New York Times can be trusted to know what information can be held back!

      Last I checked, a NARC officer is a private individual hired to do a job. The government is elected and represents the people of the US. If the government is performing, hiding, or turning a blind eye to illegal activities then it is OUR RIGHT TO KNOW so we can correct the problem. Otherwise, this country is nothing more than a hypocritical farce.

      No, really. What's your point? You're saying that people can't be trusted to do work that involves secrecy, so you're trusting other people to judge what's appropriate, while completely throwing out the very real, critical strategic and tactical value of not having everything you do or say broadcast to your adversaries, or to the enemies of those you're trying to protect.

      That's not what I'm saying at all, and stop being so melodramatic. I have a healthy skepticism when anyone from the government says "trust us", mainly because you usually can't. This is especially true when you have two branches of government scratching each others backs for mutual benefit. No one is watching the watchers, or if they are they are collecting favors to cash in a later point. It's political horse trading.

      Do you, really? Your solution seems to be to review all of the horses as they run out of the barn, and then to close the door later.

      I did not present a solution. That's a creation of your own imagination.

      Ultimately there is no workable solution as corruption permeates everything. Something that might help would be an active judicial review of actions to at least say what is legal and what is not BEFORE the action is taken. Then congress/the executive would have to forgo the action or work to make it legal. Then they could at least pretend they were following the laws. But that's just too damn inconvenient. It's much more convenient to perform the questionable action NOW, that way your grandfathered in just in case it ever comes to light and goes to court, where it will be tied up for years giving you enough time to write your memoirs and go on a book tour.

      But that's just crazy

      --
      ~X~
    244. Re:These documents should not be released. by Joey+Vegetables · · Score: 1

      The human rights violations committed by the governments Russia, China, Syria and possibly Iran are indefensible, but they in no way excuse or justify those being committed by the government of the United States. Furthermore, many of the people of the United States are less than fully aware of these violations. I am not anti-American; I am an American, but I do not approve of these actions, in large part because unlike many other Americans I am aware of at least some of them. If more of us were, there would be at least some political pressure to scale down or abandon these violations of international as well as natural law. I don't think it is anti-American to point this out, or to help educate Americans about what is being done to people all over the world, including here, by their "government."

    245. Re:These documents should not be released. by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      Nothing like a congress to rubber stamp anything the executive desires.

      Which is exactly why the newly elected congress got elected. Because the voters weren't pleased with the relationship between the current administration and the congressional majority caucus. Now it's going to be a more adversarial relationship, with greater scrutiny and more checks on the administration's policies. As it should be.

      Last I checked, a NARC officer is a private individual hired to do a job. The government is elected and represents the people of the US.

      Law enforcement officers at every level (city, county, state, and federal) report to and get their operational guidance from elected executives (mayors, county commissioners, governors, the White House, etc), and have their funding controlled by elected legislators (county or city councils, state or federal congresses, and so on). A county narcotics officer is no different than a State Department employee or a CIA spook in that regard.

      Again, I did not say I agreed with how the information was leaked. I simply stated that if our government is performing shady/illegal activities that the public should know about it.

      So you don'lt like how it was leaked, but still think it should be leaked, just to somebody who doesn't have such a god complex and a desparate need for publicity? What is it that you're doing, exactly, other than complaining that you don't think congressional oversight of the executive branch is always sufficient? So far, I'm seeing as much or more hypocrisy in your complaints than I am in any specific diplomatic action you're grousing about.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    246. Re:These documents should not be released. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are a transparent liar.

  14. Publicity stunt? by Corbets · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It seems highly unlikely that the US government would do something like this. A DoS attack is temporary, and only calls attention to Wikileaks. It seems to me that two other options are more plausible:

    1) Self-proclaimed patriots doing a little wannabe-vigilantiasm.
    2) Mr. "Personality" Assange has arranged for a publicity stunt. After all, if he can make it look like the big bad US is trying to stop him, and he still manages to leak the data, he can further his self-promotion as a hero.

    I guess time will tell, though.

    1. Re:Publicity stunt? by KliX · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You'd have to be borderline retarded to think it was a publicity stunt. It's pissed off american teenagers, simple as that.

    2. Re:Publicity stunt? by Ziekheid · · Score: 1

      Yep. And you were right too, see the post above.

    3. Re:Publicity stunt? by Rotworm · · Score: 1

      I agree it's unlikely. DDOS'ing is a less effective means compared to their recent practice of seizing the domain.

    4. Re:Publicity stunt? by Fractal+Dice · · Score: 1

      Wikileaks appears to have mastered the art of tapping into the 24-hour news cycle - a buildup of anticipation that allows many, many fact-light/speculation-and-angst-heavy stories. A DoS perfectly feeds that "there's something exciting here" narrative without really being of any consequence (I would actually be a little more surprised if they weren't being a little slashdotted today - they are after all, the lead story on just about every news service in the world right now)

      What I'm curious to see is whether this forces more diplomacy out of the back rooms and into the light of day - in the end, is there really much gained in world stability by a veil of secrecy and wheeling-and-dealing if it just serves to maintain a disconnect between what is publically and privately stated? Of course, I'm in a country that already obsesses over "What does the US think of us? Do they like us?", so the more candid any critique, the more the leak probably helps US interests in shaping our behaviour.

    5. Re:Publicity stunt? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or,
      3) Wikileaks has been in the news internationally (which it has) and a lot of people are hitting it to see Super Duper Secret Stuff. A simple case of slashdotting by newspapers. And Mr. "Look At Me I Want To Be Famous" Assange is doing his regular tin foil hat routine, and/or using server overload to advertise his web site. Media, /. included, eats it up - hook, line, sinker, bobber and rod.

    6. Re:Publicity stunt? by benjamindees · · Score: 1

      It's not that I disagree with you, but your argument seems to hinge on the assertion that the US gov't would never do anything that is ill-conceived or ultimately self-defeating.

      --
      "I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
    7. Re:Publicity stunt? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then u are apparently not aware of the months long DOS against dal.net

    8. Re:Publicity stunt? by FrootLoops · · Score: 1

      If I were a troll with a bot net, what might I want to do? Maybe DoS WikiLeaks before a hyped release of classified documents, expecting lots of people to blame the US government. This seems much more plausible to me than your possibilities.

    9. Re:Publicity stunt? by KliX · · Score: 1

      The internet says.. No.

    10. Re:Publicity stunt? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Our government doesn't have to do anything so direct anyhow.

      The best propaganda is the kind that gets people to attack each other horizontally, not vertically. The people who control, coerce and kill are a fraction of the population. Sure, many work for them but really the truly influential people outside of the realm of voluntarism, peace and innovation are very few. Less than 1% of any society. How could such a small number control so many? By getting those people to attack each other. By convincing people to become willing protectors of the existing system. Most times, this propaganda is supplemented rewards such that there becomes a portion of the society that is dependent upon the rulers for their livelihood but this isn't a necessary condition.

      This technique can be organized and out in the open as part of the official process of the system, but it can also be less coordinated and ostentatiously denounced. Simply convince people of the necessity of violent hierarchies, and many will line up to attack anyone who exposes the some part of the true nature of that system.

    11. Re:Publicity stunt? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You'd have to be borderline retarded to think it was a publicity stunt. It's pissed off american teenagers, simple as that.

      Pissed off American teenagers, texting with each other wearing a thousand-yard stare, and dreaming of the glory they will receive from the state for their preemptive defense of the empire...

    12. Re:Publicity stunt? by Idiomatick · · Score: 1

      I don't think that anyone questions that is option number 1. A DDoS is an annoyance, not a halt. No rational person would believe that the government is behind it which ruins the goal of your second option.

  15. Gee, wow by JamesP · · Score: 1, Funny

    I mean, how is Wilikeaks going to post these data now hey?!

      I mean, there's absolutely no way for them to do it now, no sir

    A perfect plan, foiled!

    *rolleyes*

    --
    how long until /. fixes commenting on Chrome?
  16. RT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    DavidWaldock David Waldock
    Dear government: as you keep telling us, if you've done nothing wrong, you've got nothing to fear #wikileaks

    Thought it was worth sharing.

    1. Re:RT by BitZtream · · Score: 1

      Yes, and thats a mind bogglingly ignorant statement.

      I've done nothing wrong, but I don't share my credit card number do I?

      If you've done nothing wrong, post all your private information right now, if you don't its clear you've done something wrong!!!!!

      Thats just retarded logic.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    2. Re:RT by rekenner · · Score: 1

      Congrats. You got the point. Or, rather, you didn't.

    3. Re:RT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      There's a big difference between a private citizen and the government that is supposed to be working on behalf of the people they represent...

    4. Re:RT by Unkyjar · · Score: 1

      Don't worry. There's still plenty of things to be afraid of, even if you've never done anything wrong. Evil robots for one.

    5. Re:RT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...mind bogglingly...

      Somehow, I suspect you achieve this state of mind on a regular basis. I hereby suspend your internet privileges until you get a brain, moran.

    6. Re:RT by Idiomatick · · Score: 1

      I imagine that was meant to be ironic.

  17. mass ddod? by HelloKitty2 · · Score: 1

    Is a mass distributed denial of service like a distributed denial of service of distributed denial of services?

    1. Re:mass ddod? by EnsilZah · · Score: 1

      I believe it's what you get when someone hears you like distributed denial of service attacks.

    2. Re:mass ddod? by blind+monkey+3 · · Score: 1

      Is a mass distributed denial of service like a distributed denial of service of distributed denial of services?

      No, I believe it's a distributed denial of service caused by U.S. government prayers at sunday mass.

      --
      BM3
  18. Inside Job? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    People who think Julian Assange is an attention seeking molester?

    Friends of Julian Assange who want to build an image of notoriety to fuel the hype?

    Isn't it funny how Julian Assange is so quiet about his own personal life and background, eh?

    One rule for Julian Assange. One rule for the rest of us.

    I almost guarantee this will be marked down as a troll because the Slashmindset won't dare that it may, just may have got things wrong in a big BIG way.

    1. Re:Inside Job? by unity100 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      People who think Julian Assange is an attention seeking molester?

      those only would be the morons who could believe cia character assassinations.

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

    2. Re:Inside Job? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's as likely that Assange works for the CIA. Establishing him as a bad character is just another trick to win the trust of their enemies.

    3. Re:Inside Job? by mcvos · · Score: 1

      Isn't it funny how Julian Assange is so quiet about his own personal life and background, eh?

      One rule for Julian Assange. One rule for the rest of us.

      I think it's "one rule for private individuals, another rule for governments". Of course the US government feels exactly the same way, only they have a different idea about what rule is for whom.

    4. Re:Inside Job? by Score+Whore · · Score: 1

      I think it's "one rule for Julian Assange and wikileaks, another rule for governments and organizations that don't allow Julian to have sex with them without using a condom, e.g. women, sororities, religions, clubs, and any sports team."

  19. Land of the free, home of the brave ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In the lyrics of the US National Anthem: 'Free' appears four times. 'Brave' appears five times. 'Truth' does not appear at all.

  20. Dear every politician on earth by funkatron · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Drop the fucking paranoia. It's old. It's boring. It's see through. Stuff like this:

    the Obama administration says will put 'countless' lives at risk, threaten global counterterrorism operations and jeopardize US relations with its allies

    doesn't win sympathy. It merely shows your inability to come up with relevant points to put in a press release. Who on earth do you think believes it?

    Sorry for rant but I've seen this from US politicians, from UK politicians and from European politicians; I'm sick of this crap.

    --
    "Welcome to our world. We are the wasted youth. And we are the future too." Yes, I know these are stupid lyrics.
    1. Re:Dear every politician on earth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Next time we're on the verge of a massive war and no one will come to the table to negotiate an out, you remember this day.

      Interesting this latest batch has discussions between the US and South Korea concerning what to do when, not if, the North collapses. Fantastic thing to have in the open press right now, don't you think?

    2. Re:Dear every politician on earth by Sepodati · · Score: 1

      Have you read any of the cables? Theats to CT operations and US relations are pretty realistic. Here's Country B telling the US exactly what it'd like to have done to Country X. Not illegal, but a certain level of privacy was expected in those frank conversations. All this will do is lead to less or more hidden conversations.

      Lives at risk is always a stretch until the first guy dies. One of those all or nothing things.

  21. The leaks are not the problem by Whammy666 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The leaks are not the problem. The root of the problem is the hypocritical policies and unsavory conduct that the leaks are exposing. The best way to keep your dirty laundry from being aired is to not engage in dirty conduct in the first place.

    --
    When all else fails, run.
    1. Re:The leaks are not the problem by Ironchew · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Exactly this.
      The policies themselves are the dangers to human lives. Wikileaks exists to make sure this stuff gets out while the responsible parties can still be held accountable.

    2. Re:The leaks are not the problem by dbraden · · Score: 2, Insightful

      On the surface that sounds great, however, it's a bit naive. It's kind of like saying, "If you don't want someone to steal your bank account info, you shouldn't have a bank account in the first place."

      Just because you want something kept private, doesn't mean it's something dirty.

      I'm not saying that there wasn't/isn't unsavory conduct going on, I'm only pointing out that there are many legitimate reasons for wanting to keep something private.

    3. Re:The leaks are not the problem by mibe · · Score: 1

      It's amusing that governments will often tell citizens that invasions of privacy ought to be tolerated since you have nothing to fear if you have nothing to hide.

    4. Re:The leaks are not the problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The leaks are not the problem. The root of the problem is the hypocritical policies and unsavory conduct that the leaks are exposing. The best way to keep your dirty laundry from being aired is to not engage in dirty conduct in the first place.

      Most of the world is unsavoury; welcome to realpolitik grasshopper. Should the US drop diplomatic relations with over (say) one hundred countries because they don't think they would be dealing with nice people? The cables are meant to be honest and private, while you act politely in "public" so as to move things forward. For example, Libya is now nuclear-free because of the efforts of the US and Russia, even the the leaders there are probably asshats. But calling them asshats publicly would have prevented their co-operation in getting weapons-grade uranium out of the country.

      I'm sure there are other examples where you have to "make nice" in the short-term to move the ball forward.

    5. Re:The leaks are not the problem by xigxag · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Listen to yourself. You don't understand your own metaphor. The reason why it's called "dirty laundry" is because it's unsavory but nevertheless unavoidable - we all have it and do our best to conceal it from company.

      All facets of life involve keeping secrets. You don't want your doctor telling your friends or your employer nd family about your STDs. You don't want your shrink telling your parents all those dreams you had about killing them. You don't want your best friend telling your girlfriend about that time you cheated on her. You don't want your boss to know that you're looking around for a better job. You don't want Nigerians knowing your Social Security number and mother's maiden name. You don't want your prospective employer to know that you narrowly escaped jail time back in college. You don't want your buddies to know about that weird fling you had in Amsterdam. Etc.

      Governments work the same way. They don't need ally A to know about the deal they're making with ally B. They don't need Ally B to know up front exactly how much they're willing to negotiate. They don't need their enemies to know about troop movements, or shift changes or the secret rescue that is still in the planning stages or the embargoed technology they're trying to acquire. There are a lot of things, some not even bad, that require secrecy to work.

      What Assange is doing is a kind of guerrilla warfare. Unfortunately the end result of his efforts will not be liberation for anybody but less freedom, less trust and less safety in the world. And not just for Americans.

      --
      There are two kinds of people: 1) those who start arrays with one and 1) those who start them with zero.
    6. Re:The leaks are not the problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And when you do engage in dirty laundy. Take responsibility for your actions, like every adult should do.
      Otherwise you're just a kid.

      So much for Obama's transparency.

    7. Re:The leaks are not the problem by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      Wikileaks exists to make sure this stuff gets out while the responsible parties can still be held accountable

      No, Wikileaks exists to publish and publicize things that are in keeping with their editorial position and world view. Which is to say, they have an agenda with particular political leanings, and that's why they do it. As for "held accountable," they choose their releases in an attempt to punish those they dislike, and to allow those they like to scate on by. This is evident in the paranoid ramblings of their oily front man, and in the headlines of their breathless, hyperbolic press releases.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    8. Re:The leaks are not the problem by X.25 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Your attitude is naive and idiotic. Regardless of your feelings, there are dangerous and evil men in the world. Overall, The United States is the greatest force for good in this world. The free press has traditionally been an excellent force to keep American voters informed and hold politicians accountable for their actions/policies.

      Wikileaks does none of these things. All that Wikileaks does is undermine the efforts of the United States and the West to safeguard and make the world a better place. Make no mistake, these actions strengthen those who stand opposed to us who would like to see their own personal fortunes/power grow at the expense of democratic/free nations.

      You may be opposed to specific US/Western policies but, frankly, it's the best we have. Your protests remind me of the Churchill quote: "democracy is the worst form of government except for all of the others".

      And this is the reason why drugs are bad...

    9. Re:The leaks are not the problem by Sepodati · · Score: 1

      Where is the dirty conduct? I've seen the cables asking to "gather info" on UN officials. That one certainly gets the boots dirty, at least. What else?

    10. Re:The leaks are not the problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a bit more like: "if you don't want someone to steal the gold teeth from that guy you tortured to death and buried in the woods, you shouldn't have killed him and buried him in the woods".

    11. Re:The leaks are not the problem by danhs7 · · Score: 1

      Nice ad hominem.

