Slashdot Mirror


WikiLeaks Begins Release of 2.5m Syrian Emails

judgecorp writes "WikiLeaks has started publishing 2.5 million emails from Syrian political figures and other bodies. The material will embarrass Syria, as well as other governments according to Julian Assange (still hiding in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London). As well as revealing the behaviour of the Syrian regime, the emails will also expose the hypocrisy of other governments and companies, Assange has said."

65 of 322 comments (clear)

  1. And this is why by Phrogman · · Score: 5, Insightful

    We need Wikileaks. Information like this will likely prove to be very informative.

    --
    "The first time I got drunk, I got married. The second time I bought a chimpanzee, after that I stayed sober" Arian Seid
    1. Re:And this is why by plover · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Information like this will likely prove to be very informative.

      And bananas will likely prove to taste very much like bananas, and books will likely prove to contain words.

      I think you were trying to make a point, but it really got lost in your posting.

      --
      John
    2. Re:And this is why by gambino21 · · Score: 5, Informative

      The Bank of America data (along with some other interesting stuff) was deleted by Daniel Domscheit-Berg.

    3. Re:And this is why by SuricouRaven · · Score: 3, Funny

      Future events like these will affect you in the future, my friend.

    4. Re:And this is why by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The only problem is that is Assange is throwing in with people like Putin and Chavez, who kill their journalist opponents or, if they're lucky, just get railroaded into jail. Chavez just completed the dictator trifecta -- hassled opponents and journalists, silencing them. Got the "emergency" power to pass law by decree (the "dictator" part of "dictatorship"), and, just recently, outlawed sales of guns and ammunition.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    5. Re:And this is why by Eggbloke · · Score: 2

      Wow, did they not have backups?

      --
      I care not for your karma and your mod points.
    6. Re:And this is why by Sponge+Bath · · Score: 4, Funny

      No matter where you go, there you are.

    7. Re:And this is why by daem0n1x · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Oh, you Americans! You have supported all kinds of terrible dictators in Latin America. It takes a lot of nerve to be calling Chavez a dictator!

      The only reason you hate him is because he was one of the first Latin American leaders that showed you the finger and you couldn't eliminate! A few others have followed the example, which revolves your guts. Latin America is no longer your backyard, get used to it. If you want oil, pay for it big time, instead of bribing a few officers, like usual.

      If Venezuelans don't want Chavez in power, it's not like they don't have options. Just vote for someone else. It's called democracy, you Americans hypocritically blabber about it ad nauseam. But guess what, he greatly reduced poverty, gave education and healthcare to those who never had anything, he's trying to reduce violence, etc. The majority of Venezuelans are very poor and are living a lot better since he's in power. Maybe they simply... well... like him!

    8. Re:And this is why by tmosley · · Score: 3, Informative
    9. Re:And this is why by Phrogman · · Score: 5, Informative

      Sure, I should have said more evidently. I thought I was being obvious, but obviously I was not :P

      Despite the legions of posters on this site (and every other site I have been to so far) who seem to feel that because Wikileaks DARED to releas US Government secrets that were submitted to them, Assange should be hung, drawn and quartered in public for having the temerity to do so, I think that Wikileaks serves a very valuable service to the bulk of humanity who might be interested in the things their governments are doing in their name and often keeping them from knowing. Releasing the emails from the Syrian government might prove to be very important and have a useful bearing on what is and has been going on there. Without some organization like WL we wouldn't see this stuff at all as members of the public. Moreover, the legion of journalists that will descend on this stuff wouldn't have the ability to root through it and summarize the key information they come across, and then disseminate to us in a more readable format.

      Assange may be an egotistical ass, but the legion of the same posters above who are willing to see him tried and convicted of rape, without charges, without a court deliberation after a trial etc is getting rather annoying to me at least. If he's guilty then let him be charged and tried etc. Until then, he's innocent, just as anyone else who hasn't been charged is innocent. Stating otherwise is just ad hominem attacks that serve no purpose other than to show the poster's personal bias/agenda. What he is doing is a remarkable job of staying in the news, and thus advertising Wikileaks though. He's a figurehead that garners a lot of attention - or an attention whore in other words, and he's doing that very effectively. I have a feeling his greatest crime in the eyes of most US posters though is that he dared to do something that might reflect badly on the US, and "my country tis of thee" etc, they don't want to see a foreigner criticize the US, I guess only US citizens can do that without rancor it seems.

