12 ms·

>> "stated under oath when examined by the defense counsel that there was no harm whatsoever" First, I don't actually believe that the Wikileaks releases (Mann

>> "stated under oath when examined by the defense counsel that there was no harm whatsoever" First, I don't actually believe that the Wikileaks releases (Manning's) really caused that much damage, in fact we came out smelling like roses in most cases, our allies however frequently looked like asses (think Saudis wanting to tag gitmo inmates with bird trackers). The thing here to consider is 1) by the Wikileaks statement above it would seem that the purpose was never to counter US interests [calling bullshit here, support or oppose Assange/WL != pro US gov], so it is disingenuous at best to us the lack of damaging information to suggest that WL was not an anti-USG group. Is the Disney film less than fully accurate? I'd bet so, it's a commercial endeavor. I'm more disappointed that Wikileaks chose to focus on the USG and GB than all of the upstanding states around the world like Syria, Russia, North Korea, and China. Sure, when the US fucks up, call us out on it, that's part of an informed democracy. WL/Assange pretended to be the vanguard of transparency (and when they first announced such ambitions I actually was rooting for them). Instead of focusing on the most opaque and oppressive governments, they focused on finding the warts on governments that by and large are respective of human rights. Russia? Fuck it you get a pass because Assange doesn't have ricin-proof pants yet. NK? Do you know how hard it is to get documents from there? </rant> Seriously though, I am disappointed. When they stood up I thought they were going to actually go after folks who actively opposed free speech and human rights. Instead they went after the targets that were easiest to create media stories out of. I would like for Wikileaks to get the memos on the election rigging in Azerbaijan, I would like for them to get the UN memos between RF and Syria. To borrow the line from Rick, I don't mind a whistle blower, I just mind a cut rate one.

