19 ms·

Don't shoot the messenger for telling the truth

334 points by ra 16y ago

ErrantX 16y ago
I'm not Assange's biggest fan (r.e. how he controls Wikileaks) but some of the nonsense coming from the US establishment (and elsehwere) is appalling. It probably even vindicates what Wikileaks stands for. This is one of those cases where damage limitation is the sane and sensible response; they've lost those cables, we are going to see them. Deal with it. They need perspective; in the grand scheme of things it is highly unlikely to be "the end of the world". And if it uncovers corruption and naughtiness then all the better. Hounding Assange and Wikileaks only ends up making them look guilty. Which is stupid, especially as there is nothing (so far) hugely corrupt or terrible in the leaks!
- jacquesm 16y ago
  Which makes me wonder what is in the leaks that we haven't seen yet. After all if highly placed officials are getting their panties in a twist based on what we've seen so far then they are over-reacting to put it mildly. Time will tell. Some of the responses from politicians are beyond the pale and what bugs me more is that nobody even thinks of calling them to account over this, or so much as distancing themselves from these remarks.
  - ErrantX 16y ago
    There is that. On the other hand it could be that they just can't see themselves reacting to it other way, and are just too short sighted. I feel that if anything explosive was to come then Assange would have hinted at it by now - he has done in the past.
    - jacquesm 16y ago
      I don't know. Before this 'dump' the rest of the press wasn't involved but this time around they are and I wonder if he asked for advice (and took it) on strategy. In a long-drawn-out media ploy if you put your most interesting stuff out first then it will fizzle out, if you draw it out and put more and more interesting material out then attention will not flag. It could be a deliberate ploy.
  - ceejayoz 16y ago
    Politicians overreacting hardly needs an ulterior motive of super-secret documents. Just try flying in an airplane if you want an example...
  - TheAmazingIdiot 16y ago
    It honestly wouldn't shock me that the restarted attacks on North and South Korea weren't because of Wikileaks. Or for that matter, I'd be surprised that the US isn't having setbacks on many diplomatic processes.
    - lkjhgfvhjk 16y ago
      You think Kim Jong-Il was shocked to discover that he wasn't a towering international statesman and decided to attack S Korea because of it?
      - rhizome 16y ago
        No, but he may have been surprised to find out that China supports unification.
    - mwg66 16y ago
      100% FUD. There is not a single iota of evidence to support that.
    - jacquesm 16y ago
      Your nick serves you well.
    - MoreMoschops 16y ago
      I, too, am not shocked that the restarted attacks twixt North and South Korea are not because of Wikileaks. I think your double-negative statement alluding to Wikileaks not being of world-changing importance has been missed by people who type faster than they can think.
  - St-Clock 16y ago
    "Which makes me wonder what is in the leaks that we haven't seen yet". Maybe there is nothing in those cables, but politicians must be very afraid of what could be published next... Although the irak cables were potentially far more damageable, they were not released in cooperation with major newspapers.
  - TheBurningOr 16y ago
    I wonder too about the leaks we haven't seen yet either, but at the same time, wouldn't WikiLeaks want to release the most scandalous and head-line grabbing info first? That would go a long way towards vindicating their position in the public eye.
    - rayval 16y ago
      Here is some wikileaks information about US practices in Afghanistan that is quite shocking: http://blogs.houstonpress.com/hairballs/2010/12/wikileaks_texas_company_helped.php http://blogs.houstonpress.com/hairballs/2010/12/wikileaks_te... For those who don't click on the link, the article refers to cables in which US diplomats discuss how to quash a journalist writing about a private US military contractor procuring young boys to be sex-party favors in order to help motivate Aghan police recruits. The argument that the US diplomats discuss using in order to prevent publicity is that this reporting will "endanger lives". Here is the cable: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-embassy-cables-documents/213720 http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-embassy-cables-documents/... I think this is quite scandalous and shocking. Maybe it's just me. I don't understand why stuff like this has not received much press coverage in the US.
- frwdr 16y ago
  I'm not a big fan of his style either, but compared with the integrity of those accusing him I can make allowances. It takes but a few minutes to illustrate my point: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DbwiXRmzKi0 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DbwiXRmzKi0
- gasull 16y ago
  There are plenty examples of corruption in the cables, but most of them are about other countries, not the US. But still, some examples: - The US spied on the UN, including credit card numbers and frequent flying numbers of its leaders. - The US wrote Spanish new IP law. - The US pressured Spain not investigate the killing of a Spanish journalist in Baghdad by US forces. The leak degrades the image of the US government, but not as much as it degrades the images of almost any other government (at least so far).
  - jacquesm 16y ago
    I think the part where the US tried to pawn off their Guantanamo Bay prisoners in such a way that they can not challenge their YEARS of illegal detention was one of the more damning bits. That's one set of crimes (and the rendition flights) that is going to take a long long time to wash away.
ra 16y ago
Quote - "In its landmark ruling in the Pentagon Papers case, the US Supreme Court said "only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in government". The swirling storm around WikiLeaks today reinforces the need to defend the right of all media to reveal the truth."
- jdp23 16y ago
  And no coincidence that Daniel Ellsberg of the Pentagon Papers case is a huge supporter both of Bradley Manning and Julian Assange.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
  - KC8ZKF 16y ago
    http://supreme.justia.com/us/403/713/case.html http://supreme.justia.com/us/403/713/case.html New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713 (1971) "Only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in government. And paramount among the responsibilities of a free press is the duty to prevent any part of the government from deceiving the people and sending them off to distant lands to die of foreign fevers and foreign shot and shell. In my view, far from deserving condemnation for their courageous reporting, the New York Times, the Washington Post, and other newspapers should be commended for serving the purpose that the Founding Fathers saw so clearly. In revealing the workings of government that led to the Vietnam war, the newspapers nobly did precisely that which the Founders hoped and trusted they would do." Justice Black
    - tptacek 16y ago