    12. Re:The leaks are not the problem by dbcad7 · · Score: 1

      The problem with it, is that there is nothing wrong with the policies.. There are incidents being reported that are against policies in place, and are being reported as if these incidents "Are the policy" with the "lofty goal" of forcing the government to "change policy".. It's stupid.. holier than thou crap. The military is made up of people, and people are not flawless robots.. To suggest such things as these as being sanctioned by the government, does harm.

      --
      waiting for ad.doubleclick.net
    13. Re:The leaks are not the problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The leaks are not the problem. The root of the problem is the hypocritical policies and unsavory conduct that the leaks are exposing. The best way to keep your dirty laundry from being aired is to not engage in dirty conduct in the first place.

      Though I tend to agree, that argument is very close to "only the people with something to hide have any reason to fear surveillance/loss of privacy". Much of this leak is not dirty laundry, it is about private characteristics made from ambassadors (look at the Spiegel frontpage).

      Now, I tend to agree with what the Google leaders have said for a while, privacy won't exist in this brave new world, get over it. We seem to love some parts of it - like Wikileaks -- but hate other parts -- like loss of pricacy, but they are really part of the same picture. The thing isn't what get public, but how we relate to it. Someday consumer cameras will be able to do what the "nude airport scanners" are doing now, what then? (Sony already have a night vision camera starting this). Again Clark was quite prescient ;) The Light of Other Days

    14. Re:The leaks are not the problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most of your examples aren't very good. I'm with you on the not wanting your parents to know about your dreams about killing them since, after all, we can't help our dreams or private thoughts. Cheating on your girlfriend though? Sorry, that's one of those situations where you made your bed and you should lie in it. Sure, it's probably not cool of your best friend to rat you out on it, but, on the other hand, if that best friend is also a good friend of your girlfriend, where should the loyalties be? What if your girlfriends cousin saw you making out with someone other than your girlfriend? Is it horrible for that cousin to reveal that information to your girlfriend? Overall I just find it interesting that you think that cheating on your girlfriend is "unsavory but nevertheless unavoidable".
      Interesting too what you say about ally A and ally B. Yes, true, you may not want ally B to know that you're scheming with ally A to stage the assassination of the leader of ally B and install a puppet controlled directly by ally A and indirectly by you. But if ally B finds out, they can hardly be blamed for their reaction and the person who reveals it can't really be called a monster, just someone who isn't your partisan. If the secrets you keep make you look like a monster when they're revealed, the simplest explanation is because you actually are a monster. If your dirty laundry has urine stains on it and has gone too long between washings, then it's embarrassing, sure. If it's soaked in the blood of your victims, that goes a bit beyond embarrassing.

    15. Re:The leaks are not the problem by Coward+Anonymous · · Score: 1

      Go read the documents... Pretty boring stuff. I don't see any "unsavory conduct" in the batch I went through...

    16. Re:The leaks are not the problem by BoRegardless · · Score: 1

      The power and prestige of working unencumbered in a "secret agency" as an employee of a "government" is virtually the definition of how to create "dirty conduct".

      It is a natural state of the human being with power to grab more power under the guise of his authority from "the top".

      This is why you want governments and their employee accountable in almost all matters.

      Then comes criminal and war making by foreign entities: Everything you do to protect yourself is likely to be "dirty conduct" and it is considered normal in such endeavors and rewarded for the best dirty tricks and conduct.

    17. Re:The leaks are not the problem by rvw · · Score: 1

      The leaks are not the problem. The root of the problem is the hypocritical policies and unsavory conduct that the leaks are exposing. The best way to keep your dirty laundry from being aired is to not engage in dirty conduct in the first place.

      The only question is who's conduct is unsavory? That of the US diplomats/spies and their interpretation of what they found out, or that of those spied on?

      I'm not a US citizen, and I believe for a long time that the US spies on us and tries to manipulate us (befriended countries in the EU) as much and probably more than on their enemies. Probably only because it's a lot more simple to do so, because of opennes and easy access, but still...

    18. Re:The leaks are not the problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      "The United States is the greatest force for good in this world." - Yeah, tell that to all the innocent civilians you have bombed, the children you have killed, the people you hold without due process of law, the ones you torture, the countries where you overthrow their democratically elected leadership, the people in whose affairs you constantly meddle, the Europeans who now live under absurd laws after pressure from the US...

      More people around the world see the USA as a threat to world peace than China or Russia. You may be brainwashed by your media, but the USA is NOT seen as a "force for good". Not at all.

    19. Re:The leaks are not the problem by nsaspook · · Score: 1

      Exactly this.
      The policies themselves are the dangers to human lives. Wikileaks exists to make sure this stuff gets out while the responsible parties can still be held accountable.

      We are shocked, shocked that the diplomatic facade is really a facade and that countries only care about themselves. Yes, we are whores and make jokes about our johns but at least we won't steal your wallet.

      --
      In GOD we trust, all others we monitor.
    20. Re:The leaks are not the problem by BitZtream · · Score: 0, Troll

      Yes, and we all live in a fantasy world where everyone is honest, especially the spies in other countries ...

      You've never been involved in any sort of negotiations in your life, have you?

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    21. Re:The leaks are not the problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This sounds remarkably close to the "Only people with something to hide need fear surveillance" argument that always gets a laugh on /.
      So it's OK for individuals to have anonymity, but not certain functions pf governments?

    22. Re:The leaks are not the problem by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Overall, The United States is the greatest force for good in this world

      Overall, I strongly suspect that the majority of people in the world - or even in just the Western countries alone - would strongly disagree. Care to provide some arguments?

      The free press has traditionally been an excellent force to keep American voters informed and hold politicians accountable for their actions/policies.

      You don't know how efficient the "free press" is at that until you have something like this leak to compare to.

      All that Wikileaks does is undermine the efforts of the United States and the West to safeguard and make the world a better place.

      There are no efforts on behalf of the US or other Western countries to "make the world a better place". At best, there are some efforts to make their respective countries a better place, occasionally at the expense of other countries. As a resident of one of those Western countries, I do not have any particular problem with that (it has always been that way in history). But the "paladin army of light rhetoric" is outright silly.

    23. Re:The leaks are not the problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As the government keeps telling us: "if you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to worry about". So if our governments have nothing to hide then surely they have nothing to worry about, right?

    24. Re:The leaks are not the problem by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      So in your world, there is no such thing as a strategic secret?

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    25. Re:The leaks are not the problem by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      So you wouldn't have a problem with hackers exposing your debit PIN number or your credit card number, or your passwords?

      There are many kinds of secrets.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    26. Re:The leaks are not the problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the real problem for the US government is that the "dirty acts" were documented in the first place. There can be no plausible deniability when you write everything down.

    27. Re:The leaks are not the problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      -- The United States is the greatest force for good in this world. --

      how in the fucking fuck hell can ANYONE be so brainwashed to believe that, no really, may not be worst than north korea.. but, really? the greatest force for good? fuck, this give "delusional" a fucking whole new quantum level of meanings.

      I mean, I thinks theres no word in English to describe... no, I don't know I'm just.. fuck! theres definitely no word to describe whats wrong with this dude.

    28. Re:The leaks are not the problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unfortunately, many of the dangerous and evil men appear to be in the US government. They lost, long ago, any sense of being a force for good, and have become a tool for worldwide corporatism. They should have been indicted for war crimes many times over.

    29. Re:The leaks are not the problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your attitude is naive and idiotic. Regardless of your feelings, there are dangerous and evil men in the world. Overall, The United States is the greatest force for good in this world. The free press has traditionally been an excellent force to keep American voters informed and hold politicians accountable for their actions/policies.

      Wikileaks does none of these things. All that Wikileaks does is undermine the efforts of the United States and the West to safeguard and make the world a better place. Make no mistake, these actions strengthen those who stand opposed to us who would like to see their own personal fortunes/power grow at the expense of democratic/free nations.

      You may be opposed to specific US/Western policies but, frankly, it's the best we have. Your protests remind me of the Churchill quote: "democracy is the worst form of government except for all of the others".

      And this is the reason why drugs are bad...

      Everyone on this forum has something coming if they think that any other country's classified documents would look any better than this.

      Additionally, all countries collect information on all the other countries they can, and it's not always prudent to tell everyone everything. If you asked me what I'm doing tonight, I wouldn't tell you my plans of banging my wife. It's none of your business, would probably be an awkward conversation, and you probably wouldn't approve of the positions I would propose doing it in. To save us both some time and grief, I'd just leave that information classified and tell you "Nothing. Watchin' TV." To think that secrets have no place in this world really is naive.

  22. Shoooting fish in a barrel by mseeger · · Score: 1, Insightful

    IMHO Wikileak is taking the easy way. Taking secrets of the US is like shooting fish in a barrel. You get their secrets easier than with other countries and you run lower risks: you don't have to check your tea for Polonium every day.

    1. Re:Shoooting fish in a barrel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, as long as it might look like they put the Polonium there anyway. It's all about appearances :p

    2. Re:Shoooting fish in a barrel by KliX · · Score: 1

      They're not taking any way. They don't actively seek information, hence the title of their website. And all the american intel they've been publishing, consists of exactly one leak.

    3. Re:Shoooting fish in a barrel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And all the american intel they've been publishing, consists of exactly one leak.

      It may be just one leak but it is a big enough leak to leave little in the dam.

    4. Re:Shoooting fish in a barrel by danhs7 · · Score: 1

      Agreed. If they were publishing leaks about outright corruption in Africa (or the US for that matter) I would be impressed with them as a force for good. It seems that they just want to air out state secrets in public, consequences and safety be damned.

    5. Re:Shoooting fish in a barrel by mseeger · · Score: 1

      They are releasing those cables because they can. Not because of some hidden secret in them, not to foil some plot, not to demask evil....

    6. Re:Shoooting fish in a barrel by mseeger · · Score: 1

      Agreed: They are "leaking" those cables because they can. It gives the impression of a spoiled child... If they would publish the same informations with the russians ot the chinese, i would give them kudos.

    7. Re:Shoooting fish in a barrel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wikileaks only "leaks" what is given to them. They aren't a fucking espionage agency that infiltrates foreign governments and steals classified documents. Furthermore, they've leaked plenty of sensitive documents from other countries, but those documents don't usually make headlines in the US... Corruption in a lot of places around the world, including many countries in Africa, isn't even newsworthy because everyone knows it happens and the countries involved often aren't even trying to hide it.

    8. Re:Shoooting fish in a barrel by danhs7 · · Score: 1

      Wikileaks only "leaks" what is given to them. They aren't a fucking espionage agency that infiltrates foreign governments and steals classified documents.

      I chafe under this silly denial of culpability argument. It is without a doubt false and silly.

      I perfectly accept the denial of culpability of someone like Verizon or another ISP who provide the infrastructure for viewing wikileaks. But, Wikileaks.org actively promulgates the dissemination of secret material.

      Assange isn't running some kind of passive conduit which allows anyone to post whatever they want. No, what he does is promote the material, call the New York Times, The Guardian and Der Spiegel demonstrating his editorial control. He has created an actively managed platform for traitorous leaks.

      Assange is an attention seeker motivated by his own self-interests. I very much doubt he's interested in changing the course of Western policy, at least not in a manner most would consider fair or democratic.

      Frankly, even if wikileaks.org was a passive conduit, which it's not, I wouldn't feel comfortable with it being used in this manner, and I would question its utility. When wikileaks first appeared, I was optimistic that it could provide a good platform for whistle-blowers in overlooked areas such as specific industries or countries lacking a strong, independent press. Wikileaks has strayed from that original ambition.

      The perfect representation of this point is the fact that there is *nothing* Wikileaks has done with regard to national security which could not be done better by the New York Times. Nothing at all.

      If Wikileaks turned its focus to those areas which do not benefit from the services of strong institutions like the New York Times, the world would likely be a better place. Most of the world suffers from great injustice and corruption. Wikileaks could shine a bright, disinfecting light on the failures of local governments and very large countries which have incredible human rights violations and repression of a free press to match.

  23. I can support Wikileaks by OzPeter · · Score: 3, Interesting

    If what they release is to highlight illegal activity. However I draw the line at releasing documents that are the politicians equivalent of a drunken conversation at a frat party.

    --
    I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
    1. Re:I can support Wikileaks by haderytn · · Score: 1

      Illegal to whom?

    2. Re:I can support Wikileaks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apparently this leak includes references to American governmental support for the PKK. That probably is illegal since they are designated a terrorist group.

    3. Re:I can support Wikileaks by funkatron · · Score: 2, Interesting

      However I draw the line at releasing documents that are the politicians equivalent of a drunken conversation at a frat party.

      If I understand frat parties correctly, the conversations aren't usually acted on the next day. Can't say the same for this stuff. There's a couple of interesting bits in there but there's also a lot of stuff everyone already knew; US arming Isreal - no shit Sherlock. I'm waiting for the editing and summaries right now.

      --
      "Welcome to our world. We are the wasted youth. And we are the future too." Yes, I know these are stupid lyrics.
    4. Re:I can support Wikileaks by John+Hasler · · Score: 2, Insightful

      However I draw the line at releasing documents that are the politicians equivalent of a drunken conversation at a frat party.

      I don't. The fact that politicians frequently behave like drunken frat boys should be highlighted at every opportunity.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    5. Re:I can support Wikileaks by qmaqdk · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I don't think an official document telling the US diplomats to "obtain not just information from the people they meet, but personal details, such as frequent flyer numbers, credit card details and even DNA material" counts as a drunken conversation at a frat party.

      --
      My UID is prime. Hah!
    6. Re:I can support Wikileaks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Churchill has a response to that:

      I may be drunk, Miss, but in the morning I will be sober and you will still be ugly.

    7. Re:I can support Wikileaks by jmottram08 · · Score: 1

      Okay, but is it illegal? (No)

    8. Re:I can support Wikileaks by Sepodati · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Yep. This is pure gossip. Interesting to listen or read through, for sure, but what good is coming out of it?

      It's like finding your boss's computer unlocked and sifting through his emails. Interesting stuff to be found, for sure, but releasing it isn't whistle blowing.

    9. Re:I can support Wikileaks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      except that politicians launch wars resulting in the deaths of tens or hundreds of thousands of people.

    10. Re:I can support Wikileaks by hb79 · · Score: 1, Informative

      Go and read the documents yourself, instead of parroting the party line of "to honest to publish" bullshit. Here, I'll even pick one out for you:

      "Washington calls for intelligence on top UN officials"
      http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-embassy-cables-documents/219058

      A long a well prepared list of which countries and officials are interesting to US intelligence. Requesting phone numbers, credit card numbers, passwords, finger prints, iris scans.

      This is not drunken gossip. These are calculated orders for espionage.

    11. Re:I can support Wikileaks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some of the most incriminating information can be found in the politician's equivalent of a drunken coversation at a frat party. You know, the stuff they would never be stupid enough to type into an official diplomatic wire.

    12. Re:I can support Wikileaks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      I don't draw the line at exposing politicians, military and other government fat cats treating their jobs as a drunken conversation at a frat party. I want to know that it is how they perform, I want to shame them and hopefully change the culture of diplomacy, if that is what the US calls it. And yes, I would like the same dirt o other countries, but having said that, give me the dirt on the country by which I am the most affected.

    13. Re:I can support Wikileaks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the politicians equivalent of a drunken conversation at a frat party.

      Which is to say, "Everything a politician says."

    14. Re:I can support Wikileaks by qmaqdk · · Score: 1

      Then why hide it?

      --
      My UID is prime. Hah!
    15. Re:I can support Wikileaks by jmottram08 · · Score: 1

      I understand you do not understand the need for national security, so lets just go with, "do you have any concern for anyones privacy at all?"

  24. DDOS or Slashdotted? by lacqui · · Score: 1
    What exactly does WikiLeaks have running under the hood? Can they prove that, as soon as they posted something everybody in the world wants to see, it was blocked by DDOSing instead of, say, hijacking their DNS?

    I think that everyone and their dog wants to see what's been put there, and their web infrastructure can't handle every world government and agency attempting to see what the Americans have said about them.

    1. Re:DDOS or Slashdotted? by LambdaWolf · · Score: 3, Funny

      And now this Slashdot story will just increase the traffic, making things even (better|worse) for (national security|Wikileaks). (Congratulations|For shame), Slashdot, you've (protected American lives|disrupted the democratic flow of information). (Nice going|Nice going [sarcastic]).

      --
      "This algorithm runs in constant time. Come on, 2,147,483,648 is a constant..."
  25. Oh please. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Aside from the Arabs pressing for the attack of Iran, nothing there was of any news to me.

    Everyone knows that embassies are used for espionage, the Royal family is up to shenanigans? No, really?!? The Russian gov has links to organized crime?! *Gasp!*

    Oh, please, This leak is going to be one big let down.

    If anyone finds most of the leak a surprise, I would suggest you stop getting all of your news from US sources.

    1. Re:Oh please. by 0123456 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "Aside from the Arabs pressing for the attack of Iran, nothing there was of any news to me."

      Ditto. And even that wasn't terribly surprising.

      The real surprise is that any of these things are marked as 'SECRET, NO FOREIGNERS' when most of the foreigners already know them because, duh, they live in these countries. I'm sure that no Russian thinks that their government is linked to organised crime and every Briton believes their military is doing a great job in Afghanistan... oh, hang on.

