Slashdot Mirror


WikiLeaks Published Rape Victims' Names, Credit Cards, Medical Data (arstechnica.com)

Joe Mullin, writing for ArsTechnica: Even as WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange sits trapped in the Ecuadorean embassy, the WikiLeaks website continues to publish the secrets of various governments worldwide. But that's not all it's publishing. A report today by the Associated Press highlights citizens who had "sensitive family, financial or identity records" published by the site. "They published everything: my phone, address, name, details," said one Saudi man whose paternity dispute was revealed in documents published by the site. "If the family of my wife saw this... Publishing personal stuff like that could destroy people." One document dump, from Saudi diplomatic cables, held at least 124 medical files. The files named sick children, refugees, and patients with psychiatric conditions. In one case, the cables included the name of a Saudi who was arrested for being gay. In Saudi Arabia, homosexuality is punishable by death. In two other cases, WikiLeaks published the names of teenage rape victims. "This has nothing to do with politics or corruption," said Dr. Nayef al-Fayez, who had a patient with brain cancer whose personal details were published.

306 comments

  1. The end justifies the means by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Publish away! All the things!

    1. Re:The end justifies the means by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Publish away! All the things!

      You utter, fucking cockwomble! Peoples private/personal lives and political allegiances are none of your business unless they betray, contradict and therefore hypocritize a public stance. A politician who attacks homosexuals and is homosexual is news. Conversely, a politician who presents no public position on sexuality and is homosexual is not. Wikileaks lost me when they published the names of BNP members and undermined the political agency of private individuals. It matters not that I disagreed with the politics of the BNP, wikileaks should have been sued into the ground back then!

      As to the latest 'leak'. There is a big clue in the words "private" and "personal" meaning absolutely none of anyone else's business. If you think differently, you are mentally ill!

    2. Re:The end justifies the means by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Haven't you heard? Privacy doesn't exist any more and you should get over it.

      At least that is what Google and Microsoft (and their fanbois/shills) would have you believe.

    3. Re:The end justifies the means by jc42 · · Score: 0

      It's probably not that meaningful, anyway. Somewhere around 20-40% of the info in these documents will turn out to be wrong or misleading in some critical way. Mostly, it'll just be a case of "name files", with info about different people with the same (or similar) names entered in the wrong place. People will learn pretty quickly to deny anything they don't like. Of course, others will believe whatever they want about you, especially if it was in some "secret" document. But they too will learn that the info about them is also full of errors. More importantly, your friends and relatives will learn the same thing.

      I've yet to see any official document about me (including medical records) that didn't have some bizarre thing with unknown origin. The people who keep the records just respond with a grin and a comment starting with "Yeah ....".

      Actually, my favorite example, which my wife loves telling other people, is one of those "not even wrong" things that a nurse wrote down after a routine exam, saying that I was 5'13" tall and weighted 135 pounds. I am in fact about six feet one inch, but 135 pounds would make me one of the scrawniest six-footers on the planet. She'd used one of those old-fashioned scales with sliding weights, and had forgotten that she'd slid over a third 50-pound weight. But I've since then seen several personal histories that include that 135-pound weight back then. Once such things get into the database, they're almost impossible to correct. This is especially true of medical records. This can be really annoying to those that've had a "false positive" diagnosis somewhere along the line. But such things are pretty good at teaching you how much you can trust the "official" data about other people.

      (I sometimes wonder if official records in other "advanced" countries are as screwed up as they are here in the US. I'd guess that they probably are.)

      --
      Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
    4. Re:The end justifies the means by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Somewhere around 20-40% of the info in these documents will turn out to be wrong or misleading in some critical way.

      I'm sure that will be a great comfort to the alleged witches as they drown.

      Also, just because some personal data is correct, that doesn't mean the entire world has any right or need to know. People suffer unfair discrimination or worse because of perfectly legitimate personal matters all the time, which is the most compelling argument for the importance of privacy.

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    5. Re:The end justifies the means by invid · · Score: 1

      If everyone knows everything about everyone else then those with an advantage of raw power will have the upper hand. Privacy and anonymity give some measure of protection to the powerless.

      --
      The Moore-Murphy Law: The number of things that will go wrong will double every 2 years.
    6. Re:The end justifies the means by OakDragon · · Score: 0

      Funny that we're concerned about this now that DNC emails are being leaked. Never heard about this before.

    7. Re:The end justifies the means by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree, 100%. Somehow though, I was shouted down during the first big leaks for WikiLeaks. Because it was embarrassing for the US, everyone still loved it. They didn't care if it caused real problems for innocent people.

    8. Re:The end justifies the means by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ok, you first. What is your name, social security number (or equivalent where you live), address, bank account number, ATM pin, record of traffic violations, medical records, etc.?

  2. Criminal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Wikileaks has devolved into pretty much just Julian and a disciple or two. He doesn't have the bandwidth to do vetting, he's just burning the Earth now.

    1. Re:Criminal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was not aware they ever did any vetting, and if they did, what their standard of care was

    2. Re:Criminal by MightyMartian · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Mod +1. Assange is now purely in the vengeance game, so far as I can tell, though to be honest, at least as far as burning Clinton's career prospects to the ground, the term "damp squib" comes to mind. If there's one thing the DNC document dump proved, he's sitting on top of a big pile of nothing, and soon enough I think the press will just move on.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    3. Re:Criminal by bobbied · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I was not aware they ever did any vetting, and if they did, what their standard of care was

      Of course they do vetting... They ask two questions... 1. Is it a good story (not true, just plausible is all that's required)? You can make it up as a total work of fiction, but if SOMEBODY might think it's true you meet this requirement. 2. Will it draw attention to us? It doesn't matter if it's good or bad attention.

      Unless your story meets these standards, forget it.... Well, unless you are willing to pay something for it. Websites and press releases cost money you know.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    4. Re:Criminal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dumping on Clinton strike 1, this strike 2 and 3. Wikileaks lost all credibility.

    5. Re:Criminal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      how dare somebody stand up to clinton

    6. Re:Criminal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But, but, it showed that the DNC is doing exactly what anyone interested in politics expected them to do! ... You know, political stuff.

      Seriously though, Assange has just finally lost it. I can't imagine being stuck in an embassy for the rest of your life is fun, but at least Snowden seems keen on continuing his original mission; by way of contrast.

    7. Re:Criminal by Megol · · Score: 1

      He isn't stuck anywhere - he can walk out anytime.

    8. Re:Criminal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      WELL BOO FUCKING HOO CUPCAKE. If she wasn't corrupt to the core along with her ilk, there wouldn't be anything to leak. Go cry in your "safe space" some more while the rest of us sane adults continue to call for her indictment.

    9. Re:Criminal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Didn't he claim awhile back that his next leak would guarantee Clinton's arrest? Then came the molehill mountain of DNC emails, which amounted to nothing as far as HRC was concerned.

      Hey Julian, shit or get off the pot. There are real, relevant leakers out there these days.

    10. Re:Criminal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How dare he threaten a big dump then not do anything.

    11. Re:Criminal by MightyMartian · · Score: 0

      The problem being there doesn't seem to be that much to leak. Some emails were staffers bad mouth Bernie Sanders isn't exactly evidence of high crimes, I'm afraid.

      It strikes me that the real snowflakes around here are all the Trump and Bernie supporters who can't face the electoral success that is about to be bequeathed upon Clinton.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    12. Re:Criminal by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      And immediately be arrested. Not only is he still due to answer for criminal allegations in Sweden, the fact that he ran from British justice means he'll have to answer for that to. He's sort of a low-budget Roman Polanski.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    13. Re:Criminal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Oh look. It's one of Slashdot's resident Liberal apologists here to downplay all the corruption, lies, bribery, racism, religious discrimination, sexism, and collusion in the DNC email leak. I suppose Chairwoman Debbie and 4 other staffers are out of a job because of this 'no big deal, nothing to see here' leak, which by coincidence is the same defense in every Hillary scandal. Including the ones where there's proof positive she's lying but continues to do it anyway.

    14. Re:Criminal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Lost it = Exposing my guys' crimes.

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

      he claims a lot of things. always has.

      my favorite from when he was living in abandoned houses in Melbourne, was that he had ten thousand dollars hidden under his bed. definitely a touch of the Trumps there.

    16. Re: Criminal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Guys, why can't we all just agree that, like the vast majority of politicians, both (major) candidates suck immensely? Is that really so hard?

    17. Re:Criminal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You "sane adults"* calling for a politically-motivated indictment risk destroying the US economy by electing a clueless orange buffoon who panders to lunatics and fools. We need to reject Drumpf and the terrible people who have been emboldened by his openly-bigoted campaign. *Internalizing right-wing propaganda does not make a person a sane adult. It only makes them angry and misinformed, which develops into hatred of people who don't take their misguided concerns seriously.

    18. Re:Criminal by Kabukiwookie · · Score: 1

      This is just as inane as someone telling you that 'you're free to walk under a bus anytime. Nobody is stopping you.'

      --
      The mountains of madness have many little plateaus of sanity - Terry Pratchett.
    19. Re:Criminal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Mod +1. Assange is now purely in the vengeance game, so far as I can tell,

      I move that he is in the "Send the US into a death spiral by getting Trump elected" game. If getting back at Clinton were his sole motivation, he could have released his emails before she clinched the nomination and while she was still in a heated contest with Sanders. He waited until she represented the Democratic party against Trump and only then released the information.

      If you want to make Clinton lose and not threaten the stability of the global economy by putting a petty, orange, bancrupt (literally) fascist in charge of the worlds biggest superpower, you do it much earlier than he chose to. Putin must be proud of him.

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

      Thanks for Correcting The Record (TM) you paid shill.

      Several high up DNC staff have resigned over those emails, partly due to corruption. Debbie Wasserman Schulz was immediately hired into the Clinton Campaign.

      There's more, pay for play at the state department, it goes on.

    21. Re: Criminal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      No, we can't. Because that sort of bullshit cynicism is the most corrosive force in modern politics. If you assume everyone is crap, then you there is no penalty for being crappy. So grow the fuck up and stopping being an useful idiot for every corrupt ass.

    22. Re:Criminal by Darinbob · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Wikileaks started as a good idea, and promoted itself with open ideals. Since then it's been clear that Assange is the sole dictator of Wikileaks and he has kicked out earlly members who have wanted more security, more transparency, and more structure. Assange was unhappy that Domsheitt-Berg "leaked" details of unhappiness of Wikileaks management. Ever since the Afghan leaks it's been on a rapid decline in quality, relevance, and importance. Nothing in the leaks of private details of ordinary citizens have anything to do with documents of "political, diplomatic, historical or ethical interest", the original Wikileaks mission.

    23. Re:Criminal by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      And also notice how Snowden still retains much respect around the world, whereas Assange is more of a joke with only a core set of true believers in his cult. Even many of the original Wikileaks founders have departed or been kicked out.

    24. Re:Criminal by Darinbob · · Score: 1, Troll

      Roman Polanski is free to return to the US at any time. And I think he should, he deserves to answer for the crimes since even famous auteurs aren't allowed to be pedophiles. Similarly, Assange should face the music as well. Hiding away from the law has never inspired the masses to one's cause. If he has to spend some jail time then so be it, he'll eventually get out. There's no chance whatsoever he'll be executed, though that's his paranoid belief.

    25. Re: Criminal by wierd_w · · Score: 4, Insightful

      How delightfully backwards!

      The first step in addressing a problem, is acceptance that there is in fact a problem to address.

      Rightly pointing out that all current choices are shit, is therefore the correct and proper direction toward addressing that problem, eg, by not voting for more political choices that are shit.

      Hilariously, your rebuttle is whimsically absurd! Denial of the problem, will somehow result in correction of the problem-- and drawing attention to the fact that there is in fact a problem purpetuates the problem.

      What really needs to happen is for the US to grow a pair and demand no confidence vote powers. That way when presented with the choice of 70 year old rancid tuna and 50+ year old trolls with verbal diarrhea, we can return the offered plate to the kitchen and demand they do it right this time.

      Arguing bitterly over the pros and cons of rancid tuna over shitspeaking oompahloompahs does nothing to chastise the kitchen. Next time they wI'll serve you a festering blue waffle with whipped cream and shriveled oil baron salomi with a side of polluted tap water.

      Unless you want to keep getting served shit, I suggest you address the problem of being served shit.

    26. Re:Criminal by MightyMartian · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Even if the polls tighten up, Trump simply isn't competitive in enough battleground states to deliver victory. He's only "competitive" because you don't sell newspapers by saying "Three months to go, and GOP candidate is still doomed, and could never catch up." You sell advertising by proclaiming that national polls (which are incredibly poor indicators at the best of times) indicate "tightening". Besides, it's pretty clear that Trump still doesn't really want the job.

      The bigger problem for the GOP is that the demographic that is driving Trump is in decline, and while it's likely to start dooming them in the Presidential races, the Senate isn't far behind, and gerrymandering will only buy them a few more House elections before it starts to falter in all but the reddest states. The Republicans have a serious demographic crisis on their hands, and at best a decade to solve it.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    27. Re:Criminal by MightyMartian · · Score: 0

      Trump is doomed, Clinton will be President, and Assange will continue his seemingly endless exile in the Ecuadorian embassy, becoming more irrelevant by the minute. This is his last hurrah.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    28. Re: Criminal by MightyMartian · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Politics, even at the ballot box, is the art of compromise. The perfect candidate will never exist, and even when you think you've found them, all you've found is a time bomb that will go off eventually.

      The American system effectively offers you two choices; Trump or Clinton. You can vote third party, but that's just another way of voting for one of them, or you can stay home, which is still just a way of voting for one of them. The universe does not owe you easy answers, so you'll have to just resign yourself to the fact that every choice is effectively a vote for one of them.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    29. Re:Criminal by Dog-Cow · · Score: 2

      Facing justice in a European country or in the US is far from suicide. That you think otherwise speaks more for your mental condition than the truth.