      From Stewart's concurrence: [...] Yet it is elementary that the successful conduct of international diplomacy and the maintenance of an effective national defense require both confidentiality and secrecy. Other nations can hardly deal with this Nation in an atmosphere of mutual trust unless they can be assured that their confidences will be kept. And, within our own executive departments, the development of considered and intelligent international policies would be impossible if those charged with their formulation could not communicate with each other freely, frankly, and in confidence. In the area of basic national defense, the frequent need for absolute secrecy is, of course, self-evident. I think there can be but one answer to this dilemma, if dilemma it be. The responsibility must be where the power is. If the Constitution gives the Executive a large degree of unshared power in the conduct of foreign affairs and the maintenance of our national defense, then, under the Constitution, the Executive must have the largely unshared duty to determine and preserve the degree of internal security necessary to exercise that power successfully. It is an awesome responsibility, requiring judgment and wisdom of a high order. I should suppose that moral, political, and practical considerations would dictate that a very first principle of that wisdom would be an insistence upon avoiding secrecy for its own sake. For when everything is classified, then nothing is classified, and the system becomes one to be disregarded by the cynical or the careless, and to be manipulated by those intent on self-protection or self-promotion. I should suppose, in short, that the hallmark of a truly effective internal security system would be the maximum possible disclosure, recognizing that secrecy can best be preserved only when credibility is truly maintained. But, be that as it may, it is clear to me that it is the constitutional duty of the Executive -- as a matter of sovereign prerogative, and not as a matter of law as the courts know law -- through the promulgation and enforcement of executive regulations, to protect the confidentiality necessary to carry out its responsibilities in the fields of international relations and national defense. This is not to say that Congress and the courts have no role to play. Undoubtedly, Congress has the power to enact specific and appropriate criminal laws to protect government property and preserve government secrets. Congress has passed such laws, and several of them are of very colorable relevance to the apparent circumstances of these cases. And if a criminal prosecution is instituted, it will be the responsibility of the courts to decide the applicability of the criminal law under which the charge is brought. Moreover, if Congress should pass a specific law authorizing civil proceedings in this field, the courts would likewise have the duty to decide the constitutionality of such a law, as well as its applicability to the facts proved.
ffffruit 16y ago
"In a time of universal deceit — telling the truth is a revolutionary act" G. Orwell I find the calls to get him assassinated or kidnap his son simply appalling.
- resdirector 16y ago
  Who's been calling to kidnap his son? I did a quick (1 minute) google search, but couldn't find a source.
  - jacquesm 16y ago
    since deleted: http://blog.jonolan.net/politics/green-lighting-assange/ http://blog.jonolan.net/politics/green-lighting-assange/ google cache: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:e7JxvDKpuiMJ:blog.jonolan.net/politics/green-lighting-assange/+http://blog.jonolan.net/politics/green-lighting-assange/&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&client=firefox-a http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:e7JxvDK... but that was after the edit His parting words confirm it though: " :lol: So much for ANY argument about Free Speech or whether Assange is Good or Evil. Between having this post censored and the various death threats I’ve been reporting to the authorities and deleting, it’s very much proven that most of these ranters actually believe EXACTLY as I do, just not from a defending America point of view. To all the Aussies out there – I totally approve of your attitude, though I do wish you’d read the comment thread before ranting. If you had, you’d have realized that I accepted that using Daniel was useless. Think on this though – If the tables were turned, would you have responded any differently than I did. You responses and threats says you would have done as I did. All, This threaded has ended in a very odd Win-Win situation. The specifics of my idea were proven useless and finally removed by fiat (Your Win), but your responses – by and large – proved the lie of your underlying argument (My Win). I’m also shocked that so many of you would lend me so much credence of perceived power and/or authority. I certainly never expected anyone other than my normal readers to engage in this thought experiment… I really don’t know if that’s gratifying or sobering." Unbelievable.
  - swombat 16y ago
    According to TFA: * Sarah Palin says I should be "hunted down like Osama bin Laden", a Republican bill sits before the US Senate seeking to have me declared a "transnational threat" and disposed of accordingly. An adviser to the Canadian Prime Minister's office has called on national television for me to be assassinated. An American blogger has called for my 20-year-old son, here in Australia, to be kidnapped and harmed for no other reason than to get at me.
JacobAldridge 16y ago
Ah, so he's a Queenslander. That adds context - we're a special breed north of the Tweed. To add some other context to non-Australian readers: * Gallipoli, remembered as Australia's 'coming of age', was a disasterous battle in the First World War. While hardly more pointless than most of that War's assaults, it was more or less the first time we had fought as a sovereign nation and Murdoch's efforts helped shock our young country to that war in general, and the results of our troops still being commanded by our former colonial masters. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gallipoli_Campaign http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gallipoli_Campaign * The Fitzgerald Inquiry in the state of Queensland revealed corruption that ran through the police force and (via the Police Commissioner) into Cabinet and the Premier. Joh Bjelke-Petersen had been running Queensland for 19 years, supported by the gerrymander in state politics. We Queenslanders have a chip on our shoulder about being overlooked by the officials 'down south' - Joh worked this masterfully (in one election campaign he called Queensland the greatest 'Country' on earth) and while he is still remembered fondly for 'sticking it up them', the corruption of that era is a blight on the nation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joh_Bjelke-Petersen http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joh_Bjelke-Petersen http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitzgerald_Inquiry http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitzgerald_Inquiry Incidentally, Chris Masters' famous piece of journalism 'The Moonlight State' was seen as instrumental in propelling public support towards an Inquiry and a change of government. Assange seems to be positioning himself as another in the long line of Australian journalists (and Australians generally) who believe the 'powers' want to hide the truth. His belief can be neither true nor false; I'm not yet convinced his methodology is supporting the outcomes he seeks BUT, if nothing else, he has certainly revealed by provoking the actions of our PM and other political leaders around the world that there remain powers whose opposition to truth is far stronger than their respect of law and principles like a fair trial.
