Slashdot Mirror


Today's WikiLeaks News

In today's episode of As WikiLeaks Turns we learn that WikiLeaks's main web site is back up less than 10 days after EveryDNS terminated the domain name over stability concerns. A 16-year-old Dutch boy suspected of being involved in the pro-WikiLeaks attacks on MasterCard and Visa has been arrested. But Dutch teenagers aren't the only Assange fans in the news. Many top journalists in Australia have sent a letter(PDF) to Prime Minister Julia Gillard today to express their support of WikiLeaks. The Sydney Police have written their own letter however to organizers of a pro-WikiLeaks rally saying that the police oppose a planned demonstration. Finally, special correspondent for The Times, Alexi Mostrous and freelance reporter Heather Brooke were given permission by the judge in the Julian Assange trial to post Twitter updates about the proceedings.

226 of 312 comments (clear)

  1. Looks like the makings of another spectrial... by wierd_w · · Score: 1

    This time with more than just the pirate parties involved.

    but still-- "Police oppose a planned demonstration?" I will have to read the linked article, because that is some fishy sounding shit.

  2. One down by tmosley · · Score: 4, Insightful

    One "hacker" down, 4,999,999 to go!

    1. Re:One down by BitZtream · · Score: 1

      Yea, and probably 2.5 million of them will be peeing their pants by morning so there goes a bunch of them as well.

      Computer courage disappears quickly once you realize you aren't nearly as 'anonymous' as you think you are.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    2. Re:One down by tmosley · · Score: 1

      Mod parent up. Anonymous will be the ones to make the spark that lights the fire of liberty, a fire long absent from this land.

    3. Re:One down by BitZtream · · Score: 1

      ...

      'the wrong side'

      no, I won't be on the side of the idiot 12 year old douche bags who think a DDoS is some form of protest. You're telling me I don't have courage ... yet I'm not the pussy hiding behind a computer monitor sending 'Anonymous' little packets to hurt someone else.

      Just remember, when the shit hits the fan, I'll still be able to kick your ass and I don't have to try to hide to say it. Your nothing but an angsty little pussy, already too stupid to know which side 'the wrong side' is.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    4. Re:One down by tmosley · · Score: 1

      Your anger makes it clear that Anonymous was correct about you.

      Honestly, threatening to beat some one up over the internet? What are you, 15?

  3. tweets? Damn by FredFredrickson · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I can't think of a more useless medium to give updates about a trial.

    OMG! Ass. is up for Qs. Its gonna be bad. He's vervus. SHORT.URL?XVHEHWK

    --
    Belief? Hope? Preference?The Existential Vortex
    1. Re:tweets? Damn by blueg3 · · Score: 1

      For one, your example isn't journalism by a long shot. For another, it's only about half the Twitter limit.

    2. Re:tweets? Damn by Samantha+Wright · · Score: 1

      You're right! A proper journalist would be more subtle than that. Let's fix it.

      Alleged rapist and terrorist Julian Assange has been brought in for questioning. Extradition by the end of the week? #rape #terrorism #news

      --
      Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
  4. Can we get a category? by afabbro · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Can we get a category for wikileaks news? Because I honestly do not care. And that's the point of Slashdot categories: seeing only what I want to see.

    Over the last six months, every time something is posted on Wikileaks, there's a Slashdot article. Now they're coming multiple times a day.

    --
    Advice: on VPS providers
    1. Re:Can we get a category? by Jugalator · · Score: 4, Interesting

      This reminds me of one thing: Why are posts tagged? Can we include posts based on tags? Exclude posts based on tags?
      I never actually realized why we have them, but posts keep getting tagged. *shrug*

      If we can exclude posts on tags, I'm pretty sure filtering out everything "wikileaks" would work here.

      --
      Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
    2. Re:Can we get a category? by poetmatt · · Score: 3, Insightful

      most people don't try to close their eyes to the world, especially when the results of things like this do affect the IT/technology world.

    3. Re:Can we get a category? by Danse · · Score: 2

      This reminds me of one thing: Why are posts tagged? Can we include posts based on tags? Exclude posts based on tags? I never actually realized why we have them, but posts keep getting tagged. *shrug*

      If we can exclude posts on tags, I'm pretty sure filtering out everything "wikileaks" would work here.

      I think the tags are mainly used for searching right now. Would be nice if you could use them for filtering as well. As for me, I don't bother to filter anything, as it's simple enough to just skip over posts I'm not interested in. Some people have difficulty with that.

      --
      It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
    4. Re:Can we get a category? by slimjim8094 · · Score: 1

      I think you're being awfully idealist... in my experience, people are only too happy to close their eyes to the world, even on things that directly affect them.

      --
      I have developed a truly marvelous proof of this comment, which this signature is too narrow to contain.
    5. Re:Can we get a category? by SilenceBE · · Score: 2

      It is kinda funny (or hypocritical but that seems the norm with regards of wikileaks) you have a signature about "free speech and freedom". But don't care about something that is fundamentally about those 2 things... .

    6. Re:Can we get a category? by Delusion_ · · Score: 1

      Wikileaks stories need a category and an identifying icon, as updates are becoming much more frequent. If someone wants to use this to ignore wikileaks updates because they are apolitical and short-sighted, that's their problem—let them. Preferably the icon could be something other than Julain Assange or the wikileaks logo. Ideas?

    7. Re:Can we get a category? by nanospook · · Score: 1

      Personally I have a lot of interest in this topic. People post things all the time on this site that I'm not interested in.. not a biggie..

      --
      Have you fscked your local propeller head today?
    8. Re:Can we get a category? by poetmatt · · Score: 1

      well, the quantity of people is a debate I'm not even going to try to jump into.

      in your experience, some people.

      it's impossible to quantify how many people are ignorant or not, because having a viewpoint doesn't even tell you if people are ignorant or not.

    9. Re:Can we get a category? by sourcerror · · Score: 2

      I currently filter out all Apple news, there's an "Exclusions" dialog on your preferences panel, and you can write in any term.

    10. Re:Can we get a category? by Somewhat+Delirious · · Score: 5, Funny

      Another viable option would be not to click on links you're not interested in. I know...it sounds crazy.

      --
      The surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us.
    11. Re:Can we get a category? by taucross · · Score: 1

      It's a natural reaction to close your eyes when a ball is about to hit you in the face. Can't blame people for following their instincts.

      --
      "In the absence of the ability to establish the attribute of truth they tried to establish the noble attributes."
    12. Re:Can we get a category? by igreaterthanu · · Score: 1

      1. Get an RSS client

      2. Subscribe to Slashdot RSS feed

      3. Set up rule to delete items that contain the string "wikileaks".

      4. Profit

      Seriously though, you should care about Wikileaks, I get your point about there being too much news about this though.

      --
      I dream of a nation where a man is not judged by his skin color but by an number assigned by a credit rating agency.
    13. Re:Can we get a category? by ushering05401 · · Score: 1

      Can't we compromise. Anything from de Sade works for me.

  5. Bradley Manning by gambino21 · · Score: 5, Informative

    Related to this, Bradley Manning has been in solitary confinement for 5 months. And there doesn't seem to be an end, or even a trial, in sight.

    1. Re:Bradley Manning by blair1q · · Score: 2, Interesting

      If he's lucky, they'll give him time served for that, but it's likely to be a sliver of his sentence.

      Security systems are built on trusting the people doing the work. What he did broke that trust, and it broke a law he was reminded of every time he entered a secured area. He was trained in how to deal with improperly classified information, and instead of doing that he tossed it over the wall to someone he didn't even know, and along with it tossed a pile of properly classified information.

      People making a hero of him are ignorant of the law and naive about the need for security.

    2. Re:Bradley Manning by radtea · · Score: 5, Informative

      And meanwhile, Roman Polanski is still free, and it took almost thirty years for the United States to get around to having an international warrant for his arrest issued despite his having actually admitted to sex crimes involving a thirteen year old girl. I guess that doesn't count very much compared to embarrassing powerful people.

      And why exactly is Assange being harrassed for doing something that is far less serious than what this English woman has admitted doing in a major newspaper: having sex with men using condoms deliberately tampered with so she can get pregnant?

      Is the government of England really concerned with the sexual integrity of Swedish womanhood? Or are they just using the legal system to harrass someone who has made them look like the bunch of wankers they are?

      --
      Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
    3. Re:Bradley Manning by gerddie · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Security systems are built on trusting the people doing the work. What he did broke that trust, and it broke a law he was reminded of every time he entered a secured area. He was trained in how to deal with improperly classified information, and instead of doing that he tossed it over the wall to someone he didn't even know, and along with it tossed a pile of properly classified information.

      From the linked article:

      But ultimately, what one thinks of Manning's alleged acts is irrelevant to the issue here. The U.S. ought at least to abide by minimal standards of humane treatment in how it detains him. That's true for every prisoner, at all times. But departures from such standards are particularly egregious where, as here, the detainee has merely been accused, but never convicted, of wrongdoing. These inhumane conditions make a mockery of Barack Obama's repeated pledge to end detainee abuse and torture, as prolonged isolation -- exacerbated by these other deprivations -- is at least as damaging, as violative of international legal standards, and almost as reviled around the world, as the waterboard, hypothermia and other Bush-era tactics that caused so much controversy.

    4. Re:Bradley Manning by IamTheRealMike · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Does anyone in the USA actually believe the constitution has power anymore? I mean, I regularly see Americans argue from the position of "You can't do that, it's unconstitutional" yet the right to not be imprisoned without charges and a trial is the only right that is included in the original text, sans amendments.

      If Manning ends up in a Guantanamo type limbo nobody will be surprised. Very sad. Especially given how unreliable a witness Lamo is. If Lamo is the only thing they have on Manning then a good defence lawyer could make great progress with his case.

    5. Re:Bradley Manning by Motard · · Score: 1

      Related to this, Bradley Manning has been in solitary confinement for 5 months. And there doesn't seem to be an end, or even a trial, in sight.

      And the legal defense funding promised by Wikileaks hasn't found its way to Manning's attorney. I wonder if they've found a 'better' use for it.

    6. Re:Bradley Manning by BitZtream · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Guess he should have thought of that before committing a military crime while he was an active member of the military service. He is governed by a different set of laws that aren't nearly as nice as civilian laws.

      Or at least, he might have thought of that BEFORE HE STARTED FUCKING BRAGGING ABOUT IT.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    7. Re:Bradley Manning by blair1q · · Score: 1, Troll

      Seriously? Someone is using him as a poster boy for a campaign against the paradox of pretrial incarceration in a free society?

      That legal ship sailed a long time ago.

      He's been charged. A judge has ordered him held. The law is being satisfied, as are his rights to due process.

      He's not being tortured. Nobody is any more.

      Fer fuck's sake, people with tiny minds have lost what little they had over this junk.

    8. Re:Bradley Manning by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 1

      Well, he volunteered for the Army, submitted to the security check and swore an oath, then he broke the rules governing security, assaulted another soldier, and violated the Uniform Code of Military Justice, so why are you surprised he is in confinement still?

      He pissed off the Army something fierce and by his actions have made it harder for other, loyal techs in the services, to use logical work arounds like gmail, flash drives, external hard disks for mundane tasks.

      Of course the Army is going to put him in solitary and take away his pillow.

      Wikileaks for it's part has contributed nothing to his defense fund, guess it's more important to keep Assange out of jail and his name in the press.

    9. Re:Bradley Manning by Third+Position · · Score: 2, Informative

      Greenwald is an idiot. A military prosecutor has 120 days to bring a case to trial. If the delay is longer than that, it's at the request of the defense. Manning could have demanded a speedy trial months ago, and there's not much the government could have done about it.

      More likely, he's in solitary for his own protection. If he was put in the general prison population, he probably wouldn't last a week. Most soldiers don't take very kindly to treason.

      --
      American Third Position
      Finally, a real choice!
    10. Re:Bradley Manning by Kittenman · · Score: 1

      Is the government of England really concerned with the sexual integrity of Swedish womanhood? Or are they just using the legal system to harrass someone who has made them look like the bunch of wankers they are?

      This sounds like the type of question my wife asks me, when she says 'Do you want to hang this shirt up now?' or 'Do you feel like a cup of tea?'

      --
      "The greatest lesson in life is to know that even fools are right sometimes" - Winston Churchill
    11. Re:Bradley Manning by copponex · · Score: 5, Interesting

      He's not being tortured. Nobody is any more.

      You do realize that's what the USG claimed last time around, right? And then this organization named WikiLeaks documented that they were lying:

      The WikiLeaks documents reveal numerous cases of torture and abuse of Iraqi prisoners by Iraqi police and soldiers, according to the Qatar-based news agency Al Jazeera, which was given early access to the cache. "It was one of the stated aims of the war to end the torture chambers. But the secret files reveal a very different story. In graphic detail they record extensive abuse at Iraqi police stations, Army bases, and prisons."

      US troops reported the abuse to their superiors on more than 100 occasions, according to the documents, but the military – at the highest levels – ordered troops not to intervene.

      The Monitor has detailed the alleged torture and abuses that have continued in Iraqi prisons since the fall of Saddam Hussein.

      Hopefully, if Manning is being tortured, someone on the staff there has at least a little human dignity and will let the world know. If it were you, I'm guessing you'd convince yourself that he deserved it every time you went to cash your paycheck. Because that's the type of human being you are.

    12. Re:Bradley Manning by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 1

      The English are honoring a Swedish request so that if the tables are turned, the Swedes will honor an English request to arrest someone they want.

      Sweden issued an European Arrest Warrant, so the United Kingdom had to show good faith towards arresting him per the framework all EU members agreed to

    13. Re:Bradley Manning by copponex · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Most soldiers don't take very kindly to treason.

      Actually, they can end up with their own TV shows. It just depends on who they commit treason for. If it's the American public, or even worse, the world's public, you are correct. If they are good little soldiers and stomp on throats at the request of the powerful, well... how else do you think they get promoted?

    14. Re:Bradley Manning by mdielmann · · Score: 1

      Well, at least the US isn't hampered by silly little things like the right to a speedy trial. Oh wait...

      --
      Sure I'm paranoid, but am I paranoid enough?
    15. Re:Bradley Manning by dkleinsc · · Score: 2

      I distinctly remember reading something about a right to a speedy and public trial, and access to council. Mr Manning has had neither.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    16. Re:Bradley Manning by m.ducharme · · Score: 2

      The point of the article that GP quoted from is that solitary confinement of the kind he's being kept under is torture, according to most of the civilized world (and a few US court decisions, to boot).