      I think the world needs to do something about the situation in Syria. This information might give us a chance to be better informed on what has happened there and what is happening there, how can that be a bad thing in the long run? Unless of course it turns out that US Government agencies and US Corporations are implicated in the massacre of civilians there - then those same people I mentioned above will only have more ammunition for their arguments as to why Assange should be tried, convicted of treason (against a country he is not a citizen of) and then executed.

      --
      "The first time I got drunk, I got married. The second time I bought a chimpanzee, after that I stayed sober" Arian Seid
    10. Re:And this is why by butalearner · · Score: 5, Funny

      Probably lying upon piles and piles of money.

    11. Re:And this is why by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Anyone who rules by decree is a dictator. It doesn't matter where are they are from, or what they do.

    12. Re:And this is why by tnk1 · · Score: 2

      The fact that the US Government has supported dictators in the past doesn't change the fact that Chavez is one. In fact, you'd think we'd know a dictator when we see one, given our vast experience.

      Also, the fact that the people like him doesn't mean he isn't a dictator. You don't usually get to be a founding dictator in a country by being unpopular. In fact, the real problem with him is not that he's popular or unpopular, but that he's squelching opposition and changing the laws to favor himself. That means that as time goes on, even if the people got sick of him, he's making it harder and harder to set up an effective, legal opposition to his policies or even simply his tenure in office. Eventually, that democratic change that you think is all that is needed will become no more than theoretical.

    13. Re:And this is why by butalearner · · Score: 2

      Despite the legions of posters on this site (and every other site I have been to so far) who seem to feel that because Wikileaks DARED to releas US Government secrets that were submitted to them, Assange should be hung, drawn and quartered in public for having the temerity to do so, I think that Wikileaks serves a very valuable service to the bulk of humanity who might be interested in the things their governments are doing in their name and often keeping them from knowing.

      I may be misremembering, but I was under the impression that the people here generally support the actions of Wikileaks, even if they're not the biggest fans of Assange himself. On most other US news sites it's exactly how you say.

    14. Re:And this is why by daem0n1x · · Score: 3

      Bullshit. They can vote for someone else or even call for a mid-term referendum. Chavez has survived one of these before, I wonder why the opposition doesn't pull that one again? Maybe because they know they'll lose?

    15. Re:And this is why by Internetuser1248 · · Score: 2

      Maybe you should have spent a few more seconds reading my post, specifically the part quoted from its parent.

      You articles show that he asked for emergency powers after a disaster, that he implemented gun control laws and that he closed some private media corporations (since when is CNN liberal?!). The first two are opinions about possible future dictatoryness. Note the words 'critics warn' and 'said[...]a U.S. government office'. This is not evidence, it is opinion. The last one is the only one that even relates to my question. It is also contextless and only the headline and an opinion by the journalist actually offer any 'evidence' that it is repression and not simply normal governance. Chavez accuses them of supporting the coup against him, if true this gives him 'some' justification for closing them, especially as the junta were some pretty dodgy people. But I don't want to get too bogged down in the details of that event, as it is still only peripheral to my question. The parent of my post claimed that he was killing journalists and/or sending them to prison. This is a VERY serious allegation and I don't think I am out of line to ask for substantiation. Do you have any links for that?

      tl:dr Citation still needed for killing/imprisoning journalists

      PS. Seriously? Gun control = dictatorship? I am sorry but I grew up in New Zealand where we have had very strong gun control laws for a long time, that shit is not going to fly with me.

    16. Re:And this is why by crazyjj · · Score: 2

      ow that fucker sleeps at night

      On the pile of cash the CIA paid him as a plant and agent provocateur.

      --
      What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
    17. Re:And this is why by Rei · · Score: 5, Funny

      And they say that the Titanic was sunk by someone named Iceberg! Clearly the world zionist conspiracy is afoot!

      --
      Rock Us, Dukakis.
    18. Re:And this is why by Rei · · Score: 2

      If he's guilty then let him be charged and tried etc

      Glad to see we're in agreement on this one. Step one, in accordance with Swedish law, he needs to stop running and hand himself over for extradition to the country so that he can be charged on Swedish soil.