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

      Normally you have to compromise, there's nothing to pick here this time though. Choosing Hillary is like saying it's better to get kicked in the balls from the back than the front. I don't know how you can realistically support either of these animals. Maybe they'll both quit and force Obama to stay a little longer.

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

      Yeah, right. People commit suicides in jails all the time.

    32. Re:Criminal by Dangerous_Minds · · Score: 5, Informative

      Wikileaks has responded to these allegations:

      "No, WikiLeaks did not disclose "gays" to the Saudi govt. Data is from govt & not leaked by us. Story from 2015. Re-run now due to election."

      --
      Daily read for tech news: Freezenet.ca
    33. Re:Criminal by tlhIngan · · Score: 2

      Mod +1. Assange is now purely in the vengeance game, so far as I can tell, though to be honest, at least as far as burning Clinton's career prospects to the ground, the term "damp squib" comes to mind. If there's one thing the DNC document dump proved, he's sitting on top of a big pile of nothing, and soon enough I think the press will just move on.

      I think the press HAS moved on. Instead of hearing about new DNC dumps (which were presented on the standard political "Friday afternoon dump*" which already says something), we're really hearing about how Wikileaks is exposing private information. In short, Wikileaks has stopped being the source of the news, to being the news.

      * - friday afternoon news dumps are used by politicians everywhere when they have bad news to drop - knowing that the earliest news outlets would have it on Saturday when not many people are paying attention. And those present really are thinking of bigger and better things - like what they're doing on a weekend.

      Thus, the fact the DNC dump happened on a friday afternoon was indicative that there was nothing really of interest, and the only thing they were hoping to salvage was "more DNC documents!" hoping it would carry.

      Instead, what's carrying is "Wikileaks is exposing private data!". The only reason he's holed up is because of an existing warrant, and even that will only carry him so far once the Swedish government simply asks Ecuador for permission to interview Assange and decide if there's even a case to be made.

    34. Re:Criminal by lucm · · Score: 1

      many of the original Wikileaks founders have departed

      Blasphemy. They haven't "departed", they have betrayed the Benevolent Leader. They probably worked for the FBI and Clinton (which is the same thing) to start with.

      --
      lucm, indeed.
    35. Re:Criminal by lucm · · Score: 1

      There was never a chairwoman called Debbie and Clinton never lied. At least that's what reality will be once she is elected and has unlimited access to the NSA and DHS.

      --
      lucm, indeed.
    36. Re: Criminal by lucm · · Score: 1

      The perfect candidate doesn't exist because good ones are discarded and ridiculed by their own party before they could even get the nomination, like Howard Dean or Fred Thompson.

      --
      lucm, indeed.
    37. Re:Criminal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Roman Polanski is free to return to the US at any time. And I think he should, he deserves to answer for the crimes since even famous auteurs aren't allowed to be pedophiles. Similarly, Assange should face the music as well. Hiding away from the law has never inspired the masses to one's cause. If he has to spend some jail time then so be it, he'll eventually get out. There's no chance whatsoever he'll be executed, though that's his paranoid belief.

      "There's no chance whatsoever he'll be executed" - Yes; but he could be sitting in a US cell in solitary for 30 years. Not a great option.

    38. Re:Criminal by No+Longer+an+AC · · Score: 1

      1. Is it a good story (not true, just plausible is all that's required)? You can make it up as a total work of fiction, but if SOMEBODY might think it's true you meet this requirement. 2. Will it draw attention to us? It doesn't matter if it's good or bad attention.

      This opens the door to a whole lot of potentially awesome fiction.

      Your leaked documents should contain enough truth as to be somewhat credible but also contain enough fantasy to make a corrupt Iraqi security guard who hasn't been paid in 6 months blush.

      I'm sure governments engage in this type of thing as a form of propaganda, but I want to leak some fake documents just to troll wikileaks and all the press who report on them.

    39. Re: Criminal by AmiMoJo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Wouldn't work.

      The system is designed to provide stability, because unstable governments that can be toppled by trashy tabloid scandals or are sandbagged by and endless barrage of no confidence motions are undesirable and cause people to lose faith in that country's economy.

      Mixing it up sounds like fun, but actually direct democracy is vastly over-rated. Look at Brexit. People are fucking idiots. They can't tell obvious fiction from fact, and they ignore overwhelming expert advice despite knowing that they are extremely ignorant and constantly requesting more information because when the information comes it contradicts their established view. They vote based on their won stupid issues that they know next to nothing about, and based on bigotry, fear and xenophobia.

      The only solution to this, which is far from perfect, is to adjust your system so that it has to be governed by coalition. Force the asshats to work together. It's moderately successful in parts of Europe, and it's the best system anyone has ever come up with. It's a fine balancing act though, not easy to get right.

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

      Politics, even at the ballot box, is the art of compromise. The perfect candidate will never exist, and even when you think you've found them, all you've found is a time bomb that will go off eventually.

      This is not about a perfect candidate. This is about a candidate who is not a complete piece of shit.

      The universe does not owe you easy answers, so you'll have to just resign yourself to the fact that every choice is effectively a vote for one of them.

      Moving from box to box is also an option. It's not one I plan to take, but you can feel it coming.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    41. Re: Criminal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cut them some slack. They're just Correcting The Record.

    42. Re:Criminal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Then maybe he should've either not committed rape, or gone to the Swedish authorities in the first place to clear his name.

      My money is on him being a rapist. It's really common with political activists, sadly. They get to thinking that they are above all standards because they are changing the world. (Same with conventional politicians, except they're typically rich and can afford to hire hookers instead.)

    43. Re: Criminal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Once the ballot comes around, you don't really have options. If all the options are shit, you choose the one that stinks the least or you don't vote. Politicians won't care if you don't vote.

      If you were thinking about third party candidates, let's be honest: they're even worse than the major-party candidates. (Well, I'm not certain that Johnson is worse than Trump. Stein would be a disaster though, the government would collapse and there would be wars in Europe and Asia.)

    44. Re:Criminal by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      It doesn't have to be a crime to be interesting information. I was most interested in all the collusion between the DNC and the mainstream media. For instance, watchers of Morning Joe noted that Joe and Mika had been fair with Trump throughout the campaign. Then all of a sudden they just start shitting on him non-stop. Then we see from the leaks that Debbie Wassermann-Schultz sent a nasty email to the MSNBC producers that Joe needs to fall in line just before that shift in tone happened. Just further confirmation our media is simply propaganda.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    45. Re: Criminal by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      The perfect candidate doesn't exist because the perfect person does not exist.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    46. Re:Criminal by Rob+Y. · · Score: 1

      And, apparently, 3. Does it cast someone we don't like in an embarrassing light.

      It must be hard to maintain neutrality when you are a vindictive shit given the power to act out on your grudges. I feel for Assange...

      --
      Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...
    47. Re:Criminal by s122604 · · Score: 1

      As long as he keeps ripping on Clinton, I'm ok with that..

    48. Re: Criminal by s122604 · · Score: 2

      Both of the major political parties have their issues, that is not debatable

      But, proclaiming "meh, there all the same" is just intellectual laziness pretending to be jaded, streetwise cynicism.

      The democrats support gay marriage, the republicans do not
      The Democrats acknowledge man made climate change exists, and is a significant problem. The republicans maintain, its a myth, a conspiracy cooked up in the scientific community to damage capitalism
      The democrats maintain that the government has some responsibility to assure citizens' access to basic health care, the Republicans think selling health insurance across state lines will magically fix the problems despite statistical evidence that it will not
      Hillary Clinton states that she will maintain the governments ban on torture, Trump states he'll bring back waterboarding "and a lot worse"

      There are legitimate, impactful differences whether you pretend you don't see them or not.

    49. Re:Criminal by Cederic · · Score: 1

      The British government disagrees with you:
      http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-1...

      So do others:
      http://www.independent.co.uk/n...

      Anywhere, where's the fucking justice in the US court and prison system these days?

    50. Re:Criminal by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      He already served his time, for whatever reason, the Judge had an axe to grind and wanted to persecute the man. He already served the time according to the prosecutor and the plea deal. The judge even approved the plea deal, then decided he wanted to sentence Polanski to 50 years instead.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    51. Re:Criminal by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      On top of that, he has broken no US laws, so why the conspiracy theory keeps getting talked about I never understood. If the US wanted to extradite him, why the extradition to Sweden first? Why not just extradite from UK, the US's closest allies?

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    52. Re:Criminal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The emails confirm that Abedin gave influential Clinton Foundation donors special, expedited access to the then-Secretary of State. In most cases, the donors that were given this preferential treatment were handed it at the specific request of Clinton Foundation executive Douglas Band.

      The newly-leaked emails include 20 Clinton email exchanges that had previously not been turned over to the State Department, which brings the known total thus far to 191 of new Clinton emails (not part of the 55,000 pages of emails that Clinton turned over to the State Department).

      One of the emails between Abedin and Band was an exchange in which Crown Prince Salman of Bahrain requested a meeting with Secretary of State Clinton and had to go through the State Department in order to get one. Abedin told Band that when she went through the “normal channels” at State, Clinton declined to meet. However, the meeting was immediately set up 48 hours after Band himself intervened. The Kingdom of Bahrain had previously given between $50,000 and $100,000 to the Clinton Foundation.

      The emails confirm that Abedin gave influential Clinton Foundation donors special, expedited access to the then-Secretary of State. In most cases, the donors that were given this preferential treatment were handed it at the specific request of Clinton Foundation executive Douglas Band.

      The newly-leaked emails include 20 Clinton email exchanges that had previously not been turned over to the State Department, which brings the known total thus far to 191 of new Clinton emails (not part of the 55,000 pages of emails that Clinton turned over to the State Department).

      One of the emails between Abedin and Band was an exchange in which Crown Prince Salman of Bahrain requested a meeting with Secretary of State Clinton and had to go through the State Department in order to get one. Abedin told Band that when she went through the “normal channels” at State, Clinton declined to meet. However, the meeting was immediately set up 48 hours after Band himself intervened. The Kingdom of Bahrain had previously given between $50,000 and $100,000 to the Clinton Foundation.

      From: Doug Band

      To: Huma Abedin

      Sent: Tue Jun 23 1:29:42 2009

      Subject:

      Cp of Bahrain in tomorrow to Friday

      Asking to see her

      Good friend of ours

      From: Huma Abedin

      To: Doug Band

      Sent: Tue Jun 23 4:12:46 2009

      Subject: Re:

      He asked to see hrc thurs and fri thru normal channels. I asked and she said she doesn’t want to commit to anything for thurs or fri until she knows how she will feel. Also she says that she may want to go to ny and doesn’t want to be committed to stuff in ny

      From: Huma Abedin [Huma@clintonemail.com]

      Sent: Thursday, June 25, 2009 10:35:15 AM

      To: Doug Band

      Subject:

      Offering Bahrain cp 10 tomorrow for meeting woith [sic] hrc

      If u see him, let him know

      We have reached out thru official channels

      In another exchange between the duo, Band tried to convince Abedin to get the Clinton State Department to intervene in order to obtain a visa for members of the Wolverhampton (UK) Football Club, one of whom’s members was having trouble getting one due to a criminal charge. Band was acting on behalf of Casey Wasserman, a millionaire Hollywood sports entertainment executive an

    53. Re: Criminal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Donald "Tax Returns" Trump is every bit as corrupt as Clinton. Just ask all of the students he ripped off with his Trump University fraud or have a little chat with the many contractors he has ripped off over the years. In addition to being corrupt he's both unqualified and mentally unfit for office.

  3. Pile it on.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Yet another Wikileaks hit-piece. Are there any legitimate editors on this site or do they just unquestioningly regurgitate the party line?

    1. Re:Pile it on.. by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      So Wikileaks didn't leak personal information of rape victims? I'm just trying to sort out what you're objecting to, the truthfulness of the story, or whether you just don't think the press should report negative things about Wikileaks.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    2. Re:Pile it on.. by Falconnan · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Well, let's look at this without passion for a moment. If it's true that they released this information on people who were not involved in any variation of corruption, and did so (even without malice) without checking the data for such information, this comes up to gross negligence. Whether we like it or not, some data should remain private. I support the idea that all government activity not directly tied to national security should be publicly accessible, but crime or persecution victims need to be protected.

      When we allow "all of the data" to be public, it creates a chilling effect on dissent and discourse. People become afraid to report crimes against their persons. Victimization thrives on access to personal details of private citizens. Let's just call this what it is: A bad idea either way. Real lives can be shattered by this type of thing. Innocent lives. I generally support the stated goals of Wikileaks, but complete lack of discretion helps no cause.

    3. Re:Pile it on.. by MightyMartian · · Score: 3

      Stay classy

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    4. Re:Pile it on.. by MondoGordo · · Score: 1

      Oh how i long for the MOD points i burned this morning.

    5. Re:Pile it on.. by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 3, Insightful

      it creates a chilling effect on dissent and discourse

      What creates chilling effect on dissent and discourse is tyranny and political correctness. When Dissent is chanted down by the Mob crying "racism" or "Bigotry" or "sexist" or any number of other terms that are designed for ONE thing, to quell the voices of those opposed to the march towards tyranny. ONLY Approved voices need to speak, all others will be punished mercilessly.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    6. Re:Pile it on.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I support the idea that all government activity not directly tied to national security should be publicly accessible,"

      "but crime or persecution victims need to be protected."

      Those two statements are contradictory.

    7. Re:Pile it on.. by HBI · · Score: 1

      Where were you when the Manning dump killed dozens of agents?

      --
      HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
    8. Re:Pile it on.. by hey! · · Score: 1

      There's a word for having no inclination to respect the rights of others. It's called sociopathy. Psychologists coined that term because they needed something that sounds more scientific than "evil".

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    9. Re:Pile it on.. by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      When Dissent is chanted down by the Mob crying "racism" or "Bigotry" or "sexist"

      Have you considered the possibility that racism, bigotry, and sexism are not really "dissent"?

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    10. Re:Pile it on.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The FBI has taught us recently that a lack of evidence for intent means that no gross negligence was involved and thus no crime was done.