- davidmathers 16y ago
  Apropos Gallipoli: And the Band Played Waltzing Matilda. The best anti-war song ever. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZqN1glz4JY http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZqN1glz4JY http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/And_The_Band_Played_Waltzing_Matilda http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/And_The_Band_Played_Waltzing_Ma...
newt 16y ago
"Truth comes as conqueror only to those who have lost the art of receiving it as friend." - Rabindranath Tagore
rorymarinich 16y ago
He talks about Murdoch's actions in "1958" but then says that his actions are happening nearly a century later. Was that date inaccurate? Because 52 years doesn't strike me as a full nearly-a-century.
- tomjen3 16y ago
  The battle if talks about took place about ninety-five years ago.
- oops 16y ago
  There are two separate dates. 1958 is a Rupert Murdoch quote and "nearly a century" ago is Rupert's father Keith re: World War I.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
- 0x44 16y ago
  Julian Assange mentions a young Rupert Murdoch writing in 1958 and suggests that the Murdoch's observation reflected on the latter's father's actions in World War 1 nearly 100 years ago. Within Australia the date is probably understood from cultural memory/context.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
- bambax 16y ago
  No. He's talking about Rupert Murdoch's writings, in 1958, reflecting on Keith Murdoch's revelations about Gallipoli. Keith Murdoch was Rupert's father. The Gallipoli campaign happened during WWI, in 1915-1916, nearly a century ago.
  - rorymarinich 16y ago
    Aha! That makes a lot of sense. Thank you for clearing up!
- deleted 16y ago
viggity 16y ago
If all wikileaks was doing was publishing information about illegal or highly suspect acts by the government it'd be one thing. But that isn't all they're doing, and it is these other releases that has really pissed me off. For instance, what legitimate purpose does it serve to release a list of infrastructure that are critical to national security? (http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jWvPaI6hITHo0rNy-iYGp5jV0RLQ?docId=CNG.8549d9b93537814e90de0a33a00a6b06.151 http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jWvPaI6hI...) If diplomacy is so important to the people of the world, why are so many people cheering on the fact that wikileaks has made it almost impossible for diplomats to give frank and honest assessments of the countries in which they work? When wikileaks makes everything "transparent", everything becomes opaque, because no diplomat will write any memos or share information with one another. Wikileaks is a tremendous blow to anyone who wants to see international problems come to a peaceful and diplomatic resolution.
- nhangen 16y ago
  I agree. I don't get it. Are we this desperate for a hero that we'll romanticize the average in order to have one?
  - nhangen 16y ago
    And so it seems that the surest way to get downvoted on Hacker News is to say something bad about Julian Assange. Boringly predictable.
    - lincolnq 16y ago
      And so it seems that trolls get their just deserts.
      - nhangen 16y ago
        How is representing an opinion being a troll? Fact is, I don't like the guy, I don't trust his intentions, and I think Wikileaks is a worldwide disaster. I just don't understand why reasonable objections are so quickly criticized here.
known 16y ago
"If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you." --Oscar Wilde
- thailandstartup 16y ago
  They killed him anyway.
- gruseom 16y ago
  I doubt that Oscar Wilde said that. It's too post-Lenny Bruce.
necolas 16y ago
2.07pm: More financial problems for WikiLeaks: Visa says it has suspended all payments to WikiLeaks "pending further investigation". Earlier MasterCard said: "MasterCard is taking action to ensure that WikiLeaks can no longer accept MasterCard-branded products." http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/blog/2010/dec/07/wikileaks-us-embassy-cables-live-updates http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/blog/2010/dec/07/wikileaks-us...
- jacquesm 16y ago
  Visa has since followed suit. : http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5jzXb7MZek0YvS8v58dKHhPw_E8NA?docId=N0013301291732122501A http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5jzXb7... The only corporate entity so far that does not have egg all over its face on this one is the French OVH which went to a judge to establish whether or not wikileaks was illegal according to French law, the judge rejected the first request and asked for more info on the second, pending a ruling OVH says they've done what they should do and will continue to have wikileaks as a customer until the court tells them otherwise.
  - jdp23 16y ago
    Agreed. I saw a great quote from OVH's managing director about how it's not up to them to decide, and it's not up to the politicians to decide, but it's up to the courts. That's the kind of service provider I want.
  - lkjhgfvhjk 16y ago
    So since Visa and mastercard vet all their customers so carefully they presumably approve of any porn child or otherwise that is bought on their cards.
    - jacquesm 16y ago
      I don't think that's entirely fair because if they are aware of a merchant doing such a thing they'd be shut down in a heartbeat. That said I really don't think they have any business shutting down the flow of funds between parties that have not actually been sentenced (or even accused) of a crime of sorts.
Jd 16y ago
If there is treason, it is with the person leaking the documents -- not the media vehicle which publishes them.
- tptacek 16y ago
  Apart from crazy people like Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich --- who claimed that Assange is an "active enemy of the American people", thus implying that everyone who donated money to Wikileaks has given material support to our enemies --- who is seriously claiming that Assange is a "traitor"? From my perspective, the theme that unites all the "formal" claims against Wikileaks is that they are all ludicrous. What crime could he have commited? Manning is a different story. Someone upthread compared him to Ellsberg (it doesn't help that Ellsberg did, too). But Ellsburg's act was deliberate and carefully planned. Manning, on the other hand, is accused of scooping up vast buckets of documents off SIPRnet servers and then handing them off to complete strangers. Amnesty, the Soros Open Society Institute (to which WL applied for a grant), and the ICG all criticized Wikileaks --- the whole organization --- for not being careful enough in redacting documents. Yet we're to believe that a single private in the military could possibly have judged the impact of what he was handing to Wikileaks? Adrian Lamo --- who I don't know from Adam, and whose story I've never followed --- took a vast helping of shit for exposing Manning. I don't know what his motives were and I don't care. But I will say that if Manning was even modestly competent with technology, Lamo may have saved his life by stopping him.