    2. Re:Oh please. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not surprising at all. The enemity between persians and arabs is hardly news. So much, there have been rumors that saudi arabia gave access to its airspace to Israel to go bomb Iran (SA denied these rumors afterwards).

    3. Re:Oh please. by SETIGuy · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Aside from the Arabs pressing for the attack of Iran, nothing there was of any news to me.

      That's only news to people who don't understand that Iranians aren't Arabs, and don't understand that Iran is the only real threat to Saudi Arabia and Israel as regional powers. (In other words 75% of the US population.) Israel and the Saudis have nothing to lose from a US war with Iran and a lot to gain (money, expansion of their influence). The US wouldn't be able to win full on conventional war with Iran at this point. And the Iranians know it, hence their attitude on uranium enrichment.

    4. Re:Oh please. by mcvos · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The US wouldn't be able to win full on conventional war with Iran at this point. And the Iranians know it, hence their attitude on uranium enrichment.

      The US may not have to defeat all of Iran completely. There's always been a democratic movement in Iran. Recent protests proved there's still a lot of opposition to the ayatollahs.

      Of course supporting a coup has lots of risks on its own; that's what created this mess in the first place (in 1953). But if they'd be able to have honest elections without any interference from the religious leaders, that might make all the difference we need.

    5. Re:Oh please. by lagi · · Score: 1

      Oh, please, This leak is going to be one big let down.

      If anyone finds most of the leak a surprise, I would suggest you stop getting all of your news from US sources.

      couldn't agree more!
      this "lakes" will sock only people who don't watch/read international news and can do "1+1"

    6. Re:Oh please. by Malenx · · Score: 1

      Wait... you actually think the Iranian army could hold up against the US military in conventional warfare?

      Man, that's the dumbest comment I've seen this week.

    7. Re:Oh please. by StikyPad · · Score: 1

      NOFORN is separate from other classification markings, and it's basically a formality. I don't know the history of the marking, but suffice it to say that it has little to no bearing on how documents themselves are handled, even with regards to disclosure to foreign entities. Most of the manuals for military equipment that we sell to foreign nations, for example, are marked NOFORN, even if they're otherwise unclassified. It's just one of those bureaucratic things that someone decides to add one day out of, no doubt, politically motivated "common sense." It might help somewhat, in some circumstances, when it's regarded, but for the most part it's just a semi-standard marking that nobody pays much attention to. It's not like everyone in government has a badge that says "I'm a foreign national!" (and there are many), so it's hardly enforceable without direct assistance from the people it's designed to "protect" against. If I had to guess, I'd say it originated during WWII or the Cold War, and there's simply no political motivation to discontinue its use.

    8. Re:Oh please. by SETIGuy · · Score: 1

      Wait... you actually think the Iranian army could hold up against the US military in conventional warfare?

      You do realize that Iran is a lot bigger than Iraq or Afghanistan, right? If it came down to war, I believe we would eventually control the skies over Iran. We'd take significant losses because Iran has a much better SAM network than Iraq did. The Iranian air force is also better equipped and trained than the Iraqis were. (Money problems have reduced training recently). They may still have stockpiles AAMs that have longer range than US planes carry. Iran has more hardened and buried facilities and more located in difficult terrain than Iraq did. A ground invasion would be a problem, and I don't think it could be done with existing force levels. We'd need to institute a draft before such an invasion.

      Man, that's the dumbest comment I've seen this week.

      You obviously haven't been paying attention to the wars we are currently involved in because you think military might is the only important part of war. You also haven't thought about where the trillions of dollars to support a war in Iran would come. The answer is that the people who would lend us that money are dependent upon Iranian oil. And there are nuclear armed states dependent upon Iranian oil that wouldn't want the US to have control of it. Iran's best friend is Russia, remember.

      You also haven't thought about what a hold Iran has over the population of Iraq. Or what Iran could do to Afghanistan. At the first surgical strike Iran would call up the Shiite militias in Iraq and tell them to take over the Capital and form a new government. Then Iran could send tanks into southwest Afghanistan. If you didn't see either of those as being likely, you really have no business commenting on what wars the US can and can't win.

      In other words, think beyond step one if you are capable. Don't you think there just might be a reason that even Darth Cheney wasn't able to get support for an attack on Iran?

  26. Come on, be serious by Cyberax · · Score: 1

    I've read some of the 'damning' documents.

    None of them has anything new. They just confirm what was known since long ago.

    1. Re:Come on, be serious by Cyberax · · Score: 2, Informative

      Do you think US "HUMINT requirements" were a secret for any self-respecting foreign espionage agency?

      I still fail to see anything that is really damaging to US, except for damage to public opinion (which is low enough already).

    2. Re:Come on, be serious by Jafafa+Hots · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You keep talking about "our agents."

      Wikileaks does not have agents. Wikileaks is NOT pro-US, or anti-US.

      Basically your complaint is that Wikileaks is not taking your side. You have bought into the position that "we are on the side of good." Maybe "we" are, maybe not.

      But you cannot expect a TRULY neutral party to decide that one nation deserves its protect and support and their help keeping its secrets, and another doesn't merit it.

      You would not complain if Wikileaks disseminated documents from North Korea, or Iran, or wherever else, if they got them - and Wikileaks WOULD release those.

      Wikileaks owes your side nor any other side no loyalty.

      --
      This space available.
    3. Re:Come on, be serious by Kagura · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I'm not neutral. I enjoy the U.S. strategic superiority over North Korea and other nations who would like to have ultimate strategic superiority over us. Wikileaks did not do an overall public good by releasing today's documents.

    4. Re:Come on, be serious by Kagura · · Score: 1

      Do you think US "HUMINT requirements" were a secret for any self-respecting foreign espionage agency?

      I still fail to see anything that is really damaging to US, except for damage to public opinion (which is low enough already).

      "Believing you are being spied on" and "knowing you are being spied on and exactly what information they are looking for" are two completely different things.

    5. Re:Come on, be serious by CharlyFoxtrot · · Score: 1

      There are "HUMINT requirements" and other unreleasable information so far on the UK Guardian page. These allow our operations and our agents to be targeted by adversarial counterintelligence..

      From the Guardian :"WikiLeaks says that, contrary to the state department's fears, it also initially intends to post only limited cable extracts, and to redact identities." So how would the documents allow others to target the agents ?

      --
      If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error.
    6. Re:Come on, be serious by rueger · · Score: 1

      ...North Korea and other nations who would like to have ultimate strategic superiority over us...

      Yeah, like I'm lying awake nights worrying about that!

      Team America! Fuck YEAH!

    7. Re:Come on, be serious by unity100 · · Score: 3, Informative

      hmmmm. yeah. wikileaks probably did more harm than the 'strategic superiority of us' did.

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

      http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/US_ThirdWorld/dictators.html

      i find your ideas disgusting. your place is in 1930s. not 2010.

    8. Re:Come on, be serious by Kagura · · Score: 1

      There are "HUMINT requirements" and other unreleasable information so far on the UK Guardian page. These allow our operations and our agents to be targeted by adversarial counterintelligence..

      From the Guardian :"WikiLeaks says that, contrary to the state department's fears, it also initially intends to post only limited cable extracts, and to redact identities." So how would the documents allow others to target the agents ?

      The same way bits of information an little tips from anonymous callers help to narrow an impossible murder case down to just a few suspects.

    9. Re:Come on, be serious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you think they ever merely "believed" or otherwise had any sort of doubt in the matter, you are hilariously naive and have no useful opinion of any sort to offer on these sorts of matters.

    10. Re:Come on, be serious by Kagura · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The real world is not a Tom Clancy spy novel.

    11. Re:Come on, be serious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Using embassies to gather information is hardly some unrealistic idea limited to the land of spy thrillers.

    12. Re:Come on, be serious by Kagura · · Score: 1

      Using embassies to gather information is hardly some unrealistic idea limited to the land of spy thrillers.

      Of course not, that was not the comment I replied to. All embassies are that nation's base of espionage operations. I am referring to AC who believes all powerful countries know everything about other spy agencies, which is poppycock. They are not as all-knowing as fiction spy novels lead one to believe. If these leaks weren't harmful, the U.S. government wouldn't have spent the better part of the last two weeks briefing several dozen allies on the extent of the expected fallout.

    13. Re:Come on, be serious by CharlyFoxtrot · · Score: 1

      The same way bits of information an little tips from anonymous callers help to narrow an impossible murder case down to just a few suspects.

      The amount of time they had between the discovery of the leak and the actual publishing of the data should be sufficient to put people out of harms way. The ones they actually care about anyway. I think wikileaks actually showed a lot of restraint. They could have dumped the whole lot online, unredacted, when they received it and the magic of crowdsourcing would have unearthed the salient bits much sooner. Leaving the US without the option of doing damage control beforehand.

      --
      If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error.
    14. Re:Come on, be serious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The amount of time they had between the discovery of the leak and the actual publishing of the data should be sufficient to put people out of harms way. The ones they actually care about anyway. I think wikileaks actually showed a lot of restraint. They could have dumped the whole lot online, unredacted, when they received it and the magic of crowdsourcing would have unearthed the salient bits much sooner. Leaving the US without the option of doing damage control beforehand.

      The amount of money the thief left me from the original amount I had should be sufficient for me to continue on with my life. I believe the thief actually showed a lot of restraint. He could have taken all of my money, when he had access to it, unlocked, when he found it.

      It was a noble action for him to have taken only most of my money and not all of it.

    15. Re:Come on, be serious by hedwards · · Score: 1

      If that's the case, then we need to fire our intelligence personnel and hire competent ones. Intelligence work has been rapidly changing, particularly from the 20th century on, and it will continue to change. During the cold war there were all sorts of thing which adversely effected our ability to collect intel.

    16. Re:Come on, be serious by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Wikileaks is NOT pro-US, or anti-US.

      Oh come on. That's bullshit and you know it.

      --
      If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    17. Re:Come on, be serious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only reason Wikileaks can release the documents is due to the western world's ability to project force and promote greater freedom around the globe. Do you think Wikileaks would be permitted if China's military was the dominant power in the world? Or Iran?

      So while I defend Wikileaks' right to release this information, at the same time I shake my head in disgust at the damage it will cause to world stability and trust. What good will this information do, except to increase tensions in an already tense world? And why shouldn't diplomatic communications be considered secret world-wide, and releasing them an international violation of law? The ability of world leaders to truthfully and accurately assess their allies, enemies, and others is paramount to world stability.

    18. Re:Come on, be serious by Aceticon · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I'm not neutral. I enjoy the U.S. strategic superiority over North Korea and other nations who would like to have ultimate strategic superiority over us. Wikileaks did not do an overall public good by releasing today's documents.

      You sir, make me sick.

      If you trully believe your words you would fight the hardest for the US to have a vibrant and fair society and be a true democracy where those which are the most capable rise to where they can best serve their nation, not just the sons and daughters of those already in power.

      The US has been turning into a place of serfs and lords, a society where those on top remain on top and those on the bottom remain on the bottom regardless of skill and ability. US citizens are poorly educated, brainwashed and inward-looking, easilly swayed by arguments of emotions and followers of those who shout the loudest, not sound the wisest.

      US democracy is a joke with all sorts of technical tricks like gerrymandering, registered voters and electoral circles - designed to enforce a duopoly of power not mater what, keeping the same people in power and their scions.

      Face it, the US is showing all the symptoms of an empire in decadence: if things keep going this way, it's days of "strategic superiority" are counted.

      By showing to American voters the true face of those with the reins of power, Wikileaks is doing more to delay and maybe even revert the colapse of America than any number of weak-minded, brainwashed, narrow-minded self-proclaimed patriots parroting the lies of their pupetters:
      - I only wish the American people would show itself worthy of this instead of continuing to behave like sheeple.

    19. Re:Come on, be serious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How long would Asuange be alive if he released documents from North Korea or Iran? Hell, how long would he live if he released documents making fun of the Thai king? Not very long. Somehow I doubt he is stupid enough to do that.

    20. Re:Come on, be serious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're so full of shit. It's obvious you're a shill for some stupid government agency that is wasting my money paying you to astroturf.

    21. Re:Come on, be serious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And we are still waiting for the leaks from China and NK.

    22. Re:Come on, be serious by IICV · · Score: 1

      I enjoy the U.S. strategic superiority over North Korea and other nations who would like to have ultimate strategic superiority over us. Wikileaks did not do an overall public good by releasing today's documents.

      I love how, by the phrasing of your statement, "U.S. strategic superiority" == "an overall public good".

    23. Re:Come on, be serious by Jafafa+Hots · · Score: 1

      Fine. You are not neutral.
      And you don't like Wikileaks not taking your side. Fine. And you complain about that, as is your right. Fine.

      What you are not getting is that though you have the right to complain, your complaint is stupid.

      I am a liberal. I don't like that the dems don't support my views enough, and I complain about that. This is a reasonable complaint because the dems assert that they are on my side.

      I can also complain that the GOP doesn't take my side, which is my right. But it would be fucking stupid to do so, that's not their agenda.

      It would be stupid of me to complain that the multitude of politically neutral organizations out there don't endorse my choice of candidate.

      And it's stupid to complain that a neutral organization, whose head isn't event fucking US citizen, doesn't support the US.

      You can complain about it all you want, you can object to it all you want. What you can't do is make those objections sensible or reasonable.

      --
      This space available.
    24. Re:Come on, be serious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The US has assassinated more foreign leaders and overthrown more foreign governments than any other in the world - oftentimes deposing a democracy in order to install a brutal dictator.

      So your assertion is specious. There is no country in the world my able to kill a person and more WILLING to kill a person for its "national security" than the US. We have the track record to prove it.

      Saying otherwise makes about as much sense as the only country in history ever to use nukes on civilians (or in war at all for that matter) decrying others getting nukes, saying other countries trying to get nukes are "rogue nations" and that we, who have USED them, are the only ones to be trusted with them.

    25. Re:Come on, be serious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You've clealr not been paying attention. Wikileaks is very anti-US. The only embarrassing thing here is that wikileaks released this garbage which clearly shows he has a child-like vendetta against the US and seems very pro-chaos.

      At this point, the world will be a better place when he silently goes missing.

    26. Re:Come on, be serious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you sound like a cunt, bro

    27. Re:Come on, be serious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      These allow our operations and our agents to be targeted by adversarial counterintelligence.

      Hmmm... and why would that be? Reaping what one sows?

    28. Re:Come on, be serious by benjamindees · · Score: 1

      As far as I can tell, North Korea is an impoverished, economically crippled state with absolutely no imperialist aspirations whatsoever. Their national political philosophy, Juche, follows the model of "socialism in one country" and emphasizes self-sufficiency above all else. Please elaborate on why you feel that North Korea wants to have "strategic superiority over us"?

      Kim Il-sung outlined the three fundamental principles of Juche in his April 14, 1965, speech "On Socialist Construction and the South Korean Revolution in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea":

            1. "independence in political work" (chaju)
            2. "self-sustenance in economic endeavors" (charip)
            3. "self-defense in national defense" (chawi).

      --
      "I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
    29. Re:Come on, be serious by benjamindees · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, most Americans actually are so mentally ill or highly-medicated, one, so as to believe that they fart rainbows and that everyone should support them and welcome them as liberators, mostly because Ronald Reagan told them so.

      --
      "I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
    30. Re:Come on, be serious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You've clearly not finished school, judging by your language skills.

      The second mistake of yours is you stating the equivalent of "wikileaks" == "julian assange" which is simply not the case.

      Some of the released information is indeed garbage, which is one of the reasons for it needing to be released in the first place. So you are (partly) right about the garbage part but for the wrong reason. That's your third mistake.

      Your fourth mistake is believing that the world would be a better place when/if Assange goes missing. The reality is of course that the world will be a better place when you go missing. Oh, sorry. You won't be missed. The world will just be better when you are not in it.

      Have a nice day.

    31. Re:Come on, be serious by Anomalyst · · Score: 1

      The real world is not a Tom Clancy spy novel.

      It sure aint. The protagonists are far more competent and better looking, to boot, than what reality is saddling us with.

      --
      There is no right to feel safe thru security vaudeville at the expense of everyone's freedom, privacy and tax money.
    32. Re:Come on, be serious by PennMan · · Score: 1

      You keep talking about "our agents."

      Wikileaks does not have agents. Wikileaks is NOT pro-US, or anti-US.

      Basically your complaint is that Wikileaks is not taking your side. You have bought into the position that "we are on the side of good." Maybe "we" are, maybe not.

      But you cannot expect a TRULY neutral party to decide that one nation deserves its protect and support and their help keeping its secrets, and another doesn't merit it.

      You would not complain if Wikileaks disseminated documents from North Korea, or Iran, or wherever else, if they got them - and Wikileaks WOULD release those.

      Wikileaks owes your side nor any other side no loyalty.

      No, I wouldn't complain if Wikileaks disseminated documents from North Korea or Iran. However, consider this.

      Suspending reality for the moment, what if Wikileaks obtained and publicly released North Korean classified information, in what manner do you think Kim Jong Un and his Stalinist country’s secret police would respond?

      I'm sure, the response would not be diplomatic. Perhaps, Kim Jong Un would match or surpass his unprovoked shelling of 1,700 residents of Yeonpyeong island, South Korea, Thanksgiving week, 2010, with something covert yet just as insidious. Sure gives one pause for thought, doesn't it?

  27. State Dept Letter from TFA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We will not engage in a negotiation regarding the further release or dissemination of illegally obtained U.S. Government classified materials.