    11. Re:Pile it on.. by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 3, Funny

      While you are correct, that those things exist, so does the wolf the boy cried over in that parable.

      I realize that it works, which is why it is such a popular technique. Mentioning Saggy pants and how stupid they are, gets me labeled "racist". To which I usually respond ... "I didn't know saggy pants was genetic". If Saggy pants was genetic, I would assume it would apply more to the flat assed white people (and some Asians), but they seem to be able to keep their pants on.

      But I understand why you wouldn't want to admit the Boy Who Cried Wolf applies here.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    12. Re:Pile it on.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So anytime any of you neo-fascists yell "racism" it's automatically true?

      Yeah, I'm going to go ahead an reject that proposition, and go with the "unless you have two non-statist, independent witnesses to back your claim, I'm going to assume you are lying" proposition.

    13. Re:Pile it on.. by PopeRatzo · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      I realize that it works, which is why it is such a popular technique. Mentioning Saggy pants and how stupid they are, gets me labeled "racist".

      This is known as the "but white people eat fried chicken and watermelon too!" argument.

      It is a rhetorical device used most often by racists who get caught with their dicks out. It is seldom persuasive.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    14. Re:Pile it on.. by tomhath · · Score: 1

      I generally support the stated goals of Wikileaks, but complete lack of discretion helps no cause

      Discretion? Okay, but who gets to decide what should be kept private and what should be made public? Julian Assange? You give him that power?

      That's the problem with sites like Wikileaks and Gawker. Whether the information they publish is about a government or an individual, they can't be trusted to use any discretion.

    15. Re:Pile it on.. by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It is actually worse than this. It is like when Hillary said that all rape victims deserve to be believed, and then was asked about Bill's Alleged Victims ....

      The hypocrisy is astounding. There is clear pandering to black people in the DNC, and it is revealed repeatedly in their email scandal. Things everyone already knows, but nobody really cares about. BLM protests in Milwaukee prove that it isn't about "white cops shooting unarmed black men" because the victim was a criminal, with a stolen gun, shot by a black cop, but somehow saying that makes me a "Racist" because I don't follow the narrative that the left wants to portray.

      Compare and contrast what happened in "racist Texas" during the dallas shooting there, and the black guy with the riffle who DIDN'T get shot, even though a black guy with a rifle was shooting cops.

      So, the cries of "racism" over every incident, regardless of the races involved, make it harder and harder to listen to anyone crying racist. Even when it is legitimate, all those fake claims are ruining it for the real victims. Meanwhile the REAL crimes in places like Chicago go largely ignored by the whole BLM movement, even though the impact is much much more involved.

      While I don't doubt there are David Dukes of the world still out there, they are mostly powerless idiots, and nobody but the racebaiters with Rev in their name pay attention to.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    16. Re:Pile it on.. by rahvin112 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Being called a dick for saying dickish things does not chill discourse. Your speech has social consequences and if you believe that those social consequences are a problem than you are frankly not in tune with reality. There is no belief in free speech that includes a right not to be offended and there is also no right to not be criticized.

      People like you will in one breath disclaim the right to be offended and attempt to defend the right to say offending things without the social consequences those statements bring. Both quell free speech. You have a right to say whatever you want, but you don't have a right to be free of social consequences for saying unpopular things. Because the only way to take away social consequences is to take away the freedom of other people.

      Your a big boy, you say things other people don't like you better damn well expect them to react in ways you probably aren't going to like. Welcome to Freedom, part of being free is understanding that your freedom to be a dick comes with the consequences of people not wanting to associate with you and calling you names. You want to wear the big boy pants and say things other people find offensive you can be a big boy and deal with the consequences of doing so.

    17. Re:Pile it on.. by HornWumpus · · Score: 2

      And the big boys that scream 'racist' to everything they don't like can deal with the consequences of their words...nobody pays any attention to them.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    18. Re:Pile it on.. by sinij · · Score: 1

      When Dissent is chanted down by the Mob crying "racism" or "Bigotry" or "sexist"

      Have you considered the possibility that racism, bigotry, and sexism are not really "dissent"?

      Humanity is absolutely lousy at knowing the difference, often intentionally. If you start censoring one, you will end up censoring the other.

    19. Re:Pile it on.. by Beeftopia · · Score: 2

      it creates a chilling effect on dissent and discourse

      What creates chilling effect on dissent and discourse is tyranny and political correctness. When Dissent is chanted down by the Mob crying "racism" or "Bigotry" or "sexist" or any number of other terms that are designed for ONE thing, to quell the voices of those opposed to the march towards tyranny. ONLY Approved voices need to speak, all others will be punished mercilessly.

      Agreed. However, posting PII/PHI of private citizens should be illegal. Just as shouting "Fire" in a crowded theater is illegal. Because the social and personal cost is greater than any conceivable benefit.

    20. Re:Pile it on.. by wierd_w · · Score: 3, Informative

      Saggy pants is still not racist, per se.

      It is related to prison culture, and ghetto culture. The association with a specific racial group is a consequence of over expression of incidence in criminality and poverty in that racial group. Jumping straight to the racecard is itself racist; it defacto implies that the saggy pants, and the culture behind it, are intrinsically linked to that racial group. It is equally as onerous as saying "all black people are criminally minded."

      Instead, saggy pants is just saggy pants. Complaints about the glorification of prominent displays of saggy pants is not racist, per the above reasoning. Counter-claims that such complaints are racism are themselves what is racist.

      You were born with a powerful organ, refined through millions of years of evolution, for the primary functions of advanced abstract and critical thinking. Please use it responsibly.

    21. Re:Pile it on.. by quenda · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Mentioning Saggy pants and how stupid they are, gets me labeled "racist".

      Come to Australia, where it is much more socially acceptable to mock saggy pants, or made-up baby names, because most of the offenders are white.
      You might be just as much an arse/ass for mocking lower-class people, but the class-ism is more acceptable when not associated with race.

    22. Re:Pile it on.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I love how my (first post by the way) got moderated as 'troll'. Cute. This entire article is a troll.

    23. Re:Pile it on.. by Dog-Cow · · Score: 1

      Being a victim is not generally a government activity. You can report on criminal investigations without mentioning the names of the parties involved.

    24. Re:Pile it on.. by lucm · · Score: 1

      Saggy pants are related to prison culture? I thought they were there because a prophecy says that god's next messenger will come from a man's ass.

      --
      lucm, indeed.
    25. Re:Pile it on.. by lucm · · Score: 1

      There is clear pandering to black people in the DNC

      And it's a patronizing pandering, like how the Catholic Church is now paying attention to its followers in poor countries because their religion took a nosedive in developed ones - they had to give them a pope but made sure he didn't look too much non-European. Sounds familiar?

      --
      lucm, indeed.
    26. Re:Pile it on.. by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      And the big boys that scream 'racist' to everything they don't like can deal with the consequences of their words...nobody pays any attention to them.

      If nobody pays attention to them then why is there so much horrendous whining and pearl clutching here? After all for you to have written that post, you at a minimum must have been paying attention to them.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    27. Re:Pile it on.. by jandersen · · Score: 1

      You were born with a powerful organ, refined through millions of years of evolution, for the primary functions of advanced abstract and critical thinking. Please use it responsibly.

      I think I know what you mean, but there is still some ambiguity as to which exact organ you mean - "powerful organ, refined through millions of years of evolution"; it's not everybody that thinks with the brain.

    28. Re:Pile it on.. by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      You can down mod me all you want, but it doesn't change the facts. If the Republicans cling to the angry white man demographic, they're heading to oblivion.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    29. Re:Pile it on.. by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Laughing at them is paying attention to them I suppose.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    30. Re:Pile it on.. by dyslexicbunny · · Score: 1

      According to some Eddie Griffin standup, the rationale of saggy pants originated in prison so that some men could advertise that their ass was available. At some point this became "cool" and part of ghetto culture in general. Which is odd given how less welcoming the black community is to the gay community.

    31. Re:Pile it on.. by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      For someone laughing, you sounded awfully aggreived.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    32. Re:Pile it on.. by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      Wealth is not a indication of class. ;)

      I've known very rich "white trash" and some dirt poor "classy" people.

      IMHO class is about attitude. Lower Class people span all walks of life.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    33. Re:Pile it on.. by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      I am not sure how RCC figures into a discussion on Race and pandering ... but sure, whatever. Just a guess, but I am not sure you really want to equate the DNC and the RCC and to pandering to people who are less than informed. ;)

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    34. Re:Pile it on.. by Falconnan · · Score: 1

      This is completely valid on many levels. Hence supporting the goals vs. supporting the organizations. This is not a simple "yay or nay" kind of issue. Ideally the community of organizations responsible for this behavior would develop some kind of standards against which to measure their decisions, but this is unlikely. The types of personalities which engage in this behavior inherently embrace risk, and this can sometimes stray into recklessness. And since those most likely to take risks are the ones who seem most likely to rise to leadership in such endeavors, this is a major problem.

    35. Re:Pile it on.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Woah, hold on there friend. You're trying to bring logic to the party. That doesn't fly.
      You see, cries of 'racism', 'sexism', etc have nothing to do with their rightful meanings. Or logic.
      Unfortunately for people like you and I, society is dominated by a sort of semi-evolved primate that functions mostly on something called 'feelings'. These 'feelings' have no basis in reality that I have yet been able to discern. Don't let them fool you. They can also use language like we do. However unlike people like yourself that use language to describe reality, these beings attempt to use language to change reality. To them, perception is everything and these 'feelings' of theirs and others can be manipulated by language. So they will use language to try to influence others to feel sympathy for their plights real and imagined. They will use it to make themselves feel better or like they are right even if they are profoundly mistaken. They will use them to stir feelings of hostility in others towards a target that has offended them. In short, some words aren't used according to their meanings. They are used as weapons to wound others, ostracise them from polite society, or to bolster the speaker's ego.

    36. Re:Pile it on.. by quenda · · Score: 1

      Wealth is not a indication of class.

      Who said anything about wealth? And who says lower class is trashy?
      We are talking "social class" here. Blue collar vs white collar. Motor racing costs more than golf.
      Source of money is more relevant than amount - blue collar, professional, or inherited wealth and investment?
      You are using the word in a different sense - honour, respectability?

    37. Re:Pile it on.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Come to Australia, where it is much more socially acceptable to mock saggy pants, or made-up baby names, because most of the offenders are white. You might be just as much an arse/ass for mocking lower-class people, but the class-ism is more acceptable when not associated with race.

      I visited Australia about 8 years ago. It's a horrible generalisation I know, but the Aussies are probably the most racist people I've ever encountered. Racist in a horrible casual way like they're not even aware they're doing it.

  4. Which means, they are all guilty of something by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Otherwise they would have not been included inside this particular desired-public-knowledge data dump.

  5. All the data means all the data by xxxJonBoyxxx · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I trust Wikileaks a whole lot more than the average Associated Press news story full of random bullshit attributed to "sources speaking anonymously because they were not authorized." We're not dumb, we don't want a filter and "think of the children" is how dictators often climb to power.

    1. Re:All the data means all the data by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You're a fool. A criminal with an agenda is no different than a capitalist with an agenda. Assange is no more or less evil than Fox news or any other media organization.

    2. Re:All the data means all the data by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The fact that you trust either one is sad enough without telling everyone. I don't trust the press and I don't trust wiki-leaks.

    3. Re:All the data means all the data by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trust them to do what, exactly?

    4. Re:All the data means all the data by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Publishing someone's medical records without their consent is against the law in practically every country in the world. Leaking medical records of ordinary citizens has nothing to do with transparency. It's against the law, period.

    5. Re:All the data means all the data by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's funny that you say that, because in July Asanage stated that he had enough evidence to indict Hillary Clinton. Then, six weeks later, he released information that was damning to the Democratic Party, but has yet to show any illegal action by Hillary Clinton. Either Asanage hasn't released all of the data (I'll leave others to justify why he waited six weeks to release it), he was incorrect in his assumption of what material was indictable, or he was lying.

      I don't know how Wikileaks die-hard supporters can buy into their message of absolute transparency when they retain data in certain situations to serve whatever their agenda might be.

    6. Re:All the data means all the data by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Go blow it out your ass.

    7. Re:All the data means all the data by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For crying out loud, Assange is mentioned in the summary. You can't even get the spelling from there?

    8. Re:All the data means all the data by AmiMoJo · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Years of attacks from various security services and law enforcement agencies has made it hard for wikileaks to process these leaks. Attacks on sources of funding, payment processing, communications, anyone who with for/with them...

      So now they have to pick between not releasing and dumping everything unedited. There is no good option.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    9. Re:All the data means all the data by BringsApples · · Score: 1

      "We're not dumb..."

      No, arguably, a lot of folks here aren't dumb, but a lot of folks in general are dumb. This is due to their lack of attention and/or connecting the dots. Connecting dots is very important. Those that run the news agencies know and depend on this fact, yet most of the people seem to incapable of caring less. It's actually become more fun to make fun of the situation that we're all in than it is to do something about it, and that's the real tragedy.

      --
      Politics; n. : A religion whereby man is god.
    10. Re:All the data means all the data by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1, Informative

      RIGHT! Except Wikileaks' agenda is well known and isn't a fake secret, unlike the unholy alliance between the media and everything in the DNC.

      Here is a short list of media with ties to Obama / DNC insiders. Where is the disclaimers during their broadcasts? I've never seen one.

      ABC News President Ben Sherwood, who is the brother of Elizabeth Sherwood-Randall, a top national-security adviser to President Obama.
      His counterpart at CBS, news division president David Rhodes, is the brother of Benjamin Rhodes, a key foreign-policy specialist.
      CNN’s deputy Washington bureau chief, Virginia Moseley, is married to Tom Nides, who until earlier this year was deputy secretary of state under Hillary Rodham Clinton.
      White House press secretary Jay Carney’s wife is Claire Shipman, a veteran reporter for ABC.
      NPR’s White House correspondent, Ari Shapiro, is married to a lawyer, Michael Gottlieb, who joined the White House counsel’s office in April.
      The Post‘s Justice Department reporter, Sari Horwitz, is married to William B. Schultz, the general counsel of the Department of Human Services.
      [VP] Biden’s current communications director, Shailagh Murray (a former Post congressional reporter), is married to Neil King, one of the Wall Street Journal‘s top political reporters.