  - Jd 16y ago
    "Apart from crazy people like..." Hmm, I didn't realize Newt Gingrich was crazy. I wonder if your list of crazy people includes virtually everyone not in your preferred political party. "Yet we're to believe that a single private in the military could possibly have judged the impact of what he was handing to Wikileaks" Err, you take thousands of documents labeled "private" or "secret" and release them to the media and think what? That it is no big deal?
    - tptacek 16y ago
      Yes, when you imply that thousands of Americans are guilty of giving material aid to an active enemy of the United States (a federal crime) because they've donated money to someone who posted documents that were handed to him --- when you, in effect, suggest that the New York Times is an accessory to an act of war on the United States ("act of war", by the way, being Newt's own words) --- yeah, I get to call you a crazy person. You are of course free to disagree. No, suggesting that Julian Assange might not in fact be an active enemy of the United States and that his supporters might not be stepping close to the line of committing treason does not mean that I think Wikileaks is no big deal. My favorite part about WL --- a subject I would happily support banning from Hacker News --- is how aggressively it tries to co-opt people into one of two factions. On this side, you have people who believe consent-based sexual assault legal frameworks are an tool of US hegemony, and on the other side you have people who believe that patriotism requires supporting the notion of guy with a bunch of leaked documents being assassinated. It's just a catalyst for drama. The irony to this subthread? I was agreeing with you.
joshuaheard 16y ago
The "truth" has limits on publication: privacy, confidentiality, privilege, security, etc. Just because something is the truth, does not mean it is right to publish it. Assange is not a whistle blower. He is not exposing any misrepresentations or cover-up. He is simply exposing America's secrets in order to hurt America. That is criminal.
- jacquesm 16y ago
  Oversimplification does not benefit anybody. > He is simply exposing America's secrets in order to hurt America. That is criminal. Assuming he is - which I really think misses the point - by what law is this criminal ? He's not an American citizen, nor is he in America. Why do you feel this is criminal ? Do you think it would it be criminal if an American did it ?
  - nhangen 16y ago
    In doing business with criminals, you become one IMO. Sure, technically he's not violating any laws, but I think that points to flaws in the justice system (worldwide, not just the US) more than it does to his nobility. If someone illegally sells/steals/shares confidential information, then where does the chain of responsibility/legality stop?
    - jacquesm 16y ago
      Excellent question. Please google the Pentagon Papers and educate yourself some more on the subject. If we followed your conclusion pretty much all the newspapers in the world that actually did their jobs would be in the docket tomorrow. There has always been a tug-of-war between the press and the government about what is and what is not permitted and it is universally recognized that a free press is essential to the functioning of democracies. The issue at stake here is a complicated one, whether or not wikileaks is part of the press, and even if it isn't whether it should be counted as such. Governments the world over, from the worst to the best have figured out a loophole in the whole 'free press' business, which is to use 'access' as a coin with which to control the press. In a world where eyeballs govern the budgets of newspapers not having access directly affects a newspapers bottom line. WikiLeaks circumvents the access trick by simply not being susceptible to that kind of leverage and it is exactly because of that that I suspect that they are seen as 'dangerous' by those in power.
jacquesm 16y ago
Bail was refused: "Let down by the UK justice system's bizarre decision to refuse bail to Julian Assange. But #cablegate releases continue as planned." http://twitter.com/wikileaks http://twitter.com/wikileaks
- lkjhgfvhjk 16y ago
  Should have just tortured and murdered lots of people and made himself dictator - then the UK home office would be falling over itself not to arrest him. On the other hand this may be the safest place for him. If he accidentally "shoots himself in the back of the head while shaving" while in police custody that should bring down the current coalition government.
- moxiemk1 16y ago
  Is it bizarre to refuse bail to someone who has been constantly on the move and clearly knows how to evade detection to a fair degree? He seems to be a perfect example of a fleeing risk.
  - jacquesm 16y ago
    That must be why he turned himself in.
    - moxiemk1 16y ago
      Just because he turned himself in doesn't mean that he wouldn't flee afterwards. Wikileaks is in a very large part about influencing perception. Everything has a purpose. Again, someone who has been trekking around the globe because many government are after him is hardly not an escape risk.
      - jacquesm 16y ago
        The 'risk' would be that he would flee abroad, and last I checked England was an island. Also, fleeing would make him look pretty bad in the eyes of many and I personally don't think he would be stupid enough to do so (that's not much of a guarantee, I'll give you that), since capture (see 'island') is almost inevitable. I wonder if anybody has access to what those maximum penalties of the charges brought are (under Swedish law), and how they relate to being jailed pending an extradition hearing. That would be interesting because I read in one uncorroborated source that the punishment for the circumstances described is actually a fine, rather than jail time and it would seem that if that is really the case that any jail time at all (such as pending this hearing) would be excessive. If Assange fights extradition do they plan to hold him in custody during the whole time ? And if so how is that different from using this as a ploy to simply lock him up because he's a 'risk' ?
jacquesm 16y ago
Guardian coverage with the actual charges: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/07/assange-bail-request-refused-wikileaks http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/07/assange-bail-req...
sigzero 16y ago
I was with him in releasing information about war crimes. He lost me in this one though.
bfung 16y ago
Actions speak louder than words: http://readersupportednews.org/julian-assange-petition http://readersupportednews.org/julian-assange-petition
- memetichazard 16y ago
  When was the last time a petition actually achieved anything?
pigbucket 16y ago
"For freedom of speech, there's Wikileaks. For everything else, there's Mastercard. And Visa. And, um, Paypal. And Amazon." -- James Ball, on twitter.