      --
      Rock Us, Dukakis.
    19. Re:And this is why by Internetuser1248 · · Score: 2

      I read a bit further on the emergency powers issue. One one hand Chavez voluntarily reduced the term of his emergency powers from 18 months to 6, to disprove the criticism that he is a dictator, on the other hand he did quickly sign a whole bunch of laws on the last days of those powers. The news media didn't see fit to furnish me with details of those laws though, so it is difficult to judge the level of oppressiveness. There is a reason I said 'as leaders go', I don't think he is a saint or anything, I personally think he has been in power far too long and power corrupts. The Venezuelan people seriously need to vote for someone else in the next election. I was just saying that the demonizing 'oppressive fascist dictator' FUD is more garbage propaganda from right wing US news organisation and anyone who takes it seriously should seriously consider critical thinking, education and/or being silent. I think he was a good leader and did a lot of good for his country and its people, but he has passed his use-by date and needs to go now.

    20. Re:And this is why by FingerDemon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I have mixed feelings about Wikileaks. On the one hand, I like when gov't wrong doing that has been covered up is revealed. But on the other, Assange has the view that countries should always say the same things in public as in private (He said so in 60 minutes inteview). I think this is just not a standard that any nation can live up to. Most decent people don't live that way and neither would I expect well run nations to do so. Even allies will make public statements while having more private views and back channel communications. I really don't see that as wrong. It is only if it is used to propagate hurtful lies or hide important truths that make it wrong.
      As for his criminal accusations, I don't know what to think. I am skeptical of the accusations and the way they were made. But I am equally skeptical of the defense of him I have heard. I don't know what the truth is. I can only hope if he committed a crime, he gets a fair trial. And if he didn't, that all accusations and allegations would be dropped.
      If the U.S. is involved in the massacre of civilians in Syria, I would want to know about it. And I would want those responsible to answer for it. However, I do think that scenario unlikely in the case of Syria, from what I have read.

      --

      "Contrarily the lookaside buffer might not be the panacea... "
    21. Re:And this is why by Nadaka · · Score: 2

      There was evidence of vote tampering and fraud in that election.

    22. Re:And this is why by Internetuser1248 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Anyone who rules by decree is a dictator. It doesn't matter where are they are from, or what they do.

      In fact, you'd think we'd know a dictator when we see one, given our vast experience.

      You would hope so, but to be honest I don't have a lot of faith in your judgement. Sorry.

    23. Re:And this is why by daem0n1x · · Score: 3, Informative

      Care to cite any evidence? As far as I know, elections in Venezuela are closely watched by thousands of UN observers, and they never declared any significant fraud since Chavez is in power. Check this.

      Which is more than you can say about Baby Bush's first election...

    24. Re:And this is why by SvnLyrBrto · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Look at it from HIS point of view though.

      If he did not rape those women, then he's got a corrupt government and police force on a witch hunt, trying to frame him far a crime he didn't commit. Presumably, this is being done by Sweden at the behest of the US government, which wants his head served up on a platter. Why anyone surrender himself to that situation. It's not like he'd get anything resembling a fair trial, in Sweden, or here after the inevitable rendition.Â

      If he DID rape those women, then he really is a scumbag of scumbags, every bit as bad... worse... as the republicans here make him out to be. Why would you expect that a lowlife like that would have even a sliver of honor? And every second he dodges extradition is another second he dodges justice and if free to rape again.Â

      Innocent *or* guilty, his circumstances don't exactly favor surrender.

      --
      Imagine all the people...
    25. Re:And this is why by Phrogman · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Well I can't argue that myself. However, he seems to think that the whole purpose of them wanting him to go to Sweden is so that he can then be extradited directly to the US, and he apparently feels that the US Gov't is somewhat irritated with him for some reason.
      Since the Swedes have allowed the US to use extraordinary rendition against at least one individual in Sweden in the past, and since they have already questioned him, determined that there was no case, and given him permission to leave, I don't think his suspicions are entirely unreasonable. I don't pretend to know all the details, understand Swedish law or understand the finer nuances of how Swedish law defines sexual misconducts (its much more defined there than it would be in Canada (where I am from) or the US (where most of you are). I can understand someone deciding that having already been examined, and given permission to leave because no charges were going to be laid after answering all the questions put to him, he might decide he doesn't see why he should have to go through that whole process again.
      Then we have the various questions about why the 2 women raised the whole issue in the first place and their (to me at least) somewhat suspicious behavior, plus the fact that one of them has had some connection to the CIA in the past (if that is true). Assange has to be fairly paranoid and I am sure this all feeds that - whether or not there is any justification to his fears.
      I am not defending him mind you, just saying I can understand why he doesn't want to go to Sweden.