      But we are supposed to believe that there is no bias in the MSM news organizations.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    11. Re:All the data means all the data by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      except wikileaks is so far, 100% accurate.

    12. Re: All the data means all the data by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Remember the FBI choosing not to enforce her crimes

    13. Re:All the data means all the data by Harlequin80 · · Score: 1

      Maybe. But just because something is in a diplomatic cable doesn't mean it is in the public interest or that someone's privacy has no value.

    14. Re:All the data means all the data by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Except for the whole blantly edited video that started the whole thing. That was far from accurate, more like open propaganda.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    15. Re:All the data means all the data by hey! · · Score: 2

      Oh, the wonderful conclusions the false dichotomy fallacy can take you. You can't trust the AP, therefore you CAN trust Wikileaks.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    16. Re:All the data means all the data by MightyMartian · · Score: 2

      I keep wondering when Assange will finally cross the line enough that Ecuador finally tells its embassy staff to evict him.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    17. Re:All the data means all the data by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      The media in the US actually skews to the Right.

      http://thefederalist.com/2015/...

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    18. Re:All the data means all the data by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      How did Fox News' Republican links not make it onto your list? Leaving out the single biggest, meanest, most dominant of mainstream of media doesn't enhance your point; it makes your own bias transparent.

    19. Re:All the data means all the data by rahvin112 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Your evidence is as strong as the evidence that "the jews control the media" because some CEO of a public company has a jewish last name. Someone jumping between government appointments and the press is NOT new, what do you think political consultants are? I personally think they should change their title to out of work politician. Do you expect presidents to hire non journalists for a press secretary position?

      Seriously you act like you expect people to have a special job called presidential press secretary, even though there is only one of them and they change with every president and that after they leave they should never ever work again and certainly not in the press. After all they are just robots with no independent thought and are just arms of some giant presidential monster. In other words your argument is childish and devoid of reality.

    20. Re:All the data means all the data by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I trust Wikileaks a whole lot more than the average Associated Press news story full of random bullshit attributed to "sources speaking anonymously because they were not authorized." We're not dumb, we don't want a filter and "think of the children" is how dictators often climb to power.

      i can only assume that you've read every single one of the millions of documents that wikileaks has published. cause you're smart and you don't need a filter.

    21. Re:All the data means all the data by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The media in the US actually skews to the Right.

      That's not what the article you linked to says. All it really says is that Fox gets a big market share because they're one of the few (if not the only) major media outlet that doesn't skew to the Left.

    22. Re: All the data means all the data by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd wait until Clinton wins the election then leak the most damning evidence for maximum affect, if I were Assamge, if you really did have something impeachable that shocks the conscious.

    23. Re:All the data means all the data by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your evidence is as strong as the evidence that "telcos control government" because some congress critter votes for a bill favorable to Comcast, and then ends up on their payroll after they retire from politics.

      FTFY, HAND.

    24. Re:All the data means all the data by Cl1mh4224rd · · Score: 1

      I trust Wikileaks a whole lot more than the average Associated Press news story full of random bullshit attributed to "sources speaking anonymously because they were not authorized." We're not dumb, we don't want a filter and "think of the children" is how dictators often climb to power.

      In situations like this (what looks like a mindless data dump), trust in WikiLeaks is meaningless, and expression of such trust reveals a certain level of, potentially willful, ignorance. It's not trust in WikiLeaks you need here; it's trust in every person that now has access to the personal, potentially private information of otherwise innocent individuals.

      --
      People will pass up steak once a week, for crap every day.
    25. Re:All the data means all the data by luis_a_espinal · · Score: 1

      I trust Wikileaks a whole lot more than the average Associated Press news story full of random bullshit attributed to "sources speaking anonymously because they were not authorized." We're not dumb, we don't want a filter and "think of the children" is how dictators often climb to power.

      I fail to see how this justifies releasing the name of someone accused of being gay in a country where homosexuality is punishable by death.

      It is very easy to be a fucking asshole that spouts dogmatic slogans (and putting inocent people at risk) when they have nothing to lose. That's not love of freedom or speech or transparency. That's just good old fucking moral hazard.

    26. Re:All the data means all the data by PopeRatzo · · Score: 0

      That's not what the article you linked to says. All it really says is that Fox gets a big market share because they're one of the few (if not the only) major media outlet that doesn't skew to the Left.

      But the media does in fact skew to the Right. Think about the ownership of the mainstream media outlets. Military contractors, warmongers, Rupert Murdoch (and his Saudi friends), the whole lot of them.

      If you take a view through the actual political positions espoused in the mainstream media rather than through the "Overton window", you will see that the mainstream media and NPR and the BBC, are all right-leaning. Even the (supposedly liberal) NY Times and Washington Post were cheerleading George W. Bush during the run-up to the Iraq War.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    27. Re:All the data means all the data by Pluvius · · Score: 1

      No, it isn't. At least in the US, posting medical records publically is only illegal if you yourself are a "covered entity," e.g. a member of the health-care team bound by law to keep medical records private. If you're a journalist (or some other random person like Julian Assange) and someone gives you a medical record, you're legally free to post it everywhere you want. The only person breaking the law is the person at the start of the chain. This is similar to how government leaks work--Woodward and Bernstein are within their rights to publish, and the only person breaking the law is Deep Throat.

      Rob

    28. Re:All the data means all the data by CaptainLard · · Score: 2

      Bunch of relatives and reporters linked to Obama eh? How about head of fox news, probably the single most influential news network in the US, getting ousted and immediately "advising" trump? Or the freaking active CEO of breitbart working directly for trump? Don't worry, this bickering won't convince anyone to change ideologies. Everyone with more than a passing interest is firmly dug in no matter what "shocking new development" you may think you have.

    29. Re:All the data means all the data by lucm · · Score: 1

      But the media does in fact skew to the Right.

      I know, isn't that a travesty? It's already 5am on the East Coast and yet so far there's been no stories making fun of Trump and sweeping Clinton's lies under the rug. I hope the NYT, The View or Bill Maher will step in soon to fix that. Can't let the right-winger get away with it.

      --
      lucm, indeed.
    30. Re:All the data means all the data by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Grow up.

    31. Re:All the data means all the data by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I know, isn't that a travesty? It's already 5am on the East Coast and yet so far there's been no stories making fun of Trump and sweeping Clinton's lies under the rug. I hope the NYT, The View or Bill Maher will step in soon to fix that. Can't let the right-winger get away with it.

      The right wing doesn't want trump any more than anyone else. Trump is in the race specifically to spoil the election in favor of his long time friends and business associates, the Clintons. HTH, HAND, noob.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    32. Re:All the data means all the data by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      RIGHT! Except Wikileaks' agenda is well known and isn't a fake secret, unlike the unholy alliance between the media and everything in the DNC.

      Here is a short list of media with ties to Obama / DNC insiders. Where is the disclaimers during their broadcasts? I've never seen one.

      ABC News President Ben Sherwood, who is the brother of Elizabeth Sherwood-Randall, a top national-security adviser to President Obama.
      His counterpart at CBS, news division president David Rhodes, is the brother of Benjamin Rhodes, a key foreign-policy specialist.
      CNN’s deputy Washington bureau chief, Virginia Moseley, is married to Tom Nides, who until earlier this year was deputy secretary of state under Hillary Rodham Clinton.
      White House press secretary Jay Carney’s wife is Claire Shipman, a veteran reporter for ABC.
      NPR’s White House correspondent, Ari Shapiro, is married to a lawyer, Michael Gottlieb, who joined the White House counsel’s office in April.
      The Post‘s Justice Department reporter, Sari Horwitz, is married to William B. Schultz, the general counsel of the Department of Human Services.
      [VP] Biden’s current communications director, Shailagh Murray (a former Post congressional reporter), is married to Neil King, one of the Wall Street Journal‘s top political reporters.

      But we are supposed to believe that there is no bias in the MSM news organizations.

      The DNC has been pushing to the right since slick willie was in office--They are far from being the leftist organization that Faux portrays them as.

    33. Re:All the data means all the data by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you don't have the resources to make responsible use of a leak, give the info to somebody who can. Wikileaks is far from being the only organization that can do the job. Otherwise, they are only behaving like prima donnas with no sense of social responsability.

    34. Re:All the data means all the data by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      this. Combined with the quality of discussion comments here. The world/human-society has come a long way, clearly it still has a long way to go.

  6. Collateral damage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    War can get messy. Sometimes you have to accept there will be losses in the fight.

    1. Re:Collateral damage by MightyMartian · · Score: 2

      I'm sure if you were a rape victim who had her details just mindlessly thrown on to the web, you would totally understand that your revictimization was totally necessary to this "war".

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    2. Re:Collateral damage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unless someone uses Wikileaks to find an easy target to rape again there is not much damage, when women publicize their own rape accounts they usually become celebrities.

    3. Re:Collateral damage by Swave+An+deBwoner · · Score: 1

      I thought that the parent post was intended as sarcasm. Poe's Law. He left out the "/s".

    4. Re:Collateral damage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sure if you were a rape victim who had her details just mindlessly thrown on to the web, you would totally understand that your revictimization was totally necessary to this "war".

      Kind of like the accused gets torn to shreds by the press and Internet before they're even charged? Accused names should be withheld until trial, if not conviction, otherwise you no chance of a fair and biased jury, and forget any thoughts of a normal life after being accused of rape.

    5. Re:Collateral damage by Bootsy+Collins · · Score: 1

      Yeah, that's definitely how it works in Saudi Arabia, where the women in question live.

    6. Re:Collateral damage by Bootsy+Collins · · Score: 1

      Cool story, bro. But what it has to do with revealing the identities of two teenage Saudi rape victims, I don't know.

    7. Re: Collateral damage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't try to hide the truth. You are not doing the next victim any favors by hiding another rape from the public.

    8. Re: Collateral damage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Funny coming from an AC

    9. Re: Collateral damage by MightyMartian · · Score: 2

      I think it should be up to victims of such crimes to decide whether they want to have their names broadcast around the world, and not up to some guy who is hanging out in an Ecuadorian embassy to evade arrest by British police.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    10. Re:Collateral damage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As Tolerant Liberals, we totally care a lot about rape victims. Unless they're victims of Bill Clinton, in which care our glass-ceiling-shattering candidate Hillary "All women deserve to be believed" Clinton will eagerly call them liars and whores and attempt to discredit them.

    11. Re: Collateral damage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You do understand that sometimes, in some countries, rape victims are killed for being rape victims, right?
      And sometimes, in some countries, gay people are killed for being gay, right?

      Stupid it is, but a very good reason for it to be the victim's choice.

    12. Re:Collateral damage by mcl630 · · Score: 1

      If you had read TFA, you'd know both victims who were named were teenage boys.

    13. Re:Collateral damage by Bootsy+Collins · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I read the summary and assumed they were women. Mea culpa. My point to the parent post stands, though.

    14. Re:Collateral damage by mcl630 · · Score: 1

      Yeah I don't disagree with you, I was just bothered that so many people assumed it was women.

  7. Smear by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    campaign.

  8. Just goes to show... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    These are hordes of Documents the governments of the world COLLECT ON US!
    This is simply the ONLY way to show what they are doing. There isn't enough TIME left to stop these over-reaching tyrannical actions, unless you put the info out there. It would have taken DECADES to read every word of what they have already released.
    Making those releases pointless, as we would all have been violated by that time.
    These mass collections of private data are ILLEGAL... Always have been.
    Anyone participating in them, does so KNOWINGLY violating the 4th and 5th amendments, among others...
    Wikileaks and Snowden, DID WHATS RIGHT... As it seems the US Government is no longer capable of understanding what RIGHT is...

  9. it is ars(e) by MoFoQ · · Score: 1, Interesting

    it IS ars(e) after all. and yea, I noticed that about slashdot editors too but luckily, slashdot readers are more diverse & based than the editors. (thxfully)

    1. Re:it is ars(e) by TroII · · Score: 1

      Slashdot isn't sending us their best people, folks. We're going to build Heidi Wall and make CmdrTaco pay for it!

    2. Re:it is ars(e) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Slashdot isn't sending us their best people, folks. We're going to build Heidi Wall and make CmdrTaco pay for it!

      But some, I assume, are good people.

  10. Think it through. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    In one case, the cables included the name of a Saudi who was arrested for being gay. In Saudi Arabia, homosexuality is punishable by death.

    As the person was already arrested, I assume the govt already knows their name and their punishment is already lined up. Making this info widely public is probably the only way anyone else will ever know what happened to this person.

    1. Re:Think it through. by guises · · Score: 1

      Yeah, this really seems like they're stretching for something to criticize Wikileaks over. Or, maybe more accurately: they're looking for something to criticize Wikileaks' methods over. This stuff feels like they're trying to promote the position that having secrets is good, rather than trying to discredit Wikileaks specifically.

    2. Re:Think it through. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      > I assume the govt already knows their name and their punishment is already lined up.

      You imply he was killed. Just because death is a penalty does not mean he wasn't able to get it negotiated down to a fine or "probation." He may even have been able to keep the entire incident out of the public record. Until now.

    3. Re:Think it through. by Obfuscant · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yeah, this really seems like they're stretching for something to criticize Wikileaks over.

      The only "stretching" going on here is the vast stretch trying to remove the label "evil" from Wikileaks.

      It's ok to release the information about a gay Saudi because the government has already arrested him. It doesn't matter if the government might have shown some leniency, but now cannot do so because the info is public, or that this guy's neighbors might beat him to a pulp were the government to let him go. No, Wikileaks is right to publish this information.

      And it's ok to publish the names of rape victims because it will somehow benefit the next rape victim, and besides, some women who choose to go public with the assaults become CELEBRITIES! It's not like these women live in a society that considers rape victims to be permanently impure and can be killed by their families for the disgrace they've brought. Yeah, it's not Julian's fault they live in such a society, and so he bears no responsibility for the result.

