Maybe you're talking about a different clip. I'm talking about the one Assange talked about on Colbert which Colbert ripped him a new one about. IIRC (I can't check YouTube from work) it was from a helicopter gunship camera which Wikileaks had edited down to remove all the real combat just prior to the incident. But either way, you can judge it any way you want. It's not, or should not be, Wikileaks job to tell you want to think about it.
I'm not spinning anything anyway, but you seem to think Wikileaks should spin it for you and that's somehow better than anybody else spinning it. I disagree and that was my point. Wikileaks shouldn't spin at all.
I'd love for you to post the Colbert video when you get a chance.:)
They released the unedited footage, but their edited footage featured prominently and left out context. The edited footage was also modified to exaggerate the situation and what the pilots said.
"Baghdad air strike video" sounds extremely neutral. "Collateral Murder" is absolutely the opposite. It was even hosted at something like www.collateralmurder.com. I think if they had 1) given it a non-spin-biased name, 2) Released the non-edited video only, and 3) Conducted the bare minimum amount of journalism needed to give a very basic summary of the events leading up to the video, then I personally would have had no qualms with their release. It's really not amusing when the organization tries to throw such obvious spin on their releases.
Obviously a large part of it is that one guy has given Wikileaks a LOT of classified US information. However, where have all the documents on other countries gone? That part of their website is now gone, and all we have are the unnecessary US leaks.
I have far, far more respect for Cryptome than I do Wikileaks. I appreciate John Young's (guy who runs Cryptome) opinions and views, and the way he carries himself. He does not have that air of "I have an agenda" like Julian Assange has.
I don't know. I think his leak of the helicopter attack in Iraq counts heavily in his favour.
I agree with this assertion (although I believe the pilots to be innocent), but it's the SIGACTs and diplomatic cables that should not have been released and count very heavily against him.
... wherever located and by whomsoever held, shall be immune from search, requisition, confiscation, expropriation and any other form of interference, whether by executive, administrative, judicial, or legislative action.” So, the thing Julian meant was that Hillary should step down as foreign-minister because she broke the rules set forth by the UN-charter.
People keep saying that gathering information on the UN is against the UN charter, but if this is what it's based on then I can't possibly see that as being a breach of the charter. That is simply a clause for diplomatic immunity.
Don't believe me? Just ask Raymond Lemme, one of the Florida investigators of the 2004 election where George Bush Jr was accused of stealing votes. Found dead with his arm slashed in a Georgia hotel and declared a suicide (please note that in Georgia, no autopsy is performed on suicides unlike in Florida) just weeks before his daughters wedding and said the photos of the scene were accidently destroyed only to have them leaked later showing where his neck was bashed in before his arm was cut. Also note the complete media blackout on it.
So yes, I would rather put my face as far into the public view as possible to protect myself like Assange did before I end up like Lemme for doing the right thing cause when it comes to any conflict whether it be of money, power, or women, it isn't about who is right, it is about who is left.
I tried looking this up, and I think the media blackout is actually due to "Raymond Lemme" being a hoax story that is repeated on extremist political websites.
This is what I want to know. I used to go to Wikileaks to see the varied information they had from all over the world. This was back when it actually had *wiki-style* discussions on each document, but now their site is only anti-US leaks.
I think if Wikileaks had done the standard PR announcement of "Mr. Assange must attend to personal affairs regarding the sexual allegations, and is stepping down from his position. We will continue bringing unbiased reporting, etc. etc." then Wikileaks wouldn't be in the process of failing with Assange having literally gone into hiding. I hope the new group lives up to the original Wikileaks goal of exposing BAD STUFF in the world, rather than releasing massive dumps of thousands of random classified documents, potentially causing unnecessary harm.
SLASHDOT shame on you... in your rush to try to "scoop" everyone else you posted what is more than likely a hoax storey.
Be careful everyone before you help to "donate" $10,000 to his attorney fees. This is more than likely a scam. There is no confirmation from ANY reputable site, news or otherwise, that police actually kicked his door in today and confiscated anything.
Of course Slashdot won't post this comment because...
1) It's a little critical of them and...
2) It's from "anonymouse"
Slashdot is a news aggregator, not a news source... at least it's supposed to be.
You are correct about it not being insider trading. It would only be considered insider trading if, for example, Julian Assange told somebody to short on some stocks right before the leak is made.
I think I am entitled to have an opposing opinion, just as you are entitled to have yours. Don't be rude to people you don't know, even if you aren't face-to-face with them.
An opinion is one thing, but you're just copy-pasting a block of text anywhere you can. That sounds more like astroturf propaganda to me.
I made a post yesterday, and I recompiled it here. That is not "copy-pasting a block of text anywhere I can".
I think I am entitled to have an opposing opinion, just as you are entitled to have yours. Don't be rude to people you don't know, even if you aren't face-to-face with them.
Why should a diplomat's views on the quality of leadership of another country become public info? If everything he says become public knowledge, then the diplomat has to severely censor what he is going to say. For the life of me, I cannot figure out how the public benefits from this release of information
I supported wikileaks up until now... the information they shared this time makes me think they really jumped the shark.