      Personally, I am now of the mind that the US does want him, but mostly so they can use him in the trial of Bradley Manning. Assange has had so much publicity that if the US does extradite him they will have to watch what they do with him under the world's eyes (although that often doesn't seem to matter to the US Gov't I admit). Manning on the other hand is clearly someone they want to try and punish. Its two ends of the same problem. If the US shows they will locate, try and punish harshly anyone who reveals stuff to Wikileaks, then they achieve the same goal: preventing something similar from happening in the future.

      --
      "The first time I got drunk, I got married. The second time I bought a chimpanzee, after that I stayed sober" Arian Seid
    26. Re:And this is why by sjames · · Score: 2

      Even in your post, the smear campaign's effect can be seen. The crime he is accused of in Sweden isn't what MOST countries would call rape. A better translation would be "general douchbaggery with sex involved".

      IF proven true, it would hardly make him a paragon of virtue, but it wouldn't even be considered to rise to the level of a crime in most countries.

    27. Re:And this is why by pastafazou · · Score: 2, Informative

      citation 1
      citation 2
      citation 3
      citation 4
      citation 5
      citation 6
      citation 7
      citation 8
      citation 9
      citation 10
      Okay, there's 10 citations for you. Begin your spin, denouncements, deflections, justifications, and outright lies.....

    28. Re:And this is why by dbIII · · Score: 2

      Unless of course it turns out that US Government agencies and US Corporations are implicated in the massacre of civilians there

      Even if they are not, the co-operation between US agencies and Syria with the "extreme rendition" incidents (ie. torture of US prisoners subcontracted out to Syria) is probably enough for some to argue that releasing stuff about Syria that could implicate people from the USA is "unpatriotic".
      It's an odd situation where joint operations were carried out with a nation that the general public see as an enemy (refer also to Algeria for even more involvement in a regime far worse than Zimbabwe), so currently people in US politics are busy ignoring the problems in Syria and hoping they will just vanish until everyone forgets that links made during the Iraq war.

  2. pics? by netwarerip · · Score: 2

    I guess as long as there are no pics of the prophet then no one will mind.
    Oh, who am I kidding? No one will care much outside Syria anyway, at least not for more than 5 minutes and a tweet or 2.

  3. How Wikileaks will take itself out. . . by PerlPunk · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Wikileaks is a project waiting for just one of those less politically correct countries like Syria but that has enough time on their hands to send a hit squad to wipe them out permanently--as in personnel and extended family if necessary.

    1. Re:How Wikileaks will take itself out. . . by gl4ss · · Score: 2

      well, they tried but they tried buying the service from columbian cartels.

      but seriously, basically you're suggesting that journalists should be scared of offending some fucking douchebag dictators who have their hands full with their own very, very pissed off rebels, activists and dictator-to-be wanabes. hell, you're suggesting that we should just stop talking shit about every regime because otherwise they'll come and kill everyone of us! like in their shitty propaganda! What the fuck??

      fuck that, of course they know that's something that might happen - that's why it's been tried to setup so that the information they have gets released regardless. so it would make only sense to take them out if you knew they were about to receive information about your regime.

      wtf do they care about a proxy publisher anways? assad&gang is more interested in wiping the leakers, they could have leaked the information through a dozen other ways as well, for example in exchange for money to mossad.

      besides, if syria had an uber hitsquad capable of wiping out extended families, you'd think they would us those on people dealing weapons to their rebels, no?

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
  4. Re:Droning on and on by Issarlk · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Why? Has your country something embarasing to hide?

  5. Finally... by olau · · Score: 4, Interesting

    ...some real, possibly world-changing leaks stories instead of all the crap about Assange and his whereabouts.

    There was a news report on Danish television about the Syrian regime and how it's treating dissidents. That was not pleasant to watch.

    1. Re:Finally... by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 3

      I keep hearing about what is happening in Syria, and wonder exactly the UN is for if not stopping exactly that kind of shit.

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    2. Re:Finally... by Rei · · Score: 2

      And if that doesn't work, they're going to tattle to Syria's mom.