      --
      Rule of Slashdot #0: You and people like you are not representative of the larger population. - A.C.
    17. Re:Bradley Manning by m.ducharme · · Score: 1

      You caught the news about all Wikileaks' accounts being frozen, didn't you? My bet is, if they haven't passed it along, it's because they don't have it themselves. But that's just speculation on my part. Much like your own post, I guess.

      --
      Rule of Slashdot #0: You and people like you are not representative of the larger population. - A.C.
    18. Re:Bradley Manning by Red+Flayer · · Score: 2

      Someone is using him as a poster boy for a campaign against the paradox of pretrial incarceration in a free society?

      No. Read the link before attempting to refute it in ignorance.

      He's not being tortured. Nobody is any more.

      He's being held in solitary confinement for 23 hours a day, with limited outside contact.

      That's considered torture by a lot of people -- nations, even.

      Read the linked article. The author went into some detail about why it's considered torture in some places, and the deleterious effect it can have on a person.

      You may disagree with the author's opinion that solitary confinement is torture. But what you have claimed they are arguing, is not what they are arguing. Your claim, and refutation of your claim -- I believe this is called a straw man.

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    19. Re:Bradley Manning by Lilith's+Heart-shape · · Score: 1

      If you don't think that solitary confinement is torture, then you haven't experienced it for yourself.

    20. Re:Bradley Manning by vxice · · Score: 2

      "People making a hero of him are ignorant of the law and naive about the need for security." If you are American tell it to our founding fathers. Heroes aren't heroes because they do the easy thing. Hopefully it will be worth it for him.

      --
      every anarchist is a baffled dictator. Benito_Mussolini
    21. Re:Bradley Manning by Red+Flayer · · Score: 1

      He pissed off the Army something fierce and by his actions have made it harder for other, loyal techs in the services, to use logical work arounds like gmail, flash drives, external hard disks for mundane tasks.

      Even in the Army, whistle-blowers have protected status. His mistake was whistle-blowing to the public instead of to superiors up the chain of command. Arguably, though, he would have known going up the chain of command would have been useless... and so public disclosure was the only way to blow the whistle.

      Wikileaks for it's part has contributed nothing to his defense fund, guess it's more important to keep Assange out of jail and his name in the press.

      Or, you know, to keep operating. Wikileaks doesn't have deep pockets. Protecting their sources is not their responsibility, anyway. The responsibility they have assumed is that of providing a means of dissemination of erstwhile secret information.

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    22. Re:Bradley Manning by Motard · · Score: 1

      WikiLeaks Spending Rises Dramatically to $500,000

      The accounts weren't frozen. They just aren't accepting donations on Wikileak's behalf.

    23. Re:Bradley Manning by Red+Flayer · · Score: 1

      Oh, fuck me. I hadn't realized that Wikileaks had promised funding for Manning's defense.

      Please ignore my posting out of ignorance above.

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    24. Re:Bradley Manning by m.ducharme · · Score: 1

      Wikileaks' Swiss accounts were certainly frozen. Also, Paypal's usual practice when they halt services is also to suspend the accounts. I don't know if they did so in this case, but again, I wouldn't be surprised.

      --
      Rule of Slashdot #0: You and people like you are not representative of the larger population. - A.C.
    25. Re:Bradley Manning by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 2

      This wasn't whistle blowing though, it was passing classified documents on to a foreign national.

      I agree, if he had leaked these straight to the NY Times, WaPo or hell, even Salon, he'd not be in the caldron he is in now.

      PS - no biggy on missing that Wikileaks promised Manning money, it came out right at the start of this all when the Apache video came out and got lost in the noise over Wikileaks and Assange.

      I'm sure if someone asked Assange why they've not helped Manning's fund out, he'd skip over the question like he does with all non-fawning questions.

    26. Re:Bradley Manning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I distinctly remember reading something about a right to a speedy and public trial, and access to council. Mr Manning has had neither.

      Yes... for civilians.

      Manning signed on as a member of the Armed Forces, is subject to that legal system. When he signed on he did, in effect, sign away many of his rights as a US citizen.

      Which isn't to condone keeping him in solitary, etc. - but there is a different set of rules in play here.

    27. Re:Bradley Manning by Mike+Van+Pelt · · Score: 1, Informative

      Bradly Manning, as an active-duty member of the military, is subject to the UCMJ, not civilian courts. The rules are different. (And he knew what he was getting into when he took the oath.)

    28. Re:Bradley Manning by Motard · · Score: 1

      No, PayPal said they weren't going to hold the money.

    29. Re:Bradley Manning by __aamnbm3774 · · Score: 1
      I take it you didnt actually RTFA. Because if you had, I think you'd at least want this 22 year old KID to be able to interact with some other prisoners.

      FTFA:

      "EEG studies going back to the nineteen-sixties have shown diffuse slowing of brain waves in prisoners after a week or more of solitary confinement." Medical tests conducted in 1992 on Yugoslavian prisoners subjected to an average of six months of isolation -- roughly the amount to which Manning has now been subjected -- "revealed brain abnormalities months afterward; the most severe were found in prisoners who had endured either head trauma sufficient to render them unconscious or solitary confinement.

      Until he is convicted of something...this is unreal. INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY. I hope you never get charged with Rape or Homicide incorrectly and the police beat the living shit out of you, fuck your mind up, and then find out it was somebody else.

      I doubt you will accept their 'you have a tiny mind' rhetoric as an excuse.

    30. Re:Bradley Manning by radtea · · Score: 2

      More likely, he's in solitary for his own protection.

      Right, that explains why he isn't allowed to exercise in his cell, and has no sheets or pillow on his bed.

      The difference between scientists and non-scientists is not formal training, but attention to detail and the willingness to draw logical inferences from the data.

      In this case, if the reported facts are true it is clear his detention is punishment, before he has been charged with any crime. That may be ok under the Uniform Code of Military Justice or whatever governs the US armed forces these days, but it doesn't justify making things up as you have done.

      --
      Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
    31. Re:Bradley Manning by Third+Position · · Score: 1

      More likely, he's in solitary for his own protection.

      Right, that explains why he isn't allowed to exercise in his cell, and has no sheets or pillow on his bed.

      The difference between scientists and non-scientists is not formal training, but attention to detail and the willingness to draw logical inferences from the data.

      I agree. From TFA:

      And as is true of many prisoners subjected to warped treatment of this sort, the brig's medical personnel now administer regular doses of anti-depressants to Manning to prevent his brain from snapping from the effects of this isolation.

      Given that he's suffering from depression, removing items that could be used for suicide might be a reasonable precaution, no?

      Maybe you're not quite the scientist you thought you were...

      --
      American Third Position
      Finally, a real choice!
    32. Re:Bradley Manning by bug1 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "Speaking of idiots, Assange thinks everything should be open but information that he deems private should be kept out of the public record." - Anonymous Coward

      If Assange thinks everything should be open, why isnt he (or wikileaks) releasing all the information, why are they redacting there information to protect individuals.

      Its ironic that you post as AC while criticizing him, you are an obvious propaganda victim.

    33. Re:Bradley Manning by cold+fjord · · Score: 2

      Hopefully, if Manning is being tortured, someone on the staff there has at least a little human dignity and will let the world know.

      From the article you quoted, but apparently didn't read:

      The WikiLeaks documents reveal numerous cases of torture and abuse of Iraqi prisoners by Iraqi police and soldiers,

      As you may recall, the United States isn't Iraq. Manning is not Iraqi, and is being held in the US. And, for what it is worth, Iraq is a sovereign state. The United States can influence them, but they make their own decisions. The US has been able to influence the Iraqis to improve in many areas, but old habits die hard.

      Bradley Manning will go down in history as the agent of one of the largest thefts of secret documents during wartime* in US history. He knowingly provided them to an actor who he knew would disseminate them as widely as possible, including to the enemies of the United States. The Taliban have made it known they are researching the documents, no doubt Al Qaeda is as well. I doubt he will ever be free again - he will probably be lucky to avoid execution.

      The Taliban and Al Qaeda are going to keep trying. I expect that some people here will not seriously question some of the nonsense they believe until something truly dreadful happens.

      *Yes, the Authorization for Use of Military Force counts.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    34. Re:Bradley Manning by Duradin · · Score: 2

      It's almost like the military has its own laws.

    35. Re:Bradley Manning by __aamnbm3774 · · Score: 3, Informative
      You mean like the Geneva Convention?

      Source :

      Solitary confinement is banned under Common Article Three of the Geneva Conventions as it amounts to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

    36. Re:Bradley Manning by Altus · · Score: 1, Insightful

      If he is depressed, exercise would do him good. Also his depression was likely caused by the lack of exercise and lack of any comfort.

      Plus, as the article says, he has never been on suicide watch. So maybe you should take a closer look at the data before you start talking smack.

      --

      "In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson

    37. Re:Bradley Manning by Duradin · · Score: 1

      Manning isn't a prisoner of war.

    38. Re:Bradley Manning by drakonandor · · Score: 1

      Actually if you bothered to read other people's comments instead of simply jumping on the liberal bus - you'd see that many news stories aren't accusing him of a sex without a condom crime, but refusing to stop once the woman asked.. which is rape.

    39. Re:Bradley Manning by Somewhat+Delirious · · Score: 1

      I do think it's kind of sad how he is being forgotten in the media furror and hysteria. That man is a hero.

      --
      The surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us.
    40. Re:Bradley Manning by Somewhat+Delirious · · Score: 1

      If you think solitary confinement is not torture you should watch BBC Horizon: Total Isolation
      Or read one of the many studies into the effects of solitary confinement.

      --
      The surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us.
    41. Re:Bradley Manning by Somewhat+Delirious · · Score: 2

      There is a lot of research on solitary confinement. A large part of that reseach qualifies it as a form of torture.

      As far as I'm concerned Manning is a hero. He found out things that he didn't want any complicity in and thought the public should be aware of and took an incredible risk to follow his conscience in getting it out.

      --
      The surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us.
    42. Re:Bradley Manning by Somewhat+Delirious · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yeah right. All those soldiers the US government has sent out to fight their wars over the last century knew exactly what they were getting involved in. My god what an incredibly simplistic and easy worldview you must have.
      The whole reason Manning leaked the information to Wikileaks was that he hadn't realised what he had gotten involved in. Thanks in large part to the lies, duplicity and hypocrisy of the responsible politicians and the inane press that believed journalism could be equated to quoting government sources.

      --
      The surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us.
    43. Re:Bradley Manning by BobMcD · · Score: 1

      Cut the guy a tiny bit of slack. He hates Assange, Wikileaks, and Manning. All with the fervor of an employee doing a very good job in the name of his government overseer. Not that this is the case, but one has to respect a job well done for a cause, even when such cause isn't supportable. ;)

    44. Re:Bradley Manning by BobMcD · · Score: 1

      ...Manning will be judged an honorable man who stood up for what was right in the face of terrifying opposition. It is hard to find conduct more worthy of praise than that.

      This.

      I say we pardon him on the courage of his convictions alone, but maybe that's just me.

    45. Re:Bradley Manning by BobMcD · · Score: 1

      Manning isn't a prisoner of war.

      If he were, would he be any more or any less of a human being? It isn't as if 'prisoner of war' status somehow confers differing degrees of what is decent and what is deplorable. The very reason the Geneva Convention even took place was because the various countries around the world had too little decency towards one another during war. It shouldn't matter what the details of the agreement say when the clear spirit of it is being violated.

      For all good and decent human beings, anyway.

    46. Re:Bradley Manning by blair1q · · Score: 1

      You're projecting.

      It's Assange, Wikileaks, and Manning who have broken the law, and are using unsupportable diversions to try to avoid being convicted of it.

      The things they say are their goals are good. The things they have done to try to accomplish those goals are not. They need to quit and let reasonable people try to accomplish those goals.

      P.S. You're not being reasonable here.

    47. Re:Bradley Manning by BobMcD · · Score: 3, Informative

      This claim is false. Remember the 'collateral murder' video? Proper channels were followed, and the request was illegally denied. Imagine that Manning had leveed a successful argument that these things should be released. The request could simply be denied and the entire nature of the proceedings made a state secret. Without leaks, we'd never even know the question was posed, let alone the response, who made it, and why. There is zero expectation that the government will obey its own laws in regards to their secrets, and thus your entire argument that the law offers recourse is invalid.

    48. Re:Bradley Manning by BobMcD · · Score: 1

      P.S. You're not being reasonable here.

      Hence the 'winky'. Good to see you're paying attention, though.

    49. Re:Bradley Manning by grcumb · · Score: 5, Informative

      Guess he should have thought of that before committing a military crime while he was an active member of the military service. He is governed by a different set of laws that aren't nearly as nice as civilian laws.

      Or at least, he might have thought of that BEFORE HE STARTED FUCKING BRAGGING ABOUT IT.

      If he valued his own safety more than anything, perhaps he would have. But let's look at his motivation for leaking the materials:

      To see why that's so, just recall some of what Manning purportedly said about why he chose to leak, at least as reflected in the edited chat logs published by Wired:

      Lamo: what's your endgame plan, then?. . .

      Manning: well, it was forwarded to [WikiLeaks] - and god knows what happens now - hopefully worldwide discussion, debates, and reforms - if not, than [sic] we're doomed - as a species - i will officially give up on the society we have if nothing happens - the reaction to the video gave me immense hope; CNN's iReport was overwhelmed; Twitter exploded - people who saw, knew there was something wrong . . . Washington Post sat on the video David Finkel acquired a copy while embedded out here. . . . - i want people to see the truth regardless of who they are because without information, you cannot make informed decisions as a public.

      if i knew then, what i knew now - kind of thing, or maybe im just young, naive, and stupid . . . im hoping for the former - it cant be the latter - because if it is were fucking screwed (as a society) - and i dont want to believe that were screwed.

      Manning described the incident which first made him seriously question the U.S.Government: when he was instructed to work on the case of Iraqi "insurgents" who had been detained for distributing so-called "insurgent" literature which, when Manning had it translated, turned out to be nothing more than "a scholarly critique against PM Maliki":

      i had an interpreter read it for me and when i found out that it was a benign political critique titled "Where did the money go?" and following the corruption trail within the PMs cabinet i immediately took that information and *ran* to the officer to explain what was going on he didnt want to hear any of it he told me to shut up and explain how we could assist the FPs in finding *MORE* detainees

      i had always questioned the things worked, and investigated to find the truth but that was a point where i was a *part* of something i was actively involved in something that i was completely against

      And Manning explained why he never considered the thought of selling this classified information to a foreign nation for substantial profit or even just secretly transmitting it to foreign powers, as he easily could have done:

      Manning: i mean what if i were someone more malicious- i could've sold to russia or china, and made bank?