    I wasn't aware that the State Dept had anything wikileaks wanted. Though it's a great way to paint them in the 'terrorist' light thereby paving the way for a DHS style takedown. (cause the US doesnt 'negotiate' with terrorists...right?) If DHS can take down a torrent dissemination site that doesnt even disseminate torrents, it would seem like LESS of a stretch for them to do it in this case.

  28. "national security implications" by M.+Baranczak · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Quoth the BBC:

    The UK Ministry of Defence has urged newspaper editors to "bear in mind" the national security implications of publishing the information.

    You can make a plausible case that the leaks will put lives at risk. But warning the media about publishing excerpts after the stuff is already made public? That's got fuck all to do with national security, that's politicians worrying about public relations.

    1. Re:"national security implications" by rvw · · Score: 1

      Quoth the BBC:

      The UK Ministry of Defence has urged newspaper editors to "bear in mind" the national security implications of publishing the information.

      You can make a plausible case that the leaks will put lives at risk. But warning the media about publishing excerpts after the stuff is already made public? That's got fuck all to do with national security, that's politicians worrying about *personal* relations.

      There, corrected that for you!

    2. Re:"national security implications" by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      One tangential point that I feel nonetheless important to make is that, for all the erosion in civil rights in the West in the past decades, we're still a free society. The fact that so many major newspapers could publish such incriminating materials with, even despite several clear warnings from their respective governments; the fact that you can go and buy those newspapers even now - the print hasn't been destroyed by government order; and the fact that journalists responsible for this are not in prison - is all the evidence you need for that.

      Just something for all the easily excited folk so fond of using the label "fascist" at random - as in, "US is fascist" - to keep in mind.

    3. Re:"national security implications" by jez9999 · · Score: 1

      And yet none of the major UK publications were prepared to publish the Muhammad cartoons.

    4. Re:"national security implications" by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      That's a non-government censorship problem. Which is still a problem, mind you, just of a different kind. And a much more readily solvable one.

  29. Petty Gossip? by js3 · · Score: 1

    I think most of that is released is in raw "petty gossip" format. It's like reading emails of your boss about employees, most of which is irrelevant and shouldn't be made public. People need to be able to talk shit without turning it into a shitfest.. we do it, they do it, what's the big deal?

    --
    did you forget to take your meds?
    1. Re:Petty Gossip? by SnowHog · · Score: 1

      Instructing your foreign diplomats to collect biometric data and credit card information on politicians in their host country isn't really what I would call petty. It's what I would call spying. And when it happens in countries like Sweden (which it did, read the section called "Diplomats Helping American Spies" in NYTimes) then it seems particularly odd.

    2. Re:Petty Gossip? by Sepodati · · Score: 1

      Then release those specific cables the point to wrongdoing. Why release everything like a gossip rag?

  30. Released early... by Brad1138 · · Score: 1

    As of just a few minutes ago the leaked documents have been released by five international news outlets. Now the fun begins.....

    --
    If you could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people
  31. Just kids. They will learn :) by PotatoHead · · Score: 1

    Where can we get the data?

    Guardian links down...

  32. "Expected" Release ? by unity100 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It was released at 05.00 Hours.

    i even submitted its article on wikileaks site. All the info regarding the US Afghan war logs were up in a SEARCHABLE and browseable directory. (A good implementation i might add).

    Yet, the news of the release, by me or by any other submitter, were not published in slashdot, but, the ddos for the 'release' that was 'anticipated' has been.

    The train has long left the station.

    1. Re:"Expected" Release ? by Legion303 · · Score: 1

      From what I can see, they've only released around 200 communications out of some 57K they have available, at least on the site. Is the torrent complete?

    2. Re:"Expected" Release ? by FriendlyLurker · · Score: 1

      Slashdot censorship at it's worst - nothing to see here move along.

    3. Re:"Expected" Release ? by 0137 · · Score: 1

      well if you read slashdot for the commentary this doesn't strictly matter. even people who RTFA probably scan the comments for better links before and/or after. starting with a good link versus a bad link is basically moot; the collective acts almost immediately to link and vote up better sources. this convergence can be relied on to cast a wider net and find better sources than even a (theoretical) moderately competent editor.

      i mean really they could just posted "DURR WIKILEAKS STUF HAPPENINS"* and after a ~ 20-minute convergence period the result would be about the same. this perhaps leads to a crisis in motivation among the editorial staff. as it is the worst they can do is provide a crappy 'zeroth post'.

  33. no by unity100 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The documents are already released. it has been approx 10 hours or more.

    ddosing RIGHT at the time news is fresh, would eliminate a lot of casual readers interested in the material only temporarily.

  34. What 'secret' means to the State Dept by Simonetta · · Score: 5, Interesting

    When the US State Department classifies a cable as secret, it's usually because of some situation that will embarrass the pants off of someone there.
    Let' look at a typical situation that results in a 'classified secret' set of missives:

    The US undersecretary of African Affairs refers to the Deputy Minister for Foreign Affairs of the People's Democratic Republic of Bongo as a 'retarded monkey' because he stole half of the $150 million NGO grant for an egg farm and deposited it directly into his Swiss bank account without first wiring it through the Cayman Islands like the undersecretary told him to do. Now the transaction is transparent and the undersecretary won't get his $155,000 consultancy fee from the hedge fund firm that his Yale frat brother runs down there that was supposed to handle the transaction in the first place.

    The situation is compounded by the fact that the US undersecretary and the Bongoian Deputy Minister are sharing a mistress who is a top fashion model. The undersecretary made the remark about the DM to his mistress in bed and she texted it to her sister in Paris. The communication was intercepted by the NSA/CIA and put into an official memo to the State Department. Now the DM will be pissed as hell and will make all sorts of accusations of 'USA imperialism' and 'racist corporate profiteering' at the United Nations. The undersecretary will have to buy the DM a new Mercedes to cool him down and get passed over for promotion until a new Secretary of the State Dept is appointed after the next election.

    The only person who might be killed is the mistress/fashion model if she makes the mistake of going back to Bongo before the Deputy Minister gets his new Mercedes. Even then, she better allow the DM to indulge his special inclinations lest she find herself floating down the Bongo river, trying to catch up with her head.

    -------- This is how diplomacy works and why all these cables have to be kept secret. Let's hope that the WikiLeaks people had the sense to make multiple copies and distributing them widely before announcing that they were going to post all this stuff!

    1. Re:What 'secret' means to the State Dept by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dumbest. Post. Ever.

    2. Re:What 'secret' means to the State Dept by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People's Democratic Republic of Bongo

      VERY unfortunate typo you've got there.

    3. Re:What 'secret' means to the State Dept by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People's Democratic Republic of Bongo

      VERY unfortunate typo you've got there.

      That's not a typo. Read the rest of the text.

    4. Re:What 'secret' means to the State Dept by Kagura · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      GP got a +5 interesting mod for making up a story and claiming that "this is how diplomacy works". A rational person can't believe that U.S. diplomats are taking part in widespread corruption and then documenting it in official files that go to their superiors and the Library of Congress.

      Please don't moderate these people any higher.

    5. Re:What 'secret' means to the State Dept by unity100 · · Score: 1

      A rational person can't believe that U.S. diplomats are taking part in widespread corruption and then documenting it in official files that go to their superiors and the Library of Congress.

      a rational person does not believe what you believe as in above. moron.

      http://www.google.com/search?q=corruption+in+us+government&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

    6. Re:What 'secret' means to the State Dept by Kagura · · Score: 1

      You searched for "corruption in us government" on Google and linked to the Google search as a source to obliterate my argument, also calling me a moron.

    7. Re:What 'secret' means to the State Dept by Spaham · · Score: 1

      Congo, not Bongo...

    8. Re:What 'secret' means to the State Dept by MrHanky · · Score: 1

      Dumbest. Post. Ever.

      You must be new here.

    9. Re:What 'secret' means to the State Dept by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      Dumbest. Post. Ever.

      Only because you missed his point. Besides, I thought it was hilarious.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    10. Re:What 'secret' means to the State Dept by 1+a+bee · · Score: 1

      I found it clever and funny too.

      Tip to moderators: funny is already both interesting and insightful. That's how humor works.

  35. Just read through the Guardian story by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I wasn't sure what to expect - but it sure seems like the sole purpose of this release was to embarrass the United States. I don't see anything that is particularly beneficial to the public here - and isn't that purportedly why WikiLeaks exists? This seems more along the lines of Paris Hilton's ex-boyfriend publicizing his sex tapes.

    Maybe it's not a vendetta, even if it looks like one though. WikiLeaks hasn't really lived up to its promise, all in all. I suspect this may be no more than Assange trying to fend off irrelevancy.

    --
    #DeleteChrome
    1. Re:Just read through the Guardian story by misexistentialist · · Score: 1

      Maybe he's just trying to preempt other rape victims from coming forward.

    2. Re:Just read through the Guardian story by hb79 · · Score: 0

      If I were a UN official or diplomat, I'd be quite careful in approaching US personnel of any kind after reading this brief:

      Washington calls for intelligence on top UN officials
      http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-embassy-cables-documents/219058

    3. Re:Just read through the Guardian story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      It's a leaks site. They publish what they are given by others. Perhaps instead of constantly trying to vilify the public frontman for the organisation, you should consider that there are obviously Americans submitting data they feel it is imperitive for the public to know?

    4. Re:Just read through the Guardian story by santax · · Score: 4, Interesting

      How about you go read some of the documents yourself? I did... the mossad wants to divide iran in 3 parts.... There is a lot in there that we - the public - should know.

    5. Re:Just read through the Guardian story by siddesu · · Score: 1

      If what the Guardian says is true (I haven't been able to locate the cable files to read for myself yet), there is a lot of fact and rumour about many foreign leaders that isn't known to their constituencies.

      E.g. the FSB (formerly KGB) using mafia network to do diplomacy on behalf of the various energy projects with leaders of some European countries, exposing links to mafia of the said leaders.

      That is very useful information if you live in one of those countries, which are a part of the project, but where the public's access to government information is quite restricted. Most of ex-Eastern Europe would nicely fall in that category.

      I see a potential for good coming out of these leaks, and it is likely that a significant portion of the fallout will, in the end, favor the US publicly professed policies of honesty and cleanness in government.

      It is a sword that cuts in complicated ways.

    6. Re:Just read through the Guardian story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really? I've not spent more than 10 minutes going over them so far, but the info about the UN being everything short of outright bugged is extremely interesting to me and probably people in every other state in the UN.

      It allows us to make better choices when choose our representation - like choosing someone with the balls to stand up to our supposed allies.

    7. Re:Just read through the Guardian story by pacinpm · · Score: 1

      I wasn't sure what to expect - but it sure seems like the sole purpose of this release was to embarrass the United States. I don't see anything that is particularly beneficial to the public here - and isn't that purportedly why WikiLeaks exists?

      On the contrary. There is for example very interesting information about USA trading rocket shield program in Poland for Russia support against Iran. It can cast new light on Poland's relationships with USA.

    8. Re:Just read through the Guardian story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      nonononono - that was the document from the yalta conference silly
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yalta_Conference

  36. wikileaks torrent? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Are the documents available as a torrent?? Anyone got a mirror?

    1. Re:wikileaks torrent? by jmottram08 · · Score: 1

      terms like "mirror" don't really apply to torrenting

    2. Re:wikileaks torrent? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      https://thepiratebay.org/torrent/5723136/WikiLeaks_insurance

      But you have to guess the AES256 key needed to decrypt-it :)

  37. Sure? by Burnhard · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Is it an actual attack, or have they just given the entire world a heads-up that they're going to release some sensational information and so have far more traffic than their servers can handle?

    1. Re:Sure? by krotkruton · · Score: 1

      There are a lot of questions that will probably go unanswered for a long time.

      Right now, I'm wondering why 'they' bothered with a DDoS attack anyway. It looks like the information is starting to come out through other sources, and eventually WikiLeaks would get back online and release it as well. Inevitably, the information was going to get leaked, or at least the DDoS attack wasn't going to shut it out forever.

      So why the DDoS attack? Knowing that it wouldn't prevent the information from being released, it must be a stall tactic, so what do they have to gain from stalling? Assuming this was orchestrated by the US, why show your hand just to stall? I know there were some questions before about the US's cyber capabilities, so it seems strange to me to launch an attack like this just to buy time.

    2. Re:Sure? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mikko Hyppönen, head of research at F-Secure, confirms that it does look indeed to be a real attack.

      You can read it from here (Google Translate):

      http://translate.google.com/translate?js=n&prev=_t&hl=fi&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&sl=fi&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fyle.fi%2Fuutiset%2Fulkomaat%2F2010%2F11%2Fwikileaks_-sivuja_vastaan_hyokataan_rajusti_2177622.html

      The site is the newssite of the Finnish National Broadcasting company YLE https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Yle

  38. Attack? Why not just curious people? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    If you announce some scandalous documents are going to be posted on your website and the news is broadcasting to the world that these documents are going to be posted on your website why oh why would you think that when you suddenly get clobbered with web traffic that you think someone has launched a distributed denial of service against your little web server?

    Why couldn't it be people all trying to get to your website to see if those scandalous documents have been posted yet?

    It's like K-Mart advertising extra-low price special deals in newspapers and TV that will be in effect the day after Thanksgiving and then get all pouty when a crowd of people, OBVIOUSLY sent by the competition, show up before the stores open to block your front doors and preventing people from shopping at your stores.

    Idiots.

  39. I love it! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't know why, but I do. So apropos!

  40. The Press by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Isn't it weird that what wikileaks is providing is actually what I feel journalist should be providing. Real information. Telling the truth while initially pretty painful usually proves the best in the long run. The internet works both ways in providing transparency / removing privacy. For the individual as well as big organisations / the government. If I hear what is being released for information it is about time this kindergarten kind of business they call diplomacy gets revealed for what it is. Grow up leaders of the world it is about time. The shining light of the internet will expose your shenanigans so behave for a change.

    1. Re:The Press by unity100 · · Score: 1

      curiously this hasnt happened since watergate. the below may have had an effect in that being so :

      http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1867262&cid=34218862

  41. Root of the problem by NoSig · · Score: 1

    I'm reminded of an exchange from the TV series "yes, minister" (from memory):

    politician: The people are infuriated by these policies!
    aide: Not at all. They are only infuriated by finding out about it.
    politician: I'm not so sure about that.
    aide: Until the secret broke, there were no complaints.
    politician: Oh, I see.

    In such a situation perhaps the problem is the conduct that was exposed rather than the fact of it having been exposed. Though yes, it does depend on the nature of the material. Still, it's hard to think that Wikileaks is more capable of obtaining such information than the main enemies of the US are. So the people getting informed by an event such as this is not the enemies of the US but rather the US and world population. If every politician knows that his secrets may be exposed at any time, perhaps that is not so bad. Privacy is for the private sphere, it is not for what goes on when power is wielded, even if the people in power by definition have both the interest and power to make it the other way around. So all else equal, government leaks are good and illegal wiretaps are bad.

  42. Boring! by Sla$hPot · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Yawn...Sigh

  43. Wikileaks is hosted by Amazon Cloud by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's not hard to figure out that Amazon is hosting the Wikileaks website, Please hold these companies responsible for hosting data that has a potential to harm our servicemen and women!

                          Amazon Data Services Ireland Technical Role Account
                  Amazon Data Services Ireland
                  Digital Depot
              Thomas Street
                  Dublin 8

    Also, the Wikileaks NS services are hosted by a company in New Hampshire!

    OrgName: Dynamic Network Services, Inc.
    OrgId: DNS-33
    Address: 1230 Elm St.
    Address: 5th Floor
    City: Manchester
    StateProv: NH
    PostalCode: 03101
    Country: US

    1. Re:Wikileaks is hosted by Amazon Cloud by unity100 · · Score: 0, Redundant

      OOOOOH. your servicemen and women !!!

      who will hold the below responsible for what they did ?

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

      http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/US_ThirdWorld/dictators.html

      oh wait - i know !! noone can. because, it was US GOVERNMENT which did these !!!

  44. IOW by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1

    which the Obama administration says will put 'countless' lives at risk, threaten global counterterrorism operations and jeopardize US relations with its allies.

    IOW, it will embarrass powerful people, and we can't have that under any circumstances.

    --
    Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    1. Re:IOW by js3 · · Score: 1

      don't be naive. lets say my "john smith" is a clerk with a measly level 5 access level, next thing you know his name is appearing in U.S intel briefs referring to things only a person with level 1 access should know. What do you think it's going to happen to him?

      --
      did you forget to take your meds?
  45. oh fuck off by unity100 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    its no problem while a war is being started under false pretenses and millions dying as a result, but, informants' names getting out, while exposing ALL that shit, is beyond reprehensible.

    i have two words for you, as elaborate, eloquent and intellectual as words can be :

    FUCK ... OFF.

    1. Re:oh fuck off by danhs7 · · Score: 0, Troll

      Two wrongs don't make a right.

      President Bush was wrong to invade Iraq under such spurious claims/evidence. Wikileaks is wrong to expose state secrets which have precisely 0% probability of changing American policy but a 100% probability of endangering Americans, American allies, and damaging interests.

      Playing the moral equivalence game with the policies of George W. Bush, a reckless, irresponsible President, is a poor starting point.