      The medical records of cancer patients shouldn't be private at all, for some reason I don't understand. And credit card data for crime victims? PUBLIC INFORMATION!

      This stuff feels like they're trying to promote the position that having secrets is good

      Please tell me that you are not seriously arguing against the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution, which is all about the ability of private citizens to have secrets from the government and everyone else. YES, HAVING SECRETS IS GOOD, you fucking moron, when those secrets belong to private individuals and concern their lives, health, and well being.

    4. Re:Think it through. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please tell me that you are not seriously arguing against the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution, which is all about the ability of private citizens to have secrets from the government and everyone else. YES, HAVING SECRETS IS GOOD, you fucking moron, when those secrets belong to private individuals and concern their lives, health, and well being.

      Just thought it bore repeating. Actually, a sizable proportion of Americans (possibly the majority) could probably benefit from having it tattooed on their foreheads.

    5. Re:Think it through. by guises · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Okay, I usually don't respond to the posts that are flagrantly insulting, but I'm going to make an effort here to respond in kind. Bear with me.

      You idiot, they didn't "release information about a gay Saudi", they published more than half a million Saudi diplomatic cables which contained, among many many other things, the fact that this one guy had been arrested for homosexuality. Wikileaks is not a revenge site, where people like you go to post the private information of a girlfriend who dumped you when she found you had skidmarks larger than your dick. Wikileaks is a place where whistle blowers go to publish some of the secrets that very large organizations, mainly governments, hide from those people whom these secrets effect.

      It is true that smarter people than you have criticized this approach to journalism, and those people may have a point: huge amounts of documents like this can not be censored for potentially harmful or embarrassing personal information prior to their release. Even if they could be, Wikileaks might not be willing to do so - they have built their reputation on total transparency, with the understanding that only when you receive a whole document, without redaction, can you be certain of its contents. Much as Hillary Clinton has received a lot of criticism for self-censoring emails from her server, so does Wikileaks avoid that criticism by censoring nothing.

      (Now would be a good time to pause for a moment and make sure that your drool is not getting on your keyboard while you read this. Consider a bib.)

      But, as I said, there are people who are not idiots who have pointed out problems with this approach. Most of those criticisms have taken the form of the TFA: when the US diplomatic cables were released there was much hand-wringing about all the lives that they would cost when sources were revealed. That didn't happen, but it was the same argument then as now: such a huge number of documents are bound to include a few embarrassing or possibly even dangerous tidbits about individuals. Some of those people went on to make the same implied argument as in TFA, "If we don't keep secrets, someone might get hurt." though previously they were less stupid about it than trying to suggest that if someone found out that a man had been arrested for homosexuality he might be... arrested for homosexuality. I don't know about Saudi Arabia specifically, but in most places arrest records are public information. (Was this written by someone you know? They seem to be writing at your level.)

      Regarding my opinion about all of this: I'm uncertain about what's best for the public good, but if Wikileaks maintains an unflinching absolutism it's bound to get them in trouble eventually. I don't think that the TFA's method of cherry-picking a tiny tidbit out of a huge stack of information and shouting, "Look how much damage Wikileaks is doing!" is acting in the public's favor though. In fact, I think that sort of misinformation is very much against the best interests of the public.

      I might further make a distinction between private information, personal records, and secrets, but any kind of subtlety like that would be lost on you, I'm sure. So I'm going to stop there.

    6. Re:Think it through. by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      This is just propaganda to make people hate WikiLeaks now that they're leaking against people leftists like.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    7. Re:Think it through. by Major+Blud · · Score: 1

      In one case, the cables included the name of a Saudi who was arrested for being gay. In Saudi Arabia, homosexuality is punishable by death.

      As the person was already arrested, I assume the govt already knows their name and their punishment is already lined up. Making this info widely public is probably the only way anyone else will ever know what happened to this person.

      This this person request that this information get released? Just because the Saudi government knows about it doesn't mean the rest of the world should either.

      --
      If you post as Anonymous Coward, don't expect a reply.
    8. Re:Think it through. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're seriously such a fucking prick.

    9. Re:Think it through. by cyn1c77 · · Score: 1

      In one case, the cables included the name of a Saudi who was arrested for being gay. In Saudi Arabia, homosexuality is punishable by death.

      As the person was already arrested, I assume the govt already knows their name and their punishment is already lined up. Making this info widely public is probably the only way anyone else will ever know what happened to this person.

      Uh, what about persecution by his fellow Arab citizens, even if the government "cleared" this individual of being gay?

      Losing his job? Losing his family? Losing his life? Are you saying that is it OK for these things to happen because "all information wants to be free?"

      Complete freedom of information would probably work in an open, fair, and free society. Unfortunately, such a place does not exist. People are persecuted based on their age, color, gender, socioeconomic status, political views, medical history, sexual orientation, parents, ... just about everything. These are key concepts that the freedom of information proponents often overlook in their ideological zeal. Additionally, it is disappointing when they try to justify that, while their actions have ruined ruined individuals lives, it was for the greater cause... especially when such proponents keep their identities secret for their own safety. Hypocrites.

       

    10. Re:Think it through. by Major+Blud · · Score: 2

      much hand-wringing about all the lives that they would cost when sources were revealed. That didn't happen [bbc.com]

      My credit card info was released during the Target hack; since none of it was used, that makes it okay and I should congratulate the ones responsible? In the name of what exactly?

      huge amounts of documents like this can not be censored for potentially harmful or embarrassing personal information prior to their release

      This is patently false. Snowden seemed to do a pretty good job of it.

      --
      If you post as Anonymous Coward, don't expect a reply.
    11. Re:Think it through. by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      You idiot, they didn't "release information about a gay Saudi", they published more than half a million Saudi diplomatic cables which contained, among many many other things, the fact that this one guy had been arrested for homosexuality.

      The only polite interpretation of this statement is that English is not your native language. Otherwise you would know that "publishing" some private information that was previously not publicly published is called "releasing" it. It was controlled, until Wikileaks released it to the public.

      (Now would be a good time to pause for a moment and make sure that your drool is not getting on your keyboard while you read this. Consider a bib.)

      Yes, the phrase "fucking moron" was quite correct when I used it before.

      I might further make a distinction between private information, personal records, and secrets,

      That would be another tactic to try to whitewash Wikileaks and Assange in this situation, but you'd be ignoring the fact that while the terms are not synonyms (look it up if you don't know what that means), the term "secret" applies to "private" information and "personal" records. Lots of things can be "secrets"; two categories of such are "private" and "personal" information. If you argue that having secrets is not good, then you by definition argue against the right of people to have private and personal information, and against the basic concept of the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution.

    12. Re:Think it through. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks for the insightful post. However, please consider whether you really need to use sentences like "(Now would be a good time to pause for a moment and make sure that your drool is not getting on your keyboard while you read this. Consider a bib.) ". No matter what the source of your ethics, hopefully you have some respect for others - I see it in the way you defend freedom for everyone. It might not be wise to insult someone about who you have absolutely no information - for all we know, they might turn out to be your father-in-law who is a Nobel price winner, but has a different point of view or has not thought about this topic so much :)

  11. Re: Julian's victim by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    Victims - plural

  12. Fluffy hit piece by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Feels to me like a hit piece put out there to discredit the massive drops Wikileaks has be releasing lately. Rumor is they're sitting on the really good stuff until we're closer to the election.

    This article is little more than fluff

    1. Re:Fluffy hit piece by bobbied · · Score: 1

      Rumor? Yea, call me back in November. They have zero credibility and I doubt they have anything truly earth shaking that's provable.

      Not that being true is a prerequisite to do political damage to somebody...I'm sure they will drop something, but it's likely to just be some useless junk they try to spin into the news cycle at the appropriate time. It won't turn out to be anything.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
  13. Deny Distract Discredit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

    I had no idea Wikileaks supported ****TEEN RAPE****. Well that settles it,who cares what information is released in the coming months pertaining to immoral and illegal actions committed at the highest levels of government. How can one ever believe an outlet that is associated with****TEEN RAPE****.

    1. Re:Deny Distract Discredit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > I had no idea Wikileaks supported ****TEEN RAPE****.

      do you know how old Assange's first partner was when he got her pregnant?

  14. Maybe Wikileaks is the wrong entity to be angry at by Jester998 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Maybe we should be angry that this type of sensitive information is in diplomatic cables. Why are medical records, credit card info and other stuff being stored and transmitted by government agents in the first place?

  15. Trapped? by multi+io · · Score: 3, Insightful

    He doesn't "sit trapped in the Ecuadorean embassy" any more than a prissy teenage girl who is mad at her parents and doesn't wanna come down for dinner sits trapped in her room. He can just walk out of there whenever he pleases. The only risk he'd face would be major embarrassment after NOT being deported to the US.

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

      how much you want to bet

    2. Re:Trapped? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      First, I take it you've never heard of the horror stories of abused children. A "prissy teenage girl" is dependent on her parents for food, transportation, clothing, housing, and pretty much everything necessary in life. Quite literally she could be trapped. In fact, the parents could probably have a literal jail installed, and if they were careful could probably do so without any external authority finding out. Certainly in an emotional, physical, and all senses that matter she could be trapped. So yes, he quite possibly could be trapped in that sense.

      Second, taking your statement in the sense it was meant rather than what you said, as I recall all Assuage asked for is a guarantee that he wouldn't be extradited to the US. If he was "NOT being deported to the US," I don't see that as being that hard a guarantee for the government to give. He's offered numerous times to be questioned via video, or to have somebody question him in the embassy, which again given the nature of the crimes don't seem too unreasonable. There is a lot of questionable things about the police inquiries, too... such as the women he allegedly had sexual misconduct with (if it is "rape" it is only in one of the more legalistic senses, and not in the sense most people picture from hearing the term) all withdrew their accusations, and the prosecutor has political reasons for pursuing this case.

      Maybe there is precedence setting or something I don't know about, but the whole thing looks fishy from what I've heard about it.

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

      Wow, let me explain this.

      A country that tortures and assassinates people all over the world and has tortured and assassinated other journalists won't do anything to the single individual that has had more journalistic impact and has revealed more of their crimes than anyone in history?

      Let me guess, you're one of Hillary's shills...

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

      1 US dollar.
      Like Trading Places.

    5. Re:Trapped? by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      Assange's problems are a lot bigger than Sweden. He is willfully evading British courts, which means before he ever answers for the Swedish charges, he's going to have to answer the Brits for why he evaded extradition. Even if he is ultimately found not guilty of committing any crimes in Sweden, he most certainly committed an offence in Britain.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    6. Re:Trapped? by stephanruby · · Score: 3, Informative

      This again? You haven't been paying attention. Sweden did illegally rendition two Egyptians to the United States. Also, the Swedish government admitted as much that its previous government had authorized a US black plane to pick up Julian Assange once he'd get extradited back to Sweden.

    7. Re:Trapped? by lars_stefan_axelsson · · Score: 2

      Yes, we renditioned the Egyptians, and there was a huge stink, with a clear change in policy afterwards. Much more would have been made of it, but as the foreign secretary was murdered shortly after, and the prime minister stepped down due to losing the election for other reasons, there wasn't the political pressure. Even though we were asked to rendition more, not a single one was. To think that you could do the same to Julian Assange with no-one batting an eyelid is naive in the extreme.

      And there has been no admittance of any such thing, or even close to that. You'd need a credible source. The one you cite can't even get crucial details on the Egyptian case right, so why would their ramblings on Assange have any bearing on the truth?

      --
      Stefan Axelsson
    8. Re:Trapped? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Governments did something shady in the past.

      New government critises the previous government with carefully curated press releases.

      General public gobbles this up as absolute fact and evidence to something unrelated.

      The world turns as it always did.

    9. Re:Trapped? by stephanruby · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry. You're right. I was thinking of Denmark. That's where the black plane was waiting for Snowden.

    10. Re:Trapped? by stephanruby · · Score: 1

      My mistake. I was thinking of Denmark. That's where the black plane was waiting for Snowden.

    11. Re:Trapped? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      And preparation for a potential success is clear that success was going to happen in the first place.

      I'm sure the CIA had multiple plans for what to do with Snowden, but until something happens that's just what they are. Plans. Incidentally plans that were being staged in a different country.

      Quite frankly even if there wasn't the possibility of extradition, not having a plane ready somewhere in Europe would present a case of incompetence by the CIA.

      In other news I drive around with a spare tire. That alone is not indication that I have a flat tire, or that there are immediate plans to have a flat tire.

      Re-quoting for prosperity:

      General public gobbles this up as absolute fact and evidence to something unrelated.

    12. Re:Trapped? by lars_stefan_axelsson · · Score: 1

      Yeaaah, well, given the source I'd take that with a huge bucket of salt. Even the US wouldn't do such a thing in the west, and especially not Scandinavia. The political fall out would be huge, much larger than any temporary gain that could be had from kidnapping Assange. Actually, paradoxically, the "honey trap" theory is actually much more believable, than that.

      So, I can't say I'm convinced. In fact if he were ever prosecuted in Sweden, my money is on a boring he-said-she-said trial, of no real consequence. (And even as a honey trap, the damage has already been done, so there wouldn't be any need for more, and those who prefer could have that theory intact).

      --
      Stefan Axelsson
  16. Not really a surprise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We already know which side of rape Assange sides with.

    1. Re:Not really a surprise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We don't know jack shit until he's been fairly tried on a specific charge or charges. Until that happens, STFU.

  17. Then there's the Russians by HangingChad · · Score: 1

    There's also that matter of cooperating with a foreign power committing espionage in an effort to influence an election in the U.S. We're supposed to trust that the Russians haven't altered any of those emails? When the source is a foreign intelligence service, that makes Wikileaks a tool.

    --
    That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
    1. Re:Then there's the Russians by No+Longer+an+AC · · Score: 1

      Altering an e-mail is all well and good until the original e-mail surfaces and it's proven that you've altered the e-mails.

