[staringclown]

I don't mean to belittle the rape charges but they seem very coincidental. Hilary seems shrill. I like transparency.

[Solomon]

I picked "other".
I don't believe he is a criminal, although I would hope that the means by which he obtains his information is through legal channels.

I definitely do not believe he is a martyr, as a martyr normally believes they are going to obtain some reward. The only reward he is likely to obtain is a prison cell or worse. If he is dealt a cruel blow, his notoriety may gain him martyr status, but more likely he will become an urban folk legend.
He is playing with dangerous fire.
Information is power, and certain people don't like their power being bandied around all over the world.

I would classify him as a civil libertarian, with a desire to reveal the truth. At least I hope that is his motive.

But the truth gets people killed in more ways than just physical death.

I think there is a place in our world for more transparency, but that has its risks as well.

Crikey.com had an interesting take on the whole matter.
Crikey

I especially liked this little section of the article.

Quote

Clearly something is under way, a larger shift than can be explained merely by the individual occurrences, substantial as they are. Two massive processes have come into collision -- the second wave of the global financial crisis, breaking strongly in Europe, hitting WikiLeaks' rolling wave of information storms, changing the relationship between state and power. The transformation of the relationship between four elements -- states, nations, information and economy -- has been categorical, and even if it recedes in the next few days (which it is unlikely to), it will not retreat back to the status quo.

[staringclown]

Solomon, on 01 December 2010 - 12:04 PM, said:

I picked "other".
I don't believe he is a criminal, although I would hope that the means by which he obtains his information is through legal channels.

I definitely do not believe he is a martyr, as a martyr normally believes they are going to obtain some reward. The only reward he is likely to obtain is a prison cell or worse. If he is dealt a cruel blow, his notoriety may gain him martyr status, but more likely he will become an urban folk legend.
He is playing with dangerous fire.
Information is power, and certain people don't like their power being bandied around all over the world.

I would classify him as a civil libertarian, with a desire to reveal the truth. At least I hope that is his motive.

But the truth gets people killed in more ways than just physical death.

I think there is a place in our world for more transparency, but that has its risks as well.

Crikey.com had an interesting take on the whole matter.
Crikey

I especially liked this little section of the article.

I can guarantee you sol that he did not get his material through legal channels. I have a clearance to a certain level but that does not enable me to see all information rated to that level. It's very much a need to know basis on which you receive information. This guy has no more right to it than you or I. But he has it and he's published it. If he's embarrassed governments then it's only using their own words. It betrays an arrogance that we have always known was there. But is now being highlighted. Is there a point when the truth should be overridden for the public good?

[urchin]

i think the rape charges are probably a set-up. there was talk of plots to lure him into a "honey trap" (mmmmm... sweet honey... (insert homer simpson voice)) of this kind a few months ago. apparently it worked (maybe they were twins... who could possibly resist twins?). as mentioned above, it does seem an *awfully* big coincidence that this comes out after he essentially vomited in the faces of all the major world leaders.

as far as the legality goes, i haven't been following it all that closely but there seems to be some confusion as to whether many of the US cables were actually classified or not. seriously, calling silvio an egocentric lech is hardly top secret... though i did like the story of sarkozy chasing a dog chasing a rabbit (google it). it was cute. but a threat to national security?

here's a tip--if you don't want your secret stuff spewed all over the internet, make sure that people can't steal 200,000+ documents in one go.

assange certainly has balls, in any event. he has pissed off an awful lot of people and with very long memories. he has essentially exiled himself. it's a high price to pay... not one i'd be willing to pay, certainly.

[Turkey]

staringclown, on 01 December 2010 - 12:16 PM, said:

I can guarantee you sol that he did not get his material through legal channels. I have a clearance to a certain level but that does not enable me to see all information rated to that level. It's very much a need to know basis on which you receive information. This guy has no more right to it than you or I. But he has it and he's published it. If he's embarrassed governments then it's only using their own words. It betrays an arrogance that we have always known was there. But is now being highlighted. Is there a point when the truth should be overridden for the public good?

I'm no supporter of the theory about the government keeping things secret for the general good. I'm sure that governments repeat it as often as they can so that people start believing it and all it does is give govt greater power.