334 points by ra 16y ago

I'm not Assange's biggest fan (r.e. how he controls Wikileaks) but some of the nonsense coming from the US establishment (and elsehwere) is appalling. It probably even vindicates what Wikileaks stands for. This is one of those cases where damage limitation is the sane and sensible response; they've lost those cables, we are going to see them. Deal with it. They need perspective; in the grand scheme of things it is highly unlikely to be "the end of the world". And if it uncovers corruption and naughtiness then all the better. Hounding Assange and Wikileaks only ends up making them look guilty. Which is stupid, especially as there is nothing (so far) hugely corrupt or terrible in the leaks!

jacquesm 16y ago
Which makes me wonder what is in the leaks that we haven't seen yet. After all if highly placed officials are getting their panties in a twist based on what we've seen so far then they are over-reacting to put it mildly. Time will tell. Some of the responses from politicians are beyond the pale and what bugs me more is that nobody even thinks of calling them to account over this, or so much as distancing themselves from these remarks.
- ErrantX 16y ago
  There is that. On the other hand it could be that they just can't see themselves reacting to it other way, and are just too short sighted. I feel that if anything explosive was to come then Assange would have hinted at it by now - he has done in the past.
  - jacquesm 16y ago
    I don't know. Before this 'dump' the rest of the press wasn't involved but this time around they are and I wonder if he asked for advice (and took it) on strategy. In a long-drawn-out media ploy if you put your most interesting stuff out first then it will fizzle out, if you draw it out and put more and more interesting material out then attention will not flag. It could be a deliberate ploy.
- ceejayoz 16y ago
  Politicians overreacting hardly needs an ulterior motive of super-secret documents. Just try flying in an airplane if you want an example...
- TheAmazingIdiot 16y ago
  It honestly wouldn't shock me that the restarted attacks on North and South Korea weren't because of Wikileaks. Or for that matter, I'd be surprised that the US isn't having setbacks on many diplomatic processes.
  - lkjhgfvhjk 16y ago
    You think Kim Jong-Il was shocked to discover that he wasn't a towering international statesman and decided to attack S Korea because of it?
    - rhizome 16y ago
      No, but he may have been surprised to find out that China supports unification.
  - mwg66 16y ago
    100% FUD. There is not a single iota of evidence to support that.
  - jacquesm 16y ago
    Your nick serves you well.
  - MoreMoschops 16y ago
    I, too, am not shocked that the restarted attacks twixt North and South Korea are not because of Wikileaks. I think your double-negative statement alluding to Wikileaks not being of world-changing importance has been missed by people who type faster than they can think.
- St-Clock 16y ago
  "Which makes me wonder what is in the leaks that we haven't seen yet". Maybe there is nothing in those cables, but politicians must be very afraid of what could be published next... Although the irak cables were potentially far more damageable, they were not released in cooperation with major newspapers.
- TheBurningOr 16y ago
  I wonder too about the leaks we haven't seen yet either, but at the same time, wouldn't WikiLeaks want to release the most scandalous and head-line grabbing info first? That would go a long way towards vindicating their position in the public eye.
  - rayval 16y ago
    Here is some wikileaks information about US practices in Afghanistan that is quite shocking: http://blogs.houstonpress.com/hairballs/2010/12/wikileaks_texas_company_helped.php http://blogs.houstonpress.com/hairballs/2010/12/wikileaks_te... For those who don't click on the link, the article refers to cables in which US diplomats discuss how to quash a journalist writing about a private US military contractor procuring young boys to be sex-party favors in order to help motivate Aghan police recruits. The argument that the US diplomats discuss using in order to prevent publicity is that this reporting will "endanger lives". Here is the cable: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-embassy-cables-documents/213720 http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-embassy-cables-documents/... I think this is quite scandalous and shocking. Maybe it's just me. I don't understand why stuff like this has not received much press coverage in the US.
frwdr 16y ago
I'm not a big fan of his style either, but compared with the integrity of those accusing him I can make allowances. It takes but a few minutes to illustrate my point: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DbwiXRmzKi0 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DbwiXRmzKi0
gasull 16y ago
There are plenty examples of corruption in the cables, but most of them are about other countries, not the US. But still, some examples: - The US spied on the UN, including credit card numbers and frequent flying numbers of its leaders. - The US wrote Spanish new IP law. - The US pressured Spain not investigate the killing of a Spanish journalist in Baghdad by US forces. The leak degrades the image of the US government, but not as much as it degrades the images of almost any other government (at least so far).
- jacquesm 16y ago
  I think the part where the US tried to pawn off their Guantanamo Bay prisoners in such a way that they can not challenge their YEARS of illegal detention was one of the more damning bits. That's one set of crimes (and the rendition flights) that is going to take a long long time to wash away.

ra 16y ago

Quote - "In its landmark ruling in the Pentagon Papers case, the US Supreme Court said "only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in government". The swirling storm around WikiLeaks today reinforces the need to defend the right of all media to reveal the truth."