      Lamo: why didnt you?

      Manning: because it's public data

      Lamo: i mean, the cables

      Manning: it belongs in the public domain -information should be free - it belongs in the public domain - because another state would just take advantage of the information try and get some edge - if its out in the open it should be a public good.

      That's a whistleblower in the purest and most noble form: discovering government secrets of criminal and corrupt acts and then publicizing them to the world not for profit, not to give other nations an edge, but to trigger "worldwide discussion, debates, and reforms." Given how much Manning has been demonized -- at the same time that he's been rendered silent by the ban on his communication with an

      --
      Crumb's Corollary: Never bring a knife to a bun fight.
    50. Re:Bradley Manning by X.25 · · Score: 1

      He's not being tortured. Nobody is any more.

      And you know that for sure because... ?

      Fer fuck's sake, people with tiny minds have lost what little they had over this junk.

      You had nothing to lose, it seems.

    51. Re:Bradley Manning by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 1

      Until he is convicted of something...this is unreal. INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY. I hope you never get charged with Rape or Homicide incorrectly and the police beat the living shit out of you, fuck your mind up, and then find out it was somebody else.

      I doubt you will accept their 'you have a tiny mind' rhetoric as an excuse.

      Innocent until proven guilty applies to the US justice system. Manning is being held by the military, which are outside the US justice system (otherwise, every soldier with a registered kill would have to be locked up for manslaughter). They do, however, still have to hold to the Geneva Convention.

    52. Re:Bradley Manning by blair1q · · Score: 1

      Proper channels were not followed. Reuters was trying to get the video from the military, and Assange released it. Reminds me of how W went into Iraq before Hans Blix could finish his investigation and eliminate WMD as an excuse.

    53. Re:Bradley Manning by blair1q · · Score: 1

      The smiley was ambiguous. I'm always paying attention.

    54. Re:Bradley Manning by BobMcD · · Score: 2

      Or at least, he might have thought of that BEFORE HE STARTED FUCKING BRAGGING ABOUT IT.

      To be completely fair, I don't believe he did. I've been suspicious since I first heard the telling that Lamo was operating a sting on Manning at the gov's behest.

    55. Re:Bradley Manning by BobMcD · · Score: 1

      ...And as every U.S. military recruit is taught before going to boot camp...the punishment for treason in times of war is death. He's getting off easy so far.

      Any American who'd willingly kill him is displaying the only actual example of treason in this scenario.

    56. Re:Bradley Manning by dkleinsc · · Score: 2

      The rules are different, but the rights in question don't go away just because he's a soldier.

      Access to council: section 832. Art. 32. (b) and section 838. Art. 38. (b)
      Speedy trial: section 810. Art. 10.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    57. Re:Bradley Manning by skarphace · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the links. So far it has all been speculation that this would happen. Though I also heard that names of people like cooperators were actually redacted. Also considering that newsweek article cites only a 'intelligence officer', I'll take it with a grain of salt.

      I'd like someone to actually point out to me a record in the leak that has an informant. So far I've only seen conjecture.

      --
      Bullish Machine Tzar
    58. Re:Bradley Manning by BobMcD · · Score: 4, Informative

      Proper channels were not followed. Reuters was trying to get the video from the military, and Assange released it. Reminds me of how W went into Iraq before Hans Blix could finish his investigation and eliminate WMD as an excuse.

      Don't change the subject.

      The proper order is:

      1) Reuters tried, repeatedly to get the video from the military and was denied, repeatedly

      2) Manning leaked it

      3) Wikileaks (Assange) published it

      You're asserting that there was not adequate effort during step '1' above, but this simply not true. Reuters conducted their own investigation into the deaths of their employees, including a properly filed and processed FOIA request, in 2007. It was 'blocked by the Pentagon' that same year. The leak didn't occur until 2009.

      The government lied and would never have revealed the truth.

      This is but a single example, as well. I don't wish to derail this topic, but what of the Pat Tillman/Jessica Lynch situations? Again, I say there is zero expectation that proper channels would be effective. Leaks are not necessarily the only answer, but they are acceptable in light of the alternatives.

    59. Re:Bradley Manning by Anonymous+Cowpat · · Score: 1

      I was thinking about this WRT Assange, and this bizarre 'remand' system we have in the UK. The government convinces a judge that a person needs to be detained to ensure their appearance for trial, so they just get shoved in with the general prison population as if that's the only possible facility to keep people in.
      Far better to have secure remand hostel facilities where people have individual rooms (rather than cells), privacy, general liberty within the walls (no 'lights out' time, for instance), unlimited access to TV, DVDs, exercise, etc., (limited) access to the internet, visitors, conjugal visits. Basically, everything except the freedom to leave or obvious means to influence their case. This would, of course, be horrendously expensive - perhaps that would encourage judges to avoid holding people on remand.
      Infact, there is presently no real deterrent to holding people on remand, as, while remand counts as imprisonment for the purposes of 'time served' if the accused is convicted, it doesn't count as imprisonment for the purposes of paying compensation if the accused is not convicted.

      --
      FGD 135
    60. Re:Bradley Manning by Red+Flayer · · Score: 2

      It's Assange, Wikileaks, and Manning who have broken the law, and are using unsupportable diversions to try to avoid being convicted of it.

      Some things are more important than not breaking the law.

      Without breaking the law, the "things they say are their goals" would not have gotten enough attention to do any good.

      It's also important to note that the governments' reaction to them is part of their strategy to focus public attention on the problems they are trying to get fixed.

      But go ahead, keep toeing that line. You're a good boy, I'm sure you'll get your table scraps someday.

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    61. Re:Bradley Manning by rtfa-troll · · Score: 1
      The traitor is you. Quoting from the article you seek to publicize:

      "KUNG-FU TERRORISTS TO TARGET WEMBLEY"

      What the hell? You are afraid that a few terrorists with kung fu powers can overpower hundreds of passengers on a plane. You coward.

      We hijack planes and they are then converted into bombs that can be dropped on to crowds packed into football stadiums, or rammed into skyscrapers during prime-time, killing a quarter of a million in a quarter of an hour.

      There is no way even a mass hijacking will kill quarter of a million. The article says, talking of a reinforced door that "the cabin crew removed it from its hinges", but when we look at the original articles it's pretty clear that there were crew on both sides and so the door was removed from the cockpit side (where the screws are). What you are spreading is pro-terrorist bluster propaganda; giving the terrorists the oxygen of publicity they need; if we were in a war (and we are not) then you and the daily express should be treated as the Quislings you are. Refuse to be frightened. Refuse to be afraid.

      --
      =~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();
    62. Re:Bradley Manning by Red+Flayer · · Score: 1

      This wasn't whistle blowing though, it was passing classified documents on to a foreign national.

      I see what you're saying... but IMO whether or not it was a foreign national is completely beside the point. All of the organizations you mention distribute their publications in the US. Wikileaks coordinates with organizations like that to publish in the US.

      So the problem is that he leaked to a foreign intermediary? One that is not an established reputable publisher?

      If you wanted to blow the whistle, what's the best bet? Leak to an organization that will disseminate it widely in the interest of public knowledge? Or leak to an organization that would twist it to suit their purposes (as any of the three orgs you mentioned would do)?

      As for whether he'd be in deep doo-doo if he leaked to one of those established orgs... I disagree 100%. He'd still be in the cauldron -- he embarassed the powers that be. Sure,the charges he'd be facing wouldn't be as serious, but he'd still be up the creek.

      I'm sure if someone asked Assange why they've not helped Manning's fund out, he'd skip over the question like he does with all non-fawning questions.

      I'm not sure why you end every post with a denigration of Assange's character. His character is a superfluous matter. It's almost like you're trying to link support of Assange's character with support of his ideals. That's disingenuous.

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    63. Re:Bradley Manning by SETIGuy · · Score: 1

      People making a hero of him are ignorant of the law and naive about the need for security.

      People demonizing him are naive if they believe that every foreign government with an interest in those cables hadn't already purchased them from one of the 3.5 million poorly paid people that had access to them.

    64. Re:Bradley Manning by SETIGuy · · Score: 1

      What law has Assange broken? Are you referring to the Espionage Act of 1917? Eugene Debs was sentenced to 10 years under that act. His crime was giving a speech opposing US entry into WWI in which he also quoted the first amendment. How dare he think he had a right to speak! The Espionage Act was unconstitutional then and it's unconstitutional now.

      Or are you talking about the crime of refusing to submit to a test for STDs upon the demand of a past sex partner? That's poor character, but not a crime. But apparently in Sweden, it retroactively makes consensual sex into rape. I hear that not calling the next day is now considered to be arson in Sweden.

    65. Re:Bradley Manning by gerddie · · Score: 1

      It's Assange, Wikileaks, and Manning who have broken the law,

      I understand that Manning broke the law.

      However, leaving the sex allegations aside, which law did Assange (and in extension Wikileaks) actually break?

    66. Re:Bradley Manning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1
      Since you link to a sensationalist story on the website of a fleabitten jingoist sensationalist rag like the fucking Daily Express then I'm not surprised you're having trouble reading between the lines and forming your own opinion. The point is, the US government lies, has lied and will lie again; they will continue to lie until...well, whatever disaster consumes the earth. Sun going supernova, asteroid, plague...whatever. The proof that they have lied and are lying is screaming, begging to be seen and heard. It's out. No more plausible deniability, no more "the information wasn't clear", because we've seen up their skirt. The US government knew there was torture going on and lied about it. Fact. They lie because years and lives later, people are still being tortured in Iraqi prisons. So what have they achieved? Well, we stopped Saddam's forces torturing people, and after a brief spell where the US were torturing prisoners, now we have some new guys doing the torturing. Awesome. Bang up job! Well done! That sure is progress.

      You can ignore the cables, and believe everything the government say and hope that they're only lying about the small stuff I suppose. Gossip about Angela Merkl, Julia Gillard or that Putin wears Aquaman jammies. Hahaha! Silly government! LOL! j/k. But day by day, we're being shown more and more lies. There comes a point when the government saying "we don't torture people anymore" doesn't cut the mustard.

      The idea that any one person on Slashdot can say categorically that the US does not torture people is fucking ridiculous. To then go on to say that "Nobody is anymore"? Really? Really? Well, I guess now we know where all the Crack is; or, rather, was, before it was sprinkled on blair1q's cornflakes.

      Willful indifference and ignorance aside....the elephant in the room, the one thing that seems to have been forgotten, ignored or brushed under the carpet, is how in the name of Zeus' butthole did this kid get his hands on so much classified/unclassified intelligence? This quote from a Taliban intelligence officer, from the Newsweek article you linked to, speaks volumes, and I don't believe it's to the detriment of Bradley Manning, but speaks to the ineptitude of US Intelligence:

      “America is not a good protector of spies.”

      Fuckin' A they're not.

    67. Re:Bradley Manning by Capsaicin · · Score: 1

      Seriously? Someone is using him as a poster boy for a campaign against the paradox of pretrial incarceration in a free society?

      That legal ship sailed a long time ago.

      Pre-trial incarceration is one thing, but it must be limited. Having your case dealt with promptly by a court is a human right, being left to rot waiting is a human rights violation. You know "justice delayed is justice denied" and all that.

      Fer fuck's sake, people with tiny minds have lost what little they had over this junk.

      How terribly frustrating -- people have differing opinions!

      --
      Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
    68. Re:Bradley Manning by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      If Assange thinks everything should be open, why isnt he (or wikileaks) releasing all the information, why are they redacting there information to protect individuals.

      Well...maybe not everything.

      Taliban Seeks Vengeance in Wake of WikiLeaks
      Leaked U.S. Intel documents listed the names and villages of Afghan collaborators—and the Taliban is starting to retaliate.

      After WikiLeaks published a trove of U.S. intelligence documents—some of which listed the names and villages of Afghans who had been secretly cooperating with the American military—it didn’t take long for the Taliban to react. A spokesman for the group quickly threatened to “punish” any Afghan listed as having “collaborated” with the U.S. and the Kabul authorities against the growing Taliban insurgency. In recent days, the Taliban has demonstrated how seriously those threats should be considered. Late last week, just four days after the documents were published, death threats began arriving at the homes of key tribal elders in southern Afghanistan. And over the weekend one tribal elder, Khalifa Abdullah, who the Taliban believed had been in close contact with the Americans, was taken from his home in Monar village, in Kandahar province’s embattled Arghandab district, and executed by insurgent gunmen.

      The violence may just be beginning. According to Agha Lali, the deputy head of Kandahar’s provincial council, threatening letters have been delivered to 70 elders in Panjwaii district. While it is unknown whether any of the men were indeed named in the WikiLeaks documents, it’s clear the Taliban believes they have been cooperating with Western forces and the Afghan government. One short handwritten note, shown to NEWSWEEK, said: “We have made a decision for your death. You have five days to leave Afghan soil. If you don’t, you don’t have the right to complain.” The screed, written on the letterhead of Mullah Mohammed Omar’s defunct Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, bore the signature of Abdul Rauf Khadim, a senior Taliban official and former inmate at the American lockup in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, who had been released into—and subsequently escaped from—Kabul’s custody last year.

      The frightening combination of the Taliban spokesman’s threat, Abdullah’s death, and the spate of letters has sparked a panic among many Afghans who have worked closely with coalition forces in the past, according to a senior Taliban intelligence officer who declined to be named for security reasons. The officer said he has seen reports of Afghans rushing to U.S. and coalition bases in southern and eastern Afghanistan over the past few days, seeking protection and even asking for political asylum. (U.S. military officials would not verify this information.) The Taliban officer claimed that the group’s English-language media department continues to actively examine the WikiLeaks material and intends to draw up lists of collaborators in each province, to add to the hit lists of local insurgent commanders.

      WikiLeaks Comes Under Fire from Rights Groups

      After drawing ire from officials in Kabul and Washington who claimed the WikiLeaks files put the lives of NATO soldiers at risk, Assange received a letter from a coalition of leading human-rights groups last week that criticized his decision to publish the names of hundreds of Afghans identified in the war logs as helpers of the NATO war effort, saying that this could make them targets of the Taliban. WikiLeaks joint-published the Afghan documents with the New York Times, the Guardian and the German newsmagazine Der Spiegel. While those publications redacted names in the documents they published, WikiLeaks' version was largely unedit

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    69. Re:Bradley Manning by Serious+Callers+Only · · Score: 1

      It's Assange, Wikileaks, and Manning who have broken the law, and are using unsupportable diversions to try to avoid being convicted of it.