    2. Re:oh fuck off by sed+quid+in+infernos · · Score: 1

      Why the hell is this modded "insightful"? Where the hell did the parent poster say he didn't see a problem with the war in Iraq? He might see a problem, he might not.

    3. Re:oh fuck off by Sollord · · Score: 1

      Could you at least make realistic claims in your rants? Only mentally retarded space moneys and well you think "millions" have died in Iraq. I'm pretty sure everyone would notice and point out millions dead in a country with only 31million people in it but I guess my reality and probably almost everyone on the planet isn't the one you live in... As for these document based on what I'm reading on the news sites given early access to the documents they do little to hurt the US outside of make them loom like fools and show what a joke international diplomacy really is and makes everyone who think the US is some sort of godly puppet master look life a fucking idiot since in reality based on these releases show they're a bunch of clowns working with a bunch of competing clowns form different circus for the most part and at least we know that almost everyone in the Middle east wants the US to bomb Iran save for well you know the US

    4. Re:oh fuck off by Saint+Stephen · · Score: 1

      Judging from the amount of ALL CAPS posts coming from the "America Last" types so prevalent here on Slashthink, I'd venture to say that one side here is the Troll.

    5. Re:oh fuck off by Wonko+the+Sane · · Score: 1

      Two wrongs don't make a right.

      Yes, but three lefts do.

    6. Re:oh fuck off by unity100 · · Score: 1

      ok then. lets just allow them to continue what they are doing, because 'two wrongs do not make right'. ironical that, how the thing you propose allows them to just continue what they are doing.

      THERE IS NO OTHER WAY THAN EXPOSING TO FIX THIS. because if not exposed, you wont even know there is something wrong. that was the thing that allowed them to engage in all that filth for a century.

    7. Re:oh fuck off by Culture20 · · Score: 1

      mentally retarded space moneys

      Thank God that terrestrial money has no capacity for thought.

    8. Re:oh fuck off by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You sound a little bit more mature than when the Iran election mess was hitting the fan... I hope you reflected on what it means to be a cross border instigator in a major crisis.

      Your message of Fuck Off is guaranteed good tender in U.S.A. proper until invalidated by your actions - so try moderating your actions a bit to preserve your access to your rights.

      You absolutely have the power to inflame and enrage, but these are coarse powers put into your hands by leakers that could very well be waiting to profit from a planned instability.

      Please consider that the country HAS to face what is in these cables, and we NEED the participation of every able minded citizen to hold our shit together during this period.

      Just my $.02 as I see that you are intent on hanging around.

    9. Re:oh fuck off by unity100 · · Score: 1

      and we NEED the participation of every able minded citizen to hold our shit together during this period.

      basically, meaning, aiding the governments that have perpetrated this filth, by cooperating.

      rest of your post is incomprehensible.

    10. Re:oh fuck off by Spaham · · Score: 2, Insightful

      names are redacted.
      Read the articles.

    11. Re:oh fuck off by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's your twisted and unsupported opinion. And millions is nothing more than a hysterical hyperbole.

      I can think of nothing better than for you and all the other retards on Slashdot who think like you to be in some building some day that is bombed. The more horrible your death, the better.

      So you go ahead and fuck off, hopefully for the last time in your sorry ass life.

    12. Re:oh fuck off by afabbro · · Score: 1

      Cracks me up that this is a "Troll" while GP's screed is "Insightful". Well, that's Slashdot for you.

      --
      Advice: on VPS providers
  46. [oblig. Liar Liar quote] by grolschie · · Score: 4, Funny

    Fletcher: Your honor, I object!
    Judge: Why?
    Fletcher: Because it's devastating to my case!
    Judge: Overruled.
    Fletcher: Good call!

  47. moron. by unity100 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    so, its ok with saudi and other gulf states calling the us to erase iranian nuclear weapons threat at ANY cost.

    but its not ok, when this information is released. because, it will 'destabilize' the area.

    yeah. other countries pressurizing others to start a goddamn war, will not destabilize the area. lets just allow them to do that, behind an easy curtain of secrecy.

    1. Re:moron. by RAMMS+EIN · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Well, to be fair, just because someone advocates starting a war does not mean that war will actually be started. I am not at all in favor of war, but I can see how calling for a war _in secret_ is less destabilizing than calling for that same war in public. So the position that "war is more destabilizing than calling for a war" and the position that "publishing a call for war is destabilizing" are not mutually exclusive.

      --
      Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
    2. Re:moron. by unity100 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Well, to be fair, just because someone advocates starting a war does not mean that war will actually be started.

      your approach is too shallow. these are not ordinary trolls talking and raving on the internet. these are actual countries, which have various departments, including intelligence agencies which may act in direction of the desire of their government.

      you cant imagine that, all the government of a country wont be working to that end, when the government wants war.

    3. Re:moron. by capnkr · · Score: 5, Insightful

      First of all - Thank you so very much for the personal insult. {roll_eyes}

      Secondly, to be clear about what it is we are referring to:

      Definition of DIPLOMACY
      1: the art and practice of conducting negotiations between nations
      2: skill in handling affairs without arousing hostility : tact


      With that definition in mind, that SA, the US, and/or other countries talk to each other through secret diplomatic channels and say things they may not repeat in public, does not surprise me in the least. This is a common, human thing to do. It allows one to express the depth of feelings or intentions about an issue without offending someone else, without creating issues with them so that discourse may go on perhaps to a satisfactory ending for all concerned, or might keep an antagonistic personality somewhat mollified, avoiding provoking them to attack.

      Tell me how blowing this process out of the water is, could possibly be in any way good or beneficial for the stability of the region, for the diplomatic process going on between the nations there?

      Third, and last: Do you personally have any idea of what the last word in that definition - "tact" - means? Apparently not. Might be a good one for you - and Wikileaks - to learn, then practice.

      --
      "...there are some things that can beat smartness and foresight. Awkwardness and stupidity can." ~ Mark Twain
    4. Re:moron. by RAMMS+EIN · · Score: 1

      ``these are not ordinary trolls talking and raving on the internet. these are actual countries, which have various departments, including intelligence agencies which may act in direction of the desire of their government.''

      Oh, I am well aware of that. Obviously random trolls on the Internet aren't the same as official diplomats talking to government officials.

      The only point I tried to make is that I can still see why such talks could be less harmful when kept secret than if they became public. Of course, if the result is actual war, then it doesn't matter a lot if it was the result of secret or public talks. But war is not a certain outcome in either case. Just because country A asks country B to go to war with country C doesn't mean country B will do so.

      If country B decides not to go to war with country C, that could well be the end of the story. If the talks are secret, we can all go to sleep quietly. But if the talks are published, then there may be violent reactions, even if country B had decided not to go to war. I feel this risk is greatly amplified if the talks are published.

      I hope that makes my message clear. :-)

      --
      Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
    5. Re:moron. by unity100 · · Score: 1

      The only point I tried to make is that I can still see why such talks could be less harmful when kept secret than if they became public.

      when you keep it secret, like it had been before this, those countries will have the ease of the secrecy veil to work towards their goals unhindered.

      'violent reactions' does not compare to war. the very fact that saudi arabia, for example, came out as the warmonger nation it is, is much more a benefit for iran than any kind of armed retaliation can bring.

    6. Re:moron. by unity100 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This is a common, human thing to do.

      that common, human thing to do, ie, the secrecy justified by various justifications, is the VERY thing that allows all the problems you see on the face of the planet.

      ranging from human rights abuses to pollution, wall street's scam to starting wars with false pretenses, the perpetrators have always worked behind the coziness of secrecy veils justified with 'national security' 'trade secrets' or 'diplomatic communique'.

    7. Re:moron. by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Don't forget that ending all those is generally started in secret too.

      Just because it has been abused does not mean it's not valid nor does it mean it's bad. If that were the case, then you could extend it to anything, including the internet as it has been used to do many bad things- some of which you mentioned.

    8. Re:moron. by NBolander · · Score: 1

      Secondly, to be clear about what it is we are referring to: Definition of DIPLOMACY 1: the art and practice of conducting negotiations between nations 2: skill in handling affairs without arousing hostility : tact

      I thought it was defined as: DIPLOMACY, n. The patriotic art of lying for one's country.

    9. Re:moron. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tact is for the weak, the cowardly, the dishonest, and those who don't believe in the value of their own thoughts and ideals. Any time you think "tact" should kick in, perhaps you should reconsider why you're afraid to express your own world view instead of reflexively censoring what you say without a thought to why.

    10. Re:moron. by sirambrose · · Score: 1

      The information may destabilize the governments of the gulf states. I would guess that endorsing an Israeli or US invasion of Iran would not be popular with the citizens of the gulf states. This knowledge might lead the public to overthrow the king and establish a government represents them better. I personally think that this kind of destabilization could be a good thing for the region. Our government worries too much about the stability of repressive governments. They prefer having friendly dictatorships over potentially unfriendly democracies.

    11. Re:moron. by poity · · Score: 1

      Nuanced speech and tact? This is Slashdot, aspie capital of the internet! Look around, +5 Insightful for naive idealistic platitudes. -1 Troll for every realist.
      You're the rare one who happened to have escaped the mod persecution.

      --
      your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
  48. Publicity stunt by NiceGeek · · Score: 1, Troll

    If you think the government has to use something as clumsy as a DDOS attack then you're an idiot.
    Wikileaks are a bunch of publicity whores.

    1. Re:Publicity stunt by SnowHog · · Score: 1

      What about the ridiculous 20 year old technology tracking device the FBI installed on a students car? Search Wired if you don't know what I'm talking about. It was a huge black box with a gigantic whip antenna secured to the underside of his car using zip-ties and magnets glued to a stick. I'm sorry but I don't buy the idea that the US Gov is full of tech wizards and the latest and greatest equipment.

    2. Re:Publicity stunt by NiceGeek · · Score: 1

      Please don't compare the tech level of the FBI field agents to say, the NSA.

    3. Re:Publicity stunt by M4n · · Score: 1

      You can call me an idiot.

      Of course they would, the real question should be why wouldn't they use a DDOS attack

      --
      In space no-one can hear your vuvuzela.
    4. Re:Publicity stunt by monkyyy · · Score: 1

      if it was, they wouldn't be partially owned by the riaa.
      im sorta surprised they had access to zipties and magnets

      --
      warning pointless sig
    5. Re:Publicity stunt by NiceGeek · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Troll? Nah no biased mods here.

  49. IIIIS IIIIIIIT by unity100 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I think the current status quo, Pax Americana, is the least disruptive and most beneficial to all parties involved.

    it only is because fools like you dont know whats going on :

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

    http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/US_ThirdWorld/dictators.html

    tell that 'peace' to the people whose families were murdered in genocides by 12+ puppet dictators that u.s. installed to propagate that 'pax americana'

    moron.

  50. Makes me wonder. by EnsilZah · · Score: 1

    What's the latest in avoiding this sort of DDoS, if you suspect something like this is coming, are there solutions for distributing websites over p2p while still verifying the source, something involving torrents and public key cryptography?

    1. Re:Makes me wonder. by monkyyy · · Score: 1

      no dont move it to pvp, then the riaa could spin it as only source of evil on the internet, but the way it is now could be span as ddosing is a protest that even the us government can use

      it will come out late, so be it, let the corrupt officials enjoy their ill-gotten gains, let some of the horrors of war stay out of the public eye for a week or two more

      --
      warning pointless sig
    2. Re:Makes me wonder. by Lehk228 · · Score: 1

      have your GPG signature previously posted, sign torrent files. nothing new is needed.

      --
      Snowden and Manning are heroes.
  51. no by unity100 · · Score: 1

    there are idiots who acquire mod points, and go to the people who they disagree with and modbomb their posts down. this guy probably had a lot of idiots doing that to him.

  52. Read the letter! by qmaqdk · · Score: 1

    http://documents.nytimes.com/letters-between-wikileaks-and-gov

    WikiLeaks provided ample opportunity for the US to state which documents are "putting lives at risk". They instead responded with threats. If there really are lives at stake here, this is incredible irresponsible of the US, especially since it was very likely that WikiLeaks would release the information no matter what.

    --
    My UID is prime. Hah!
    1. Re:Read the letter! by Sepodati · · Score: 1

      Dear US,

      Please point out to us all of the documents that have good, juicy information in them, please. We promise not to tell anyone, because, you know, keeping secrets is what we do.

      Love,

      Wikileaks

      Seriously. If I steal all of your emails and then ask you to point out which ones you _really_ don't want released, are you going to answer? JA knows exactly what the response is going to be and is doing nothing but playing the game.

    2. Re:Read the letter! by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      What? The US government knows that the documents will be released no matter what, and Assange gave them the opportunity to 'save' these supposed lives that are in danger. Instead, they very foolishly responded with threats instead of at least trying to save these supposed people knowing that the documents would be released regardless, only now they would be released with this names (if they exist). Please, tell me, how was that a smart decision?

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
  53. Remember Spaceballs? by Loopy · · Score: 1

    "Evil will always triumph because good is dumb." The quote applies to this because if the good guys arbitrarily limit themselves to only using "fair fight" morality, the bad guys start with a clear advantage. I'm sorry it impinges on some of you folks' rose-colored worldview but sometimes, bad people need to be dealt with using their own tactics. It sucks. And we'd all love it if we could just sit down at the table and talk things over. Unfortunately, the world is a dangerous place because self-interest works differently for people depending on their culture.

    A question: if the best defense is a good offense, and there is never a good excuse for violence, what then?

    Life is pain. Anyone who says different is selling something.

    1. Re:Remember Spaceballs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Evil will always triumph because good is dumb." The quote applies to this because if the good guys arbitrarily limit themselves to only using "fair fight" morality, the bad guys start with a clear advantage. I'm sorry it impinges on some of you folks' rose-colored worldview but sometimes, bad people need to be dealt with using their own tactics. It sucks. And we'd all love it if we could just sit down at the table and talk things over. Unfortunately, the world is a dangerous place because self-interest works differently for people depending on their culture.

      A question: if the best defense is a good offense, and there is never a good excuse for violence, what then?

      Life is pain. Anyone who says different is selling something.

      It's much like the illusion that large democracies work on their own; really they only appear to function under the protection of ruthless armies and intelligence agencies, and only for as long as economics favor this setup.

      In any case, I believe Assange is a government shill. There is almost no doubt about it given his image and stunts are more managed than 'lady gaga'...

    2. Re:Remember Spaceballs? by Lanteran · · Score: 1

      Evil/good is too binary. Learn some DnD man! Chaotic/Lawful/Neutral modifiers to Good/Neutral/Evil.

      --
      "People don't want to learn linux" hasn't been a valid excuse since '03.
  54. Patriot Act SHOULD NOT HAVE HAPPENED by Moof123 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Nor waterboarding, warrantless wiretapping of US citizens, "black" prisons/detention facilities, Abu Ghraib, drone targeting of a US citizen, Cheney's still largely hidden secret activities, etc, etc.

    Lots of stuff shouldn't have happened. The more we find out about how our government is behaving itself, the better WE THE PEOPLE can have a chance at reigning in our governments behavior. Way too much really bad stuff has gone down in the name of national security, and I for one am sick and tired of the ruling elite using the cry of national security to get away with everythign from civil rights trampling to outright war crimes. The mroe is released the merrier, the US government has very little credibility left in almost any arena.

  55. Re:CO2 by Mysteray · · Score: 1
    How about CO2 emissions per random act of kindness?

    (That was a joke.)

  56. Go away Wikileaks by Godskitchen · · Score: 1

    Not everything Wikileaks posts is necessarily the truth. By taking the stance of "revealing secret" documents, they are able to post anything they want and people will just immediately believe it for some reason. The authenticity of the documents is unlikely to be verifiable and even if the US gov't said "The Afghanistan Documents are completely fabricated." no one would believe them... it's absolutely ridiculous. People love controversy and they are giving Wikileaks free-reign to make up whatever they want.

  57. ok. by unity100 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    two wrongs dont make right. so, since exposing wrongdoing, is, well, wrong, lets just allow them to continue as they did. because THERE IS NO OTHER WAY TO FIX THIS EXCEPT BY EXPOSING IT.

    1. Re:ok. by sed+quid+in+infernos · · Score: 0

      Leaking 70,000 documents is not "exposing it." It's essentially vomiting information, some of which might be related to wrongdoing, the vast majority of which is not.

    2. Re:ok. by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      Leaking 70,000 documents is not "exposing it." It's essentially vomiting information, some of which might be related to wrongdoing, the vast majority of which is not.

      Depends upon how you look at it. Should Wikileaks take the responsibility for deciding what information is related to "wrongdoing" and which is not? What if they make a mistake and some "wrongdoing" is thus unintentionally suppressed? Wikileaks is not an intelligence-gathering organization, and making connections between the information in those documents and other sources is not what they do. They just get it out there, and let the cards fall where they may.

      Besides, it's hilarious to me that so so-called "intelligence community" can't keep a few secrets from the rest of us. Makes me wonder about their competence in general.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
  58. yeah. its curious. by unity100 · · Score: 1

    there hasnt been any case of such journalism since the watergate incident. i think, the grasp of private interests on mass media since 70s, finally got ahold of all journalism in the press.

    http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1867262&cid=34218862

  59. Ooh this is good stuff by Sla$hPot · · Score: 0

    No it ain't!