There's so much of that style of BS going around at the moment. The "banking system will collapse" if the banks aren't bailed out. Total rubbish, only individual banks go bankrupt and their bondholders lose money. Iceland has done fine tossing their banks to the wolves. The Federal Reserve fights being audited so they can keep their massive power and their corrupt and incestuous relationship with other banks. But I digress...

Except for very specific military scenarios that we could all think of, I don't think there is a justifiable reason for government to keep secrets in a democracy. They are there to serve the people and are employees of the people paid by our taxes, no? How can we judge their performance without knowing the truth and specific details about what they are doing, however embarrassing that may be for them? I don't see why they would be worried about public disclosure if they don't have something to hide.

As for the idea that they are smart people that know better that we have elected to run the country on our behalf and we can vote them out if they do a bad job:
--How can we tell what kind of a job they are doing unless we are allowed to look?
--The scope for corruption and abuse is huge when giving a small number people great power and cloaking them in secrecy. The Federal Reserve is a good example.

[tor]

Other. I reckon he is a guy that had a few ideals and it all got away from him.

[Max Carnage]

I think it's good. I'm all for transparency. I'm looking forward to the Goldman Sachs revelations. Will they reveal that GS knew about and enabled/encouraged the bubble/s for their own gain?

Now if you'll just excuse me, I need to shred file some important documents on account of our recent election result.

[ummester]

tor, on 01 December 2010 - 05:17 PM, said:

Other. I reckon he is a guy that had a few ideals and it all got away from him.

I tend to agree with this. It's cool that he's sticking it to the man. But, things seem to have become bigger than they should be now. The road to hell is paved with good intentions and all that.

I think if a government makes plans that concern it's tax paying public - then the public has a right to know. And, even though I don't agree with America's invasion of Iraq, I think that governments should be able to keep secrets about war. it's part of warfare as a whole - and any national who does let those secrets out is kind of betraying their own country.

[Turkey]

ummester, on 01 December 2010 - 09:30 PM, said:

And, even though I don't agree with America's invasion of Iraq, I think that governments should be able to keep secrets about war. it's part of warfare as a whole - and any national who does let those secrets out is kind of betraying their own country.

I'd go along with that only with respect to information that is leaked in advance of military operations.

Otherwise I don't see why it is a problem, unless the military did something dodgy why does it matter? Again this is a line that defense forces and governments around the world will repeat as often as possible so that people accept it.

I'm sure many Americans voted depending on their views on the Iraq war and with more information they could have cast a better-informed vote. If they knew then what they know now about the weapons of mass destruction lies that Bush and co. told them I doubt Dubya would have got his second term.

This post has been edited by Turkey: 01 December 2010 - 10:04 PM

[Ruffian]

Other. He seems to be driven by his convictions.

He started off being the clever outsider as a youth, and it has carried on a little too long and gotten a little too big.

The whole issue will have to be faced eventually, however - regardless of what is the trigger and who is the scapegoat. The internet has 'changed everything' as far as privacy/security is concerned, whether you are an individual or a nation.

[tom]

staringclown, on 01 December 2010 - 12:16 PM, said:

I can guarantee you sol that he did not get his material through legal channels. I have a clearance to a certain level but that does not enable me to see all information rated to that level. It's very much a need to know basis on which you receive information. This guy has no more right to it than you or I. But he has it and he's published it. If he's embarrassed governments then it's only using their own words. It betrays an arrogance that we have always known was there. But is now being highlighted. Is there a point when the truth should be overridden for the public good?

I am a bit confused though around how Assange is guilty of anything with this leaking business?

The individual who stole the information while employed by the defence force sure. But what then of all the journos who have ever written a story which have brought down a government, the information coming from insiders or whistle blowers etc? If they broke in and took the information, or hacked to get it sure, but I don't know how they can write a new law that only sees Assange guilty and not everyone else who is assisting this informations dissemination today with wikileaks now struggling to get into US homes?

[Bernard L. Madoff]

My position is well explained in AL's essay.
http://www.abc.net.a...shed/41770.html

Chomsky as well.
http://www.democracy...reveal_profound

Keep it coming Julian.