      Has the New York Times also broken the law?

      Do you believe in the right to a fair trial, and when will Manning get one, or do you not care?

      Do you believe those accused of a crime should be innocent until proven guilty in a court of law?

      If so your statement above is false, as none of the three people/orgs you mentioned have been tried, or even formally accused, of any crime.

    70. Re:Bradley Manning by boxwood · · Score: 1

      They are not redacting the names of public figures. We know all about Hilary Clinton's opinions of different world leaders because they did not redact things like "secretary of state" or "ambassdor to wherever". We know about private moments with foreign leaders like the president of france and his son playing with a cute bunny rabbit.

      Julian Assange obviously believes that private information on public people is fair game. So him being a public figure all information on is private life should be aired out for everyone to see. Anything less then he's a hypocrite.

    71. Re:Bradley Manning by VShael · · Score: 1

      Heck, Oliver North committed treason, and there were plenty of people who wanted him to be PRESIDENT.

    72. Re:Bradley Manning by bug1 · · Score: 1

      He is bravely and selflessly putting his life and liberty on the line, he is standing up for the rest of us, these leaks assist democracies around the world to hold their government accountable and serve as a warning not to misbehave in future.

      If the worst thing you think of him is that he is a hypocrite, then i suggest you should still support him and his work, lest you demand perfection from everybody.

    73. Re:Bradley Manning by bug1 · · Score: 1

      STOP PRESS: The lives of people who live in the middle of a war zone are at risk !!!

      Of course its only fair to blame wikileaks and their words, all the people with guns and just there to _protect_ them, right ?

      "No U.S. intelligence sources or practices were compromised by the posting of secret Afghan war logs by the WikiLeaks website" - the Pentagon

    74. Re:Bradley Manning by blair1q · · Score: 1

      Don't change the subject.

      I wasn't. I was using a simile. Pay attention.

      The proper order is:

      1) Reuters tried, repeatedly to get the video from the military and was denied, repeatedly, because they kept asking the same people and didn't escalate it to the classification authority (which is the President, for all classified info; everone else has delegated and sub-delegated authority).

      2) Manning illegally transferred it to unsecured equipment and then handed it to uncleared people who had been soliciting it.

      3) Assange made one malformed demand to the Pentagon to declassify it, along with all of the unrelated information that came with it, was denied, failed to escalate to the classification authority, didn't even try to use it to get the delegation EO enforced, saw the publicity potential, and released it.

      The FOIA law doesn't say you're allowed to steal what you can't get through FOIA. It doesn't override the classification laws, though when it's followed it can cause the classification laws to be enforced properly. The correct action when the Pentagon fails to do that isn't to steal the information, it's to get the people who denied you the information punished for failing to follow the law. Can the whole thing get byzantine? Yes. But byzantine is a lot better than stealing classified information and releasing it in a way that endangers people who don't deserve to be further endangered.

      In other words, the correct defense against a great hypocrisy is not to commit a greater hypocrisy.

      Hm. I like that. It should be chiseled in marble above every door to every courtroom.

    75. Re:Bradley Manning by BobMcD · · Score: 1

      I think we've arrived at a limit here. Some points:

      A) "They failed because they could not get the President to intervene," is a ridiculous standard. Unconstitutionally absurd, in fact.

      B) There's no evidence that anyone solicited Manning to do anything, and his statements directly contradict that. Look it up.

      C) The potential for publicity is not relevant. The fact that you think it would be relevant is evidence of your bias against the situation. Imagine a situation where only the darkest corners of the internet would have noticed and the ethical/moral situation doesn't change.

      D) Illegal actions can often be a proper remedy to bad acts from one's government. You and I have discussed this at length, and it saddens me deeply to see you resort back to an 'illegal is bad' position when you're genuinely capable of a lot more depth than that.

    76. Re:Bradley Manning by blair1q · · Score: 1

      A) No, it is not. At the point that the President himself says "it's classified therefore it's classified", you have a constitutional problem. Until that point there is always someone you can go to who has the authority to order declassification and/or prosecute over it.

      B) If nobody at Wikileaks did anything to solicit manning, how did he know to go to Wikileaks instead of the NY Times? Directly soliciting him is hard to prove. The fact that he got the idea from them and gave them the data is proof they solicited it. The NY Times doesn't post requests for classified information. Wikileaks does. That's a big difference in their culpability for the actions of people who steal classified data. Assange has discussed how he coordinates with leakers even before they submit data, probably before they remove it from secure facilities.

      C) The potential for publicity is Assange's reason for doing what he does. I have no bias. I am basing my opinion on the facts, and the facts say that Assange is an egotist. Ask his own organization. They've tried to get him to lower his profile or recuse himself, and some have left Wikileaks because of it.

      D) Illegal is bad when legal is still a valid course of action. Statements like "zero expectation that proper channels would be effective" is capitulation to the desire to perform an illegal act, encouraged by the prospect of becoming a folk hero. But you're not a hero; you're just too lazy to do things the right way.

      In 1971 Daniel Ellsberg had no other recourse. In 2010, the law specifically details that people who improperly classify data are the ones committing a crime and the people who blow the whistle on them in the appropriate manner are to be protected.

      So far, there has been no just cause to commit a crime to get any American secrets declassified.

      Manning and Assange are not heroes, they are criminals.

    77. Re:Bradley Manning by BobMcD · · Score: 1

      A) Demonstrate the ease at with one can get the President to do them personal favors and I'll concede the point.

      B) Wikileaks isn't new. Darknets existed long, long, long before. I'll not allow you to argue that Wikileaks is soliciting Manning to do things by merely existing. That's not only loose logic, but it's dangerous.

      C) Right, all entirely irrelevant to the topic, for all parties except you. You ignored my request in your reply. Reflect on that.

      D) Yes and no. But even if 'bad' is a metric satisfied, so what? Bad that does some good is better than nothing. And that's even stipulating that enough requests directly to Barack Obama will result in the government never lying to us again - which isn't reality and we both know that. Yet even in this fantasy, there still exists the viable avenue of leaks when the established process isn't working.

      Manning and Assange are heroes AND criminals. These are not exclusive terms, as we have discussed already at length.

    78. Re:Bradley Manning by blair1q · · Score: 1

      A) Showing the President that you have credible evidence of criminal activity in the classification of government information is not asking for a "personal favor."

      B) Wikileaks is not the NY Times. Allowing anyone with a server to pretend to be a protected member of the Press (as in "freedom of the Press") is even more dangerous, as it legalizes all forms of espionage provided the information makes its way to one of these Darknets. The NY Times intent is journalism. Wikileaks' intent is destabilization and damage. Even so, the NY Times is much, much more careful when dealing with classified information, and knows how to coordinate declassification with the proper authorities to avoid causing harm. Assange releases data with little redaction (though he's starting to learn to talk like he does it correctly) and threatens to do a full, raw dump of everything he has to guarantee his personal safety and freedom. He's as much as taken our informants hostage so he can continue promoting himself.

      C) Reflect on the fact that there is no request relating to this.

      D) "Bad that does some good is better than nothing." Wrong. So utterly and totally wrong. When you can do the good without doing the bad, and you do the bad anyway just because it's fun or profitable, the good it does is not a justification. We have laws that protect us from an evil government, and refusing to use those laws means that you're the one that doesn't want the government ever to learn to be good.

    79. Re:Bradley Manning by BobMcD · · Score: 1

      A) Getting two minutes of an audience, however, would be. It isn't as if one can simply take a number and wait to be seated in the Oval Office. Getting the President to do anything that wasn't booked months ago is absolutely, positively non-trivial.

      B) The First Amendment means that we're all 'the press'. The law has no rightful power to differentiate further than that.

      C) "Imagine a situation where only the darkest corners of the internet would have noticed and the ethical/moral situation doesn't change."

      D) I eat meat. This is bad for the animal, but very good for me. It would be difficult indeed to find a 'good' that no one anywhere ever could consider 'bad' in some way. Further, circumventing the process isn't 'refusing to use those laws' - the option to use those laws for other matters still exists, and is in fact strengthened with these other falsehoods exposed and a part of the public record. The only 'bad' we have here is some trust being broken. Big hairy deal - especially in comparison to the deceit revealed.

    80. Re:Bradley Manning by blair1q · · Score: 1

      A) Are you totally uninformed as to how government works? You send the White House documentation of your evidence. They'll take one look at it and raise holy hell. If they don't, then you have a case for taking matters into your own hands.

      B) No, the press is the press. You are not the press. Read up on Constitutional law. Between the courts and Congress, it's been well-defined exactly what "Free Press" and "Free Speech" mean. BTW, in case you missed last time I explained it, the NY Times didn't get away with the Ellsberg case purely because of free press. The Supreme Court decided that the power of the President to declare anything a secret was too broad when the press had access to the information; it struck down the breadth of it without defining anything, so the Times got away with it. That's why the current Executive Order 13526 spells out what is and isn't legally classifiable, and who has the authority to declassify improperly classified info. No, it's not automatically unclassified just because it looks like it shouldn't be classified, nor even if a judge says it shouldn't be. A court would have to hand it to the Pentagon or the White House to be declassified, or if they won't do it, would have to find someone with competence and designate them to do it. Then it would be redacted so that the parts that legally are classifiable stay classified.

      C) So rhetorical musings are now requests? Okay, I'll bite: If nobody would notice, Assange wouldn't be doing any of this. And if Assange weren't in it for the thrills, he'd have done it the legal way in the first place, and stepped down by now to relieve Wikileaks of the effects of his mistakes.

      D) Good and bad are subjective. Agreed. However, if you believe killing animals is bad, killing the animal would be bad if you had no valid use for its flesh. And if you had a valid use for it, but could get it from the animal without killing the animal, it would be bad without doing good to kill the animal. Releasing the improperly classified information is like getting milk, but releasing the properly classified information is like cutting out your mother's heart. Oops, I made a rhetorical shift, there; but then, we aren't talking about cattle, we're talking about the lives of people who are trying to create a society in which crazy people wearing bomb vests aren't an unchecked world power. People informing on terrorists = good. Terrorists killing informants = bad. People getting improperly classified information declassified = good. People indiscriminately releasing properly and improperly classified information = bad.

    81. Re:Bradley Manning by BobMcD · · Score: 1

      I'll admit, you're wearing me down. Your mind is impenetrable and you cannot see to reason.

      I'll just sum up by pointing out that you're not as naive as you claim to be. You simply cannot believe about three quarters of what you're saying, you cannot possibly be so dense as to keep repeating the same false hoods, cannot possibly be so careless as to have failed to pick up a single nuance thus far.

      In short, I'm convinced you're faking it, and I'm done spending time with you. Take care.

  6. Re:Whoo, typos by gerddie · · Score: 3, Funny

    ... but it's our preciouss.

  7. Is there still an online WikiLeaks IRC anywhere? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    WikiLeaks used to have a chat running online at https://chat.wikileaks.org/ . With that chat apparantly missing, does anyone know if WikiLeaks have an official IRC chat running at all?

  8. The proof is in the Opposition by redelm · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Step back and look a bit. Assange may be more ape than angel, but he still has rights various powers are working hard to deny him -- why? It appears they've caved on bail, and eventually the British system grinding slowly and ever-so-carefully will get around to reviewing some substance of the matter. I'm a bit surprised extradition for "material witness" warrents is included, or to a place without traditional protections (right of silence). Even more unusual would be extradition for an offense which is not a crime in the holding country. But hey, it is their treaty, and the Brits did goofy things when they were after the IRA.

    At a higher level, this just indicates the extraordinary influence (coersion? CIA blackmail?) the US wields. Just why would Sweden (of all places) dance to Hillary's tune? Their politics runs more the opposite. Some feminists might like the broadening and exposure of sexual misconduct laws, but the more thoughtful might consider this stretch happens on the backs of women who are indisputably abused. Dubious claims and outright false allegations justify unfortunately piercing scrutiny of victims and further humiliation.

    Britian is similar. First we had the unbelieveable spectacle of a Labour government supporting the American invasion of Iraq, and maintaining support after WMD unfound and Tony Blair putting down three quite representative backbencher revolts. They will grind it all through very carefully, trying to stay reasonable lest they suffer the voter backlash that Sweden is almost certain to see.

    Astonishing how the US gets people to jump in front of a bus. Proof more Wikileaks are needed.

    1. Re:The proof is in the Opposition by Sique · · Score: 1

      What balls do you need to call a single person without any physical power over you sitting in a cell in another country a douche?

      If that's all you can say about the balls of American politicans, you are doing them a disservice. They probably can better than that.

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    2. Re:The proof is in the Opposition by lip_spork · · Score: 1

      At a higher level, this just indicates the extraordinary influence (coersion? CIA blackmail?) the US wields. Just why would Sweden
      (of all places) dance to Hillary's tune? Their politics runs more the opposite.

      ...or perhaps even relatively left leaning Sweden is also no fan of somebody who's demonstrated a willingness to publish whatever state secrets happen to fall in his lap.

    3. Re:The proof is in the Opposition by pyalot · · Score: 2

      Of course if these same secrets where to fall into the laps of say an "established" news organization, there's nothing wrong with that. It's only those troublesome internetkids you make life tough for, if you happen to be the Guardian or the NYT everything's fine.

  9. Re:The Good Wikileaks Does by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    And until the people know the truth, we can not change a thing.

  10. Re:The Good Wikileaks Does by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    is not justification for the bad Wikileaks does.

    What is no justification for the bad Wikileaks does?

  11. Hasty Assembly Permit by eldavojohn · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This time with more than just the pirate parties involved.

    but still-- "Police oppose a planned demonstration?" I will have to read the linked article, because that is some fishy sounding shit.

    Let me help you:

    The assistant commissioner added that without a court notice authorising the rally, protesters and organisers would not have the support of the NSW Police Service.

    I don't know about Australia but in America you need a permit after your party gets to be a certain size on public property. The assistant commissioner stated:

    "Under Section 26 of the Summary Offences Act, I am advising you that I oppose the holding of your public assembly,"

    Doesn't that just sound like some fishy shit? Not supported by the NSW Police Service because you don't have a permit? Or massive government conspiracy?

    It's opposed because they didn't properly prepare for it and the police are not obligated to support it so if things get ugly for whatever reason, people may get out of control and hurt. And if you march on streets that are normally occupied by vehicles without police support, you're going to get hit with obstruction offenses. The police don't oppose it, the assistant commissioner said that they oppose it because they didn't follow the law to get authorization to assembly. All this is going down immediately (this evening). The complaint from the commissioner is that the paperwork wasn't submitted in a timely manner.