    It's just a bunch of crap that everybody knew was going on all the time.
    Politicians are just like ordinary people, just "a little" more arrogant, power hungry, ego centric, stupid, you name it. And ugly too!
    It can't surprise anyone that they are back bitching each other like hell.
    There is no Top Secret documents, just a whooping 350MB of boring crap.
    If the leak was about a couple of hundred really interesting documents, then i would be interested.
    But It's just all about publicity and money.
    Wikileaks want's your donations.

    What a waste of bandwidth!

  60. I believe it's called being slashdotted. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is classic chicken and egg stuff here.

  61. Self-Serving Hypocrisy by LennyP · · Score: 0

    First, the leaks do not put anyone in danger. The danger is in the documents themselves and created by the document creators, not those that leaked or published the documents. If we are not engaging in duplicitous behaviors, illegal actions, or overt lying, what is the problem? Second, looking at previously released documents with all the same hoopla, the biggest danger was to those that chose to have their lies documented. If my government is secretly supporting a group which is engaging in terrorist activities (acknowledged by my government) I have every right to know what is being done in my name and those that are engaging in such deceptions deserver what enmity their duplicities have invoked. I understand the need for secrecy but not when it's self-serving only to those that engage in it.

  62. and by unity100 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    not surprisingly, you are posting as anonymous !!! asshole ...

    1. Re:and by ushering05401 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Hey, homeboy:

      It does no good to treat this forum like your own running street battle when the conversation is about real life and death.

      More people will hear you if you take it down a notch; when you don't appear via form to misunderstand the severity of current affairs.

      Regards,
      ratio_c d ushering.

  63. say by unity100 · · Score: 0, Troll

    how are employment opportunities and benefits in cia, nsa, or whichever agency you work for, these days ?

    1. Re:say by sed+quid+in+infernos · · Score: 1

      how are employment opportunities and benefits in cia, nsa, or whichever agency you work for, these days ?

      Wow. You seem to have to assign a position to someone who hasn't taken that position (i.e., opposing the leaks somehow means someone doesn't see a problem with U.S. policies), call someone a moron, tell someone to fuck off, or state with no proof that someone works for a federal agency. Is it all possible for you to argue a position without making shit up about people who disagree with you? I've seen no evidence of that in this topic.

  64. agent kagura, by unity100 · · Score: 1

    thank you for preparing the summary of my actions in the gp post. great to see your observation and documentation skills are top notch. must be handy while reporting to your superiors.

    it is also only natural that you have conveniently missed reading the contents the search has brought. but its only natural loyalty to your employer. understandable.

    1. Re:agent kagura, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      thank you for preparing the summary of my actions in the gp post. great to see your observation and documentation skills are top notch. must be handy while reporting to your superiors. it is also only natural that you have conveniently missed reading the contents the search has brought. but its only natural loyalty to your employer. understandable.

      All I could see was some past US corruption cases. That doesnt have to do with what they were talking about above. Yes the US has been involved with corruption and nobody denies that but the point is it wont come out in these diplomatic cables and that is what they were saying above.

    2. Re:agent kagura, by unity100 · · Score: 1

      yes. because, past is past, and it never recurs, since we had had a global awakening in the last 10 years, and living in an utopic civilization in which noone engages in corruption now.

      buzz off.

  65. The documents are out. NYT summary by Animats · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The document are out, and The New York Times is already reporting on the good stuff.

    One of the more embarrassing items is this: American officials sharply warned Germany in 2007 not to enforce arrest warrants for Central Intelligence Agency officers involved in a bungled operation in which an innocent German citizen with the same name as a suspected militant was mistakenly kidnapped and held for months in Afghanistan. A senior American diplomat told a German official "that our intention was not to threaten Germany, but rather to urge that the German government weigh carefully at every step of the way the implications for relations with the U.S."

    1. Re:The documents are out. NYT summary by grolschie · · Score: 1

      Kidnapping the wrong person on foreign solid? ...wait. Kidnapping on foreign solid? ...wait. Kidnapping? This is somehow all OK because it's the "good guys" who are breaching human rights and conducting illegal activities in other sovereign nations? Someone please help me understand how this justifiable.

    2. Re:The documents are out. NYT summary by Arker · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Kidnapping the wrong person on foreign solid? ...wait. Kidnapping on foreign solid? ...wait. Kidnapping? This is somehow all OK because it's the "good guys" who are breaching human rights and conducting illegal activities in other sovereign nations? Someone please help me understand how this justifiable.

      Of course it isnt justifiable in reality. But to many modern americans, brain-damaged from prolonged exposure to fantasies like "24", the more over-the-top and "tough" the better, and even considering the question of whether or not your actions are justifiable is a sign of fatal softness.

      --
      =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
      Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
    3. Re:The documents are out. NYT summary by guyminuslife · · Score: 1

      "Mixed records against terrorism: Saudi donors remain the chief financiers of Sunni militant groups like Al Qaeda, and the tiny Persian Gulf state of Qatar, a generous host to the American military for years, was the “worst in the region” in counterterrorism efforts, according to a State Department cable last December. Qatar’s security service was “hesitant to act against known terrorists out of concern for appearing to be aligned with the U.S. and provoking reprisals,” the cable said."

      Well, there goes their World Cup bid. Thanks, Wikileaks! Now if only they could publish Australia's dirty laundry...

      Honestly, though, very little of this---and I intend to follow-up on this when I have time---very little seems like a US cover-up of its own dirty laundry. (With the exception of that poor German...I'm not sure if that episode is more funny or scary...but certainly, one that should have been released.) But the damaging nonetheless. The stuff about Qaddafi pitching a fit over the tent was well-known, but a guy like that is likely to take offense easily over the diplomats' description and some of the public revelations---which is definitely not good for relations in the Middle East, regardless of whether or not it's true. That Berlusconi reportedly has ties to Putin is news to me, I don't know how surprising that is to Europeans, but I never much cared for either of them. Most of the rest---at least, in the highlights---was just confirmation of what we already knew. China was behind the Google hacking? The US had to bribe other countries to take Guantanamo inmates? No, really....

      Again, with the exception of the creepy-as-hell CIA incident, there's not much here that seems to justify the release of the documents, based on an ad-hoc cost-benefit analysis that I just made up. This isn't going to promote transparency, it's just going to make the government put a bigger lock on its information. Don't be surprised if in future exchanges, everything here that was unclassified becomes classified, and some of the stuff that was secret becomes more secret. I'm sympathetic to a lot of what Wikileaks has done, hell, I'm currently seeding the Iraq War Diary, but there doesn't seem to be much benefit from this information's release.

      But man, that poor German...

      --
      I don't believe in time. It's a grand conspiracy designed to sell watches.
    4. Re:The documents are out. NYT summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From the NYT:

      They describe the volatile Libyan leader as rarely without the companionship of “his senior Ukrainian nurse,” described as “a voluptuous blonde."

      I am interested in learning more about he senior Ukrainian nurse, with pictures please.

  66. Internet Kill Switch by bkmoore · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This latest leak is probably the reason the US has been debating about having some kind of "internet kill switch."

    1. Re:Internet Kill Switch by kaptink · · Score: 1

      I think your absolutely right. Had this leak not happend, I seriously doubt it would have even been considered.

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who cannot, sue.
    2. Re:Internet Kill Switch by bughunter · · Score: 1

      If you're gonna use that sort of logic, then let's extend it to the root cause.

      If the US Government hadn't behaved like a bunch of ugly American assholes and corrupt Kleptocrats for the past 60 or 70 years, then perhaps they wouldn't have to worry about some telegrams pissing off the entire world, and therefore wouldn't need to consider revoking half of the Bill of Rights in order to make it even conceivably possible -but not likely- to cover it up.

      I'm so fucking ashamed of being part of a population that has allowed criminals and sociopaths to rule it for so long and who is now apathetic about the whole thing. And when the consequences of this bring the entire economy down so that my neighbors are starving and homeless, the people who are going to be scapegoated sure as hell aren't going to be the ones responsible.

      --
      I can see the fnords!
    3. Re:Internet Kill Switch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No. The Iraq war and 9/11 were the reasons certain factions in the US want an internet kill switch. We're way beyond the debate stage. This is step 5: political justification.

  67. These documents should be released. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Don't be a cock head. It is the lying, two faced, double talking, clique of the powerful from all countries who have created this daft situation where nobody dare say what they think in public.

    We'd all be better off if we knew what the two faced lying crooks, we have allowed to obtain power over us, really think. Then we could back them up if we agreed with it, or sack the lot of them if their particular brand of bigotry didn't quite coincide with our own.

    Secrecy in government is only every used to hide wrongdoing. ... of course, you have to reveal everyone's secrets, not just those of the US.

    Anyway, they're all liars. Just watch as the world's leaders fall over each other in an attempt to pretend it never happened. Life will carry on. They've got too much in common to let this stop their games.

  68. In other news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A new Walking Dead is on tonight at 10/9c

  69. Right Response? by RAMMS+EIN · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ``US ambassadors in other capitals were instructed to brief their hosts in advance of the release of unflattering pen-portraits or nakedly frank accounts of transactions with the US which they had thought would be kept quiet. Washington now faces a difficult task in convincing contacts around the world that any future conversations will remain confidential.''

    And here I thought that last sentence would end "that any future conversations will be more civil". At least, I have always thought that saying "unflattering" things behind people's backs isn't the way to behave. If the conversations between the US and its contacts are of such "unflattering" nature that they give rise to diplomatic crises when uncovered, then perhaps the US should have trained their employees and contact to not behave that way.

    I understand the anger at WikiLeaks, and I understand that it is not just about the unflattering communications. But still, on this one point, I think that if you don't want to take the heat for your missteps, the best way would be not to make them. So, rather than assuring contacts that, in future, this stuff will stay confidential, I would think that the right response would be to convince your contacts that, in future, you will work to keep things civil and decent.

    --
    Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
    1. Re:Right Response? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > I have always thought that saying "unflattering" things behind people's backs isn't the way to behave.

      That assumes that everyone is nice. As we become adults, we gradually learn that it isn't true.

      At the level of nations, it is *critical* to be able to say bad things behind people's backs, because nations aren't all nice. The bad things are part of the "how do we handle this delicately" conversation, which has to include WHY it needs delicate handling.

      Added context: it's often about countries whose leaders are directly saying nasty things in public already. "so-an-so is a fargin icehole" and "we want to get along with so-and-so's country" aren't contradictory.

      Alternate interpretation: private diplomatic messages are what a nation is thinking (if you personify nations for a moment here), not what a nation is saying or doing. Do you believe it's improper to think mean things at people you disapprove of? Even if you never follow through with negative actions?

    2. Re:Right Response? by ContractualObligatio · · Score: 1

      If the conversations between the US and its contacts are of such "unflattering" nature that they give rise to diplomatic crises when uncovered, then perhaps the US should have trained their employees and contact to not behave that way.

      Absolutely. I'm sure you'd agree that Robert Mugabe is a wonderful person, and how terrible it is that anyone might criticise him simply for being a murderous dictator responsible for the deaths of vast swathes of his felIlow citizens. How uncivil it would be to point such a thing out. Right thinking people such as yourself should not stand for such indecent revelations.

    3. Re:Right Response? by gsslay · · Score: 2, Insightful

      At least, I have always thought that saying "unflattering" things behind people's backs isn't the way to behave.

      You seem to be unclear on the meaning and function of diplomacy. Diplomacy means sometimes having reasonable discussions with unreasonable people. If that person/politician/nation is being a jerk, then it's your job to make your boss aware that you are dealing with a jerk. You do this "behind their back", because saying it to their face is likely to bring a very sudden and unsatisfactory end to discussions. As a diplomat you are a total failure.

      If diplomats need to be ever so polite about what they report back, how are anyone ever supposed to know what's really going on? "I'm sorry, Mr President, about this sudden war with Koristan. But all our reports from embassy staff there suggested that the His Excellency the Great Leader was a mighty fine fellow, a delightful conversationalist, who loves peace, his mother and kittens. Turns out he is a murderous megalomaniac with a evil temper. Embassy staff didn't tell us because that would be talking behind his back, which isn't polite. If only we'd known, we wouldn't have sold him those missiles."

    4. Re:Right Response? by gfreeman · · Score: 1

      No comparison. Pretty much every leader of the Western World is on record calling Mugabe out as a scumbag - you should read the papers a bit more closely.

      This particular fuss is about the two-facedness of it all. On camera saying Berlusconi is a great leader but behind his back saying he's feckless, vain and ineffective. That's a great way to treat your allies (/sarcasm)

      --
      Ceci n'est pas un sig.
    5. Re:Right Response? by ContractualObligatio · · Score: 1

      Read those papers again. You'll find the leaders of the Western World use diplomatic language regarding Mugabe personally. Words like "tyrant" might crop up, but not "scumbag" or "murderous". They don't meet with him anyway, which makes them irrelevant to the discussion of how diplomats should talk to their contacts. You should read the posts a bit more closely before commenting.

      If your point was about how everyone knows Mugabe is a scumbag - well, no shit, Sherlock. And is anyone surprised to find out that Berlusconi is vain? Is anyone of adult age really so naive that it bothers them diplomats don't call him that to his face?

      You can wish for unicorns and ponies and everybody always being honest with each other if you like. I'm sure Jiminy Cricket will be right along to sort that out for you.

    6. Re:Right Response? by gfreeman · · Score: 1

      Not using a word like "murderous"? Blair called him a murderous autocrat, the Kenyan PM said Mugabe had a murderous reign, and it was only a couple of years ago that Mandela called him a murderous dictator. Back to the newspapers with you.

      From "feckless, vain and ineffective" you went with vain? You'll be seeing unicorns and ponies everywhere if you think that's the part that's important. Oh wait, too late.

      --
      Ceci n'est pas un sig.
    7. Re:Right Response? by ContractualObligatio · · Score: 1

      Mandela, that well known Western leader! And Kenya, surely the finest of all Western nations! Not a single result on Google for Blair calling him a murderous autocrat, either.

      You're just making it up, aren't you?

      Incredible vanity will also make you feckless and ineffective. Why use three words when one will do? But it is very impressive that you prefer to use the big words. Maybe Jiminy will give you an extra wish as a reward.

    8. Re:Right Response? by gfreeman · · Score: 1

      Now I know you are delirious when you think that me quoting the cables is the same as me using big words.

      --
      Ceci n'est pas un sig.
    9. Re:Right Response? by ContractualObligatio · · Score: 1

      You don't even realise how sad it is that you thought the two big words are so much more important than the little one, do you?

  70. Of course, you know, This Means War by TigerPlish · · Score: 1

    Digital battlefield indeed.

    --
    The "Civilized World" jumped the shark ca. 1973.
  71. DIPLOMACY by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Saying 'nice doggy' while you look for a rock.

  72. Wikileaks is not the UN by mevets · · Score: 1

    What is stopping you from doing this? Why do you denigrate them for no fulfilling your personal wish? It isn't wikileaks responsibility to be everything to everyone, but they are setting a good example of what anyone can do. Follow the example, don't whine that your needs aren't being met. Thats what Fox is for, except they just make stuff up.

  73. hah by unity100 · · Score: 1

    i didnt do it. some other poster did. and it was quite fitting.

  74. Hurt ally relations? by rrossman2 · · Score: 1

    Well, maybe they should have thought of that before they ever said or did what those documents mention. It's no different than talking behind someones back and thinking they'd NEVER find out, and then telling another friend who's going to speak about it in front of a group, and THEN telling them don't, it could hurt my relationship with so and so. You know what, it's not the person who's releasing the information that's going to hurt the relationship, it's YOU that already hurt the relationship by saying or doing what you did, and then pretending everything is fine between you and that person. It's a load of shit and it SHOULD be said.

    No different than knowing your friend's wife is cheating on him. If you tell him, it's not YOU that hurt the relationship (which I would say because that just isn't right) but the wife who was cheating. That relationship was already done for.

  75. Obligatory XKCD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  76. Blame the victim by danhs7 · · Score: 1, Insightful

    You're using a "blame the victim" type of argument here.

    I would argue, that like nearly all "blame the victim" arguments it is misplaced. You are probably right that the military should have tighter security protocols in-place. However, that isn't the question at hand. Whether or not the US should have tighter security in-place doesn't address the issue of Wikileaks' moral culpability.

    The typical "blame the victim" scenario can be aptly applied here: a rape victim deserved to be raped because of her dress choices. In the same way the rapist is *wrong* and morally culpable, Wikileaks is also wrong and culpable.

    If I leave my door unlocked that does not entitle you to ransack my home and rob me at gun point in the middle of the night. The argument, "you should have locked your door" is simply insufficient.

    So, let's bring the issue back to the uncomfortable nature of what wikileaks actually did. What wikileaks did was damaging to American interests, to the interests of free Western democracies, and to the interests of anyone living under a government where they have the freedom to engage in this online discussion. Let's be clear: what wikileaks did is traitorous and does not advance the ideal of an open, free, accountable society/government. All it does is set us back and advance our enemies.

    After considering that stark reality, no amount of victim blaming can provide consolation enough to offset the actions of Wikileaks.