  18. Propaganda by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "In one case, the cables included the name of a Saudi who was arrested for being gay. In Saudi Arabia, homosexuality is punishable by death."

    Wikileaks should be screening this stuff for sensitive personal information. That said, its apparent the authors had an agenda. These were Saudi government diplomatic cables. Presumably, the Saudi government had access to the information about the person arrested "for begin gay", which is why it is in the government's diplomatic cables. And arrest records are generally public information in most countries anyway. So this "factoid" is an attempt to pull the emotional strings of a targeted audience to be angry at Wikileaks.

    Likewise, paternity suits are usually public information, albeit obscure information. It appears the only reason these people even knew information was on the wikileaks site was that the AP called to tell them. Thus giving them the story they had decided to tell.

  19. Re:Maybe Wikileaks is the wrong entity to be angry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Maybe we should be angry that this type of sensitive information is in diplomatic cables. Why are medical records, credit card info and other stuff being stored and transmitted by government agents in the first place?

    Most likely they are assisting people who became sick way from their home country. Are you bothered by the government helping people?

  20. Re:Maybe Wikileaks is the wrong entity to be angry by Quantus347 · · Score: 5, Informative

    Why wouldn't they? If, for example, I was mugged (say, both robbed and say beaten with a stick) in a foreign country, I could fully expect the police report to end up in a diplomatic transmission, which would include the stolen identity/credit card information as well as the medical records that described my injuries. Crimes against foreign nationals would often go though the State Department and whatever equivalent the other nation had.

    I dont know the circumstances of all the cases described in these cases, but there are plenty of reasonable and legal reasons for a government body to have that information that does not involve Big Brother spying.

    --
    Common Sense isn't as Common as people think...
  21. Public Relations by JBMcB · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Hillary Clinton's PR firm must be in overdrive trying to discredit Wikileaks.

    Time to get out the popcorn, this should get interesting.

    --
    My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
    1. Re:Public Relations by Black+Parrot · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Hillary Clinton's PR firm must be in overdrive trying to discredit Wikileaks

      Looks to me like Wikileaks is doing a fine job of discrediting itself without any help.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    2. Re:Public Relations by bug1 · · Score: 2

      Certainly looks like its Clinton backers behind it.
      They are trying to highlight the "bad" information on wikileaks, they want people to stop looking at wikileaks, and at least "complicate" the value of transparency.

    3. Re:Public Relations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think Julian already proved how complicated it is. Selective truth isn't truth and he's publishing just the right kind of information to get the response he wants.

      This is a vendetta so he's engineering information in precisely the same way any government would. How is he different again?

    4. Re:Public Relations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The timing of this is certainly... interesting. But I'm sure it's just a coincidence that a bad story about wikileaks would appear now /s.

    5. Re:Public Relations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How is he different again?

      The politicians should be held to much higher standard than some random information leaker. At the end, the politicians will create laws which will influence us. That is not something Julian does. I think it is a big difference.

    6. Re:Public Relations by Obfuscant · · Score: 2

      Certainly looks like its Clinton backers behind it.

      Yes, it is certainly clear that Clinton backers published the secret information about rape victims and medical records and stuff. Oh, that's not what you meant?

      They are trying to highlight the "bad" information on wikileaks, they want people to stop looking at wikileaks,

      It's called the Streisand Effect, and no, it doesn't stop people from looking, it only encourages them to see what kind of other juicy private information they might be able to find if they look.

    7. Re:Public Relations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well yea, they're throwing millions at their online propaganda campaign Correct The Record to steer the online debate into a more favorable direction.

    8. Re:Public Relations by bug1 · · Score: 0

      You know what i meant, and you are deliberately misrepresenting what i said to suit your personal agenda.
      Grow up.

    9. Re:Public Relations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As far as I can tell, this article is discussing the US diplomatic cable leaks from 2010. Why do you think it's being publicised now, 6 years later? Possibly because Wikileaks is embarrassing the Clinton campaign, who would like to see them discredited? Or is it just coincidence?

      For that matter, that release isn't entirely the fault of Wikileaks: they carefully redacted it before release, and then the unredacted form was leaked due to a screwup at the Guardian.

    10. Re:Public Relations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I didn't realize "without any help" included "having it blasted all over social media with conspicously many comments accompanying it to ensure the record is... corrected".

    11. Re:Public Relations by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      Because WikiLeaks dragged up this old controversy from 2015 all on its own?

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    12. Re:Public Relations by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      Yes, it is certainly clear that Clinton backers published the secret information about rape victims and medical records and stuff. Oh, that's not what you meant?

      Yes but this happened a year ago, and was covered in the news and on Slashdot then. Who brought it back up now and why?

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    13. Re:Public Relations by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      Yes but this happened a year ago, and was covered in the news and on Slashdot then. Who brought it back up now and why?

      Well, it certainly wasn't for the reason bug1 claimed -- to get people to stop looking at Wikileaks. Anyone who reads /. for any length of time knows what the Streisand Effect is. Since the Streisand Effect would only hurt Clinton by drawing even more eyes to a site that is leaking bad things about her, it wouldn't be the Clinton people who did it. Unless the "Clinton People" are working against that result.

    14. Re:Public Relations by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      Not to get them to stop looking at wikileaks, no, but to:

      1. Change the topic of conversation from the DNC's dirty laundry to "WikiLeaks is evil." Similar to the "Russians did it," "Trump's a Putin plant," "everyone clutch pearls because an evil foreign government is influencing our elections even though we're just guessing about that" narratives. Spam the news with anything other than the content of the leaks themselves.

      2. Poison people against future releases from WikiLeaks. The Hillary campaign has already stated that the next leak will contain "falsified information." How they know...who knows? But it's all about establishing doubt and generally discrediting the source. After all, if wikileaks is evil because gays and cancer patients, who's to say they wouldn't fake stuff now?

      3. In the long term the establishment wants WikiLeaks and Assange, gone. Anything that can be done to discredit, slander, malign, and generally make them lose support serves that end. If nobody likes WikiLeaks anymore then few will care when the next "cat burglar" makes it through.

      What do you think the purpose of writing this story was? Now, a year after the events? Just to casually inform people of old news? It's not like there's any new information here, or new developments in the story. It's almost as if the point of the story isn't to inform you of the news, but is to shape the public's opinion of WikiLeaks. Naw, that can't be it. That would make our news media propaganda, and that's crazy conspiracy talk! You're smarter than that, aren't you?

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
  22. Finally! Destroying lives! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not Hillary's, which they keep claiming over and over, but at least someones! Stay BTFO Wikileaks!

  23. Information wants to be free by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    derp derpa derp. That's what the majority of people were saying here a few years ago. Transparency!

  24. Stupid Chump. by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

    Any actual evidence the Ruskies are involved in any way?

    --
    John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  25. Re: Julian's victim by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'm sorry, I missed the trial that convicted him. Then again, everyone knows that once accused it's guilty unless proven innocent beyond any doubt, especially in sex offenses committed by men.

  26. Nonsense. Hillary supporter lying 2 cover is FACT by leftie · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    The established fact is Hillary supporters will say or do anything to get her elected.

  27. Re:Maybe Wikileaks is the wrong entity to be angry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What do you think an Embassy does?

    If you are in trouble Overseas your Name and Details will be in a Diplomatic Cable.
    Sick, injured, at a rally, accused of anything.
    Spit gum on the Ground in Singapore, you will be in the system.

  28. CTR by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    FSK KLIN-TON THE KORRUPT

  29. Re: Julian's victim by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    You are right. He should have a trial. What's that? He is hiding in an embassy to avoid having to go to trial. That seems a little strange.

  30. Re:FBI runs Slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Its now official, lying scum AC is boring with his rethuglican propaganda bullshit.

  31. Wikileaks absolutely does "vetting" ... by drnb · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I was not aware they ever did any vetting, and if they did, what their standard of care was

    Wikileaks absolutely does "vetting" and "curation". They will edit things to remove facts contrary to the narrative they wish to promote. For example when US helicopters kill some journalists in Iraq they will remove the early parts of the video showing these journalists traveling down the street with a group of armed militants only blocks from where US ground forces are engaged in combat.

    1. Re:Wikileaks absolutely does "vetting" ... by cavreader · · Score: 2

      They also did not mention the journalists had just been dragged out of their hotel by armed militants so they could film and document the attack going on a few blocks over.

    2. Re:Wikileaks absolutely does "vetting" ... by lars_stefan_axelsson · · Score: 5, Informative

      For example when US helicopters kill some journalists in Iraq they will remove the early parts of the video showing these journalists traveling down the street with a group of armed militants only blocks from where US ground forces are engaged in combat.

      And whether that's true or not isn't even the point. It's not the journalists we care about in that encounter. Shit happens in war, and it's difficult to tell from the photos. No, it's the helicopter crew lying to their chain of command to receive permission to fire on the van, in clear violation of both international law and the US own rules of engagement at the time that we think is beyond the pale.

      --
      Stefan Axelsson
    3. Re:Wikileaks absolutely does "vetting" ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If it's not something we care about, then why did they edit it out?

      Wikileaks doesn't want to give you information and let you decide for yourself. They want to give you a specific subset of information, chosen to make you view reality in a particular way.

    4. Re:Wikileaks absolutely does "vetting" ... by lars_stefan_axelsson · · Score: 2

      Uh? They didn't edit that out. The every last detail of the van is there from beginning to end. The whole film is also much longer than what is commonly shown, if that's the "edit" you're talking about.

      --
      Stefan Axelsson
    5. Re:Wikileaks absolutely does "vetting" ... by LienRag · · Score: 1

      I've watched the video, and though I seriously hope that there will be a Nuremberg Trial for the people who decided to illegally invade a foreign country (however disgusting its leader was) and for the people who decided that it was OK to police a civilian city with missile-armed helicopters, this particular incident was a honest mistake.

      They did not lie, the video shows very well how difficult it was to see anything at the distance they were (I was absolutely unable to tell if the things the journalists carried were weapons or not), the guys in the 'copter were very honest about what they were seeing ("possible presence of weapons"), and it's only after a radio exchange with a ground team who had no access to the live video stream than the pilots forgot the "possible" part of "possible presence of weapons" - classical logic jump for people without thorough scientific reasoning.

      Again as a very classical example of basic human psychology trumping rigorous analysis, once they fired they never went back to asking themselves whether their very uncertain target assessment were correct: when they saw people coming to help they assumed it was the "insurgent support team" and eagerly fired.

      Which, if one finds himself in a counter-insurgency task (which means that something has seriously derailed before), is a logical thing to do: it's so difficult to discriminate insurgents from the general population that if one wants to eliminate insurgents (which obviously means that one has a lot of soul-searching to do, because something probably went wrong before), an occasion to take out a whole bunch of them is gold and should not be missed.

      Even after they identified children among the dead, and again as a classical example of basic human psychology, the copter pilots did not pause to ask themselves whether their target assignment was wrong, but rather considered that "terrorists should not bring children with them in their attacks".


      So, ordinary men did their ordinary job, and got the ordinary result one gets when policing cities with missile-armed helicopters...

    6. Re:Wikileaks absolutely does "vetting" ... by lars_stefan_axelsson · · Score: 1

      They did not lie

      And again you're focusing on the wrong part of the video. I already said exactly what you said, i.e. it was a fluid and difficult to judge situation and shit happens. And again that's not what we're talking about.

      What we're talking about is the van!. Once the firing has stopped they follow a wounded man on the ground crawling along the curb. They make comments along the lines of "Just pick up a gun budy so I can shoot you!" (paraphrase). (Gloating, but that's not the point). This demonstrates that they're well aware of the rules of engagement that prohibits the attacking of wounded and unarmed on the battle field.

      Then the van comes around the corner. The father in the van immediately stops, goes out and renders aid. The helicopter crew is heard lying to their chain of command as they ask for permission to fire on the van telling their commander that they are "gathering weapons and bodies" (not exact quote). While the then current rules of engagement permitted attacking those that tried to remove weapons and the bodies of the fallen, they did of course not permit attacking someone who was giving aid to the unarmed wounded.

      Given the wrong information of course their commander gives them permission to fire, and they do so, with disastrous results. (Again with the gloating, clear lack of professionalism there...).

      That was beyond the pale, and a clear violation of not only international law, but also their own rules of engagement

      . Since they were safe in a helicopter several thousand meters away, they don't get cut any slack from being in mortal peril themselves, and they also had a bit of time, and other options available, so no excuse there either.

      --
      Stefan Axelsson
    7. Re:Wikileaks absolutely does "vetting" ... by drnb · · Score: 1

      For example when US helicopters kill some journalists in Iraq they will remove the early parts of the video showing these journalists traveling down the street with a group of armed militants only blocks from where US ground forces are engaged in combat.

      And whether that's true or not isn't even the point. It's not the journalists we care about in that encounter.

      Actually it is entirely the point. The point of this thread is not the justifiability of the attack, its the credibility of Wikileaks' reporting on the attack. And given their editing their credibility is suspect. Wikileaks has an agenda, and just like politicians and advocacy groups they selectively offer the facts that support that agenda.

    8. Re:Wikileaks absolutely does "vetting" ... by lars_stefan_axelsson · · Score: 1

      No. If that was the point they wouldn't even have published the rest of the tape. If they were like old media then it would just be the slanted reporting that furthered their story and that's all.

      But they didn't. The released all of it. Both a shortened commented version and the whole shebang, so that people could make up their own mind about the incident. That's exactly what this is about.

      --
      Stefan Axelsson
  32. Re:Maybe Wikileaks is the wrong entity to be angry by MightyMartian · · Score: 2

    Exactly. That is, after all, a very large part of an embassy's job, to assist citizens of that country when in a foreign country, and to communicate any needs or concerns back to their Government.

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  33. Re: Julian's victim by admiralh · · Score: 2, Insightful

    So you also believe that Hillary too is innocent until proven guilty and are actively denouncing all the GOPers with their "Lock her up" chants, right?

    --
    Hopelessly pedantic since 1963.
  34. Nobody is asking the right questions... by sizzlinkitty · · Score: 0

    I believe the right question would be, why does these messages include so much personal information and why does the truth hurt so much?

