5 ms·

If it were true. http://wlcentral.org/node/1412 http://wlcentral.org/node/1412 http://wlcentral.org/node/1186 http://wlcentral.org/node/1186

tptacek 11y ago
The only sources you have refuting reports that ran in the mainstream media about Wikileaks funneling information to Belarus is Wikileaks itself? Those allegations ran in The Guardian, in Al Jazeera, in The Daily Beast (that time, from a source within Wikileaks), and several others. I don't like the NSA. Am I required to like Wikileaks? I don't.
- foobarqux 11y ago
  You wrote, > Did I miss the part where Wikileaks refuted the allegation that is, you asked specifically for Wikileaks response, which is contained in one of the links I posted. I don't believe that wlcentral is Wikileaks itself, and in any case the evidence and arguments they present should stand on their own, regardless of whether one likes Wikileaks or not.
  - tptacek 11y ago
    Did you read these two blog posts carefully? They don't even refute the claims. In fact, the second one appears to stipulate that Shamir got access to cables relevant to Belarus from Wikileaks, subject to an "NDA" with WL (rebutting that site's earlier suggestion that Shamir got the cables through a third-party that WL had provided them to); it then proceeds for pages and pages to discuss the question of how close Shamir was to Wikileaks and Assange in particular. It doesn't bother you that cables that we probably haven't even seen were relayed from Chelsea Manning, through Assange and Wikileaks, through a noted holocaust denier, to the government of Belarus? Again: we don't get to see them. But the functionaries of one of the world's worst dictatorships, and one of Russia's closest satellite states, do get them. In fact: all the sources I've seen appear to stipulate that's true, disagreeing only on why that happened. I don't like the NSA and have plenty of reasons to be skeptical about the official USG narratives on virtually any subject. But I find Wikileaks to be an incredibly sketchy organization. Here's former WL staffer James Ball, writing for The Guardian: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/nov/08/israel-shamir-julian-assange-cult-machismo http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/nov... So far as I can tell, the most powerful rebuttal WL has to Ball is to suggest that Ball is disgruntled and has an axe to grind. But Ball's allegations are specific, and in some cases corroborated!
    - foobarqux 11y ago
      There was a falling out between the Guardian and Wikileaks. Ball, who did not have any reasonable career prospects, would have had incentive to side with the Guardian and pursue a job there, by offering inside access to Wikileaks and the Wikileaks story, a job which he ultimately obtained. I don't know of any meaningful, specific and credible allegation that Ball has made. As for Shamir, it seems pretty obvious that Wikileaks did not do a whole lot of background checking on the volunteers that they used to go through the source material. That's all. There isn't any evidence to suggest that Wikileaks partnered with Shamir in order to convey cables to Belarus, a feat which could have been done far more easily in other ways. Not central to the point but I think it's only speculation that Shamir gave any cables to Belarus.
      - tptacek 11y ago
        Ball's allegations are more specific. He claims that Shamir was introduced to the group by Assange, and that he was introduced under a fake name, because a cursory check on who the guy was would reveal he was a holocaust denier. He also claims Shamir asked for documents about "the jews". At some point, this "Ball had reason to make things up" stuff has to amount to us taking Assange's word for it. Ball signed his name to the allegations, and the Guardian found them credible enough to run. I don't love the Guardian (they are to the left what Murdoch is to the right) but it's not credible to say that the Guardian would simply make things up because they had a falling-out with Wikileaks. Would your opinion of Wikileaks be impacted if more evidence was presented corroborating Ball's story? If Assange really did knowingly introduce a holocaust-denying agent of Belarus to Wikileaks? How much would that matter to you? I think that's what happened. I think it's very relevant. If you think it doesn't matter even if we stipulate that it happened, that's fine, and we can be done discussing that part of the story. Does it bother you that whenever something comes up about Assange or Wikileaks --- the refusal to present himself to prosecutors in Sweden, the ties to allies of Lukashenko, the Russia Today show and the refusal to publish documents about Russians that he said he'd publish, the accidental doxxing of Afghani Taliban resistors --- there's always some elaborate story that exonerates Wikileaks?
        11y ago

tptacek 11y ago

The only sources you have refuting reports that ran in the mainstream media about Wikileaks funneling information to Belarus is Wikileaks itself? Those allegations ran in The Guardian, in Al Jazeera, in The Daily Beast (that time, from a source within Wikileaks), and several others. I don't like the NSA. Am I required to like Wikileaks? I don't.