      --
      Rock Us, Dukakis.
    3. Re:Finally... by tbannist · · Score: 2

      The U.N. exists to prevent the U.S., China, England, France and Russia from going to war with each other. That is its primary purpose, that's why each of those nations have permanent security council seats and vetos. China and Russia and have been using their vetos to allow the Syrian bloodshed to play out. The implicit threat is that they would consider going to war over the issue if the rest of the world intervenes.

      --
      Fanatically anti-fanatical
    4. Re:Finally... by fustakrakich · · Score: 2

      You got it all wrong. It's just business, like the whole Qaddafi thing.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
  6. The leaks with a twist... by jellomizer · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "the emails will also expose the hypocrisy of other governments and companies"

    In other words he will filter out data that will United States and Western Europe in a good light.

    My prediction it will show that Companies are dealing with Syria by working around any laws to stop them, and there are some politicians who were willing to look the other way for some concessions, and Oil...

    If you don't know this stuff is actually happening then you are either an idiot, or you live in Mr. Happy land where your country can do no wrong.

    --
    If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    1. Re:The leaks with a twist... by daem0n1x · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "the emails will also expose the hypocrisy of other governments and companies"

      In other words he will filter out data that will United States and Western Europe in a good light.

      So, when he filters you accuse him of cherry-picking. When he publishes everything you accuse him of publishing shitloads of irrelevant and mundane data. If you want to bash the man, at least get your hatred bullshit straight! It the US and Western Europe are so pure and clean they should have nothing to fear, should they?

      My prediction it will show that Companies are dealing with Syria by working around any laws to stop them, and there are some politicians who were willing to look the other way for some concessions, and Oil...

      If you don't know this stuff is actually happening then you are either an idiot, or you live in Mr. Happy land where your country can do no wrong.

      One thing is people gossiping about that. It's only one more conspiracy theory to add to the lot. But this is evidence. It's quite different. You're just trying to spin it to your liking. If there weren't embarrassing details for the West you'd be screaming and shouting about how monstrous the Assad regime is, and how this is the definitive evidence to justify an invasion!

  7. 2.5m? by hobarrera · · Score: 3, Funny

    They're releasing 2.5metres of emails? Or maybe it's miles!

    1. Re:2.5m? by Quakeulf · · Score: 2

      They're using standard-issue A4 office printer paper, which is quite thin. Besides, I don't think the governments communicated enough.

  8. Re:Assange is not hiding. by bsane · · Score: 2

    'hiding' is exactly what he is doing, it has more than one meaning:

    http://www.thefreedictionary.com/hiding

    v.intr.
    2. To seek refuge.

  9. You're talking to the wrong crowd by daveschroeder · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Most of the commenters here will twist this story into how the US is somehow evil, and drone on (pun intended) about how the US and West governments and/or corporations and/or political systems are what's wrong with the world, when in reality, people are suffering and dying under actual tyranny and oppression.

    Like in Syria.

    It's about time Wikileaks lived up to its initial stated mission of "exposing oppressive regimes in Asia, the former Soviet bloc, Sub-Saharan Africa and the Middle East," instead of becoming an anti-US pulpit for a self-righteous egomaniac who has openly said if he was asked to choose between "advocate"/"activist" and "journalist", he would choose "advocate", and who answered "I'm too busy ending two wars," in response to a reporter asking for clarity on an issue.

    (And no, this doesn't mean the US and West are all-perfect or all-wise — what it means is that people need to get out of their bizarro world and get some perspective on things. A clue wouldn't hurt, either.)

    1. Re:You're talking to the wrong crowd by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 2

      As The Good Guys(tm), we have a right to an unsullied public image. Even holding the theory that our goodness state is some kind of empirical question, to be decided by looking at our actions, is downright anti-American.

    2. Re:You're talking to the wrong crowd by copponex · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Most of the commenters here will twist this story into how the US is somehow evil, and drone on (pun intended) about how the US and West governments and/or corporations and/or political systems are what's wrong with the world, when in reality, people are suffering and dying under actual tyranny and oppression.

      Like in Syria.

      You are absolutely right, and absolutely wrong.