    1. Re:Nobody is asking the right questions... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Patient confidentiality and lawyer confidentiality. We've learned as a species over centuries that these are things a society needs. A self-evident truth. If you don't understand the concept and want no secrets then have fun living in your glass house. There is a common group of people that have grown desensitized and accustomed to lack of privacy; they're called prisoners. Is that really where you want human civilization to be in a hundred years?

    2. Re:Nobody is asking the right questions... by guruevi · · Score: 1

      But this isn't communication with your lawyer or your doctor. This is what one government tells another government about its own people as a form of exchange of intelligence (backchanneling). You can bet your buttocks that each and everyone of these "individuals' records" are there either in order to discredit a leak like this or those people have some role to play in the bigger scheme of things. These are not going to be ordinary rape victims but Prince Abdullah's rape victims, these are the medical records of an intelligence agency's agent or some local warlord.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
  35. Re:Maybe Wikileaks is the wrong entity to be angry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    NO...I AM bothered by how government's display a total lack of caring for my privacy & the data I share with them, and that's the GP's point. Unless I was stupid enough to send details of my secrets/privacy via e-mail (in which case that's MY problem and is no longer secret anyway) I don't expect government employees to go blaming my secrets to the world.

    Heck, its not even me sharing the data with them any more, now Obama wants access to everyone's medical records for pretty much any reason the government might think they should have it....their reasoning? you 'voluntarily' gave it to them by sharing it with your doctor and by the supposed '3rd party doctrine' (e.g. a secret shared with another is no longer secret) they think they have the legal right to it...sorry, but no, just no.

    And so we come back to 'why is the contents of a cable with private information in it not properly being secured?

  36. Re: Julian's victim by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Lol....no

  37. Re:Maybe Wikileaks is the wrong entity to be angry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And they should do that in a SECURE FASHION...what part of that is so hard to understand?

  38. Re:Julian's victim by jedidiah · · Score: 1

    Her name and his "crime" is public knowledge at this point. I think both of them (the victims) have been on TV and everything. They don't seem to be hiding.

    --
    A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
  39. Re: Julian's victim by Pseudonym · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    You are right. He should have a trial. What's that? He is hiding in an embassy to avoid having to go to trial.

    What trial? He hasn't even been charged.

    --
    sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
  40. Re: Julian's victim by pslytely+psycho · · Score: 1

    So you think guilty until proven innocent is a superior way to do it? Or is it selective only against those you dislike or disagree with?

    And the lock her up chants, based on conspiracy theories, innuendo, and lies should be shouted down.
    Unproven accusations against Mr. Trump fall into this same category.
    All are deserving of the requirement to have their guilt proven, irregardless of if they are murderers, rapists or politicians.
    Innocence is supposed to be automatically assumed. Anything less is unacceptable.

    Cthulhu/Dagon 2016. Vote the Elder party and elect supreme evil instead of the lesser of two!

    --
    Donald Trump, on a crusade to make Nixon look respectable
  41. Re:Maybe Wikileaks is the wrong entity to be angry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah. Because the Saudi government is all about helping people.

  42. Still Innocent Until Proven Guilty by BrendaEM · · Score: 1

    I am not convinced it was not a setup. Under the circumstances, you cannot count on governments acting legally and justly.

    --
    https://www.youtube.com/c/BrendaEM
  43. Leftists hate Wikileaks now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hillary steals a primary and suddenly transparency is out and we're Red Scare 2.0.

  44. Obviously an effort to discredit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Obviously an effort by the establishment corruption to discredit Wikileaks in light of all the leaks damaging of the likes of scumbag Clintons.

  45. Re:Maybe Wikileaks is the wrong entity to be angry by rahvin112 · · Score: 2

    The details were secure, until Chelsea manning gave them to an egomaniac sociopath that posted them on the internet without a second thought. Before that incident all these details were protected secrets and divulging of details would result in a prison sentence.

  46. Re:Maybe Wikileaks is the wrong entity to be angry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > Are you bothered by the government helping people?

    I'm bothered by government agencies transmitting PII and other sensitive information in the clear. MSFT email software has natively supported message encryption for at _least_ a _decade_. GPG has been around for _way_ longer.

    Properly implemented crypto _works_, _dramatically_ increases the difficulty of an attack, and stops passive eavesdropping dead.

  47. Re:Maybe Wikileaks is the wrong entity to be angry by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

    In many foreign countries your best bet is just dust yourself off and go on with your life.

    The shit with the swimmers in Brazil is par. First you get robbed, then you have to pay off the cops to not charge you with inconveniencing the robbers (off duty cops). Best just to avoid the second bunch of thieves (cops) entirely.

    --
    John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  48. Re:Maybe Wikileaks is the wrong entity to be angry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe we should be angry that this type of sensitive information is in diplomatic cables. Why are medical records, credit card info and other stuff being stored and transmitted by government agents in the first place?

    Maybe we should be angry at your lack of critical thinking skills.

  49. Re:Maybe Wikileaks is the wrong entity to be angry by mrbester · · Score: 2

    Those particular details were secure until the Guardian decided to print the password to the encrypted files along with a handy link to download them...

    --
    "Wait. Something's happening. It's opening up! My God, it's full of apricots!"
  50. Re: Julian's victim by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's because he's hiding behind the Ecuadorian government like a coward. Even his own government doesn't want to defend him.

  51. Sadly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sadly wikileaks have been infiltrated by Government agents who are now setting about to discredit them. Review all the recent hires and flush out the impostors.

  52. Wikileaks published the Sony hack data by Beeftopia · · Score: 1

    I know a couple of ground level employees whose information was in that hack. Medical information, social security numbers. To what end?

  53. Re: Julian's victim by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sorry, if they publish the names of other alleged victims then why not this one? All information deserves to be free, except information related to Dear Leader Assange?

  54. Assange must have something good on Hillary... by russotto · · Score: 1

    ...considering the way the establishment is suddenly working overtime to discredit them.

    1. Re:Assange must have something good on Hillary... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The DNC has said that the next wikileaks dump will contain Russian lies. The propaganda machine has fired up its pre-crime unit.

    2. Re:Assange must have something good on Hillary... by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1

      ...considering the way the establishment is suddenly working overtime to discredit them.

      He should have released it before he blew his reputation by resorting to publishing crap.

      Yeah, I know... the damning evidence will be in the *next* dump. And always will be.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
  55. commentsubjectsaredumb by Falos · · Score: 1

    Sure, blast them, blast the content they leaked, whatever, blast their "good" name, I don't particularly care if wikileaks burns.

    But. What I'm seeing seeing is far too gasp-and-shock, far too cracked monocle, for shit that is OUT. It's out. Found. Busted. Whatever. Point is, it's going to get leaked somewhere. It's not like BAN WIKILEAKS! or whatever we're after here would do anything about that, before or after.

    Don't we already have elegant ways to make this frequent incongruity plain? "Shutting down the bar doesn't stop drinking" or somesuch.

  56. Correct The Record, AC-style by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Note the number of AC posts, and remember that Correct The Record (super PAC created by David Brock that pays internet trolls to argue with critics of Clinton) has killed discussion critical of Clinton in the politics subreddit and others (like Sanders4President) using purchased and fake accounts.

    And if you want to know how pervasive the propaganda is, just try to find a recent, useful page from an unbiased source describing Correct the Record using a search engine, and note that despite the critique of and importance of CTR, it somehow doesn't have its own wikipedia entry.

  57. Re: Julian's victim by TapeCutter · · Score: 2

    They don't need his permission or presence to charge him.

    --
    And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
  58. Re:Nonsense. Hillary supporter lying 2 cover is FA by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

    Yea well the US and the world has a big problem.
    All 4 of the major candidates should not be elected as president.
    Trump is a fat cat crack pot. I could list things like the way he talks about women, the crazy wall plan, or his wanting to ban people from coming to the US based on religion but the list is just too long. He is so bad that he makes Clinton look like a not that bad choice.
    Clinton just can not be trusted. She still does not admit that she did anything wrong with her email server even after classified data was found on it. Throw in her not having Boko Haram classified as a terrorist group and you just have to say, "WHAT"!!!

    Gary Johnson... Anti Vax.... AKA anti science crack pot.
    Jill Stien.... Anti Vax ..... AKA anti science crack pot.

    It is like we have a choice between the Four Horseman of the Apocalypse.

    --
    See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
  59. AP has been caught lying by anyaristow · · Score: 4, Informative

    Here is a story AP published that turned out to be fiction. It originated with Jon Ralston and was quickly picked up by AP and then other major media outlets. No corroboration ever materialized for the story, despite there being 3000 cameras in the room, and those that streamed live told a different story. The only media outlet to retract the story was NPR, and PBS fired Ralston.

    Note also that this is the story that the DNC leadership instructed its members to pass around "without attribution", i.e. covertly smear Sanders with it. It's also the email that Assange has singled out as the most damming.

    And also remember that much of the brouhaha over the leaked DNC emails was over collusion with the media.

    In short, if you aren't yet skeptical of mainstream media this year, you need to start paying closer attention.

  60. Intelligence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    From the AP article;

    In the past year alone, the radical transparency group has published medical files belonging to scores of ordinary citizens while many hundreds more have had sensitive family, financial or identity records posted to the web.

    Notice the use of the suggestive word radical?

    The journalist-led redactions were abandoned too after Assange's relationship with the London press corps turned toxic.

    Wikileaks should publish information about who provided them with this data. My bet is that it leads to an intelligence agency.

  61. How the Tables Have Turned by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's been great fun watching liberals turn on Wikileaks after the Hilary email leak.

  62. Re: Julian's victim by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Lokks like there will be no charging. That's probably why the recent smearing is happening.

  63. Re:Nonsense. Hillary supporter lying 2 cover is FA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Gary Johnson... Anti Vax.... AKA anti science crack pot.

    He's against Federal government mandated vaccination, which is quite a different beast, and follows his platform which centers on personal freedom. Right now, the CDC makes good recommendations, however as soon as those become mandatory, how long do you think it'll take before a company lobbies a vaccine of dubious benefit into the required category?

    From http://reason.com/archives/2016/06/10/gary-johnson-on-science-policy:

    Vaccination: I can find no statements from Johnson suggesting that he thinks that vaccination might cause autism. In 2015, Our America Initiative, a non-profit co-founded by Gary Johnson, announced that it supported a Mississippi advocacy group's effort to place "childhood vaccination decisions into the hands of parents and doctors."

  64. Re:Nonsense. Hillary supporter lying 2 cover is FA by Dog-Cow · · Score: 1

    Every single candidate up for election in the history of the world has said whatever they think will get them elected. Brushes with the truth have always varied.

  65. Re:Maybe Wikileaks is the wrong entity to be angry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The shit with the swimmers in Brazil is par.

    Oh, is it now?

    First you get robbed, then you have to pay off the cops to not charge you with inconveniencing the robbers (off duty cops).

    Of course, in reality it was: First you destroy someone else's property, then you lie about getting robbed to cover it up, and finally you admit that you lied and get ridiculed for it, although not even near enough.

    Best just to avoid the second bunch of thieves (cops) entirely.

    Except the security guard on site did what any good Texan would do and apprehended the perpetrators who were about to flee the scene, demanding at least some compensation for the damages caused, receiving USD 50 and then on they went. They were lucky the security guard didn't do what any less good Texan would do, or they would be dead now.

    The cops, or police force as it were, saw through their lies and exposed the sham for what it was.

    Shame on the swimmers and shame on you, you apologetic little twit.

  66. Re:Nonsense. Hillary supporter lying 2 cover is FA by slashdot_commentator · · Score: 1

    Gary Johnson... Anti Vax.... AKA anti science crack pot.

    Libertarians believe you shouldn't go to prison for refusing to vaccinate your children.

    Seriously, is that all you got?

    Jill Stien.... Anti Vax ..... AKA anti science crack pot.

    In 1973, Stein graduated magna cum laude from Harvard, where she studied psychology, sociology, and anthropology. She then attended Harvard Medical School and graduated in 1979. After graduating from Harvard Medical School, Stein practiced internal medicine for 25 years.

    I think that's enough background to have reservations over vaccinations.

    Your point is that all four are bad, but you've really dropped the ball on arguing that for those two instances.

    --
    There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM and AT&T and DuPont, Dow, General Electric, and Exxon
  67. Re: Julian's victim by lucm · · Score: 1, Troll

    Get your facts straight.

    18 November 2010

    Stockholm District Court approves a request to detain Mr Assange for questioning on suspicion of rape, sexual molestation and unlawful coercion. Ms Nye says he has not been available for questioning.

    13 August 2015

    Swedish prosecutors drop their investigation into one accusation of sexual molestation and one of unlawful coercion against Mr Assange because they have run out of time to question him. The more serious allegation of rape is not due to expire until 2020.

    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-...

    He's hiding from Swedish justice and has fought extradition, that's why he hasn't been "charged". He's another Roman Polanski, without the excuse of having his pregnant wife stabbed to death by homeless cult members.

    The guy is a rapist and a coward.

    --
    lucm, indeed.
  68. so by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    fags have it hard in Saudi arabia rofl...

  69. Re:Julian's victim by lucm · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    his "crime"

    Of course there's been no "crime". It's a well-known fact that once a woman goes home with a man, it constitutes a blank check for him to do as he pleases with her, including fucking her wihout a condom while she's passed out. That's essentially the same logic used by ISIS freedom fighters who marry women for an hour so they can fuck and sodomize them until they get tired of them and then divorce them to let their band of brothers have their turn. No "crime" there.

    --
    lucm, indeed.
  70. Re:Nonsense. Hillary supporter lying 2 cover is FA by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

    "Libertarians believe you shouldn't go to prison for refusing to vaccinate your children."
      You will not go to jail they just can not go to public school. Unvaccinated children put others at risk and their is no reason to not vaccinate. Putting ideology over science == anti science crack pot.