jdp23 16y ago
And no coincidence that Daniel Ellsberg of the Pentagon Papers case is a huge supporter both of Bradley Manning and Julian Assange.
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
- KC8ZKF 16y ago
  http://supreme.justia.com/us/403/713/case.html http://supreme.justia.com/us/403/713/case.html New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713 (1971) "Only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in government. And paramount among the responsibilities of a free press is the duty to prevent any part of the government from deceiving the people and sending them off to distant lands to die of foreign fevers and foreign shot and shell. In my view, far from deserving condemnation for their courageous reporting, the New York Times, the Washington Post, and other newspapers should be commended for serving the purpose that the Founding Fathers saw so clearly. In revealing the workings of government that led to the Vietnam war, the newspapers nobly did precisely that which the Founders hoped and trusted they would do." Justice Black
  - tptacek 16y ago
    From Stewart's concurrence: [...] Yet it is elementary that the successful conduct of international diplomacy and the maintenance of an effective national defense require both confidentiality and secrecy. Other nations can hardly deal with this Nation in an atmosphere of mutual trust unless they can be assured that their confidences will be kept. And, within our own executive departments, the development of considered and intelligent international policies would be impossible if those charged with their formulation could not communicate with each other freely, frankly, and in confidence. In the area of basic national defense, the frequent need for absolute secrecy is, of course, self-evident. I think there can be but one answer to this dilemma, if dilemma it be. The responsibility must be where the power is. If the Constitution gives the Executive a large degree of unshared power in the conduct of foreign affairs and the maintenance of our national defense, then, under the Constitution, the Executive must have the largely unshared duty to determine and preserve the degree of internal security necessary to exercise that power successfully. It is an awesome responsibility, requiring judgment and wisdom of a high order. I should suppose that moral, political, and practical considerations would dictate that a very first principle of that wisdom would be an insistence upon avoiding secrecy for its own sake. For when everything is classified, then nothing is classified, and the system becomes one to be disregarded by the cynical or the careless, and to be manipulated by those intent on self-protection or self-promotion. I should suppose, in short, that the hallmark of a truly effective internal security system would be the maximum possible disclosure, recognizing that secrecy can best be preserved only when credibility is truly maintained. But, be that as it may, it is clear to me that it is the constitutional duty of the Executive -- as a matter of sovereign prerogative, and not as a matter of law as the courts know law -- through the promulgation and enforcement of executive regulations, to protect the confidentiality necessary to carry out its responsibilities in the fields of international relations and national defense. This is not to say that Congress and the courts have no role to play. Undoubtedly, Congress has the power to enact specific and appropriate criminal laws to protect government property and preserve government secrets. Congress has passed such laws, and several of them are of very colorable relevance to the apparent circumstances of these cases. And if a criminal prosecution is instituted, it will be the responsibility of the courts to decide the applicability of the criminal law under which the charge is brought. Moreover, if Congress should pass a specific law authorizing civil proceedings in this field, the courts would likewise have the duty to decide the constitutionality of such a law, as well as its applicability to the facts proved.

ffffruit 16y ago

"In a time of universal deceit — telling the truth is a revolutionary act" G. Orwell I find the calls to get him assassinated or kidnap his son simply appalling.

resdirector 16y ago
Who's been calling to kidnap his son? I did a quick (1 minute) google search, but couldn't find a source.
- jacquesm 16y ago
  since deleted: http://blog.jonolan.net/politics/green-lighting-assange/ http://blog.jonolan.net/politics/green-lighting-assange/ google cache: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:e7JxvDKpuiMJ:blog.jonolan.net/politics/green-lighting-assange/+http://blog.jonolan.net/politics/green-lighting-assange/&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&client=firefox-a http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:e7JxvDK... but that was after the edit His parting words confirm it though: " :lol: So much for ANY argument about Free Speech or whether Assange is Good or Evil. Between having this post censored and the various death threats I’ve been reporting to the authorities and deleting, it’s very much proven that most of these ranters actually believe EXACTLY as I do, just not from a defending America point of view. To all the Aussies out there – I totally approve of your attitude, though I do wish you’d read the comment thread before ranting. If you had, you’d have realized that I accepted that using Daniel was useless. Think on this though – If the tables were turned, would you have responded any differently than I did. You responses and threats says you would have done as I did. All, This threaded has ended in a very odd Win-Win situation. The specifics of my idea were proven useless and finally removed by fiat (Your Win), but your responses – by and large – proved the lie of your underlying argument (My Win). I’m also shocked that so many of you would lend me so much credence of perceived power and/or authority. I certainly never expected anyone other than my normal readers to engage in this thought experiment… I really don’t know if that’s gratifying or sobering." Unbelievable.
- swombat 16y ago
  According to TFA: * Sarah Palin says I should be "hunted down like Osama bin Laden", a Republican bill sits before the US Senate seeking to have me declared a "transnational threat" and disposed of accordingly. An adviser to the Canadian Prime Minister's office has called on national television for me to be assassinated. An American blogger has called for my 20-year-old son, here in Australia, to be kidnapped and harmed for no other reason than to get at me.

JacobAldridge 16y ago

Ah, so he's a Queenslander. That adds context - we're a special breed north of the Tweed. To add some other context to non-Australian readers: * Gallipoli, remembered as Australia's 'coming of age', was a disasterous battle in the First World War. While hardly more pointless than most of that War's assaults, it was more or less the first time we had fought as a sovereign nation and Murdoch's efforts helped shock our young country to that war in general, and the results of our troops still being commanded by our former colonial masters. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gallipoli_Campaign http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gallipoli_Campaign * The Fitzgerald Inquiry in the state of Queensland revealed corruption that ran through the police force and (via the Police Commissioner) into Cabinet and the Premier. Joh Bjelke-Petersen had been running Queensland for 19 years, supported by the gerrymander in state politics. We Queenslanders have a chip on our shoulder about being overlooked by the officials 'down south' - Joh worked this masterfully (in one election campaign he called Queensland the greatest 'Country' on earth) and while he is still remembered fondly for 'sticking it up them', the corruption of that era is a blight on the nation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joh_Bjelke-Petersen http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joh_Bjelke-Petersen http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitzgerald_Inquiry http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitzgerald_Inquiry Incidentally, Chris Masters' famous piece of journalism 'The Moonlight State' was seen as instrumental in propelling public support towards an Inquiry and a change of government. Assange seems to be positioning himself as another in the long line of Australian journalists (and Australians generally) who believe the 'powers' want to hide the truth. His belief can be neither true nor false; I'm not yet convinced his methodology is supporting the outcomes he seeks BUT, if nothing else, he has certainly revealed by provoking the actions of our PM and other political leaders around the world that there remain powers whose opposition to truth is far stronger than their respect of law and principles like a fair trial.

