wikileaks

[espo]

what do you guys think of all this?

 

I don't think they are ever going to let Assange back out of jail. Not that it will matter anyway.

 

I'm down for knowing the truth and all but at the same time I think it's a bit irresponsible in today's global climate to disrupt and damage diplomatic relationships between world powers and then piss in a hornets nest by embarrassing their leaders at the same time. It's going to be interesting to watch it all play out.

 

 

 

Here is my official prediction:

U.S. will eventually charge him with espionage and he will be extradicted.

His lawyers will scream 1st Amendment but it won't work.

Classified documents will keep getting leaked regardless.

Edited December 11, 2010 by eSpO~

[kid]

while i do agree that leaking classified information is harmful diplomatically, i don't see the ability to have classified information as a justification to do shady shit.

 

fox news called julian assange a terrorist; i laughed.

[espo]

LOL @ FOX NEWS

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jlJdsX181QU

Edited December 11, 2010 by eSpO~

[»Lynx]

It's a great shame that somebody who works selflessly on something so honourable is currently sitting in a prison cell, possibly illegally. I have sympathy to Assange and his plight, but even if they give him a custodial sentence it won't make two shades of difference. Wikileaks is now larger than any single person, and no matter what they do as long as secrets exist, they will still appear on the net. This week has found Wikileaks more fans and I hope for the best for Assange.

[»freakmonger]

A ) He was released on bail. So I doubt he is "sitting in a prison cell"

B ) I would hardly call sex offences (which is why he was arrested) "honourable"

 

But thats just me

Edited December 16, 2010 by freakmonger

[»Swift]

Lynx the next time you post some propaganda bs like that on my forums I will stick you with a pitchfork. Being of the military and in the military I find that what he did is morally unethical. I understand that he wants to present an open medium for everyone to be equal. I do not agree with his methods though.

[Kilo]

There's no need to be threatening.

[»Lynx]

Retracting what I said, in case I offend the mighty swift in his domain, and get poked with a pitchfork.

 

http://www.hennessy.id.au/quentingeorge/archives/satan.jpg

Edited December 17, 2010 by Lynx

[CRe]

Lynx the next time you post some propaganda bs like that on my forums I will stick you with a pitchfork. Being of the military and in the military I find that what he did is morally unethical. I understand that he wants to present an open medium for everyone to be equal. I do not agree with his methods though.

 

I'm sure you know the first amendment since you are in the military. Sticking him with a pitchfork for posting "some propaganda bs" is

violating his right to speak freely.

[»Lynx]

Oh, and Swift deleting posts in a political forum because you don't agree with them is pretty low, even for a guy like you.

[Simulacrum]

At least his "information that I find inconvenient should not be shared" stance is consistent.

[Sketter]

I'm now quite curious what he wrote.

 

But these forums are not public domain. Never were and never will be. So if Swift wants to skew the forums he can.

 

But i agree with eSpO~ in respects if what will happen to him.

 

Without getting deep, I think wikileaks can serve purpose and has, but releasing diplomatic cables was kinda a boring thing just to embarrass the US.

I would rather have information that have been covered up, abuse, facts, things that are more important then a embarrassing a country.

 

IF some documentation does put military personals at risk on the field, then it shouldn't be released. However... has there been any such incidences? Because I hear that argument, i'm just curious if any of this has any impact in that area, because i haven't heard of any fallout from that.

 

Although wikileaks media attention is focused around the diplomatic relationships, and military, it also in the past has shared some other information on shadiness with global corporations that have gone without consequences and so on.

 

It's unfortunate these documentations can't be found right now.

Edited December 17, 2010 by Sketter

[»Lynx]

I said nothing significant, merely corrected Freakmonger about his doubts of him sitting in a prison cell (he was placed into solitary confinement as soon as he turned himself in on Dec 7, with only one hour of exercise/day etc) and that I made my post while he was still being detained (although on bail, still in solitary confinement due to the flight risk factor).

 

I also mentioned that accusing of somebody of something by no means entails they have committed any sex offences. I also highlighted the convenience of the accusations and their timely re-emergence with his leaks.

 

But these forums are not public domain. Never were and never will be. So if Swift wants to skew the forums he can.

 

That doesn't make him any less of an idiot.

 

Edit: Typeo

Edited December 19, 2010 by Lynx

[No_Remorse]

I'm sure you know the first amendment since you are in the military. Sticking him with a pitchfork for posting "some propaganda bs" is

violating his right to speak freely.

 

Take a look at the G20 summit, our constitutional rights are being disregarded, such as our right to peaceful protest and not only just that. The big problem is people think big government is good, and that your a conspiracy theorist if you think otherwise.

 

Remember that the elites control virtually all major sources of information, the school system, the mainstream media, etc... They also know psychology which means they are actively brainwashing us all into a bunch of mindless idiots that only give a shit about a free ride and fueling the left-right paradigm.

[Simulacrum]

Without getting deep, I think wikileaks can serve purpose and has, but releasing diplomatic cables was kinda a boring thing just to embarrass the US.

I would rather have information that have been covered up, abuse, facts, things that are more important then a embarrassing a country.

WikiLeaks has revealed plenty of abuses and coverups. Here is a haphazardly-presented listing.

 

IF some documentation does put military personals at risk on the field, then it shouldn't be released. However... has there been any such incidences? Because I hear that argument, i'm just curious if any of this has any impact in that area, because i haven't heard of any fallout from that.

I've heard claims from far-right bloggers, but never anything from the military itself. The military also rejected invitations from WikiLeaks to recommend redactions for safety's sake prior to the cables' release.