I have glanced at the documents on the WikiLeaks cable release pages, and I can categorically say that these documents should not have been released. This should a huge level of irresponsibility on the part of WikiLeaks for releasing the entire database rather than incriminating files. The files are all SECRET rather than TOP SECRET, but there are very sensitive official files in here that have no business seeing the light of day within their classification timeframe, such as HUMINT documents.
Several years ago I supported WikiLeaks and what they stood for, even donating, but after this latest continuation of their anti-American campaign I cannot support them any longer. These documents are far too strategically damaging to the U.S. and its public/not-so-public allies to have been revealed in bulk.
The Iraq and Afghan dumps were only "a little harmful" and barely worthy of classification. These cables, on the other hand, are strategically damaging the U.S., its interests, and its allies. Wikileaks should be exposing corruption, wrongdoing, and illegality. It shouldn't take what appears to all outside observers as a vendetta against the U.S.
Bradley Manning, the disgruntled private who was demoted from the rank of Sergeant prior to leaking this information, should be given the harshest penalty possible (excessive prison sentence) for the sole purpose of discouraging this type of behavior in the future. An honest whistle-blower who reveals true wrongdoing will lose their job when found out, but they won't be prosecuted for releasing the information. However, deciding to release all classified information you can get your hands on is not whistle-blowing. It is nothing short of a display of reckless disregard for any consequences.
The official Wikileaks release is out. Also, scroll down and mod this comment more highly as it is not a troll, and is simply representative of moderation abuse here on Slashdot. The post is well-written and not inflammatory. Promote other ideas on Slashdot instead of squashing them, even if you disagree.
That's like saying a con-artist or thief does is doing a community service by teaching people to be more careful with their money, or that a rapist teaches victims to be more careful next time.
You searched for "corruption in us government" on Google and linked to the Google search as a source to obliterate my argument, also calling me a moron.
Using embassies to gather information is hardly some unrealistic idea limited to the land of spy thrillers.
Of course not, that was not the comment I replied to. All embassies are that nation's base of espionage operations. I am referring to AC who believes all powerful countries know everything about other spy agencies, which is poppycock. They are not as all-knowing as fiction spy novels lead one to believe. If these leaks weren't harmful, the U.S. government wouldn't have spent the better part of the last two weeks briefing several dozen allies on the extent of the expected fallout.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe you're talking about a different clip. I'm talking about the one Assange talked about on Colbert which Colbert ripped him a new one about. IIRC (I can't check YouTube from work) it was from a helicopter gunship camera which Wikileaks had edited down to remove all the real combat just prior to the incident. But either way, you can judge it any way you want. It's not, or should not be, Wikileaks job to tell you want to think about it.
I'm not spinning anything anyway, but you seem to think Wikileaks should spin it for you and that's somehow better than anybody else spinning it. I disagree and that was my point. Wikileaks shouldn't spin at all.
I'd love for you to post the Colbert video when you get a chance. :)
They released the unedited footage, but their edited footage featured prominently and left out context. The edited footage was also modified to exaggerate the situation and what the pilots said.
"Baghdad air strike video" sounds extremely neutral. "Collateral Murder" is absolutely the opposite. It was even hosted at something like www.collateralmurder.com. I think if they had 1) given it a non-spin-biased name, 2) Released the non-edited video only, and 3) Conducted the bare minimum amount of journalism needed to give a very basic summary of the events leading up to the video, then I personally would have had no qualms with their release. It's really not amusing when the organization tries to throw such obvious spin on their releases.
So where can I find these documents?? They have had all non-US related leaks removed from the Wikileaks website for many months now!
Obviously a large part of it is that one guy has given Wikileaks a LOT of classified US information. However, where have all the documents on other countries gone? That part of their website is now gone, and all we have are the unnecessary US leaks.
I have far, far more respect for Cryptome than I do Wikileaks. I appreciate John Young's (guy who runs Cryptome) opinions and views, and the way he carries himself. He does not have that air of "I have an agenda" like Julian Assange has.
I don't know. I think his leak of the helicopter attack in Iraq counts heavily in his favour.
I agree with this assertion (although I believe the pilots to be innocent), but it's the SIGACTs and diplomatic cables that should not have been released and count very heavily against him.
... wherever located and by whomsoever held, shall be immune from search, requisition, confiscation, expropriation and any other form of interference, whether by executive, administrative, judicial, or legislative action.” So, the thing Julian meant was that Hillary should step down as foreign-minister because she broke the rules set forth by the UN-charter.
People keep saying that gathering information on the UN is against the UN charter, but if this is what it's based on then I can't possibly see that as being a breach of the charter. That is simply a clause for diplomatic immunity.
Don't believe me? Just ask Raymond Lemme, one of the Florida investigators of the 2004 election where George Bush Jr was accused of stealing votes. Found dead with his arm slashed in a Georgia hotel and declared a suicide (please note that in Georgia, no autopsy is performed on suicides unlike in Florida) just weeks before his daughters wedding and said the photos of the scene were accidently destroyed only to have them leaked later showing where his neck was bashed in before his arm was cut. Also note the complete media blackout on it.