    When I was in Boyscout Troop 238, we would apply for the right to assembly when we had larger functions in the town's parks weeks or months ahead of time. And it's not because Big Oil wanted us stopped ...

    --
    My work here is dung.
    1. Re:Hasty Assembly Permit by wierd_w · · Score: 1

      I can understand that-- (I have read the linked article now, btw. I posted in true slashdot tradition by not reading it first.)

      But I would follow up your post a little-- I don't know about Australia, but in the US we also have these 'nosebleed section' areas that the local politicians call "free speech zones." The fact that these even exist at all speaks contrary to the "No, the current enforcement is good and wholesome, if you would just file the paperwork on time!" rhetoric.

      Like all galvanized media events, I would say the truth lies somewhere in the middle.

    2. Re:Hasty Assembly Permit by kiwimate · · Score: 3, Informative

      It's logistical support. In fairness, the original zdnet article is not particularly well written either; but if you read it carefully, it's clear enough what's going on. Here are the most important three paragraphs from the article.

      The NSW Police said in a statement that the reason the assistant commissioner opposed the march in his correspondence was due to the organisers of the event failing to submit complete paperwork in a timely manner.

      "The group gave one day's notice before the march saying that they intended to march on George Street to Martin Place in peak hour, but this was not acceptable to the police," the service said in a statement.

      The police offered alternatives including holding a static protest, marching an alternate route or holding the march at another time.

      Get that? The protestors gave one day notice that they were going to march down crowded city streets during peak hour. That is clearly not something you can just set up on a whim. The police responded that, with insufficient notice provided, they were concerned about being able to ensure the safety. Try doing a search on map george street sydney to get an idea of where they want to march.

      The Australian police is not for or against the protest politically. They don't care if these people protest, but they do care that it's done in a safe manner (both for the sake of the protestors and for the sake of the general public).

      Which is a long way of saying - total non-story except that the protest organizers are not especially organized, and so instead of doing things properly decided to start whining.

    3. Re:Hasty Assembly Permit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Politicians have no interest in free speech: it interferes with the exercise of their power, which is all they every care about.

      If you don't think politicians act in your interests or in the interest of democracy, then you probably should be working on the Metagovernment. it is the only realistic way to get politicians out of our lives entirely.

      http://www.metagovernment.org/

    4. Re:Hasty Assembly Permit by kiwimate · · Score: 2

      I am not very well versed in that concept, but I did see this sentence in the article.

      The police offered alternatives including holding a static protest, marching an alternate route or holding the march at another time.

      So the police tried to help them out. But the protestors simply didn't want to listen. It's like any other major city thoroughfare - if you want to march down, say, third avenue in New York or Broad Street in Philadelphia or Theobald's Road in the Bloomsbury section of London, it's disruptive and has to be properly planned out. Detours and road closures so you don't get carnage, for instance.

    5. Re:Hasty Assembly Permit by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      Something fishy about that. If the problem is lack of a permit, how are two of those three alternatives any different?

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    6. Re:Hasty Assembly Permit by spun · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Because the lack of a permit is not the actual problem. The permit is just one solution to the real problem, the police offered several other solutions. Now, I bet if you stopped to think about it, you would realize what the real problem is. The real problem is, how do we fairly allocate the use of resources we share? Why should the protesters get precedence over the daily users of streets and sidewalks? It is a tricky issue, to be sure, and one I have been on both sides of. In my mind it boils down to this: either you play by the rules and try not to piss off the people you are attempting to reach with your message, or you specifically DO try to piss them off, to show how serious you are. But if you do that, you must accept the possibility that you will be inconvenienced at least as much as the people you are trying to piss off, if you get thrown in a holding cell for a few hours and have to pay a $100 fine.

      Do you see how it works? Either we agree to play by the rules and hold a protest that is respectful of its audience and all the other users of public property, or we participate in civil disobedience to show how serious we are. What we do NOT do, unless we are assholes, is claim a right to disrupt other people's lives without consequence.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    7. Re:Hasty Assembly Permit by vux984 · · Score: 1

      So the police tried to help them out. But the protestors simply didn't want to listen. It's like any other major city thoroughfare - if you want to march down, say, third avenue in New York or Broad Street in Philadelphia or Theobald's Road in the Bloomsbury section of London, it's disruptive and has to be properly planned out. Detours and road closures so you don't get carnage, for instance.

      What you are describing is a "parade" not a "protest".

      Its like how I've been protesting my strata's holiday decorations policy. They passed a bylaw saying that all outdoor holiday lights had to be a matching blue, with no blinking. Originally I was going to put up my red/white/green blinky strings as a protest, but my application to do so to the strata was declined, but I've been authorized by them to protest by putting the red/green/white blinkies in my windowless bathroom. What's more they are supposed to come down by the 15th of January, but I can leave them there until February.

      You see, its not really a "protest" if there is no disruption. That's the entire point of a protest.

      You want to see a protest? Piss off a 4 year old. They get it.

    8. Re:Hasty Assembly Permit by dachshund · · Score: 3, Insightful

      When I was in Boyscout Troop 238, we would apply for the right to assembly when we had larger functions in the town's parks weeks or months ahead of time. And it's not because Big Oil wanted us stopped ...

      Multi-week delays are perfectly reasonable for a Boy scout troop --- they can plan their functions weeks ahead of time. However, it's absolutely not reasonable to delay peaceful political protest on issues that have an inherent component of timeliness, e.g., court cases, legislation, etc. In many cases, enforcing a delay is tantamount to preventing the assembly itself, simply by delaying it until the protest no longer has relevance.

      I can't speak to UK law, but most democracies have explicitly guaranteed a freedom of assembly precisely because that right is so important, and because it's so easy to deny. Protecting the right means supporting its spirit, not just paying lip service to it.

    9. Re:Hasty Assembly Permit by quacking+duck · · Score: 1

      It's opposed because they didn't properly prepare for it and the police are not obligated to support it so if things get ugly for whatever reason, people may get out of control and hurt. And if you march on streets that are normally occupied by vehicles without police support, you're going to get hit with obstruction offenses.

      If only that were the case in Canada. Last year Tamil Tiger supporters held a mass protest without public warning in downtown Ottawa, blocking the major transit and car arteries just as afternoon rush hour hit. A bus ride that normally takes me 20 minutes took almost 2 hours. Their supporters in Toronto blocked a major expressway. The police did jack, and IIRC charges were never laid.

    10. Re:Hasty Assembly Permit by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      Either we agree to play by the rules and hold a protest that is respectful of its audience and all the other users of public property, or we participate in civil disobedience to show how serious we are. What we do NOT do, unless we are assholes, is claim a right to disrupt other people's lives without consequence.

      Nice philosophy, but that's not the way the law is typically written. You either need a permit within city limits or you don't.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    11. Re:Hasty Assembly Permit by spun · · Score: 1

      What do you mean? Some places, mostly very small places, don't have rules. Most places have rules. The rules spell out when you need a permit, and when you don't. You and the family picnicking in the park? Don't need a permit. You and the school band holding a rally with over ten people in the park? You need a permit.

      I was trying to convey the reasons a city might want to impose a permit rule. The real problem, as I said, and as you failed to address, is the allocation of shared resources.

      When someone imposes rules on you that you do not like, you can attempt to change them through politics, you can protest them civilly, or you can protest them using civil disobedience. Not getting a permit means disrupting other people's use of a shared resource. We, the other people that share the planet with you, will not allow you to disrupt our lives without consequences. If you feel strongly enough that you are willing to risk the consequences, more power to you. I've felt that way before too.

      But as I said, your right to use public resources does not trump my right to use them. If you are holding a rally with a number of people, traffic and business WILL be disrupted. The polite thing to do in those cases, is to let the affected parties know ahead of time, and arrange for some kind of help managing traffic. You may also, depending on the size of the rally, need to arrange for porta-potties, so your protesters don't piss all over our sidewalks or overload public and private facilities.

      Or you can shut up about your damn rights and just get out there and do it, consequences be damned. But you don't get to disrupt other's lives without the risk of consequences, and arguing that you DO have such a right won't get you very far, which means that, practically speaking, you don't have that right.

      Basically, if you want to live in society, you should at least attempt to play nicely with others rather than insisting that, in every case, your right to do what you want trumps other people's silly laws, customs, and regulations. That is an incredibly childish philosophy.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    12. Re:Hasty Assembly Permit by smash · · Score: 1

      Australia has no free speech laws. And given the death of habeas corpus in the US recently, neither does the US. Oh sure it may say so in your constitution, but now you can also be arrested and indefinitely detained with no charges and no lawyer due to the military commisions act.

      --
      I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
    13. Re:Hasty Assembly Permit by loufoque · · Score: 1

      I wish that's how it worked in France.

      But no, people protest in large groups in streets all the time, force closing of universities, prevent people from going to work, without any permit whatsoever. And they don't get fines nor get thrown to jail.

    14. Re:Hasty Assembly Permit by AliasMarlowe · · Score: 1

      What we do NOT do, unless we are assholes, is claim a right to disrupt other people's lives without consequence.

      Based on every "demonstration" I've witnessed (quite a few, over the years), there's an obvious problem with this...

      --
      Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
  12. Re:The Good Wikileaks Does by FuckingNickName · · Score: 1, Troll

    So go build an army and start a fascist revolution. If enough people support you, we'll get the sort of world you want.

  13. Re:Wikileaks coverage by forkfail · · Score: 1

    Short attention span is going to ensure that information flow is absolutely controlled by the powers that be, it seems.

    --
    Check your premises.
  14. I can't wait for "Wikileaks" the movie \o/ by pyalot · · Score: 1

    Can we have Nathan Fillion and Summer Glau play parts? pleaaaase!

    1. Re:I can't wait for "Wikileaks" the movie \o/ by maccodemonkey · · Score: 1

      I believe that movie was set in a sci fi universe and called "Serenity."

    2. Re:I can't wait for "Wikileaks" the movie \o/ by blair1q · · Score: 1

      Nope. You're getting Carson Kressley.

    3. Re:I can't wait for "Wikileaks" the movie \o/ by pyalot · · Score: 1

      and then there'll be some sex by surprise and many small nathans or summers

    4. Re:I can't wait for "Wikileaks" the movie \o/ by Motard · · Score: 1

      Brilliant!

  15. Re:The Good Wikileaks Does by pyalot · · Score: 4, Insightful

    is not justification for the bad Wikileaks does.

    Well, you can't have the good without the bad...

    There are better ways to do it.

    Like what? Wear buttons with sloagans about love, put bumper stickers on your car?

  16. Police Letter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    What the hell is the point of a letter from the police stating they oppose the demonstration? Does Australia protect the right of people to peacefully assemble, or does it not? A letter from the police on this subject is ominous for Australia's political and economic security.

  17. Re:The Good Wikileaks Does by FuckingNickName · · Score: 1

    The least fascist person I've ever encountered does not think he knows best about what others are allowed to hear and say. But the person who believes he is the least fascist is very likely to think so.

    Like the man said, every anarchist is a baffled dictator.

  18. Re:Police, like it or not? Are "enforcers" 4 the s by pilgrim23 · · Score: 1

    Regards the "Kill an Idea" statement. I have what I consider parallel circumstance to draw. Some 60 or so years ago a shepherd in the Qumram area of Palistine unearthed some scrolls. We now know these as the Dead Sea Scrolls. After being reported as "Find of the Century" a small group of scholars started to work on them. and that was it. Few reports, no translations of the more interesting ones. Nothing. Fairly recently a second group of scholars obtained copies and "leaked" the actual scrolls to the Internet. The "Scrollary" scholars were very upset, threatened law suits copyright infringement and everything. But the data was out there now. It could be viewed by MANY people some official some not. But available. One could draw a parallel circumstance with FOIA2009.zip and the global warming argument. When Data is free, many minds can look, determine, and decide. When few know, few control. Internet is Freedom and information DEMANDS to be free. Wikileaks performed a very needful service before all this and, in spite of diplomatic egg on face STILL performs a needful service. As I said: Information DEMANDS to be free.

    --
    - Minutus cantorum, minutus balorum, minutus carborata descendum pantorum.
  19. 30 comments... by Farmer+Tim · · Score: 1

    ...and not one reference to Dutch boys putting their fingers in dikes. Those Swedish prosecutors must be scary...

    --
    Blank until /. makes another boneheaded UI decision.
    1. Re:30 comments... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Isn't that be something Dutch girls would be doing?

    2. Re:30 comments... by Farmer+Tim · · Score: 1

      Not according to legend. Besides, 100 Euros will buy you just about anything on the Reeperbahn...

      --
      Blank until /. makes another boneheaded UI decision.
  20. Also by SethThresher · · Score: 2

    Don't forget! There was also an XKCD comic published about this. Or is that just common knowledge?

    1. Re:Also by drb226 · · Score: 1

      For historic reasons, here's the relevant xkcd permalink

  21. Congratulations. by copponex · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Two gin-scented tears trickled down the sides of his nose. But it was all right, everything was all right, the struggle was finished. He had won the victory over himself. He loved Big Brother.

  22. youre on /., a geek or a nerd, and you dont care by unity100 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    wikileaks is the manifestation of the power of internet. internet's uncontrollability, freedom, communication, collaboration. all of these combine to make wikileaks and what it tells us possible.

    had this been any newspaper, none of these news would make the headline. had they made, rest would be suppressed.

    we are seeing internet show its power, through people, even if the establisment tries to suppress it.

    see :

    http://46.59.1.2/mirrors.html

    2100+ mirrors. that many people put up private server space to help wikileaks. that is, not even counting the people who are spreading messages, links, articles.

    it interests all of us. its internet in its purest form, as how it should be. if it doesnt interest you, or you are unable to understand, maybe you should try other sites like digg, or facebook.

  23. oh yeah by unity100 · · Score: 1, Insightful

    there are better ways to do it. that is the reason why it has never been done and successful before.

    wake up. if it was possible to do it in any other way, it would have been done.

    1. Re:oh yeah by blair1q · · Score: 1

      You are wrong.

      It is possible to get improperly classified documents declassified, by the classification authority, in such a way that properly classified information remains secret.

      Not doing it that way is criminal and stupid. It doesn't make the world stronger, it weakens the one country that is most on the side of the sort of world you really want this to be.

    2. Re:oh yeah by X.25 · · Score: 1

      Not doing it that way is criminal and stupid. It doesn't make the world stronger, it weakens the one country that is most on the side of the sort of world you really want this to be.