Edited December 19, 2010 by Simulacrum

[»Swift]

Let me clarify something real quick.

 

A ) I did not delete anything.

B ) If you thought I deleted something, you were in the wrong for just accusing me. I hardly delete anything unless it violates the laws of 'Pornographic' material on the forums.

C ) I didn't do any harm to you Lynx, merely stated that as far as being a military member anyone who slanders the U.S. or it's foreign allies.

 

It's a great shame that somebody who works selflessly on something so honourable is currently sitting in a prison cell, possibly illegally. I have sympathy to Assange and his plight, but even if they give him a custodial sentence it won't make two shades of difference. Wikileaks is now larger than any single person, and no matter what they do as long as secrets exist, they will still appear on the net. This week has found Wikileaks more fans and I hope for the best for Assange.

 

This was the quote I was referring to when I posted. You are right in regards to how it attracted the attention of script kiddies alike and those who joining a cause to join a Botnet and DoS sites... something that is above all else a sign of disrespect for sites that have their own choices in the matter. If they choose to remove themselves or even take part in the fact that things are going for the worse and make statements that they themselves can make, does it mean that Anonymous and those of 4chan and even Assange himself can take part in a lot of the DDoS' that were going on? Condemning those other sites and ruining their businesses is morally and ethically approved to keep Assange and his leaked cables abroad? I don't find that agreeable whatsoever. Therefore I stand by what I said earlier only because it shows what kind of individual you are when it comes to security. If you want to side with the young kid's and those who are rebelling to rebel and if anyone some much as speaks out against them gets attacked. Then by all means continue on your own way in life. I on the other hand stick by the side that says somethings are made to be left out for a reason. If those reasons are not on a NEED TO KNOW then it should be left alone.

 

- Swift

 

 

 

P.S. - Nice picture, too bad I'm not a fatass.

[Simulacrum]

WikiLeaks is more than Julian Assange and a bunch of DDoS attackers. When Lynx says that "WikiLeaks is now larger than any single person" and specifically refers to its ability to publish documents without Assange, the other people in question are the ones who continue to produce leaks in Assange's absence. Nothing whatsoever about script kiddies.

[»Lynx]

Let me clarify something real quick.

A ) I did not delete anything.

B ) If you thought I deleted something, you were in the wrong for just accusing me. I hardly delete anything unless it violates the laws of 'Pornographic' material on the forums.

 

Then it's convenient that my post suddenly disappeared, and was replaced by your (well, nothing I couldn't have expected) pitchfork comment. I would take the latter half of that quote verbatim, however you have attempted to silence me before by banning me from these forums (which was fortunately reversed by demand). This shows you're clearly capable of abusing your powers.

 

... You are right in regards to how it attracted the attention of script kiddies alike and those who joining a cause to join a Botnet and DoS sites...

 

Saying that it has only attracted the attention of the controversial group "Anonymous" shows your shallow understanding of the follow-ship that Wikileaks now has. Just as an example, the Facebook Fan Page alone now has over 1.4MLN fans.

 

...something that is above all else a sign of disrespect for sites that have their own choices in the matter...

 

Others, including the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights could just as easily argue its a violation to the right of freedom of expression.

 

...Condemning those other sites and ruining their businesses is morally and ethically approved to keep Assange and his leaked cables abroad?...

 

One could say that condemning a not-for-profit organisation on speculation is morally and ethically wrong; crippling income while 'pending investigation'.

 

If you want to side with the young kid's and those who are rebelling to rebel and if anyone some much as speaks out against them gets attacked. Then by all means continue on your own way in life. I on the other hand stick by the side that says somethings are made to be left out for a reason. If those reasons are not on a NEED TO KNOW then it should be left alone.

 

Blah blah blah, a bunch of skiddies, yeah, right... I on the other hand don't believe in your elitist bullshit that you've put into this thread from the get-go (ironically, literally), and never will.

[»Swift]

Reversed by demand? Maybe I am pretty ignorant but refresh my memory on this instance? If I don't want you here I won't have you here, simply put. Aside from that. You have your opinions, I've expressed mine. If you have an issue with what I've said, too bad. I don't really care it doesn't harm me to have you express what you want to say, at least it is generated from another individual. Despite that hate me, despise me, do whatever it pleases to you, I don't really care because in the end I am me and you are you. You won't change my views or opinions as much as you yourself pointed out cannot see what it is I implied.

[»Lynx]

Lynx the next time you post some propaganda bs like that on my forums I will stick you with a pitchfork.

 

[powertrippin'] ... You have your opinions, I've expressed mine. If you have an issue with what I've said, too bad. I don't really care it doesn't harm me to have you express what you want to say ... [blah blah]

 

Lol. At least you've understood the point behind a political discussion forum.

 

Edit: Odd...

Edited December 20, 2010 by Lynx

[NBVegita]

I do have to say I find it to be utter irony that his confidential police report was "leaked" to the public.

 

Something about that just makes me smile

[PoLiX]

haha.

[espo]

Pretty weak retaliation and I doubt he cares that much. It's not going to stop what he is doing.

[NBVegita]

He cares enough to have his lawyers initiate a formal investigation into the matter.

 

Jail would help stop what he's doing.

 

Yes others will continue, but there aren't many people who would be in the position to gain and distribute confidential information that would not be under legal scrutiny if the same was done to them.

[Simulacrum]

What are you talking about? Julian Assange is an organizer and a front man. The leaks that have already happened were managed by people other than him. Taking him down doesn't do a thing to the organization that actually obtains and releases the documents, and even taking down the whole organization would only make way for other organizations to keep doing the same thing.