    1. Re:Blame the victim by dryeo · · Score: 1

      Most of the free world considers freedom of speech to be pretty important. Just because America does not practice what it preaches doesn't make your actions right.
      Personally I want to continue living in a world where I'm free to talk and publish information, especially when true and it seems that America is the biggest threat to freedom to me.
      Perhaps you guys should update your first amendment, something about you only have freedom of speech if it doesn't bother the government.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    2. Re:Blame the victim by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What wikileaks did was damaging to American interests, to the interests of free Western democracies, and to the interests of anyone living under a government where they have the freedom to engage in this online discussion. Let's be clear: what wikileaks did is traitorous and does not advance the ideal of an open, free, accountable society/government. All it does is set us back and advance our enemies.

      After considering that stark reality, no amount of victim blaming can provide consolation enough to offset the actions of Wikileaks.

      This is purely your opinion, not based in reality or facts. Keep your self-serving delusional rants off of places where people make arguments rooted in reality, not neo-con dick-sucking fantasyland.

    3. Re:Blame the victim by gfreeman · · Score: 1

      To continue your rapist analogy:

      The US government is town sheriff, and also the rapist, the Afghan civilians are the victim, and WikiLeaks is the local newspaper. The rapist was dumb enough to video the rape on their cellphone, and one drunken evening emailed the video to a friend. That friend showed the video to WikiLeaks who thought "do we publish this and damage the reputation of the sheriff, and while the sheriff is being impeached/demoted/whatever, some criminals may get away with some crimes". If you want to see the sheriff as the victim here for losing control of their emails, go right ahead - but the real victim still needs justice, and no-one is above the law, not even sheriffs.

      --
      Ceci n'est pas un sig.
  77. The truth will hurt us by querent23 · · Score: 1

    As with the logic behind not releasing video documentation of US abuse of "enemy combatants," we must hide the truth because it will make people hate us. The worse the act, the more closely it must be guarded.

  78. bud. by unity100 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    real life and death like in iraq, afghanistan, and below ?

    http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/US_ThirdWorld/dictators.html

    im expecting a certain level of aptness and awareness from anyone participating in this forum, due to the level of affiliation with technology that finding and wanting to hang out in this place requires.

    as a result of this, i find it infuriating, beyond comprehension that there may be still people who are unaware of the past and ongoing filth on this planet, despite its a fucking google search away. so simple to access.

    and when someone like this comes and reiterates and insists on some bullshit, the very kind of bullshit that allowed these filth to come into being in the first place,

    i call asshole. or, fuck off. or, screw you.

    because, i am a human being with emotions. not an automated truth dispenser unit at the wake of insisted, self-inflicted ignorance of those who prefer that.

    anyone who doesnt like that, should take the very easy option to educate themselves, so, they do not incur emotions like that in other people, like me.

    clear enough ? homie ?

    1. Re:bud. by ushering05401 · · Score: 1

      I have eaten lambs brains at the U.N., marched for Peltier in NYC, raged over Chiapas, urged disclosure on Chile, offended the children of several international leaders to their faces, and held my ground on stage in front of hundreds of humans that disagreed with me on the meaning of sovereignty in times of ethnic cleansing.

      I don't need Google to know how to rock. You, on the other hand, appear to be desperately in need of a clue.

  79. Who gets to decide? by LordNacho · · Score: 1

    This whole WikiLeaks thing got me thinking: How do we know that things labelled "secret" by the government actually deserve to be so labelled? Who ought to have authority over such decisions? There's no way to discuss these things without spilling the beans. Even with guidelines, there will always be borderline cases, as well as decision makers ignoring the rules.

    I can't see "everything should be public" as a sensible principle. Yet I can't see "let XYZ person/people decide on our behalf" as reasonable either.

  80. MOD parent UP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    **chortles** :-)

  81. They should have discretion by danhs7 · · Score: 1

    Yes they should pick and choose. That is what responsible journalistic discretion is about.

    Responsible newspapers don't publish every rumor or sensitive piece of information. They realize that that would have terrible consequences.

    If you want to position yourself in the manner Wikileaks has, you need to accept the burden of journalistic integrity and discretion. It might not be the easiest deal, but no is forcing them to take this job.

    1. Re:They should have discretion by vadim_t · · Score: 1

      Wikileaks aren't journalists and don't pretend to be. They leak whatever they're given and hide the source.

    2. Re:They should have discretion by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      Yes they should pick and choose. That is what responsible journalistic discretion is about.

      Responsible newspapers don't publish every rumor or sensitive piece of information. They realize that that would have terrible consequences.

      If you want to position yourself in the manner Wikileaks has, you need to accept the burden of journalistic integrity and discretion. It might not be the easiest deal, but no is forcing them to take this job.

      Do you have any idea what Wikileaks is? Well, I'll give you a hint. They're not journalists.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    3. Re:They should have discretion by ScrewMaster · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yes they should pick and choose. That is what responsible journalistic discretion is about.

      Responsible newspapers don't publish every rumor or sensitive piece of information. They realize that that would have terrible consequences.

      If you want to position yourself in the manner Wikileaks has, you need to accept the burden of journalistic integrity and discretion. It might not be the easiest deal, but no is forcing them to take this job.

      And, just to make another point, if real journalists had been doing their goddamn jobs these past few decades, there might be less need for a Wikileaks.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
  82. its more a defense by unity100 · · Score: 1

    at the start of this thing, he was trying to remain anonymous. apparently, when they realized that this would lead to his assassination on some roadside, he not only moved out from australia, but also moved into the spotlight. and had tried to keep the spotlight on himself, so that he would be in the mass media, internet, and remembered by people.

    these are measures that makes it exceedingly difficult for private interests or governments to kill him.

  83. A possible reason for US DOS of Wikileaks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    One reason that the US might want to carry out a DOS attack is to prevent the public having access to the site while the Leak is headline news. Many people who wouldn't have heard of or gone near the wikileaks site will be trying to check it out tonight. If its unavailable, they will loose interest and not look at it again or until the next big leak. The headlines move on quickly and the damage is limited.

    Although a DOS attack can't remove the information from the public domain, it can remove it during a critical window of interest amongst the public.

  84. Who? by wildex999 · · Score: 1

    WikiLeaks? Never heard of them =P

  85. wow by unity100 · · Score: 1

    yeah they should. despite they are not intelligence or military specialists. or, hey, since they are not specialists, why dont they take advice from those who are specialists ? like, department of defense, or, nsa, or cia ? they sure would know what to release, and what not.

    had that logic worked we wouldnt be in this mess today.

  86. Awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I would hope that this will be somewhat of a great equaliser in world politics, slowly breaking up the silos and concentrations of corruption (and manipulation) within the cores of our major governments. It reminds me of a youtube video I saw recently where a Vetinarian was breaking up a hematoma in a horses leg, disgusting to watch but impossible to look away.

  87. http://cablegate.wikileaks.org/ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The main www is under DDoS but the "Cablegate" files can be found here:

    http://cablegate.wikileaks.org/

    Seems to be unaffected by the DDoS.

  88. .torrent file by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The same torrent file as as found on wilileaks: http://www.4shared.com/get/l80H9g2O/iraq-war-diary-redactedcsv.html

  89. This will not be damaging by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 2, Insightful

    These files would be damaging if they were carefully analysed and reported.

    But the reality is that the main stream media is by now utterly incapable of performing such a feat. Paying someone competent to sift through these files, pick out juicy pieces that will makes news, while still catching eyeballs and not pissing off friends in the military-industrial-political complex? And all while trying to keep up with their twitter and web 2.0 feeds?

    Impossible. Just run another story about a celebrities baby or something. This leak will be handled the same way as all the others. 3-4 days of hysteria, then the media will completely lose interest once the prospect of having to do actual journalism rears its head.

    --
    May the Maths Be with you!
    1. Re:This will not be damaging by Joe+Jay+Bee · · Score: 1

      But the reality is that the main stream media is by now utterly incapable of performing such a feat. Paying someone competent to sift through these files, pick out juicy pieces that will makes news, while still catching eyeballs and not pissing off friends in the military-industrial-political complex? And all while trying to keep up with their twitter and web 2.0 feeds?

      Wikileaks releases ahead of time to, among other papers (including the New York Times) The Guardian, who can and do pay competent people to sift through the files. It's currently the number 1 thing on their website. Linky.

      The Sun and the Daily Mail probably won't say a thing, mind.

  90. I hate to say this, but... by The+Hatchet · · Score: 1

    National security is fairly important. Frankly, I think he should not be posting things that don't do the public any good, like response plans, stuff like that. On the other hand, "damaging diplomatic relations" is like saying we did some really terrible things and don't want other people to know about it. Documents that show proof of terrible actions of our own government should absolutely be published without a second thought.

    --
    Where is the mod rating for "scary"? Also, ...
    1. Re:I hate to say this, but... by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      National security is fairly important.

      Julian Assange is not a US citizen or resident, so why should he care about the national security of a country which is not his?

    2. Re:I hate to say this, but... by The+Hatchet · · Score: 2, Funny

      Because if terrorists can destroy the peacekeeping efforts of the US in the middle east and destabilize the region, it means more terrorists again, except this time there would be a lot of them that know what they are doing and how to do it. That means danger for all countries.

      --
      Where is the mod rating for "scary"? Also, ...
    3. Re:I hate to say this, but... by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Because if terrorists can destroy the peacekeeping efforts of the US in the middle east and destabilize the region

      There are no "peacekeeping efforts" by the US in the Middle East. If anything, US intervention in Afghanistan, and especially in Iraq, is what destabilized the whole thing that much further (not that it was a calm place before that...). The current presence of NATO troops there does not help matters, either - so long as civilians keep dying, both Taliban and al-Qaeda have a steady supply of fresh recruits willing to kill Americans (or even simply Westerners) in revenge. Heck, if you look at most terrorist acts in the last decade - the majority have the occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan as the main reasons according to the perpetrators themselves!

    4. Re:I hate to say this, but... by The+Hatchet · · Score: 1

      There are so many things wrong with that statement I would laugh if I wasn't so tired.

      First of all, before we were there religious fundamentalists controlled the countries, literally all it took to become a big league terrorist leader is saying "I wanna kill people." Considering the improvement in conditions, removing the taliban from power and the extreme shrinking of al-Qaeda to something that is not much of a threat. Considering the numbers coming back, we have made substantial improvement. And right now Iraq is well on their way to entirely civilian police force. If it wasn't for our refusal to go into Pakistan, Yemen, or Somalia, we could be a lot further in fixing this mess.

      Also, a lot of terrorist attacks are suicide attacks. I would love to know how you know what reasons these men gave, considering there is nothing left of them.

      --
      Where is the mod rating for "scary"? Also, ...
    5. Re:I hate to say this, but... by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      First of all, before we were there religious fundamentalists controlled the countries

      As opposed to now, where the new Afghan constitution, adopted under US occupation, has "Islamic state" and superiority of Sharia over any other laws written into it? Where the only way to avoid death penalty for converting to Christianity is to be declared insane (if you're lucky enough that your case is noticed in the West and outrage follows)? Or how about the wonders of gender equality brought by the shining knights in US field uniform?

      All you did was replace one fundamentalist Muslim faction, which was hostile to you, with another fundamentalist Muslim faction, which is not. Why do you think the locals are any better off because of this?

      What's worse is that the latter faction is the one associated with drug production, so now we moved from Taliban-controlled Afghanistan where poppy growers were shot (and export dwindling) to warlord-controlled Afghanistan which is the worldwide powerhouse of poppy production. Congratulations on that wonderful achievement.

      Also, I spoke to one Afghan refuge when I was studying in New Zealand. Not a fundie. What he told me was this: Taliban are brutes, but they at least maintained a rule of law in areas they fully controlled. You knew what you're not allowed to do, and so long as you don't do it, you won't get beheaded or shot or your limbs chopped off. On the other hand, you knew that your life and property would be safe from others, since then it would be their time on the chopping block. Meanwhile, when NATO-propped Norther Alliance moved in, they didn't have much regard for law - any law. Instead it was indiscriminate looting and rape. Geez, if I were an Afghan woman, would I prefer the guys who force me to wear burqa under the threat of stoning, or the guys who'd "liberate" me from that burqa to rape me right there and then?

      Speaking of Iraq, it was not controlled by "religious fundamentalists". Saddam was one of the more secular leaders in the Arab world, even after Desert Storm. It was that, and his sheer brutality, that kept the country from falling apart along sectional (Sunni vs Shia) lines. Now that he's gone, the place is pretty much only held together by US forces; take them out, and, in a decade at most, you'll get a full-scale religious civil war there.

      And right now Iraq is well on their way to entirely civilian police force.

      It has been "well on its way" ever since Dubya has proudly proclaimed the war to be over in 2003. Why anyone thinks that said police force will be worth anything is beyond me, though. Now that the insurgents know that US withdrawal is inevitable, it only makes sense to lie down and wait, to come back in full force once the troops are out.

      Also, a lot of terrorist attacks are suicide attacks. I would love to know how you know what reasons these men gave, considering there is nothing left of them.

      Suicide attacks are typically perpetrated by members of various terrorist organizations. Behind every suicide bomber, there are many more people who trained him, equipped him, and provided support for the operation. After the attack, the leadership of those organizations takes responsibility and provides the reasons.

    6. Re:I hate to say this, but... by The+Hatchet · · Score: 1

      First of all, leaving a shit system in place where exposing your face by accident gets you stoned to death in the public square as a women is not much better than anything else. We are moving in to stop that kind of thing, and fix those systems.

      One of the more secular religious fundamentalists is still a religious fundamentalist, and some oppression is still oppression.

      Also, most of our forces are out of Iraq, we have some forces, but mostly support and training at this point, and they seem to be managing fine. As long as they can keep the peace and fight off tribes of extremists that arise from time to time they will have the peoples vote. The situation hasn't exactly exploded into violence sine we withdrew the majority of our troops.

      Yes, and as a religious extremist who controls fear in a great way, what do I tell people my reasoning is? That which can benefit me the most if they eliminate the reason. Withdraw and bam, they have free reign with no force attempting to suppress them. If I were trying to turn public opinion in a representative republic (US), then what do I do? I tell them all they have to do is withdraw troops and I will stop. And the fastest way to do that: I blew you up because you are here. I will keep blowing people up until you leave. Anyone with half a brain knows it is a load of shit and that they would be blowing people up no matter what, hell, before we invaded them they flew two damn boeing 747 superliners full of fuel into the world trade centers, killing thousands and destroying a global symbol.

      Really, the bull in that message could really use some work.

      But in hindsight, we should have let the soviets have the middle east. Then the failed states in the middle east would at least be going after countries like China, North Korea and Russia instead of the US and Europe. Irregardless, it is a very unstable region, it has been for a long time, and it is about damn time somebody did something about it. And the US trying to install stable governments that know how to suppress violent tribalism is certainly a step in the right direction. What really should have been done is the elimination of the borders as drawn by Europeans, and replace them with borders along cultural lines. Then at least the fighting would be across country lines instead of internal, and that kind of war is a lot easier to handle from an international perspective.

      --
      Where is the mod rating for "scary"? Also, ...
  91. Spin watching by Chucky_M · · Score: 1
    The next few weeks should be interesting, these releases are an incredible insight into the American political/security mind IF the data is as accurate as we are told to believe.

    The only thing that has me a little bothered is so far each release that is in some way startling and makes a headline actually benefits the USA and does not hinder it in any way.

    Saudi King Wants Iran attacked as do others - er DUH! we all know this, but it being quoted like this makes the USA look like the poor pawn who was being pushed to war but managed to avoid it - go USA!
    Spying on the UN, well no shit, the UN is one of the most corrupt International organisations in the world, if you are not spying on it and the method of decision making you are foolish.
    Negative personal references to other leaders, again all of them help the USA and the prior apology will make no impact as the word is out.
    Anti British comments related to military activities in Afghanistan, well lets just say that is a two way street and the argument is a lot louder when the doors as closed, it might be useful to the US to get this in the open as the UK will not fight their corner in public and it might help keep the Brits quiet about their actual military opinions.

    Basically we need more hard information and we need to trust the sources and this is difficult in this day and age, the DDOS on wiki was the only surprise today as it would only make the information more attractive not less, in the words of that dead Serenity robot rapist "you can't stop the signal mal".

  92. What is this supposed to accomplish? by booyabazooka · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I'm assuming that this DoS can't continue indefinitely, so whatever is being covered up will be revealed as soon as the attack ends, right?

  93. historic insurance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    this is a magnet link to the historic insurance as posted on twitter by wikileaks..

    magnet:?xt=urn:btih:76a36f1d11c72eb5663eeb4cf31e351321efa3a3&dn=insurance.aes256&tr=http%3A%2F%2Ftracker.publicbt.com%2Fannounce

    for some of us piratebay.org is not an option to download the torrent..

  94. I'm wondering ..... by Kiralan · · Score: 1

    Could this be the contents of the huge 'SHA' encrypted file that was released a few months ago? If so, then the only release needed will be the key. Good luck stopping that!

    --
    V for Vendetta: People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people.
  95. Assange is going to be DDOSed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think that pretty soon Julian Assange is going to be under a denial of service attack... It's just a matter of whether the Swedes get him before becomes subject of an "extraordinary rendition" and just disappears.

  96. Then you're a fool. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The difference between drunken politicians and drunken frat boys is that frat boys can't order the application of force, invasion of countries, and destruction of thousands of lives - American and other.

    I'm rather interested to know what sort of 'drunken conversation at a frat party' our agents are having. Though, it of course, will do no good. Not like voting Democrat or Republican is going to clean up our nation, and there's about as much chance of outsiders gaining real power as there is of myself becoming the Queen of England.