      So, you know what is best for everyone, you know things that others don't, and you also know what kind of world people want to live in.

      In other words, you're a dumb fuck.

    3. Re:oh yeah by blair1q · · Score: 1

      So you know nothing, don't trust anyone who does, and haven't paid attention to history.

      In other words, you're the dumb fuck.

  24. How close are the US and Sweden? by Somewhat+Delirious · · Score: 5, Informative

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/wikileaks/8202745/WikiLeaks-Swedish-government-hid-anti-terror-operations-with-America-from-Parliament.html

    I think this sheds some interesting light on the Assange case in Sweden and its political connotations...

    --
    The surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us.
    1. Re:How close are the US and Sweden? by Blue+Stone · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Good find. Gives the lie to the Swedish state being 'all above board' and very anti-corruption.

      Secret deals with the US government - plenty of people suspected that this was the case with the Pirate Bay crackdown - and now it's made clear that deals are being done and hidden from parliamentary scrutiny.

      --
      Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility. - Ambrose Bierce
    2. Re:How close are the US and Sweden? by SwedishPenguin · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The sad thing is how they always get off the hook so easily. SVT (public service tv) did a great documentary on this. The politicians involved of course claimed not to know anything about it. It made the news for a few days and then it went away with any demands for the justice minister's head evaporating. (that woman seriously has too many lives, I can't count how many controversies she's been involved in, not to mention that she is not actually qualified for the job, she doesn't have a law degree and pretty much had nothing to do with law prior to being appointed justice minister)

      Only two parties wanted any actual investigation of the matter.
      The left party demanded a parliamentary investigation, the greens filed a report against the government with the constitutional committee (a parliamentary committee which is pretty much the closest thing we have to a constitutional court).
      The largest opposition party (the social democrats) made some statements regarding the matter but it was mostly just platitudes from a party that has been in government many times, and who's senior officials most likely knew full well this was going on..

    3. Re:How close are the US and Sweden? by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      I think this sheds some interesting light on the Assange case in Sweden and its political connotations...

      Your link shines little light on Assange's case. It reveals that the Swedish government has connections with the US to share anti-terrorist intelligence. It appears to have worked..... until last weekend.

      It is possible that Assange will be hoisted on his own petard. Consider: Assange released stolen classified secret American military and diplomatic dispatches. Some of the dispatches released by Assange's Wikileaks showed the discreet connections between Sweden and the US to share anti-terrorism intelligence. As a result of the revelations, the Swedish parliament may have forced their Justice ministry to cut off ties to the US. As a result of severing the intelligence ties, the Swedes may have missed vital intelligence that could have prevented the suicide bombing. The Swedish Justice ministry is not amused by the bombing, and being forced to cut ties with the US as a result of Assange's revelations, and cuts no slack for Assange in prosecution. Ouch. No American pressure required - only the natural result of screwing with anti-terrorism intelligence in a time of widespread threat of terrorism, as Wikileaks has done repeatedly. (I think various people like to use the phrase - "blowback") We will be lucky if the recklessness of Assange and Wikileaks doesn't end up killing large numbers of people. Sweden may only be the first to see the result of Assange's handiwork, I doubt if it is the last.

      “My attitude on this is that there are two areas of culpability,” Gates said on ABC’s This Week. “One is legal culpability. And that's up to the Justice Department and others -- that's not my arena.

      “But there's also a moral culpability,” he added. “And that's where I think the verdict is guilty on WikiLeaks. They have put this out without any regard whatsoever for the consequences.”

      Those consequences could be the loss of innocent lives, Gates said, and not just those of American troops.

      “If I'm angry, it is because I believe that this information puts those in Afghanistan who have helped us at risk. It puts our soldiers at risk because they can learn a lot -- our adversaries can learn a lot about our techniques, tactics and procedures from the body of these leaked documents,” the secretary said.

      Gates said that having an intelligence background, he knows that “protecting your sources is sacrosanct.” He noted that “there was no sense of responsibility or accountability” associated with the leak of information. WikiLeaks Guilty on Moral Grounds, (Secretary of Defense) Gates Says

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    4. Re:How close are the US and Sweden? by Somewhat+Delirious · · Score: 1

      Your theory is severely lacking in facts.

      Furthermore your response betrays a widespread and incredibly US centric view:

      Unsubtantiated accusations that Wikileaks is putting lives at risk are taken at face value but the thousands upon thousands of civilian victims for which US forces are directly responsible are completely ignored. Well of course they are not Americans so fuck them, right?

      The fact that the motivation for the war in Iraq was based on lies is completely ignored.

      The fact that the US government is involved in secret wars in Pakistan and Yemen which it has been lying about to everyone is ignored.

      The fact that the objectives in both the Iraq and Afghanistan wars have not been obtained and are unobtainable and yet the lives of US soldiers and the civilian population are being put on the line are ignored.

      Human rights violations by the US military and the US government are ignored.

      The damage that the process leading to the war in Iraq and the US stance on renditions have done to world public opinion, the international rule of law, and the relationships with traditional allies of the US are, guess what, ignored.

      The fact that US foreign policy has done more for creating support in the islamic world for terrorist organizations and islamic fundamentalism than anyone in the islamic world could have achieved is IGNORED.

      The fact that the US wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have so seriously destabilized those regions that the danger to civilians there has increased to unparalelled levels (Iraq is now qualified as the most dangerous place on earth) is ignored.

      Your view is so unbelievably skewed it is frightening. And even more frightening is the fact that you are far from alone.

      --
      The surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us.
  25. Re:Wikileaks coverage by Altus · · Score: 1

    tl;dr

    --

    "In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson

  26. Re:youre on /., a geek or a nerd, and you dont car by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    wikileaks is the manifestation of the power of internet. internet's uncontrollability, freedom, communication, collaboration. all of these combine to make wikileaks and what it tells us possible.

    No, WikiLeaks is the manifestation of one man's overinflated ego and the readiness of a bunch of directionless nerds to rally around a messiah, ANY messiah that has too much charisma and an agenda.

    WikiLeaks WAS at one point what you described, and it would be nice if they went back to something like that. What it BECAME is one man riding an ego-fueled high and telling people what everyone else's governments should be doing.

  27. Please be responsible by sgt_doom · · Score: 2, Informative
    I agree with your sentiments, good citizen, but realize some will not. So if you chose to email the attorneys who volunteered to represent the honeytrappers, er...I mean accusers, Claes Borgstrom and former Justice Minister Thomas Bodstrom, who was instrumental in the passage of Sweden's warrantless wiretapping (and email eavesdropping, etc.) law, and also busted the Pirate Party back in 2006 under pressure from the USA, please contact them with your support at:

    claes.borgstrom@advbyra.se

    Thomas.bodstrom@advbyra.se

    (Should you chose to support the Swedish prosecutors, also aligned against Assange, their mail server is:

    http://156.49.126.250/

    The graphic for the day, from this site:

    http://eriatarka.tumblr.com/

    would be:

    http://zero1infinity.tumblr.com/post/2300713684/justice

    1. Re:Please be responsible by Duradin · · Score: 1

      You're too clever. I don't see what you're doing there. Perhaps you could be a little more blatantly obvious. (You might to at least be on the same continent as the topic).

  28. Isn't that the same thing? by mosb1000 · · Score: 2

    It worries me that people feel the government is entitled to determine when, where, and how protests are held. It seems to me that controlling those aspects of a demonstration is as damaging as preventing it outright.

    1. Re:Isn't that the same thing? by bsDaemon · · Score: 1

      If you're trying to make an organized event/march in good faith, then it pays to go ahead do things by the books. Its not that the police get to determine when/where your protest is, but if you're not trying to screw over everyone else in the city by sucking up roads, or if you don't want your people to get hurt because traffic is coming and the cops aren't there to block them, then cooperation is key. Of course, if your intent is mischief or mayhem, then of course, don't bother. But that might hurt, so make sure its worth it and everyone on your side is down with it.

    2. Re:Isn't that the same thing? by spun · · Score: 1

      It is not "the government" that determines this. It is a local governing body. They determine what can and can not be done with property the citizens own collectively, i.e. public property. Do you only support property rights for certain classes of owners? If this were a mall, would you dispute the mall owner's right to limit who does what, when, inside the mall? The people of a particular city have a right to say, "We don't want protesters blocking our streets unless they get a permit so the police can route traffic around the area and people aren't inconvenienced." The protesters have the right to say, "I feel strongly enough about this issue that I am willing to inconvenience you, but I am also willing to risk a small fine and perhaps a few hours in a holding cell. We will both be inconvenienced, and I hope that helps make my point."

      You can make the case that citizens would be better served allowing any unplanned event to take place at any time, any place, but that also means that if you and your grandma decide to have high tea in the middle of the street during rush hour, you can do so. If you start to limit it to "not blocking traffic" and "not blocking access to places of business" and "not making too much noise at 2am" then you are right back to limiting where, when, and how protests take place. As with all rights, there is a trade off. You trade a freedom you desire less for one you desire more. What is more important to you, getting a good nights sleep and getting in to work on time, or letting some tree hugging hippie or right wing teaparty loon or antivivisectionist or suffragette or whatever have his say in public. Free speech is all well and good, but most people haven't thought through the consequences. If we all have an absolute right to free speech, then I have a right to wake you up every morning at four by singing "Louie, Louie" at the top of my lungs outside your window. If we want to allow unplanned protests any time, anywhere, then we will have to put up with being late for work every time some loon with a cause gets a bug up their ass. And I say that having been one of those loons, having participated in a great many unauthorized protests. I didn't whine about the consequences, because I understood why those consequences were there, and I was willing to accept that I might go to jail for my beliefs. Not that I ever did, even in the craziest sorts of property smashing protests you can imagine, you can stay safe if you keep your eyes open and your wits about you.

      Just remember, you don't need to be faster than the cops, you just need to be faster than the protester next to you.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    3. Re:Isn't that the same thing? by euphemistic · · Score: 1

      It's basically a matter of traffic issues more than anything. The Town Hall to Martin Place route is pretty standard for protests, I've been to more than a few that take place there. It's smack bang in the middle of the city, if Sydney had a Times Square, that would be it. Sydney is notoriously also full of one way streets, so when you block off a street, you really do screw traffic up, in an area that is over-congested to begin with. In my experience as a protester, the police are (usually) pretty cool, sometimes the lower ranks over-zealous and nervous but I've walked with the senior sergeant in charge while I was protesting before and had a good ol' chat about how everything was going; it was really very pleasant. What has happened in this case is an issue with shortnotice. They have to arrange for hundreds of police to come from all over the state (which is larger than Texas, for a little perspective) to attend and be briefed, etc. etc. Short notice also means they're not going to be able to figure out a good traffic plan in time. You can tell it wasn't an iideological problem at heart because of the alternate options they suggested, namely "police offered alternatives including holding a static protest, marching an alternate route or holding the march at another time.". They didn't mind that there was a protest, just the way in which it was planned.

      I'm a big supporter of Wikileaks, of public protest, of free speech; but good planning makes the event better for the protesters, for the police and for the innocent bystanders who were unfortunate enough to be travelling through the area at the time. It doesn't necessarily mean the population is oppressed.

    4. Re:Isn't that the same thing? by mosb1000 · · Score: 1

      A local governing body is the government. People want to protest where their protest is relevant. Letting the local government set the rules governing protests is letting the fox guard the hen-house. It's not a good policy. I understand free speech is impractical sometimes, but if you let the government regulate it that defeats the whole purpose.

      But then maybe it is better that protesters should pay for the right to protest with jail time and things of that nature, to keep people from running their mouths about things they don't really care about.

    5. Re:Isn't that the same thing? by ushering05401 · · Score: 1

      Free speech doesn't protect hate speech? Only incitement, defamation, and 'obscenity' are able to be prosecuted in the U.S.

      Claiming that white people are all crackers that ought to be shipped back to Europe is perfectly legal.

      Claiming that your listeners should immediately commit acts of violence against whites is not (incitement).

      Claiming that a particular white person is a cracker and a (insert-untrue-and-unflattering-accusation-here) is also against the law (defamation).

      The obscenity part rarely comes up IIRC.

    6. Re:Isn't that the same thing? by ushering05401 · · Score: 1

      But then maybe it is better that protesters should pay for the right to protest with jail time and things of that nature, to keep people from running their mouths about things they don't really care about.

      This is a bad idea. Even now there is a quasi-professional class of activists. I have known many, from tree-sitters that were attracted from their previous movement by the media attention, to recruiters that go with any issue that gets the hot college-age-pink bucking and heaving.

      I once saw a group of white people associated with a prominent NYC professional activist show up at a Native rally only to drown out the speakers with their lame-ass white buffalo rendition of a Native ceremony. Asking them to stop only spurred accusations of oppression.

      As it is these punks have to remain confined to the young people that are susceptible to this type of bullshit. Increasing the commonality of activists with bogus arrest records will make it harder to keep legitimate breeding stock out of the clutches of the professional leeches.

    7. Re:Isn't that the same thing? by bsDaemon · · Score: 1

      At least they don't charge the organizers to off-set the overtime for the police who have to go out and man barricades and try and keep people safe, if necessary. You're still thinking that the permitting and charges are for the protest itself, but the reasoning is that there are associated costs incurred by facilitating it in an orderly manner so that everything goes as smoothly as possible, both for the protesters and for other people who just happen to be around that day.

    8. Re:Isn't that the same thing? by Nursie · · Score: 1

      Not in the free world they don't.

      Oh right, you live in the USA....

    9. Re:Isn't that the same thing? by sr180 · · Score: 1

      Australia lost most of its "quasi-professional" activists when it removed compulsory student unionism. Most of them were funded by the student unions, and without similar funding, the (typically jobless and usually student) activists have no money to get to the protests.

      --
      In Soviet Russia the insensitive clod is YOU!
    10. Re:Isn't that the same thing? by Nursie · · Score: 1

      You're laughing because you have to apply and pay for a protest permit in the land of the free, but in much of the rest of the western world one simply informs the police what's going on and works with them out of courtesy?

      And the US comes out of this looking great how? /confused, maybe I just don't get your sense of humour

    11. Re:Isn't that the same thing? by spun · · Score: 1

      A government is just a group of individuals. Individuals have property rights to the public property they share ownership of. They have a right to use the roads and sidewalks. Yes, people have a right to free speech. But that does not give them the additional right to use their free expression to harm others. Having a bunch of people taking up the sidewalk and roads harms the individuals who use those roads and sidewalks. When they refuse to schedule their protests, the protesters are stealing from the other citizens. In some places, the citizens have decided that free speech is more important. In other places, they have decided they want protesters to schedule their protests in order to reduce the harm the protesters cause.