vacri 13y ago
This is the same argument as "you cops should be out catching the real criminals!"
- BWStearns 13y ago
  Really. You are suggesting that the US government is on the same level of opacity or human rights abuse as any of those that I mentioned? Are you literally fucking stoned?[1] [1] No judgement, I've had a decent amount of scotch and to each their own, but really? [edit: legalize it, and then tax it, and give me a tax break :) ]
  - IanCal 13y ago
    (Not the same person) No, that's rather the point. "They should be catching real criminals" is the argument used to complain about the police arresting people who have committed a crime because there are more serious crimes. The argument here is that just because the US isn't the worst, doesn't mean you shouldn't do anything.
    - BWStearns 13y ago
      I appreciate the fact that that was the argument being made. >> The argument here is that just because the US isn't the worst, doesn't mean you shouldn't do anything. I did not say that you should give the US a pass (I in fact explicitly stated the opposite). I did state that if you claim to oppose some common ill of humanity that you should probably focus on where it is most ill. If I decide to fight malaria, I should probably look at Africa as a good place to do my work. If I decide to fight corrupt, oppressive, and deceitful governments I should probably look at states with the most distasteful human rights records.
      - polymatter 13y ago
        If you decide to learn to swim, do you jump straight into shark infested waters? If you anger the US government they will (generally) initiate legal proceedings to see you in court. Even if you think the legal proceedings against you are a sham, you (generally) get your day in court which are (mostly) fair. If you anger China or NK they (generally) don't bother with even that much pretense and you may be tried, convicted and executed before anyone even realizes you're missing.
        avn2109 13y ago
        Because of the structural arrangement and pay-to-play financial details of the American legal system, "mostly fair" is an extraordinarily generous characterization of how you will be treated.
      - Legogris 13y ago
        So with that mindset, why are you arguing against WikiLeaks on Hacker News? There are FAR worse example of breaking your set of rules where you should probably focus.
bandushrew 13y ago
I am not clear how they were supposed to 'target' Russia, exactly? How could they control what information is leaked to them?
- BWStearns 13y ago
  Fun things never published: http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Europe/2010/1026/WikiLeaks-ready-to-drop-a-bombshell-on-Russia.-But-will-Russians-get-to-read-about-it http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Europe/2010/1026/WikiLeaks-re... The closest thing that WL has on their website that is even embarrassing to Russia is a Wikipedia rip of Anna Politkovskaya's summary. Everything else is either coincidental or "anti-Syria" voices saying mean things about Russia. Really, the US is the only country with people in government who disagree with their government?
  - bandushrew 13y ago
    I dont know? surely a combination is needed? someone who disagrees, has the courage to act, knows about wikileaks and has access to information in a medium that is amenable to upload. Im perfectly willing to believe that the combination is a lot more rare in Russia or China than it is in America.
    - BWStearns 13y ago
      They publicly announced that they had some pretty mind blowing shit on Russia... which they never released. This leads me to believe a) they never had it to begin with, or b) they bitched out on the execution and decided fucking with a government who might actually hurt them was a bad idea. In either case, I lose respect.
      - asgard1024 13y ago
        > In either case, I lose respect. Really? So if a dissident decides to stop dissenting due to increased government pressure, we should lose respect to all the work he did previously? Just because he was not courageous enough to continue, someone, who didn't have the courage in the first place, will lose respect to him? Moral hypocrisy 101.
CatMtKing 13y ago
I haven't browsed through much of Wikileaks, butt I was under the impression that they do leak documents from many governments, not solely the US or GB. However, is it a surprise that the documents that get the most press are US-related? And, after all, the bigger the government, the bigger the paper trail / surface area for leaks.
- BWStearns 13y ago
  There are pathetically few documents on WL from governments with truly atrocious human rights records. There are more documents from fucking fraternities than oppressive governments. Governments are pretty reliable, there are documents even in the most dysfunctional governments. Wikileaks is less interested in publishing these than anything that is embarrassing to the US/UK. I know I'm throwing HN Karma down the toilet here, but really, while the behavior of the USG is far far from ideal, the behavior of Wikileaks is also so, and in a more insidious manner since its silence on more oppressive governments gives them validation. Also for those downvoting, please see my other posts. I am not blindly pro-USG or anti-whistleblower. I have more complicated feelings regarding Snowden but wrt Wikileaks I have been disappointed in their focus. I feel this is a valid concern as the obsession with taking the US down a peg also gives validation to those oppressing their own people. Taking the US down a peg and denouncing real atrocities should not be incompatible. I feel that Wikileaks has sacrificed the more valuable duty of the latter in favor of the former.
  - vidarh 13y ago
    You are jumping to a lot of conclusions regarding WL's agenda, when it is quite possible the reason most of the documents are from the US/UK simply because they are reasonably easy to get leaks from compared to more brutal regimes.
    - BWStearns 13y ago
      This is no doubt true (it's easier in the US than NK), but as I commented below, they posted that they had some stuff on Russia, and then shut the hell up about it. What is the takeaway?

vacri 13y ago

This is the same argument as "you cops should be out catching the real criminals!"

BWStearns 13y ago
Really. You are suggesting that the US government is on the same level of opacity or human rights abuse as any of those that I mentioned? Are you literally fucking stoned?[1] [1] No judgement, I've had a decent amount of scotch and to each their own, but really? [edit: legalize it, and then tax it, and give me a tax break :) ]
- IanCal 13y ago
  (Not the same person) No, that's rather the point. "They should be catching real criminals" is the argument used to complain about the police arresting people who have committed a crime because there are more serious crimes. The argument here is that just because the US isn't the worst, doesn't mean you shouldn't do anything.
  - BWStearns 13y ago
    I appreciate the fact that that was the argument being made. >> The argument here is that just because the US isn't the worst, doesn't mean you shouldn't do anything. I did not say that you should give the US a pass (I in fact explicitly stated the opposite). I did state that if you claim to oppose some common ill of humanity that you should probably focus on where it is most ill. If I decide to fight malaria, I should probably look at Africa as a good place to do my work. If I decide to fight corrupt, oppressive, and deceitful governments I should probably look at states with the most distasteful human rights records.
    - polymatter 13y ago
      If you decide to learn to swim, do you jump straight into shark infested waters? If you anger the US government they will (generally) initiate legal proceedings to see you in court. Even if you think the legal proceedings against you are a sham, you (generally) get your day in court which are (mostly) fair. If you anger China or NK they (generally) don't bother with even that much pretense and you may be tried, convicted and executed before anyone even realizes you're missing.
      - avn2109 13y ago
        Because of the structural arrangement and pay-to-play financial details of the American legal system, "mostly fair" is an extraordinarily generous characterization of how you will be treated.
    - Legogris 13y ago
      So with that mindset, why are you arguing against WikiLeaks on Hacker News? There are FAR worse example of breaking your set of rules where you should probably focus.