  97. War is Hell is the most pathetic argument. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    In these discussions some fucking idiot always says "War is Hell" as a justification for atrocities. It isn't one. We should be BETTER than the fucking terrorists, or else what the hell are we fighting for? Your war-porn masturbatory position or "War is Hell" is a pathetic sham, a cover for committing crimes that should be punished.

    Should the Germans have massacred their communists because they burned the Reichstag? After all, it was an act of terror, they hid among the population, and "War is Hell". Should the British have blown up residential areas of Ireland when they were hit by the IRA? Or parts of Boston for funding through Noraid? Should the US armed forces have blown up apartment blocks in DC when the sniper was there? Should Israel turn the Palestinian territories into glass with nukes? Or the Russians send tanks into Chechnya? These all are terrorists hiding among civilians and, as you point out "War is Hell". Should the US have nuked Vietnam? France have sent armed divisions into Egypt during the Suez crisis?

    So, in short, FUCK YOU. You either stand for being better than the terrorists, or you're just as bad. And if you're just as bad, what the fuck am I fighting to protect? Your attitude brings shame to all of us in the armed forces who want to protect the USA as a state of freedom.

  98. Maybe not so distributed. by drougie · · Score: 2, Interesting

    This may have been a Slowloris DoS attack by some patriotic 2600 guy, not necessarily a massive coordinated multinational assault. That perl script is effective on threading web servers including Apache. I just tested it out, took down my badass 100mbps server (just the web server stalling up until the script is aborted) with a dinky server on a DSL line just by opening up a bunch of TCP sockets really really slowly, using less than 20KB/s. That's Tor friendly.

    Then I installed mod_qos, tried to attack myself again, no slowdown, problem solved.

    If this attack gets the right amount of attention it could turn a lot of people on (4channers mainly who are yapping up Slowlaris as their replacement for LOIC) to DoSing with this software. So for those of you using Apache, you may want to fire up mod_qos (Apache2 instructions). Actually you may want it regardless for general performance purposes.

  99. Doesn't this validify by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That there is an active effort to distort the truth, and that we should publicly condemn it as a bad thing?

  100. So a few hours have passed by EnsilZah · · Score: 2, Interesting

    And things are starting to come out that are somewhat interesting but what's really fascinating to me is that this is sort of like an archive of the correspondence in World War 2 being opened to the public, only it's for right now, or close to now, a snapshot of the history of the present if you will.
    It lets the world see a reflection of itself (though the state-trooper authority sunglasses of US diplomats) and where the path we're on might be leading.
    So it might be a historical moment and it might just be that a bunch of people will get pissed off and and it'll blow over.
    And I should probably get some sleep because I'm babbling.

  101. simple fix. by Bobakitoo · · Score: 0

    Simply point wikileaks.org to any address resolved from www.whitehouse.gov and enjoy the show while the FBI destroy the botnet in just a few hours. Forget anonymous's retaliation, send them the SWAT.

    Blah blah blah, the botnet may be set to target the address. I dont care, it more funny that way.

  102. Yay! by KingMotley · · Score: 1

    n/t

  103. Re:(SECRET) IRANIAN FRONT COMPANIES IDENTIFIED by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This isn't redundant. This was released today. The link is at the very beginning of parent post.

  104. I hope we have matured by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There has never been greater pretext for war before in human history, I hope we have matured enough to withstand that threat.

  105. Would it be proper? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    to update any possibly related wikipedia article to be linked with this data? This would be political history in its purest form.

  106. a little harmful? They named names of supports by Shivetya · · Score: 1

    in both countries basically giving the other side a list of whom to kill. So why would anyone want to cooperate with a government whose important documents are being leaked?

    Sorry, this guy is only pursuing the US documents because he know the US cannot afford to take him out. Anything happens to him, real or not, gets blamed on the US. Which becomes, take him out because the US gets blamed anyway.

    He is doing more damage than good, he went past doing good for others when he indiscriminately releases documents which endanger the lives of others all so he can appear holier than thou.

    --
    * Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
  107. Surely this is comedy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "who come to the US for assistance in promoting democracy and open government" ..The White House

    The white house responds to an information leak by complaining that it jeopardizes it's ability to help other countries create open governments?

    Don't worry, sometime soon that staffer is going to trip over a nuclear warhead carrying a box full of grenades and all our problems will be over.

  108. We already know some act like barbarians by dbIII · · Score: 1

    After all, we've already heard that Richard Armitage threatened to bomb Pakistan "back to the Stone Age". It's hard for a nuclear power to get any more irresponsible and that is why everyone hates North Korea for speaking in exactly the same way (along with a million other things of course).
    The anger is because people will be exposed for what they have done instead of the image they try to project and some may have to face consequences for their actions. I wonder if there is some juicy stuff about embezzlement and bribery in there, with some in the previous administration (eg. Wolfowitz paying his mistress more than Condi Rice) it would come as no suprise.

  109. I'll add a bit more by dbIII · · Score: 1

    "and jeopardize US relations with its allies"

    It's not going to do that since the allied governments know exactly how the USA acts. Even if they didn't, let's consider the example of Israel. The fascists currently running the place had a death squad use fake passports from allied countries as report in all the worlds media and those allies still talk to them. Then there was the incident of piracy on the high seas. Everybody still talks to Israel because they know there is more to the place than one temporary bunch of fascists. In the same way I can't see much changing with relations between the USA and others no matter what turns up. Blind trust of others in diplomacy disappeared after US diplomats found out that Stalin really was as bad as the UK had told them before Yalta.

  110. There's no torrent? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Has anyone found a torrent file for all the latest documents, or they still havent been released? Can only the previous iraq war torrent.

  111. not the droids you seek by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sorry, dude. We elected your wife to act in our interest, behind your back.

  112. DDOS Attach on WikiLeaks by T.S.A. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    After Mr. Pres. Barak Hussain Obama stated "privately" that the wanted to eat the Tessticles of Julian Assange, the T.S.A.s own Janet Neggropontie and her Lap-Dog "John" Pistole leeped into action.

    However, yet again, the Genius minds of the T.S.A. are far far behind, many never graduated from ... third grade, in their abilities.

    After several miss-attempts, and some damage to Comcast servers, the T.S.A. DDOS attack on WikiLeaks proved to have occurred seven hours after the release of the latest batch of "sensitive" State Department communications.

    However, many career diplomates within the State Department are laughing out loud, LoL, since this supports what they have been saying all along. The practice of the President of the United States of America to award a diplomatic post to an "idiot fundraiser" is an idiot policy.

    So the idiocy that Mr. Obama is reading in the evenings is a function of the idiots he has put in place to maintain the idiot policies of the United States of America.

    Every little idiot of the U.S.A. works for the biggest Idiot; Mr. Pres. Barak Hussain Obama.

    T

  113. Think about it though by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "It seems highly unlikely that the US government would do something like this." - by Corbets (169101) on Sunday November 28, @01:49PM (#34366250) Homepage

    Does it?

    "A DoS attack is temporary" - by Corbets (169101) on Sunday November 28, @01:49PM (#34366250) Homepage

    So is people's attention, especially when something else comes along to drag their attention away from that. Good "prestidigation artists" do this ALL the time - see my right hand & what's in it? All the while they're picking your pocket with their other hand...

    "and only calls attention to Wikileaks." - by Corbets (169101) on Sunday November 28, @01:49PM (#34366250) Homepage

    Until the "next big thing" comes along (strange how it always does too). Sure, it may not be the gov't., but first thing that came to mind here at least is that it is they. Either way though, sooner or later? Everything, and I mean everything, "comes out of the wash". Only a matter of time.

  114. The US is at war with everyone. by GNUALMAFUERTE · · Score: 1

    The US government is at war with the entire world. They are also at war with its own citizens.

    They have been fabricating wars for 100 years in order to shape the political landscape as they want, to keep the Lockheed Martin's of the world profitable, to guarantee the permanent supply of expendable puppet third world countries, and to perpetuate the US role as the world's police. A police force that is as corrupt as it gets.

    You guys should all read this. It's old, and if you are a valuable human being you surely know perfectly the work of the greatest old fuck in history. But anyway, here it goes. Nobody could have said it better:

    George Carlin on American Foreign Policy

    ROCKETS AND PENISES IN THE PERSIAN GULF

    History Lesson

    I'd like to talk a little about the "war" in the Persian Gulf. Biiiiig doin's in
    the Persian Gulf. You know my favorite part of that war? It was the first war we
    had that was on every channel plus cable. And, the war got good ratings too,
    didn't it? Got good ratings! Well, we like war!

    We like war, we're a war-like people! We like war because we're good at it! You
    know why we're good at it? Because we get a lot of practice. This country's only
    200 years old and already we've had ten major wars. We average a major war every
    twenty years in this country, so we're good at it! And it's a good thing we
    are, we're not very good at anything else anymore! Hah? Can't make a decent car,
    can't make a TV set or a VCR worth a fuck ... got no steel industry left, can't
    educate our young people ... can't get health care to our old people ... but we
    can bomb the shit out of your country
    alright!

    Especially if your country is full of brown people. Oh, we like that, don't we,
    that's our hobby? That's our new job in the world: bombing brown people! Iraq,
    Panama, Grenada, Libya - you got some brown people in your country - tell 'em to
    watch the fuck out ... or we'll goddamn bomb them!

    But when's the last white people you can remember that we bombed, can you
    remember -- can you remember ANY white people we've ever bombed? The Germans!
    They were the only ones, and that's only because they were trying to cut in on
    our action! They wanted to dominate the world - bullshit, that's our fuckin'
    job!

    Now we only bomb brown people. Not because they're trying to cut in on our
    action, just because they're *brown*!

    Now you've probably noticed I don't feel about that "war," the way we were told
    we were supposed to feel about that war ... the way we were ordered and
    instructed to feel by the United States Government to feel about that war ...
    you see, I tell ya ... my mind doesn't work that way ... I got this real moron
    thing I do - it's called, "thinking," - and I'm not a very good American because
    I like to form my own opinions. I don't just "roll over" when I'm told to.

    Sad to say most Americans just "roll over" [tchock] on command. Not me - I have
    certain rules I live by.

    My first rule:

    I don't believe anything the government tells me. Nothing. Zero. Nope.

    And I don't take very seriously the media or the press in this country, who, in
    the case of the Persian Gulf War were nothing more than unpaid employees of the
    Department of Defense, and who, most of the time functioned as sort of an
    unofficial public relations company for the United States Government.

    So, I don't listen to them, I don't *really* believe in my country, and I gotta
    tell ya folks, I don't get all choked up about yellow ribbons and American
    flags. I consider them to be symbols, and I leave symbols to the symbol-minded.

    Me? I look at war a little bit differently. To me war is a lot of prick waving,
    ok? Simple thing, that's all it is, war is a whole lot of men standing out in a
    field waving their pricks at one another. Men are

    --
    WTF am I doing replying to an AC at 5 A.M on a Friday night?
  115. Oh. The Ironic dialog on that fateful night by dmomo · · Score: 1

    From TFA: Plans for the coup d'etat in Yanaon, then a small French colony in India, are also believed to have been hatched that on the evening of April 11 1954 but nothing actually happened that night.

    Dadala Raphael Ramanayya: Gentlemen, prepare yourselves. This is a great Historical night!!
    Dudes: HUZZZAH!

  116. Not bombing is not really an option by tlambert · · Score: 1

    Unpopular post time...

    To give an analogy, do you think the civilians on a US aircraft would permit a takeover after 911, given what happened when a takeover was allowed?

    I think bombing is far more likely to result in the civilians shunning the insurgents, rather than allowing themselves to be used as cover/hostages.

    I know if someone with a box cutter was on my aircraft attempting to take over, I'd rush him, even though I was unarmed, since even a 30% chance of living through it beats a 100% chance of dying from doing nothing as we all fly into the side of a building.

    So you send the message: "Places where there are insurgents will be bombed". It may not be a perfect solution, but it's the best one the US has been able to come up with so far.

    If you have better ideas, you should contact the Brookings Institute or another think tank whose games theorists are the ones setting US strategic policy via their advice.

    Remember, though, that those are the guys who got us through the cold war without everything going up in mushroom clouds, so you'd better be sure you are smarter than they are first.

    -- Terry

  117. Redaction of names by NY Times/Wikileaks by tlambert · · Score: 1

    How about this, wikileaks goes through every page of the report with the help of multiple well established news organizations redacting names of informants.

    This will not work.

    The economics of news papers these days is such that they can do very little fact checking/redacting/processing of the news information they are handed by wire services and other sources (such as Wikileaks) due to the reduction in budgets which has arisen as dead-tree subscribers have dwindled and their margins have shrunk to near-nothing.

    Online subscribers don't tend to work in that economy either, since, at a minimum, it's become a lowest-bid arena, and aggregators who accept advertising (e.g. google, yahoo, msnbc, etc.) will typically put wire services releases up for free.

    Wkileaks very much resembles "yet another wire service" to the industry these days.

    -- Terry

  118. Now they call it that way... by elsurexiste · · Score: 1

    I thought it was called "being slashdotted".

    --
    I rarely respond to comments. Also, don't ask for clarifications: a brain and Google are faster, believe me!
  119. Not so sure by theolein · · Score: 1

    While I personally have the feeling that Wikileaks has more to do with Julian Assange's ego than with freedom of information, I find myself stuck in a paradox with respect to Wikileaks. On the one hand I find it highly offensive and wrong that wikileaks seems to only publish secret information on the US, given to Assange by disgruntled individuals in the US. On the other, I find it great that finally, someone is screwing over the governments like they screwed us over.

    However, for Wikileaks to maintain its credibility, it'll need to find someone to give it North Korean state secrets on Kim Jong Il's bong collection, info on Osama Bin Laden's guilty pleasures and Chinese plans for the invasion of Taiwan.

  120. The truth is often unflattering... by IBitOBear · · Score: 1

    Thing is, there is "unflattering" as in "he is such a douche and his breath stinks", and there is unflattering such as "while he will agree to the terms, I am sure that this will not cause him to halt the executions performed by the secret death-squads we know he backs."

    Remember that in political terms, as opposed to normal human interactions, "unflattering" is a weasel-word.

    "I just got out of negotiations with Junta Bob and he does not seem trustworthy."

    "I am sure that we are being stalled by the crown prince, he cannot possibly be unaware of the recent police action since the police chief reports to him directly."

    "Abdulla is a figurehead propped up by the sole will of the Tribunal for Religious Purity, and has no actual ability to act in this situation."

    All of these and countless other kinds of vital truths are quite "unflattering" to the persons these truths name, and yet the _are_ vital truths that must be communicated for related issues to be addressed.

    Political situations are almost universally outside the "if you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all" rule, because politics, human rights, and brokering are completely unnecessary when people on all sides are already being "nice". Nice People(TM) don't _have_ death squads, so saying someone has death-squads is not nice, but if they in fact _do_ have death squads it would be unutterably wrong for that information to be held private by some single political officer in the field in the name of being nice to Junta Bob.

    --
    Innocent people shouldn't be forced to pay for inferior software development.
    --"Code Complete" Microsoft Press
  121. Too bad by mrdtr · · Score: 1

    Too damn bad for the US government. If they were truly acting in a respectable and honest manner, this "leak" wouldn't be such a big deal. If you act in such a way that you have to keep secrets - even from your own citizens which you are representing then, and these "leaks" will ruin relationships with fellow countries, that that to me says that this is a government not worth supporting or being in power.

  122. nay by unity100 · · Score: 1

    if something is abused THAT much, it means that it doesnt work.

    1. Re:nay by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Lol.. So you are saying that when something is only obvious buy it's very own nature when it fails, that means it does work despite the entire design of secrecy being that you don't know when it's working.

      Yea, that's the way it works...

    2. Re:nay by unity100 · · Score: 1

      if something fails continually and unstoppably, it means that, it does NOT work.

      there is no 'design of secrecy'. EVERY country now knows each others' secrets. spy satellites, wiretapping, private interests and interest networks. all governments know what each other is doing.

      the only ones this 'secrecy' thing is being effective against, are the citizens.

    3. Re:nay by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Secrecy is by design secret.. How can you think otherwise? and it doesn't matter what another country uses to attempt to defeat that secrecy, the fact they are trying is proof that it's there by design and they are in turn keeping it secret in the process in order to not lose the source of insight on the secrecy.

  123. So the US is a terrorist group? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So the US is a terrorist group? I mean, you seem to be saying that terrorists act this way and that means that the US can and should act that way too, then the USA is a terrorist organisation.

    Just because someone else stole money from my employer doesn't mean I can steal it and not become a thief.

  124. Why hide it, eh? by Fynnsky · · Score: 0

    This is exactly why us Canadians share our secret information openly with the public: Major Spy Secrets Found In Phone Booth

  125. Re:It's efficiency at work by steelfood · · Score: 1

    Instead of putting up the actual news, the editors just went straight to the news on the ensuing /. effect.

    --
    "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
  126. holy cow. by unity100 · · Score: 1

    and it doesn't matter what another country uses to attempt to defeat that secrecy,

    noone is 'attempting' to defeat any secrecy. since 1970s, all kinds of secrets, including hourly rotation schedules of border guards, came out, thanks to increasing electronic surveillance methods and spy satellites. not to mention the spy networks and private interest networks becoming a lot more entangled worldwide.

    now everyone knows what everyone else is doing, EXCEPT citizens.