So yes, I would rather put my face as far into the public view as possible to protect myself like Assange did before I end up like Lemme for doing the right thing cause when it comes to any conflict whether it be of money, power, or women, it isn't about who is right, it is about who is left.
I tried looking this up, and I think the media blackout is actually due to "Raymond Lemme" being a hoax story that is repeated on extremist political websites.
This is what I want to know. I used to go to Wikileaks to see the varied information they had from all over the world. This was back when it actually had *wiki-style* discussions on each document, but now their site is only anti-US leaks.
I think if Wikileaks had done the standard PR announcement of "Mr. Assange must attend to personal affairs regarding the sexual allegations, and is stepping down from his position. We will continue bringing unbiased reporting, etc. etc." then Wikileaks wouldn't be in the process of failing with Assange having literally gone into hiding. I hope the new group lives up to the original Wikileaks goal of exposing BAD STUFF in the world, rather than releasing massive dumps of thousands of random classified documents, potentially causing unnecessary harm.
Personally, I don't think Jester's encrypted insurance file contains anything but random garbage.
SLASHDOT shame on you... in your rush to try to "scoop" everyone else you posted what is more than likely a hoax storey.
Be careful everyone before you help to "donate" $10,000 to his attorney fees. This is more than likely a scam. There is no confirmation from ANY reputable site, news or otherwise, that police actually kicked his door in today and confiscated anything.
Of course Slashdot won't post this comment because ...
1) It's a little critical of them and...
2) It's from "anonymouse"
Slashdot is a news aggregator, not a news source... at least it's supposed to be.
Here's the guy's twitter. He claims he's not arrested.
Weird story...
You are correct about it not being insider trading. It would only be considered insider trading if, for example, Julian Assange told somebody to short on some stocks right before the leak is made.
I think I am entitled to have an opposing opinion, just as you are entitled to have yours. Don't be rude to people you don't know, even if you aren't face-to-face with them.
An opinion is one thing, but you're just copy-pasting a block of text anywhere you can. That sounds more like astroturf propaganda to me.
I made a post yesterday, and I recompiled it here. That is not "copy-pasting a block of text anywhere I can".
I just want to say thank you.
I think I am entitled to have an opposing opinion, just as you are entitled to have yours. Don't be rude to people you don't know, even if you aren't face-to-face with them.
Why should a diplomat's views on the quality of leadership of another country become public info? If everything he says become public knowledge, then the diplomat has to severely censor what he is going to say. For the life of me, I cannot figure out how the public benefits from this release of information
I supported wikileaks up until now... the information they shared this time makes me think they really jumped the shark.
I have glanced at the documents on the WikiLeaks cable release pages, and I can categorically say that these documents should not have been released. This should a huge level of irresponsibility on the part of WikiLeaks for releasing the entire database rather than incriminating files. The files are all SECRET rather than TOP SECRET, but there are very sensitive official files in here that have no business seeing the light of day within their classification timeframe, such as HUMINT documents.
Several years ago I supported WikiLeaks and what they stood for, even donating, but after this latest continuation of their anti-American campaign I cannot support them any longer. These documents are far too strategically damaging to the U.S. and its public/not-so-public allies to have been revealed in bulk.
The Iraq and Afghan dumps were only "a little harmful" and barely worthy of classification. These cables, on the other hand, are strategically damaging the U.S., its interests, and its allies. Wikileaks should be exposing corruption, wrongdoing, and illegality. It shouldn't take what appears to all outside observers as a vendetta against the U.S.
Bradley Manning, the disgruntled private who was demoted from the rank of Sergeant prior to leaking this information, should be given the harshest penalty possible (excessive prison sentence) for the sole purpose of discouraging this type of behavior in the future. An honest whistle-blower who reveals true wrongdoing will lose their job when found out, but they won't be prosecuted for releasing the information. However, deciding to release all classified information you can get your hands on is not whistle-blowing. It is nothing short of a display of reckless disregard for any consequences.
The official Wikileaks release is out. Also, scroll down and mod this comment more highly as it is not a troll, and is simply representative of moderation abuse here on Slashdot. The post is well-written and not inflammatory. Promote other ideas on Slashdot instead of squashing them, even if you disagree.
Read what the original poster said instead of making non sequitur statements... please.
That's like saying a con-artist or thief does is doing a community service by teaching people to be more careful with their money, or that a rapist teaches victims to be more careful next time.
You searched for "corruption in us government" on Google and linked to the Google search as a source to obliterate my argument, also calling me a moron.
Using embassies to gather information is hardly some unrealistic idea limited to the land of spy thrillers.
Of course not, that was not the comment I replied to. All embassies are that nation's base of espionage operations. I am referring to AC who believes all powerful countries know everything about other spy agencies, which is poppycock. They are not as all-knowing as fiction spy novels lead one to believe. If these leaks weren't harmful, the U.S. government wouldn't have spent the better part of the last two weeks briefing several dozen allies on the extent of the expected fallout.
The real world is not a Tom Clancy spy novel.