bandushrew 13y ago

I am not clear how they were supposed to 'target' Russia, exactly? How could they control what information is leaked to them?

BWStearns 13y ago
Fun things never published: http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Europe/2010/1026/WikiLeaks-ready-to-drop-a-bombshell-on-Russia.-But-will-Russians-get-to-read-about-it http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Europe/2010/1026/WikiLeaks-re... The closest thing that WL has on their website that is even embarrassing to Russia is a Wikipedia rip of Anna Politkovskaya's summary. Everything else is either coincidental or "anti-Syria" voices saying mean things about Russia. Really, the US is the only country with people in government who disagree with their government?
- bandushrew 13y ago
  I dont know? surely a combination is needed? someone who disagrees, has the courage to act, knows about wikileaks and has access to information in a medium that is amenable to upload. Im perfectly willing to believe that the combination is a lot more rare in Russia or China than it is in America.
  - BWStearns 13y ago
    They publicly announced that they had some pretty mind blowing shit on Russia... which they never released. This leads me to believe a) they never had it to begin with, or b) they bitched out on the execution and decided fucking with a government who might actually hurt them was a bad idea. In either case, I lose respect.
    - asgard1024 13y ago
      > In either case, I lose respect. Really? So if a dissident decides to stop dissenting due to increased government pressure, we should lose respect to all the work he did previously? Just because he was not courageous enough to continue, someone, who didn't have the courage in the first place, will lose respect to him? Moral hypocrisy 101.

CatMtKing 13y ago

I haven't browsed through much of Wikileaks, butt I was under the impression that they do leak documents from many governments, not solely the US or GB. However, is it a surprise that the documents that get the most press are US-related? And, after all, the bigger the government, the bigger the paper trail / surface area for leaks.

BWStearns 13y ago
There are pathetically few documents on WL from governments with truly atrocious human rights records. There are more documents from fucking fraternities than oppressive governments. Governments are pretty reliable, there are documents even in the most dysfunctional governments. Wikileaks is less interested in publishing these than anything that is embarrassing to the US/UK. I know I'm throwing HN Karma down the toilet here, but really, while the behavior of the USG is far far from ideal, the behavior of Wikileaks is also so, and in a more insidious manner since its silence on more oppressive governments gives them validation. Also for those downvoting, please see my other posts. I am not blindly pro-USG or anti-whistleblower. I have more complicated feelings regarding Snowden but wrt Wikileaks I have been disappointed in their focus. I feel this is a valid concern as the obsession with taking the US down a peg also gives validation to those oppressing their own people. Taking the US down a peg and denouncing real atrocities should not be incompatible. I feel that Wikileaks has sacrificed the more valuable duty of the latter in favor of the former.
- vidarh 13y ago
  You are jumping to a lot of conclusions regarding WL's agenda, when it is quite possible the reason most of the documents are from the US/UK simply because they are reasonably easy to get leaks from compared to more brutal regimes.
  - BWStearns 13y ago
    This is no doubt true (it's easier in the US than NK), but as I commented below, they posted that they had some stuff on Russia, and then shut the hell up about it. What is the takeaway?