    "In 1973, Stein graduated magna cum laude from Harvard, where she studied psychology, sociology, and anthropology. She then attended Harvard Medical School and graduated in 1979. After graduating from Harvard Medical School, Stein practiced internal medicine for 25 years."

    See above plus she called nuclear power plants are, "Nuclear power plants = weapons of mass destruction waiting to be detonated.
    Time to shut them down". And she calls trains hauling oil, "bomb trains" and also calls them "weapons of mass destruction"...
    AKA crack pot extremist.

    See seems to suffer from expert syndrome. She is a doctor so she thinks that she is an expert in everything.

    --
    See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
  71. Re:Maybe Wikileaks is the wrong entity to be angry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sorry, Bud. You've only got half the news. They admitted making it up after they vandalized a bathroom. http://www.wsj.com/articles/ro...

  72. Re:Maybe Wikileaks is the wrong entity to be angry by No+Longer+an+AC · · Score: 1

    In many foreign countries your best bet is just dust yourself off and go on with your life.

    I would agree with you on this point. I might make a police report if I were actually robbed in a foreign country, but I wouldn't expect anything to come from it. I doubt I would get the embassy or even a consulate involved, nor do I think they would care much as long as it was just a minor street crime.

    So you went to Tijuana, you got drunk and you say some cartel guys just showed up with automatic weapons and ripped off your wallet with $24 and a picture of your high school sweetheart in it. And you say El Chapo was the ringleader? Oh, that's a sad story. I hope you learned your lesson.

  73. Re:Nonsense. Hillary supporter lying 2 cover is FA by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    See above plus she called nuclear power plants are, "Nuclear power plants = weapons of mass destruction waiting to be detonated.
    Time to shut them down".

    She is essentially correct. Modern nuclear power plants are accidents waiting to happen. We keep hearing about better designs, but they keep failing to materialize. In addition, uranium mining is shit. Like all kinds of mining it can theoretically be done cleanly, and like all kinds of mining it never actually is.

    And she calls trains hauling oil, "bomb trains" and also calls them "weapons of mass destruction"...
    AKA crack pot extremist.

    She's actually way more correct about that. If you had any idea of the actual environmental impact of shipping oil on trains you would wet your kecks.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  74. Every Sony Employee is The Enemy by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    I know a couple of ground level employees whose information was in that hack. Medical information, social security numbers. To what end?

    "I was just following orders"

    If you lie down with dogs, you wake up with disease

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  75. Re:Maybe Wikileaks is the wrong entity to be angry by Quantus347 · · Score: 1

    In something like a minor theft or a case of drunken vandalism leading to a disagreement then sure, my expectations would be low for actual action. If I were hospitalized enough for there to be medical records (or raped, as the case was in some of the OP examples) it might warrant escalation, for insurance purposes if nothing else. For that matter, if the theft itself involved me loosing my passport, I expect Id need to get somebody from my government involved to recover proof of identity and be able to go home (Im admittedly not much of a world traveler and don't know offhand what the procedure for that would be). I can't say I'd have high hopes for anything to come of it, Im not expecting Seal Team Six to come and extract me from a hostile land like a bad movie, but that wouldn't necessarily stop me from filing the report and expecting it to be logged in some server/file cabinet back home. And I'd sure hope that all my private information wouldnt be included in some mass information dump by activists whose politics don't involve me. Something as simple and innocuous as a standard form to get a replacement passport would likely include things like my Social Security Number, and that sort of thing getting published can haunt you for years.

    --
    Common Sense isn't as Common as people think...
  76. Re:Nonsense. Hillary supporter lying 2 cover is FA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The bothersome thing is that she didn't have reservations about vaccinations before. She made that up to get some votes from the anti-vaccine crowd.

    That's not even close to what's really wrong with Stein, though.

    She has no plan. Her solution for everything is to spend a vast amount of money. She doesn't know where it's supposed to come from. She wants to tax the rich but she doesn't seem to understand that getting money back from the rich is way harder than not giving it to them in the first place, especially in this era when you can easily move capital overseas. Her statements about "quantitative easing" to forgive student loan debt suggests that she has no idea how either QE or loans work.

    Then there are the wars that she would start. If you think the world is a mess now, imagine what would happend if she pulled the US military out of all of our foreign bases. It would start with Russia invading the Baltics and China grabbing the Spratlys but, once those invasions had gone unchallenged, the invaders would see no reason to stop there.

  77. Something is missing. by sabbede · · Score: 1
    Why was all this in Saudi diplomatic cables, and just as importantly, why is Wikileaks being criticized now for a 14 month old dump?

    Regarding the latter, I suspect it is because a particular US political party is seeking to discredit them.

  78. Re:Maybe Wikileaks is the wrong entity to be angry by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

    There are, in fact, many cases of rape of tourists in Brazil that ended exactly like the swimmer's vandalism case.

    The 'perp' (filing a police report) has to pay a settlement to the 'victim' (rapist) or face criminal charges.

    --
    John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  79. Re:Maybe Wikileaks is the wrong entity to be angry by sabbede · · Score: 1

    Note that none of the articles about it give any context whatsoever for why these records were there. Also, the Saudi dump occurred on June 1st, 2015. These inflammatory headlines are only coming out since the DNC breach. Note also that the approach and tone of the arguments follow common DNC rhetorical tactics.

  80. Fuck the Saudis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They worked with our government to mass murder people in our country on 9/11. They can burn in hell.

  81. Blame by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The blame lies with excessive secrecy of governments. In the marketplace of information there would be no demand for a Wikileaks if the information were forthcoming. By hoarding information unnecessarily governments of the world have forced constituents to satisfy their demand for information elsewhere. In other words, you reap what you sow. You wanna get rid of Wikileaks, stop classifying everything.

  82. Re:Maybe Wikileaks is the wrong entity to be angry by sabbede · · Score: 1
    A natural assumption, however it is worth noting that none of the articles contain any context whatsoever.

    More importantly - these were diplomatic cables from the Saudi Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Why were they discussing the rape of Saudi citizens on Saudi soil? What little can be gleaned regarding the context of this information suggests that it was entirely domestic in nature, and therefore its inclusion in diplomatic cables is wildly inappropriate.

  83. Re:Maybe Wikileaks is the wrong entity to be angry by sabbede · · Score: 1

    And if you get raped outside your own home, is it reasonable to expect that the incident would be discussed in diplomatic cables? If you go to your doctor and he diagnoses you with HIV, should embassies be informed? What little context for the information is relayed in the articles about it suggest that much of the information regards domestic incidents, not Saudis in other nations. It is reasonable for information on refugees to be transmitted, but domestic arrests of Saudi citizens?

  84. Re:Maybe Wikileaks is the wrong entity to be angry by sabbede · · Score: 1

    Why would it include the private personal information of citizens within its borders? Discussing refugees is understandable, but domestic criminal allegations? Personal debt? Details of divorces? These are not items that belong in diplomatic cables.

  85. Re: Julian's victim by Nickodeimus · · Score: 1

    In point of fact, he is hiding there because he is afraid that the "questioning" will lead to being extradited to the US to face charges for releasing all the info he has released, to the embarrassment of the US. The Swedish government\police have been invited to come to the embassy to question him but they refuse to do so. THAT seems more suspect to me than anything he has done.

  86. Re: Julian's victim by Rob+Y. · · Score: 1

    Not to mention that the "lock her up" cries continue to fly even after an investigation found nothing to prosecute. I imagine there are some that are still trying to get her charged with some kind of perjury for stating that 'none of my emails were marked classified' when, in fact, one thread out of the 30000 emails analyzed had some kind of partial classification marking somewhere in the body. I.e., her statement was only 99.99% truthful. Lock her up!!!!

    --
    Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...
  87. "In Saudi Arabia, homosexuality is punishable by.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...death."

    Why would that be? Possibly because it's a MUSLIM country?
    So what will happen when muslims take over previously non-muslim WHITE countries? Yet Leftwingers are up in arms the moment you criticise Islam.

  88. Re:Nonsense. Hillary supporter lying 2 cover is FA by s122604 · · Score: 1

    I think that's enough background to have reservations over vaccinations.

    No it isn't. Having a degree does not equal being right about something.

    The a biology professor with a background in infection diseases (emeritus now I think), that will tell anyone who will listen that HIV doesn't cause AIDS.
    He's wrong, and all his degrees and experience don't make him any less wrong...

  89. Re: Julian's victim by Coren22 · · Score: 1

    Except that according to Swedish procedures, they need to have him in custody to charge.

    I'm so glad that you know exactly how to get around this problem though, so I am sure you have approached the prosecutor and explained the error in his professional conduct.

    --
    APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
  90. Re: Julian's victim by Pseudonym · · Score: 1

    Get your facts straight.

    What did I say that was factually incorrect?

    He's another Roman Polanski, [...]

    The main difference being that Polanski was not only charged, he pled guilty and fled from his sentencing hearing.

    The guy is a rapist and a coward.

    Could well be.

    --
    sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
  91. Re: Julian's victim by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes they do. Nice bit of Americentrism you've got there though.

  92. Re: Julian's victim by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the story of history that those of us alive and who payed attention paints a different story entirely as to the likelyhood of a fair trial. The world governments, starting with the U.S. need to demonstrate that they aren't playing machiavellian spy games including honeypotting/entrapment, containment, and threats of harm including, I'm guessing assassination. Again, those of us who payed attention to the news in the past decade(s?) as this all transpired know that the issue of expectations of a fair trial is pretty f'n important, and more relevent in this specific instance than just about anywhere else (not really, but this is in the topmost class of high profile cases where a systematic *denial* of a fair trial has worldwide repurcussions on expectations of justice).

  93. Re: Julian's victim by david_thornley · · Score: 1

    No, he isn't afraid of being sent to the US. For one thing, we don't want him. He's not a US citizen, and I don't know that he's ever been to the US. There's no evidence that he violated US laws. A few political idiots yelled about him, that's all. This is the US. I don't know about other countries, but we have political idiots to grandstand about all sorts of things.

    He voluntarily went to Sweden. If he was afraid of being disappeared from there in the first place, why go? Then he voluntarily went to the UK. If you're afraid of being sent to the US, the UK is about the last place you want to go. Then he gets into legal trouble, and Sweden requests extradition, and suddenly he's afraid of being sent to the US? Awful convenient timing, there.

    --
    "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  94. Re:Nonsense. Hillary supporter lying 2 cover is FA by slashdot_commentator · · Score: 1

    "Libertarians believe you shouldn't go to prison for refusing to vaccinate your children."
        You will not go to jail they just can not go to public school.

    And that is pretty much the accepted legal standard throughout the country. Name one court case where the parents of an unvaccinated child was able to compel a school district to accept the child.

    Only a shill would fail to realize that this one difference of opinion does not make a candidate unsuitable to be elected PotUS.

    Let me guess: You one of those elect "Hillary for Queen". Yes, she's a bad liar, yes we'll invade Syria if she gets elected, yes, there's nothing "fishy" in trying to conceal your gov't communications from gov't law, so lets pretend the other three candidates are equally bad. Well, there's a good case to argue Trump would not be a good PotUS, but you're going to have to better than what you're doing to convince voters here that Gary Johnson and Jill Stein are incompetent, evil degenerates.

    --
    There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM and AT&T and DuPont, Dow, General Electric, and Exxon
  95. Re:Nonsense. Hillary supporter lying 2 cover is FA by slashdot_commentator · · Score: 1

    Those are potentially valid arguments to not vote Stein for PotUS, but that's not the argument posited by the OP, which is somehow she is inconceivably worse than Trump or Clinton (or Johnson).

    --
    There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM and AT&T and DuPont, Dow, General Electric, and Exxon
  96. Re:Nonsense. Hillary supporter lying 2 cover is FA by slashdot_commentator · · Score: 1

    Name the Biology professor. And what are your qualifications to determine that he is incorrect for what he actually states?!

    HIV certainly wouldn't "cause" AIDS if it isn't involved in the mechanisms that result in the deterioration of the immune system. Correlation is not causality.

    I'm supposed to believe a Harvard degreed Medical Doctor with a specialization in Internal medicine for 25 years is a nutjob for expressing her "expert" opinion, because of a zero like you?

    --
    There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM and AT&T and DuPont, Dow, General Electric, and Exxon
  97. Re:Nonsense. Hillary supporter lying 2 cover is FA by s122604 · · Score: 1

    Name the Biology Professor

    Peter Deusberg, there you go, Mr. Angrypants... that name wasn't that hard to look up...

    And what are your qualifications to determine that he is incorrect for what he actually states?!

    My qualifications, besides a BS in biology are the ability to read the overwhelming consensus of peer-reviewed scientific studies performed at credible academic institutions.
    It's the same qualifications that let me know that the universe is expanding, quantum entanglement is real thing, and a whole bunch of other stuff that is outside my immediate fields of study is actually true

    A crackpot with an advanced degree is still a crackpot....

    I'm supposed to believe a Harvard degreed Medical Doctor with a specialization in Internal medicine for 25 years is a nutjob for expressing her "expert" opinion, because of a zero like you?

    yes, she is a nutjob, but not because of what I think, because the opinion she states goes against decades of peer-reviewed scientific research from reputable academic institutions...
    being "harvard-degreed" doesn't preclude one from holding stupid and dangerous, and wrong opinions...
    PS... fuck you very much, you angry asshole...

  98. Re:Nonsense. Hillary supporter lying 2 cover is FA by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

    "She is essentially correct. Modern nuclear power plants are accidents waiting to happen."
    Some have been waiting for over 30 years.... Actually we currently don't have any modern nuclear plants in the US we will in a few years if crackpots don't stop them.

    "She's actually way more correct about that. If you had any idea of the actual environmental impact of shipping oil on trains you would wet your kecks."
    Yes I know it has kill billions since we started to ship only by trains in the early 1900s. It is hard to believe the death toll.... Huh????
    Weapons of mass destruction!!!! Flaming and anti vax == crack pot. So what is she is also a doctor. Their are doctors that support anti-vax, the teaching of creationism only, and are members of the Nazi party and the KKK. Crack pot is as crack pot does. Being anti vax is being a crack pot.

    --
    See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.