davidmathers 16y ago
Apropos Gallipoli: And the Band Played Waltzing Matilda. The best anti-war song ever. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZqN1glz4JY http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZqN1glz4JY http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/And_The_Band_Played_Waltzing_Matilda http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/And_The_Band_Played_Waltzing_Ma...

newt 16y ago

"Truth comes as conqueror only to those who have lost the art of receiving it as friend." - Rabindranath Tagore

rorymarinich 16y ago

He talks about Murdoch's actions in "1958" but then says that his actions are happening nearly a century later. Was that date inaccurate? Because 52 years doesn't strike me as a full nearly-a-century.

tomjen3 16y ago
The battle if talks about took place about ninety-five years ago.
oops 16y ago
There are two separate dates. 1958 is a Rupert Murdoch quote and "nearly a century" ago is Rupert's father Keith re: World War I.
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
0x44 16y ago
Julian Assange mentions a young Rupert Murdoch writing in 1958 and suggests that the Murdoch's observation reflected on the latter's father's actions in World War 1 nearly 100 years ago. Within Australia the date is probably understood from cultural memory/context.
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
bambax 16y ago
No. He's talking about Rupert Murdoch's writings, in 1958, reflecting on Keith Murdoch's revelations about Gallipoli. Keith Murdoch was Rupert's father. The Gallipoli campaign happened during WWI, in 1915-1916, nearly a century ago.
- rorymarinich 16y ago
  Aha! That makes a lot of sense. Thank you for clearing up!
deleted 16y ago

viggity 16y ago

If all wikileaks was doing was publishing information about illegal or highly suspect acts by the government it'd be one thing. But that isn't all they're doing, and it is these other releases that has really pissed me off. For instance, what legitimate purpose does it serve to release a list of infrastructure that are critical to national security? (http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jWvPaI6hITHo0rNy-iYGp5jV0RLQ?docId=CNG.8549d9b93537814e90de0a33a00a6b06.151 http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jWvPaI6hI...) If diplomacy is so important to the people of the world, why are so many people cheering on the fact that wikileaks has made it almost impossible for diplomats to give frank and honest assessments of the countries in which they work? When wikileaks makes everything "transparent", everything becomes opaque, because no diplomat will write any memos or share information with one another. Wikileaks is a tremendous blow to anyone who wants to see international problems come to a peaceful and diplomatic resolution.

nhangen 16y ago
I agree. I don't get it. Are we this desperate for a hero that we'll romanticize the average in order to have one?
- nhangen 16y ago
  And so it seems that the surest way to get downvoted on Hacker News is to say something bad about Julian Assange. Boringly predictable.
  - lincolnq 16y ago
    And so it seems that trolls get their just deserts.
    - nhangen 16y ago
      How is representing an opinion being a troll? Fact is, I don't like the guy, I don't trust his intentions, and I think Wikileaks is a worldwide disaster. I just don't understand why reasonable objections are so quickly criticized here.

known 16y ago

"If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you." --Oscar Wilde

thailandstartup 16y ago
They killed him anyway.
gruseom 16y ago
I doubt that Oscar Wilde said that. It's too post-Lenny Bruce.

necolas 16y ago

2.07pm: More financial problems for WikiLeaks: Visa says it has suspended all payments to WikiLeaks "pending further investigation". Earlier MasterCard said: "MasterCard is taking action to ensure that WikiLeaks can no longer accept MasterCard-branded products." http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/blog/2010/dec/07/wikileaks-us-embassy-cables-live-updates http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/blog/2010/dec/07/wikileaks-us...

jacquesm 16y ago
Visa has since followed suit. : http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5jzXb7MZek0YvS8v58dKHhPw_E8NA?docId=N0013301291732122501A http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5jzXb7... The only corporate entity so far that does not have egg all over its face on this one is the French OVH which went to a judge to establish whether or not wikileaks was illegal according to French law, the judge rejected the first request and asked for more info on the second, pending a ruling OVH says they've done what they should do and will continue to have wikileaks as a customer until the court tells them otherwise.
- jdp23 16y ago
  Agreed. I saw a great quote from OVH's managing director about how it's not up to them to decide, and it's not up to the politicians to decide, but it's up to the courts. That's the kind of service provider I want.
- lkjhgfvhjk 16y ago
  So since Visa and mastercard vet all their customers so carefully they presumably approve of any porn child or otherwise that is bought on their cards.
  - jacquesm 16y ago
    I don't think that's entirely fair because if they are aware of a merchant doing such a thing they'd be shut down in a heartbeat. That said I really don't think they have any business shutting down the flow of funds between parties that have not actually been sentenced (or even accused) of a crime of sorts.

Jd 16y ago

If there is treason, it is with the person leaking the documents -- not the media vehicle which publishes them.