      It sounds as though you are saying the citizens of a town or city do not have rights to control the public property they collectively own. I ask again: does an individual have the right to control speech on their property? If not, please provide your address so I can come blast "Louie, Louie" outside your house at 4 in the morning. If so, then citizens of a city have the right to limit where, when, and how protests occur on the property the collectively own and control.

      Or perhaps there should not be publicly owned and controlled property, and all protesters can either protest on their own property, or they can ask permission of the owners.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    12. Re:Isn't that the same thing? by mosb1000 · · Score: 1

      I'm not arguing about rights, I'm arguing about what is sensible. It makes no sense to allow the government to control when, where, and how protests may be held, when many protests will be held against or directed at government officials. It's a recipe for censorship. In the business world it would be known as a conflict of interest.

    13. Re:Isn't that the same thing? by spun · · Score: 1

      That's a lovely idea, but it does not address the issue. You don't want the government telling people when, where and how they can protest. That is understandable, that power can and has been abused. But just saying "Anyone can disrupt and inconvenience everyone else in a city without any consequences" is no answer either, as it also leaves the population open to abuse.

      If you argue that the right to free expression trumps all other rights, then you will have protesters torching your house. Does their right to express themselves through fire trump your property rights? If protesters must respect your property rights, why not the city government's property rights? After all, a city government is just a form of corporation, it is just a group of individuals.

      In short, if you believe that an individual has the right to control his property, you must accept the rights of a group of individuals to control their collective property. And government is nothing more than a group of individuals.

      On a side note, I'm actually a little incredulous at myself for taking this side of the argument, as I have been, quite literally, on the other side so many times. I've seen the cops bash my friends heads into the pavement for the crime of trying to feed the homeless in public without a permit. I guess I'm getting older and don't have as much of a "fuck everything!" attitude as I had in my youth.

      Regulations are just a tool, like guns. Like guns, regulations can protect people. They can also harm people. The answer is not to do away with guns, or regulations. The answer is to restrict the harm and punish people who cause it. If the government is prohibiting protests for the wrong reasons, punish the government for that, don't get rid of the regulations.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    14. Re:Isn't that the same thing? by mosb1000 · · Score: 1

      I don't see protests as too much of an inconvenience. Not enough to warrant this kind of regulation anyway. In all fairness to myself, I work in Irvine, CA where the local government exercises total control over everything related to the appearance of the city (my company moved a year ago and we still don't have approval to put our sign on our building), so I may be more mistrustful of local government as a result.

    15. Re:Isn't that the same thing? by spun · · Score: 1

      I honestly don't see protests as much of an inconvenience either, but then, that may be because they are regulated.

      Getting back to the original issue, the police in this case seemed willing to work out a compromise. They did not want the protesters causing disruptions, and in addition to the option of getting a permit, they offered several other options which technically still broke the 'permits required' rule but solved the disruption problem. To me, this indicates that it was not adherence to the rules that the police were after, but a reduction in the negative externalities of the protest. They were willing to bend the rules, as long as the protesters were willing to reduce their impact on the community.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
  29. The Sun is a comic not a newspaper by fantomas · · Score: 2

    Ok, technically, it's a newspaper, but over here in the UK if you said to somebody "I know Fact X is true because I read it in The Sun" they'd burst out laughing. It's regarded as a bit of a joke here, light entertainment. Referring to it as a major newspaper and your main information source rather undermines your argument.

    It's what a lot of people read to get entertainment gossip, horse racing tips, football results, and to see a woman showing her boobs on Page 3. Very few people would use it as their sole information source. It does run news stories but its more famous for its gossip. This is the newspaper than brought you the headline "Freddie Starr ate my hamster" as its main news one day. I've been told the equivalent in the USA is The National Enquirer, apologies, I don't know this newspaper too well.

    1. Re:The Sun is a comic not a newspaper by radtea · · Score: 1

      Referring to it as a major newspaper and your main information source rather undermines your argument.

      Really? My argument about Polanski? Juxtaposition doesn't imply logical dependency, y'know.

      I didn't realize the Sun was quite that dismal: we have Sun papers in Canada, which at least originally had some corporate association with your Sun, I believe. While they mostly do have semi-naked chicks on page 3 they are definitely several steps above the National Enquirer.

      --
      Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
  30. Re:youre on /., a geek or a nerd, and you dont car by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Wikileaks has been set up by the CIA to promote war with Iran and North Korea, and to expose corruption and ongoing problems in Afghanistan.

    Assange works for British intelligence. The rape charges are an excuse to go into hiding and not take questions publicly.

    Wikileaks is a GOOD THING. It is not a conspiracy, but a plain old intelligence program which is achieving its goals better than anyone could have hoped.

  31. Re:Anchor Baby? by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

    No not really. If he had stayed with the first woman for a couple of days instead of jumping over to the next one there probably wouldn't have been any complaint.

  32. Heather Brooke by Stregano · · Score: 1

    Whatever you do, do NOT, I repeat, DO NOT google her at work. I happen to have been told about (I don't know about it personally, a friend of a friend) told me that there is a Heather Brooke online with her name spelled exactly the same and this other one (it could be the same one, if it is awesome) and she is not really into reporting. Her mic she puts in her mouth is skin tone and fleshy. Now I wonder how many people are going to google her to see if I am lying, and how many people are going to google her for shits and giggles. But yeah, I figured I would warn you to not search the names on this article at work

    --
    The world is how you make it
  33. Re:The Good Wikileaks Does by HeckRuler · · Score: 1

    I heard that for every ribbon magnet I slap on there, they kill 10 more insurgents! And since it's not a sticker, it won't ruin my paint. And I won't have to suffer the atrocity of a devaluation of my car. And I can simply take it off when it's convenient.

  34. Re:youre on /., a geek or a nerd, and you dont car by Somewhat+Delirious · · Score: 1

    I assume you're trying to say that Wikileaks should stop looking at the US and get back to leaking about the rest of the world?

    What exactly is it that makes people say Assange is an egomaniac as opposed to say, Palin, Lieberman, or any of the self congratulating US "news" crowd who have forgotten the meaning of the word journalism and apparently think it has something to do with quoting "government sources".

    --
    The surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us.
  35. Re:youre on /., a geek or a nerd, and you dont car by oztiks · · Score: 1, Insightful

    All Wikileaks has done has given the US an excuse to stick a big red button on the internet and shut bits of it down when it chooses. Expect a bipartisan ruling from governments all around the world to enforce direct control over IPS and Domains in the future.

    Wikileaks has just helped give reason to censor the internet with a very simple concept behind managing the censorship.

  36. Re:youre on /., a geek or a nerd, and you dont car by ducomputergeek · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Enjoy it while it lasts. We're marching towards Internet 2 where Net Neutrality will be a thing of the past. It's happening in the EU and it's started in the US. 15 years ago the internet caught a lot of people by surprise and they weren't sure what to make of it. I think they have a better idea now and are slowly working towards swinging the pendelum from the wild wild west of information back to something closer to how the "on-line" experience was in the late 80's and early 90's with Compuserve/AOL/Prodigy, etc..

    --
    "The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money" - Thatcher.
  37. Re:youre on /., a geek or a nerd, and you dont car by Ceseuron · · Score: 1

    I'm all for transparency in government and holding people in power responsible, but there's an entire world of governments out there that should have their actions (or lack thereof, depending on the issue) scrutinized by the public, not just America. Where's the WikiLeaks coverage of China's human rights issues? How about the Cambodian government's failure to address the problem of child sex workers? Is WikiLeaks covering that? Is WikiLeaks going to at any point in the near future shed some light on the Mexican government's involvement with the drug cartels?

    WikiLeaks isn't this bastion of idealistic free speech that you're making it out to be. Perhaps, in days gone past, it used to be. All it is now is little more than just another anti-American soapbox for Assange to rally his cadre of basement dwelling, teenage criminals around.

  38. Re:youre on /., a geek or a nerd, and you dont car by Duradin · · Score: 1

    How about if I say Assange is an egomaniac and Palin, Liberman, and every other politician at the federal level are all egomaniacs? Is that better?

    Wikileaks should stop Assange's little feud with the US and get back to doing something productive.

  39. Re:youre on /., a geek or a nerd, and you dont car by Somewhat+Delirious · · Score: 1

    You can call all of them egomaniacs if you want: That's free speech though somewhat lacking in information.

    Even if I'd agree with that it changes nothing about the significance of what Wikileaks has done with the war logs or the embassy cables.

    --
    The surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us.
  40. Re:youre on /., a geek or a nerd, and you dont car by BobMcD · · Score: 1

    Wikileaks should stop Assange's little feud with the US and get back to doing something productive.

    I challenge your assertion that "Assange's little feud" is not "productive". It seems to have produced quite a lot, from where I sit, particularly compared to the efforts of just about everyone else currently in this arena of exposing secrets.

  41. Re:youre on /., a geek or a nerd, and you dont car by BobMcD · · Score: 1

    Such an action may well open up the challenge that 'internet = press', and such a button could well become an interesting topic indeed.

  42. Re:The Good Wikileaks Does by blair1q · · Score: 1

    >The least fascist person I've ever encountered does not think he knows best about what others are allowed to hear and say.

    Not possible. People who don't know what secrets to keep go extinct.

  43. Assange & Nobel prize by Yvanhoe · · Score: 1

    Don't forget to mention Assange has been nominated for Nobel Prize.
    http://www.naharnet.com/domino/tn/NewsDesk.nsf/0/3EB18677E7D6A80BC22577FA0021EA18?OpenDocument

    It is not a very hard thing to do and hundreds are probably nominated every year, but it nonetheless is the first mandatory step.

    --
    The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
  44. Re:youre on /., a geek or a nerd, and you dont car by Duradin · · Score: 1

    Leaking documents that are equivalent to "Water is wet, the sky is blue, and fire is hot." is not productive.

  45. Re:youre on /., a geek or a nerd, and you dont car by pclminion · · Score: 4, Informative

    I'm all for transparency in government and holding people in power responsible, but there's an entire world of governments out there that should have their actions (or lack thereof, depending on the issue) scrutinized by the public, not just America. Where's the WikiLeaks coverage of China's human rights issues? How about the Cambodian government's failure to address the problem of child sex workers?

    It's WikiLEAKS. If it hasn't been leaked to Wikileaks, how can Wikileaks publish it? Wikileaks is not an espionage organization and it's not about on-the-move journalism. If you have some information on these topics, which you seem to be so concerned about, why don't you put your own ass on the line and send it to Wikileaks?

  46. yesh yesh by unity100 · · Score: 1

    and im a short green alien ...

  47. geeeeee by unity100 · · Score: 1

    All Wikileaks has done has given the US an excuse to stick a big red button on the internet and shut bits of it down when it chooses.

    so it wasnt gonna do that if wikileaks wasnt around eh ?

    that should be why bush & co started the preparations for acta back in 2002, and started going around for it in 2004. that is probably why they attacked net neutrality in 2006. and the reason for coica, schmoica is also that.

    geet real.

    1. Re:geeeeee by oztiks · · Score: 1

      I suggest looking up the word "bipartisan".

      Censorship has always had challenges to become possible. I.E Steve Conroy.

      No, China is sitting there going ... "I told you so ..." US is going "Holy shit i thought i ruled the world? how did some guy from Townsville Australia suddenly hold more clout than i?"

      Next time you feel like you think you have the right to broadcast anything you like. I suggest buying a CB radio flipping it to the Police channel and then start shouting random abuse down it. I'd give it about 20 mins to 1hr before they show up at your house and lock you up.

      Wikileaks just regulated the internet and for what? To hear that Russia has "Batman" for a President? Brilliant.

    2. Re:geeeeee by unity100 · · Score: 1

      I suggest looking up the word "bipartisan".

      i suggest looking up the word 'bullshit'.

      cooking a bill and then finding one or two from the other party through various back-aisle negotiations to make it appear like a consensus is the oldest trick in the book.

    3. Re:geeeeee by oztiks · · Score: 1

      Look ummm I understand that you would hate too see something like this happen. I'm not liking it as much as you but I am saying something we all know and that is ... The US govt has no regard for playing by the rules.

      Never (as public knowledge or at this scale) has Visa and Mastercard ever pulled a sites financial access at the hands of a Governments whim (I wonder how much of their next tax bill the Govt has chopped off in favor for their help). Never has a guy been convicted of a sex crime scandal right at cusp of material being made public (I wonder what favors the Swedish and UK Govts have received for this).

      Assange has dug himself this great big hole one that he's been partially aware of what the ramifications may be (i.e his encrypted insurance document in case he gets killed) but not completely.

      He's locked up in somewhere in an English prison, the home of James Bond's of the world MI5/MI6. These guys know their shit when it comes to extracting information and they are very friendly to the US. That poor guy doesn't stand a chance! He wouldn't even be able to take a crap without it going through a machine!

      When they find Assange's deadman's switch on this encrypted material. Expect him to become a deadman. In the meantime expect them to be finding ways to systematically disseminate Wikileaks. The only thing Assange has that most other people with this sort information "doesn't" have is the public spotlight and a measurable amount of control. This means the sly back ops tactics that need to be executed have to be done with a little extra caution.

      This whole process in the deep dark underhood is sounding out the Goverments everywhere that if you want to keep secrets you MUST have control over the internet. Its a shy step from kiddy porn which is what censorship has been about before.

    4. Re:geeeeee by ushering05401 · · Score: 1

      A bunch of bullshit. Assange is in the safest possible place. Think of all the loonies out there. I would be very surprised if Julian had anything to tell the authorities that they do not already know - He is only accused of knowing things that they already know - and those secret bits have already been distributed.

      No matter how many people want to make this about a person it will not become true. I'm going to fall back on my understanding of British pride in the suggestion that everybody within arm reach of Julian just wants to make sure he gets the hell out of their lap. The idea of the grandsons of the old Empire playing lapdog in some proxy sexual misconduct battle has got to chafe the poor lads.

    5. Re:geeeeee by oztiks · · Score: 1

      Okay MAYBE you have a point, Just as MAYBE you don't. Which is what brings me to my conclusion ... MHAHAHAHAHA!

      First off agreeably I've read a few of those cables and most of it fairly low-level garbage that no one could give two hoots about. The problem I see is that insurance file, could be bluff? could be real? maybe they know whats in it? maybe they dont.

      Ideally the stuff Assange has released to date has been not worth an assassination over but wouldn't it be prudent for any national security organisation to be certain though, i'd believe (better to be safe than sorry)?