foobarqux 11y ago
You wrote, > Did I miss the part where Wikileaks refuted the allegation that is, you asked specifically for Wikileaks response, which is contained in one of the links I posted. I don't believe that wlcentral is Wikileaks itself, and in any case the evidence and arguments they present should stand on their own, regardless of whether one likes Wikileaks or not.
- tptacek 11y ago
  Did you read these two blog posts carefully? They don't even refute the claims. In fact, the second one appears to stipulate that Shamir got access to cables relevant to Belarus from Wikileaks, subject to an "NDA" with WL (rebutting that site's earlier suggestion that Shamir got the cables through a third-party that WL had provided them to); it then proceeds for pages and pages to discuss the question of how close Shamir was to Wikileaks and Assange in particular. It doesn't bother you that cables that we probably haven't even seen were relayed from Chelsea Manning, through Assange and Wikileaks, through a noted holocaust denier, to the government of Belarus? Again: we don't get to see them. But the functionaries of one of the world's worst dictatorships, and one of Russia's closest satellite states, do get them. In fact: all the sources I've seen appear to stipulate that's true, disagreeing only on why that happened. I don't like the NSA and have plenty of reasons to be skeptical about the official USG narratives on virtually any subject. But I find Wikileaks to be an incredibly sketchy organization. Here's former WL staffer James Ball, writing for The Guardian: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/nov/08/israel-shamir-julian-assange-cult-machismo http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/nov... So far as I can tell, the most powerful rebuttal WL has to Ball is to suggest that Ball is disgruntled and has an axe to grind. But Ball's allegations are specific, and in some cases corroborated!
  - foobarqux 11y ago
    There was a falling out between the Guardian and Wikileaks. Ball, who did not have any reasonable career prospects, would have had incentive to side with the Guardian and pursue a job there, by offering inside access to Wikileaks and the Wikileaks story, a job which he ultimately obtained. I don't know of any meaningful, specific and credible allegation that Ball has made. As for Shamir, it seems pretty obvious that Wikileaks did not do a whole lot of background checking on the volunteers that they used to go through the source material. That's all. There isn't any evidence to suggest that Wikileaks partnered with Shamir in order to convey cables to Belarus, a feat which could have been done far more easily in other ways. Not central to the point but I think it's only speculation that Shamir gave any cables to Belarus.
    - tptacek 11y ago
      Ball's allegations are more specific. He claims that Shamir was introduced to the group by Assange, and that he was introduced under a fake name, because a cursory check on who the guy was would reveal he was a holocaust denier. He also claims Shamir asked for documents about "the jews". At some point, this "Ball had reason to make things up" stuff has to amount to us taking Assange's word for it. Ball signed his name to the allegations, and the Guardian found them credible enough to run. I don't love the Guardian (they are to the left what Murdoch is to the right) but it's not credible to say that the Guardian would simply make things up because they had a falling-out with Wikileaks. Would your opinion of Wikileaks be impacted if more evidence was presented corroborating Ball's story? If Assange really did knowingly introduce a holocaust-denying agent of Belarus to Wikileaks? How much would that matter to you? I think that's what happened. I think it's very relevant. If you think it doesn't matter even if we stipulate that it happened, that's fine, and we can be done discussing that part of the story. Does it bother you that whenever something comes up about Assange or Wikileaks --- the refusal to present himself to prosecutors in Sweden, the ties to allies of Lukashenko, the Russia Today show and the refusal to publish documents about Russians that he said he'd publish, the accidental doxxing of Afghani Taliban resistors --- there's always some elaborate story that exonerates Wikileaks?
      - 11y ago