      In December of 2001, U.S. agents arranged to have a German citizen flown to a Syrian jail called the Palestine Branch, renowned for its use of torture, and later offered to pass written questions to Syrian interrogators to pose to the prisoner, according to a secret German intelligence report shown to TIME on Wednesday. The report is described in the new book Ghost Plane: The True Story of the CIA Torture Program by British investigative journalist Stephen Grey. The complex arrangement was part of the CIA's sprawling practice of extraordinary renditions, the secret transfer of terror suspects to hidden prisons across the world -- which has involved the aid of numerous foreign governments and the knowledge of key Western European allies, according to the book, which was shown to TIME by the author. After U.S. officials long refused to confirm the CIA's secret detention of terror suspects abroad, President Bush last month admitted that terror suspects had been transferred abroad to secret CIA facilities, but U.S. officials continue to deny that such prisoners have been tortured, saying that foreign governments assured them that they would be treated fairly.

      Inside the CIA's Secret Prisons Program, Time Magazine, 2006

      And before you backpedal on what happened to Maher Arar:

      This week the Supreme Court denied, without comment, the appeal of Maher Arar, a dual citizen of Canada and Syria who was arrested in transit through JFK airport in 2002, then shipped off to Syria and tortured for 10 months. Arar's abuse allegedly included repeated beatings with electrical cables and confinement in a cell the size of a grave. When they realized they had the wrong guy -- the really, totally, and utterly innocent guy -- Arar was released without charges. He was then completely exonerated of any link to terror by the Canadian government, which impaneled a commission to investigate the incident, issued a 1,000-plus-page report on the matter, held its own intelligence forces responsible for their role in the screw-up, then apologized and paid Arar $9.8 million. Whereas the U.S. government -- as Glenn Greenwald observes -- has never apologized, never acknowledged any wrongdoing, never held anyone responsible, and, on President Barack Obama's watch, has only redoubled its efforts to prevent Arar from having even a single day in court.

      So, we took an innocent man, illegally shipped him off to Syria (probably in exchange for easing off pressure on the Assad regime), tortured him, and now we're denying him his day in court to hold our government to account. Stop pretending that you, or the American government, has any principled position on matters of human rights. Syrian torture facilities are just dandy when we want to use them. The fact is that we have put more bodies in the ground this decade than the Assad regime has in it's entire family history.

      That's why you focus on Assange, instead of dealing with what his organization has revealed. The truth isn't important to you. Protecting American state power is. Oddly enough, the American government keeps telling me that they're free to subpoena everything about me and my life, and that I should have nothing to fear if I have nothing to hide, and now we're saying the same thing. Why is the American government so afraid of the truth?

      As a huge world power, they've got lots of little people like you, desperately clinging at the teat of the empire, ready to kill eno

    3. Re:You're talking to the wrong crowd by BForrester · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Countries with the greatest capacity to do harm, and the likely propensity to exercise that power should be under the greatest scrutiny.

      Deaths in Syrian uprising: nearly 18,000
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_uprising_(2011%E2%80%93present)#Deaths

      Deaths in US-Afghanistan War: nearly 18,000
      http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2010/aug/10/afghanistan-civilian-casualties-statistics

      Deaths in US-Iraq war: approximately 110,000
      http://www.iraqbodycount.org/database/

      So, while Syria certainly needs to be on the watch list, and it is very advantageous for the supporters of that regime to be unmasked and exposed, the Western governments do not get a free pass just because some people have concluded that they are not oppressive or dangerous to their own people.

    4. Re:You're talking to the wrong crowd by LordLucless · · Score: 2

      It's about time Wikileaks lived up to its initial stated mission [archive.org] of "exposing oppressive regimes in Asia, the former Soviet bloc, Sub-Saharan Africa and the Middle East,"

      What, like releasing 2.5 million emails from Syrian political figures? I just love how you brainless "patriots" will praise people as long as they only criticize the people your leaders have decided are "bad guys", but as soon as they reveal how close the "good guys" come to being bad, you decry them for being anti-American. You're not looking for information, you're looking for useful propaganda. A true patriot would be backing what America stands for, not what America does just because it's America doing it.

      All it takes is to read your second reply to the OP to see how incapable you are of ever believing your country could do any wrong. Your attitude is blinkered, and foolish, and only leads to you being exploited by those gaming the political system to maintain power. I don't care so much about that - you deserve it. But unfortunately, people like you take the rest of the country down with you.

      --
      Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
    5. Re:You're talking to the wrong crowd by daveschroeder · · Score: 4, Insightful

      *Sigh*

      Now we're getting into semantics, but it's not necessarily malicious, nor murder, nor "illegal" to kill in war. It is possible for a killing, even in wartime, to be all of those things. This wasn't one of those times. It's also possible to kill civilians accidentally and still not have it be malicious or a crime. Yes, someone is still dead — but intent matters, even in war. This is not a new construct.