      There is a lot more going on still. Mastercard/Visa, Swedish Sex crimes, etc which he is having to suffer (also being in jail must not be all that fun).

      But at the end of the day what i see really happing is just another pile of 911 conspiracy theories and area 51 speculation all over again.

      The question in 2 years time from now will asking and conspiring about is .... Wait for it .....

      Did the US Govt engineer this Wikileaks thing simply to gain absolute control over the internet?

      and If so isn't this just the special little way the US government likes introduce change?

      3 letters 1 word may jog your memory "WMD Iraq!"

    6. Re:geeeeee by oztiks · · Score: 1

      http://yro.slashdot.org/story/10/12/16/190238/The-French-Government-Can-Now-Censor-the-Internet

      France, China, Eventually Australia .... The US will soon follow suit

  48. Re:youre on /., a geek or a nerd, and you dont car by unity100 · · Score: 1

    I'm all for transparency in government and holding people in power responsible, but there's an entire world of governments out there that should have their actions (or lack thereof, depending on the issue) scrutinized by the public, not just America.

    currently, as you are seeing, america is the main problem on the free speech rights and freedom of thought, in the part of the world that is supposedly free.

    once we, the people, win on that front, we can get to china, russia.

    dont be too irky because your country, government is now on the fireline. as you can see, they stopped being YOUR country, government, loooong ago.

  49. Re:Heather Brooke by Stregano · · Score: 1

    That may be, but when every Google search I do for Heather Brooke turns up with "adult entertainment" I will go with a gut instinct of saying if it is not her name, it is a stage name

    --
    The world is how you make it
  50. Re:youre on /., a geek or a nerd, and you dont car by BobMcD · · Score: 1

    Leaking documents that are equivalent to "Water is wet, the sky is blue, and fire is hot." is not productive.

    They're a direct rebuttal to the government's claims that water is dry, the sky is orange, and fire is tepid.

  51. Re:youre on /., a geek or a nerd, and you dont car by taucross · · Score: 1

    What exactly is it that makes people say Assange is an egomaniac as opposed to say, Palin, Lieberman, or any of the self congratulating US "news" crowd

    Jealousy. Plain, obvious, jealousy. That's why they say they agree with what he's doing, but not how he's doing it.

    --
    "In the absence of the ability to establish the attribute of truth they tried to establish the noble attributes."
  52. Re:youre on /., a geek or a nerd, and you dont car by taucross · · Score: 1

    Grow a backbone and come join the other mammals when you're ready.

    --
    "In the absence of the ability to establish the attribute of truth they tried to establish the noble attributes."
  53. wikileaks.info vs wikileaks.ch by mgiuca · · Score: 1

    The links below have been reported to contain Malware, so don't click without reading first.

    I'm confused. wikileaks.org redirects to mirror.wikileaks.info. That page looks like WikiLeaks did a year ago (a simple MediaWiki site), but it has up-to-date content. Meanwhile, the official domain we have had for the past fortnight, wikileaks.ch is still running and serving the "new look" which seems to just have the cablegate stuff.

    mirror.wikileaks.info links to wikileaks.ch if you click on cablegate. They also claim this is a false spam report; the spam report claims that "Wikileaks.info is NOT connected with Julian Assange or the Wikileaks organization" and that "We also note that the content at mirror.wikileaks.info is rather unlike what's at the real Wikileaks mirrors which suggests that the wikileaks.info site may not be under the control of Wikileaks itself, but rather some other group." (Fair enough; it does claim to be a mirror.)

    So is wikileaks.info a malware site or a legitimate WikiLeaks mirror? I'm all for WikiLeaks mirrors, but it seems like the main wikileaks.org domain should link to the main website, not a very different mirror. And if wikileaks.info is a malware site, where do you go to get all the other WikiLeaks content from the old site (it doesn't seem to be available anymore from wikileaks.ch)?

  54. Re:Hmm. by c0lo · · Score: 2

    Is it just me, or is it all fine and dandy for so many non-Americans (be it Belgian teenagers, Australian journalists, or whomever) to support WikiLeaks, when WikiLeaks hasn't launched a smear campaign against their own nations?

    I can only hope I could say it is only you - it would be good to have a single person in this world thinking nation==government. Unfortunately, with too many people of in a nation making this confusion, the risk is one may start wondering: "Is it something wrong with the people of that nation?"

    --
    Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
  55. Re:youre on /., a geek or a nerd, and you dont car by SETIGuy · · Score: 1

    Where's the WikiLeaks coverage of China's human rights issues? How about the Cambodian government's failure to address the problem of child sex workers?

    Are any of those things secret? I hear reports about them all the time. But if you have any leaked government or corporate documents on the subject, send them to wikileaks, and I'm sure they'll be publicized.

    Or are you claiming that wikileaks should be reporting on things that are already available elsewhere?

  56. Re:youre on /., a geek or a nerd, and you dont car by oztiks · · Score: 1

    I didn't say i liked it, i just said whats going to happen.

    Wikileaks has censored the internet for the rest of us.

  57. Rephrased.. by nanospook · · Score: 1

    I probably didn't say this in the best of ways.. a failing.. but basically.. I hate the attitude of do what you are told to do and be a good soldier with no questions in your mind about your actions in regards to your morals. I realize that sometimes this has to be the way the world is but I still hate the rationalization that people make..

    --
    Have you fscked your local propeller head today?
  58. Re:youre on /., a geek or a nerd, and you dont car by SwedishPenguin · · Score: 3, Insightful

    So you're saying we should self-censor in order to not give the government an excuse to implement official censorship? If we don't even use our rights to free speech, why should we care in the first place?
    Our governments already have many, many bogus reasons to censor the Internet..

  59. Re:youre on /., a geek or a nerd, and you dont car by oztiks · · Score: 1

    Bogus reasons bring clutter, conjecture and argument.

    Serious reasons get everyone on side.

  60. Re:youre on /., a geek or a nerd, and you dont car by ushering05401 · · Score: 1

    The worst thing that could happen to the powers that be is that the proles rediscover sneaker-net.

  61. Re:youre on /., a geek or a nerd, and you dont car by definate · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I agree. We should voluntarily give them a big red button (by NOT doing what they don't want us to do).

    So, your worry about giving them an "excuse to stick a big red button on the internet" (like they haven't already tried, and don't have enough reasons already), is that we voluntarily do it for them, by stopping everything they don't like, regardless of whether its just to do so?

    You Sir, are a fucking genius.

    --
    This is my footer. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
  62. Re:Heather Brooke by DurendalMac · · Score: 1

    Oh yeah. I'm familiar with that one. That woman could swallow a goddamned telephone pole...in any of the three funholes.

  63. Re:youre on /., a geek or a nerd, and you dont car by oztiks · · Score: 1

    WTF? Is it just me or is half the ppl on /. a bunch of cynical twits.

    Did I say give it too them? did i say this was a great thing? No and No and no! they dont have enough reasons because if they did there would be a red button. Consider that net censorship was primarily about Kiddy Porn and Piricy things that really dont affect the Govt directly. I dont think i saw Steve Conroy at any point of his limelight days want to push his net filter because of restricting classfied information, did you?

    I'm guessing you have half a brain so I'm assuming you'd know making Apnic, Arin, etc put a Govt deemed process to pull the plug on certian IP's isnt an incredibly difficult thing to do.

    Having Govt secrets broadcasted over the net is a very good reason to want to pass a bill to ensure a control factor such as this. Thinking otherwise is "Fucking Genius". Political Analysts are out there already speculating that its going to be a major point of discussion and if you read the news you can see most countries (with the only exception being Israel) is seeing the situation in a negative light and wouldn't want the same happening to them.

    Moron! Twit.. fag ... see i can call you names too, try to be a little less offensive. That goes for rest of the fucktards wanting to just ark up. Try posting something that constructive I'm totally respectful to other peoples opinions and im happy to debate them with you without the childish banter!

  64. Re:youre on /., a geek or a nerd, and you dont car by Serious+Callers+Only · · Score: 1

    WTF? Is it just me or is[sic] half the ppl on /. a bunch of cynical twits.

    Yes, it's just you and your argument I'm afraid.

    There are several things wrong here - you are suggesting that we should care what our governments think and be afraid of them, you are suggesting that self-censorship is better than trying to evade censorship, you are suggesting that whistleblowing is seen by most populations as a crime, and you are suggesting that western governments can easily pull the plug on websites with no repercussions.

    If governments round the world are scared of the internet, that's a good thing. If this forces governments to expose their true face by pulling the plug on wikileaks, that's also a good thing, as we can see clearly where they stand. If nothing else it gives the lie to posturing over other countries' human rights records by the US, which is often used as an excuse for invasions, and yet ignored when convenient.

    If this excuse didn't exist they'd fabricate another one to try to control the internet (like child porn, as they already have), so the important thing is to fight for what you believe in, not hide behind cowardly excuses about what a government reaction might be.

  65. Re:youre on /., a geek or a nerd, and you dont car by vegiVamp · · Score: 1

    > It's happening in the EU and it's started in the US

    Umm... How is it happening in the EU ? The US is the one with Comcast trying to bill both content providers and content consumers and doing prioritisation; not to mention the government being able to pressure major internet and realworld companies like Paypal, EveryDNS, Amazon and Visa into kicking Wikileaks.

    As for Europe, well... The swedes charged,discharged and recharged Assange - which is probably not originally a US plot, but the recharge might have been political; the UK arrested him - but that's just following Interpol standards; and the Swiss - surprisingly - kicked his bank account, on charges of providing false information, which really is a good enough reason, just a bit very coincidental timing. None of that is related to net neutrality in and of itself, however; and note that the wikileaks domain is currently in Switzerland.

    I dunno; the US seems the worse of where net neutrality is concerned, at least at this moment.

    --
    What a depressingly stupid machine.
  66. Re:Heather Brooke by H3xx · · Score: 1

    I once knew a woman named Jenn Jameson. True story.

    Also, Linus Torvalds is just a "stage" name.

    --
    "Ubuntu" - an African word meaning "Slackware is too hard for me."
  67. Re:youre on /., a geek or a nerd, and you dont car by oztiks · · Score: 1

    Yes, it's just you and your argument I'm afraid.

    No you are so what am I? Ner Ner Ner lets keep at it with the twittery. Moving on from yet another displayed piece of fuckheadedness.

    I'm not worried about the Government and I'm not afraid of them. I'm just stating a fact. Its people like yourself not seeing whats right in front of you.

    Governments controls our spending. Govt controls what type of cars hit the streets. Govt controls whats said on TV. Govt creates the infrastructure we use, transport, communications and that includes the internet.

    The internet has nothing different about it if you compare it to any other form of broadcast service except for the fact at its present stage of development it has a pack of wannabe freedom lovers thinking they are untouchable.

    Another broadcast service was the same back pre internet and it was called CB Radio. Where are they now? On the fucking internet because the govt kicked them off the airwaves.

    Deny it all you want. You want the Govt to not control every little detail of your life go move to the Amazon Rainforest and set up camp. In the meantime the world has been inherited by the meek and the evidence is that politics shapes our lives, like it or not.

  68. Re:youre on /., a geek or a nerd, and you dont car by lxs · · Score: 1

    When the US government cancels the school trip because little Julian was unruly in class don't beat him up in the playground. That's what teacher wants you to do.

  69. Re:youre on /., a geek or a nerd, and you dont car by BitZtream · · Score: 1

    Ironically, had the fucking moron Torrented it from the start, there would be no issue.

    Except he purposefully didn't, knowing that hosting it on US Amazon servers would of course eventually take them off-line.

    It stopped interesting me when it became clear it wasn't about getting the word out, it was about keeping douche bag in the spot light.

    --
    Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
  70. I find this even more interesting than the post by Conspire · · Score: 1

    The following is from Cryptome, link here: http://cryptome.org/0003/wikileaks-amok.htm

    Wikileaks Cables Amok

    A sends:

    In the last days I have been following the release of a bunch of US diplomatic cables from W-i-k-i-l-e-a-k-s. All of them were initially released uncensored but as you might know some of them have been removed, others have been partially redacted (a.k.a. censored) without any kind of prior notice.

    The people from WL said that they will redact some of the names in order to remove personal identifiable information but in fact they have removed full paragraphs that although they could be a little bit embarrassing for US diplomacy they do not put anybody at risk.

    For example:

    - There were 13 cables deleted from WL cablegate site (e.g.: #09LONDON1385).

    - At least 11 cables were slightly redacted (e.g.: #07PARIS322).

    - 138 cables published by Lebanese Al-Akhbar paper but not yet put into WL.

    - 33 cables disclosed by the British paper The Guardian but not yet in WL.

    I have not seen or read any news regarding this strange change of policy in any media so this is the reason I think you might be interested to know about it and maybe publish it in your site for public scrutiny.

    You can check the differences with the uncensored cables at:

    * http://leakager742hufco.onion/ (with tor as its a hidden service)

    * http://www.mein-parteibuch.org.nyud.net/cablegate/

    --
    Real men don't need signitures!!!
  71. Re:youre on /., a geek or a nerd, and you dont car by dave420 · · Score: 1

    Switzerland is not part of the EU, by the way.

  72. Re:youre on /., a geek or a nerd, and you dont car by oztiks · · Score: 1

    True that, people should challenge the Govt at every turn and make the strongest possible point.

    Believe me when i say this i'm no advocate I'm just pointing out my own insights there. Which is we are headed for a regulated internet regardless.

    The good thing about Govt is usually they are very slow to act and it could take years even decades to produce. What Assange has done is sped it up to be simply a few years for some nations simply a few months.

    Assange will go down in the history books as the man who showed the world why censorship was needed and remember the famous quote on who writes those history books? Not particularly a picture painted of accuracy just what the Victors proclaim.

    Within 10 years we are going to see a regulated internet. People are going to need licences to produce websites. Social community sites like Facebook will have to pay for the pleasure of producing the type of content they hold and Businesses will need to pay a yearly fee to whichever Govt they are a part of. The unlicensed sites will be banned from the general public through their filtration mechanisms.

    Think of the amounts of extra money govts can tap in to, another form of tax created by the internet? with the economic issues to date govts would be stupid to pass up such an opportunity. Like i mentioned before in one of my above posts, I would not be at all surprised if the US Govt engineered this whole Wikileaks thing on their own.

    Things like the Australian filter and now the French censorship laws are a wireframe for this, even though the filters may be noneffective today, tomorrow the process grows. This is how Govt works, they take an idea they build on it and they suck the peoples money horrendously until they get it.

    And with the introduction of IPv6 what that be the catalyst of these changes.