tptacek 16y ago
Apart from crazy people like Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich --- who claimed that Assange is an "active enemy of the American people", thus implying that everyone who donated money to Wikileaks has given material support to our enemies --- who is seriously claiming that Assange is a "traitor"? From my perspective, the theme that unites all the "formal" claims against Wikileaks is that they are all ludicrous. What crime could he have commited? Manning is a different story. Someone upthread compared him to Ellsberg (it doesn't help that Ellsberg did, too). But Ellsburg's act was deliberate and carefully planned. Manning, on the other hand, is accused of scooping up vast buckets of documents off SIPRnet servers and then handing them off to complete strangers. Amnesty, the Soros Open Society Institute (to which WL applied for a grant), and the ICG all criticized Wikileaks --- the whole organization --- for not being careful enough in redacting documents. Yet we're to believe that a single private in the military could possibly have judged the impact of what he was handing to Wikileaks? Adrian Lamo --- who I don't know from Adam, and whose story I've never followed --- took a vast helping of shit for exposing Manning. I don't know what his motives were and I don't care. But I will say that if Manning was even modestly competent with technology, Lamo may have saved his life by stopping him.
- Jd 16y ago
  "Apart from crazy people like..." Hmm, I didn't realize Newt Gingrich was crazy. I wonder if your list of crazy people includes virtually everyone not in your preferred political party. "Yet we're to believe that a single private in the military could possibly have judged the impact of what he was handing to Wikileaks" Err, you take thousands of documents labeled "private" or "secret" and release them to the media and think what? That it is no big deal?
  - tptacek 16y ago
    Yes, when you imply that thousands of Americans are guilty of giving material aid to an active enemy of the United States (a federal crime) because they've donated money to someone who posted documents that were handed to him --- when you, in effect, suggest that the New York Times is an accessory to an act of war on the United States ("act of war", by the way, being Newt's own words) --- yeah, I get to call you a crazy person. You are of course free to disagree. No, suggesting that Julian Assange might not in fact be an active enemy of the United States and that his supporters might not be stepping close to the line of committing treason does not mean that I think Wikileaks is no big deal. My favorite part about WL --- a subject I would happily support banning from Hacker News --- is how aggressively it tries to co-opt people into one of two factions. On this side, you have people who believe consent-based sexual assault legal frameworks are an tool of US hegemony, and on the other side you have people who believe that patriotism requires supporting the notion of guy with a bunch of leaked documents being assassinated. It's just a catalyst for drama. The irony to this subthread? I was agreeing with you.

joshuaheard 16y ago

The "truth" has limits on publication: privacy, confidentiality, privilege, security, etc. Just because something is the truth, does not mean it is right to publish it. Assange is not a whistle blower. He is not exposing any misrepresentations or cover-up. He is simply exposing America's secrets in order to hurt America. That is criminal.

jacquesm 16y ago
Oversimplification does not benefit anybody. > He is simply exposing America's secrets in order to hurt America. That is criminal. Assuming he is - which I really think misses the point - by what law is this criminal ? He's not an American citizen, nor is he in America. Why do you feel this is criminal ? Do you think it would it be criminal if an American did it ?
- nhangen 16y ago
  In doing business with criminals, you become one IMO. Sure, technically he's not violating any laws, but I think that points to flaws in the justice system (worldwide, not just the US) more than it does to his nobility. If someone illegally sells/steals/shares confidential information, then where does the chain of responsibility/legality stop?
  - jacquesm 16y ago
    Excellent question. Please google the Pentagon Papers and educate yourself some more on the subject. If we followed your conclusion pretty much all the newspapers in the world that actually did their jobs would be in the docket tomorrow. There has always been a tug-of-war between the press and the government about what is and what is not permitted and it is universally recognized that a free press is essential to the functioning of democracies. The issue at stake here is a complicated one, whether or not wikileaks is part of the press, and even if it isn't whether it should be counted as such. Governments the world over, from the worst to the best have figured out a loophole in the whole 'free press' business, which is to use 'access' as a coin with which to control the press. In a world where eyeballs govern the budgets of newspapers not having access directly affects a newspapers bottom line. WikiLeaks circumvents the access trick by simply not being susceptible to that kind of leverage and it is exactly because of that that I suspect that they are seen as 'dangerous' by those in power.

jacquesm 16y ago

Bail was refused: "Let down by the UK justice system's bizarre decision to refuse bail to Julian Assange. But #cablegate releases continue as planned." http://twitter.com/wikileaks http://twitter.com/wikileaks

lkjhgfvhjk 16y ago
Should have just tortured and murdered lots of people and made himself dictator - then the UK home office would be falling over itself not to arrest him. On the other hand this may be the safest place for him. If he accidentally "shoots himself in the back of the head while shaving" while in police custody that should bring down the current coalition government.
moxiemk1 16y ago
Is it bizarre to refuse bail to someone who has been constantly on the move and clearly knows how to evade detection to a fair degree? He seems to be a perfect example of a fleeing risk.
- jacquesm 16y ago
  That must be why he turned himself in.
  - moxiemk1 16y ago
    Just because he turned himself in doesn't mean that he wouldn't flee afterwards. Wikileaks is in a very large part about influencing perception. Everything has a purpose. Again, someone who has been trekking around the globe because many government are after him is hardly not an escape risk.
    - jacquesm 16y ago
      The 'risk' would be that he would flee abroad, and last I checked England was an island. Also, fleeing would make him look pretty bad in the eyes of many and I personally don't think he would be stupid enough to do so (that's not much of a guarantee, I'll give you that), since capture (see 'island') is almost inevitable. I wonder if anybody has access to what those maximum penalties of the charges brought are (under Swedish law), and how they relate to being jailed pending an extradition hearing. That would be interesting because I read in one uncorroborated source that the punishment for the circumstances described is actually a fine, rather than jail time and it would seem that if that is really the case that any jail time at all (such as pending this hearing) would be excessive. If Assange fights extradition do they plan to hold him in custody during the whole time ? And if so how is that different from using this as a ploy to simply lock him up because he's a 'risk' ?

jacquesm 16y ago

Guardian coverage with the actual charges: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/07/assange-bail-request-refused-wikileaks http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/07/assange-bail-req...

sigzero 16y ago

I was with him in releasing information about war crimes. He lost me in this one though.

bfung 16y ago

Actions speak louder than words: http://readersupportednews.org/julian-assange-petition http://readersupportednews.org/julian-assange-petition

memetichazard 16y ago
When was the last time a petition actually achieved anything?

pigbucket 16y ago

"For freedom of speech, there's Wikileaks. For everything else, there's Mastercard. And Visa. And, um, Paypal. And Amazon." -- James Ball, on twitter.