    6. Re:You're talking to the wrong crowd by daveschroeder · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I hope the amount of incorrect, ranting assumptions you've made about me and what you think I stand for made you feel better.

      I don't discount any of the facts about individual incidents in your comment, nor would I ever be foolish or arrogant enough to say the US has never made a mistake — we have made plenty and will make plenty more — but let me ask you something:

      Do you believe that the world and humanity would be better off if the US hadn't existed after, say, WWII? Not just from a geopolitical perspective, but from perspectives of technology, medicine, and similar?

      Do you believe that someone like, say, China, or an amalgamation of warring mideast states, or perhaps even an old Soviet superstate would be a better global steward than the United States and the West?

      If you can answer "Yes", or even "Perhaps", to either of those questions, we share no common ground from which to even have a discussion.

    7. Re:You're talking to the wrong crowd by Hatta · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The video was not "chilling" unless you expect war to be a happy affair

      Most people don't think about the costs of war. Presenting them with actual footage really does chill the general public. If it didn't, they wouldn't bother hiding it from us.

      Yes, war is hell and sometimes people choose to do it anyway. But if they do, they should be presented with the consequences of their choices as directly and as often as possible. This is the service that Wikileaks provided with its release of Collateral Murder.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    8. Re:You're talking to the wrong crowd by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Neligence matters too, and that's where the US troops in the video fell foul.

      Most militaries in the world are trained to confirm their targets before firing, America fails miserably at this which is precisely why it's everything from the butt of countless friendly fire jokes, to being see as a hated occupying army by the Iraqis and Afghans.

      The fact is the people in question, and most certainly the vehicle that tried to help were not an immediate threat to anyone. Any other military force with a care for human rights (i.e. Canadian, European, Australian, New Zealand) would've at least waited until there was an actual clear risk before pulling the trigger. These forces recognise that even if that means waiting until an RPG is actually fired, that even if it led to the death of one of their own, then that's a far safer action in the grand scheme of things than riling up a civilian population to fight against you by killing children which will inevitably mean 10s, possibly hundreds of your soldiers dying as an indirect effect of that. The math is simple, but US forces aren't trained to think about the bigger picture, only the excitement of pulling a trigger, and this is why the troops in the video were criminally negligent and should at very least have been held up on manslaughter charges if nothing else.

      Still, it's America's choice, they're the ones who are throwing thousands of their sons into graves for no reason because they consistently end up having to run from said wars with their tales between their legs. It's just a shame other nation's civilians have to die because of their military incompetence. The only saving grace is that even the American public eventually get sick of seeing their own kids come home in body bags because they have no clue that fighting a war is about far more than simply pulling the trigger.

    9. Re:You're talking to the wrong crowd by Nadaka · · Score: 3, Informative

      You would be wrong. The entire video does not show the crime, it shows the context for the crime that takes place in one specific part of the video.

      When the van pulls onto the scene in the video, you can hear the gunner begging for permission to open fire. And then lying to his CO over the radio, claiming that the people were collecting guns and bodies, when they were very very clearly only retrieving the 1 wounded survivor. Wither or not there was some mistaken identity earlier is debatable. but that specific instance with the van? That is most definitely a crime.

    10. Re:You're talking to the wrong crowd by Rei · · Score: 3, Informative

      Iraq Body Count is one of the lowest estimates out there. There are three peer-reviewed studies on it (IBC is not among them): the Iraq Family Health Survey, the Lancet survey, and the Opinion Research Business survey. The Lancet's value of 655k dead by June 2006 (601k from violence, and of those, 181k from the coalition and 276k where the killer was unknown) is the middle one of the three. They also have had the most feedback on the paper and the best sampling, so if anyone is going to cite just one work on the subject, it should probably be them.

      --
      Rock Us, Dukakis.
    11. Re:You're talking to the wrong crowd by Nadaka · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Then why are they releasing information on Syria, a decidedly anti-western country?

  10. Govt. By The People, FOR The People .... by King_TJ · · Score: 2

    This concept may be foreign to some people living on this planet, but certainly as a U.S. citizen, I was raised believing in the idea. As an adult, I've learned what a fantasy it really is today ... but that's doesn't mean it's not a worthy goal to keep striving for.

    So thanks again, wikileaks -- because a govt. keeping secrets isn't a very accountable one.

  11. Re:How Wikileaks will take itself out. . . or not. by Dunbal · · Score: 2

    I think you have failed to notice that the BBC and NYT don't publish those kinds of article anymore.

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  12. The problem with moral relativism by daveschroeder · · Score: 3, Informative

    They're all SOMETHING, and differ in degree, but the US and the principles for which it stands, however imperfectly throughout history, can definitely not be generalized as "evil". I can't say the same for totalitarian states — throughout history, or now.

    Saying it's all "just different kinds of evil" shamefully ignores the countless tens millions of people who have died under the repression, tyranny, and selfishness of totalitarian regimes.

    Yes, be vigilant. Yes, identify injustice. Yes, call out abuse. But as soon as you start believing the US is "just as bad" (or some similar sentiment) as any other government, but "just in a different way", you have lost all perspective on the realities of history and the world in which we live.

  13. Re:Above the law ? by darjen · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Wow, talk about wild eyed assertions. Accusing Wikileaks of being a front for "something else" with absolutely no evidence whatsoever. Sounds to me like you just don't like what they do, so you will say any damn ridiculous thing you can to try and discredit them.

  14. Re:Droning on and on by miscGeek · · Score: 2

    Every country has something embarrassing to hide. Just some more than others.

    --
    May the source be with you!
  15. List of Releases by mat.power · · Score: 5, Informative
  16. Was it just me? by sharkey · · Score: 2

    At first glance, I read that as "Sybian Emails", and was wondering what the contents could possibly be.

    --

    --
    "Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
  17. Re:Above the law ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Fugitive?

    The women wanted him to take an HIV test and asked police for advice. Random attorney jumped and called it rape. Some sane guy read it and said 'what lol' and dropped the case. Said retard attorney dug it back up along with the help of Bodström, with whose help they poisoned his well and made him look like a rapist in the medias (which is all owned by the Bonnier group).

    Assange offered to be questioned/interviewed, but the attorney declined. He did so again and warned that he was headed overseas, but she declined. Then when he's at the airport some minutes before takeoff, she issues an arrest warrant for questioning, and later the interpol most wanted call. The ladies involved who asked about what they could/should do about the hiv test are long since out of the picture.

    There are lots of precedents where Swedish authorities have interviewed/questioned people over phone, or even by traveling to the country where the person is to do it there. Ny and Bodström don't want to; they want him inside Sweden.

    Once here they can ship him off to US in all accordance with Swedish law, without any court proceedings (or if any then behind closed doors as is usually reserved for sexual assault on minors, very hush hush). The temporary surrender agreement that we have with the states just demands that the reason why the US wants the extraditee mustn't be political.

    The secret grand jury has had ample time to invent a new interpretation of the espionnage laws by now, so when he lands at JFK they'll be waiting with an orange jumpsuit, a pair of zipties and a tazer. After a ~year of psychological torture (sleep deprivation is very very very effective), Manning could easily be coaxed into saying Assange made him do it, and then he'd get gitmoed.

    I don't think they'll suicide him right away lest he become a martyr. Though I guess they could do the burial-at-sea thing again.

  18. Re:Wikileaks joins Syria bashing train? by dkleinsc · · Score: 2

    ... could be a lot worse.

    A lot worse for whom exactly? Certainly not the portions of the Syrian population that are getting killed by their own government.

    I mean, how exactly would you react if the US government started dropping bombs on, say, Houston? Would you want the rest of the world to say "Hey, that's better than having a Texan in the White House!"

    --
    I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
  19. Re:Nice line. But Assange isn't "hiding". by Rei · · Score: 2

    Sorry, but that is 100% false and pure victim smearing. And there is no such charge as "sex by surprise". The charge they want to try him for (well, one of the four) is "mindre grov våldtäkt" ("minor rape" - literally, "less than major rape"), but had it happened in the UK it would simply be prosecuted as "rape". Which isn't speculation; that's what the British lower court determined and what the high court upheld. The total maximum penalty is 4 years jail time.

    The term "sex by surprise" comes from Assange's attorney pushing a literal translation of the term "överraskningssex", which is not a charge, just a description (and while "överraskning" means "surprise", "överraskningssex" still means "rape").

    --
    Rock Us, Dukakis.