[tor]

tom, on 02 December 2010 - 05:00 AM, said:

I am a bit confused though around how Assange is guilty of anything with this leaking business?

The individual who stole the information while employed by the defence force sure. But what then of all the journos who have ever written a story which have brought down a government, the information coming from insiders or whistle blowers etc? If they broke in and took the information, or hacked to get it sure, but I don't know how they can write a new law that only sees Assange guilty and not everyone else who is assisting this informations dissemination today with wikileaks now struggling to get into US homes?

I believe that in the US (not Australia) furthering the leak is actually a crime. Probably just for military stuff or something. I heard this on the news so take it with the appropriate seasoning.

I think that leaking the info is great in many ways as maybe the US and other states will adjust their foreign policy to be a little more palatable to their constituents.

I do think that poor old Assange was probably happily running his little deal and then the last one came along and he had to release it because of his ego. Even though he probably knew full well the ramifications.

Now with this one he is really stuck, it is getting way more attention and he can hardly stop now can he.

[tom]

tor, on 02 December 2010 - 06:02 AM, said:

I believe that in the US (not Australia) furthering the leak is actually a crime. Probably just for military stuff or something. I heard this on the news so take it with the appropriate seasoning.

I think that leaking the info is great in many ways as maybe the US and other states will adjust their foreign policy to be a little more palatable to their constituents.

I do think that poor old Assange was probably happily running his little deal and then the last one came along and he had to release it because of his ego. Even though he probably knew full well the ramifications.

Now with this one he is really stuck, it is getting way more attention and he can hardly stop now can he.

I don't like that law at all. Does this mean you have committed an offence in the US just by say saving the docs on your computer and posting them on say forums?

Maybe there is a limit where once it is publicly accessible you are allowed to further disseminate. I wonder what will happen to the newspaper execs seeing as though they have published these same stories if this is not the case?

[tor]

tom, on 02 December 2010 - 06:16 AM, said:

I don't like that law at all. Does this mean you have committed an offence in the US just by say saving the docs on your computer and posting them on say forums?

Maybe there is a limit where once it is publicly accessible you are allowed to further disseminate. I wonder what will happen to the newspaper execs seeing as though they have published these same stories if this is not the case?

I would suspect that a publicly leaked document is probably safe to disseminate. However we are talking about making the fearless leaders look stupid so I would probably go "hands free" on selfish principles.

[Bernard L. Madoff]

I'm like a kid at Christmas awaiting his bank leaks that will take down a major bank.

http://www.zerohedge...get-big-us-bank

He must be burrowing close to some rotten cores.


http://www.zerohedge...nge-assassinati

[Mr Medved]

Ruffian, on 01 December 2010 - 10:06 PM, said:

Other. He seems to be driven by his convictions.

That's pretty much my view.

I had the opportunity to meet him not long after the 'collateral damage' video was released. He came across as a deep thinker, and obviously a guy with some computer 'talents'. He may have an ego, I don't really know, but I thought he was driven more by ideals and what he wanted to achieve for journalism... he doesn't rehash PR releases or cosy up for the inside goss, he uncovers something the public didn't previously know about.

An example of his ideals was when a list of wikileaks donours was accidently made public and 'leaked' backed to wikileaks, they published the list. They don't judge what is 'newsworthy', they publish what was previously unknown.

My guess is that this was a setup and therefore difficult to substantiate if this is anything more than a smear campaign. It is highly unusual for an arrest warrant for an alledged sex offence such as this to be refered to Interpol, and I read somewhere that one of the women who made an allegation is now in Israel (Mossad??).

However, he is not unused to danger. He lived in Kenya and was involved in uncovering government corruption there... he knew people who were murdered by the government because of it.

[tor]

Mr Medved, on 02 December 2010 - 09:10 AM, said:

...He may have an ego...

Please do not read my use of the word ego in the connotative form. I simply mean that, like most of us, his public projection is something it is hard to go against.

Simply because, for most of us, our public projection of ourselves is the person we want to be i.e. I used in the meaning of a personal sense of worth rather than the pejorative sense.

This is why I think he got caught up in something bigger than he wanted to be caught up in. He wants to see a better world and he wants to be one of the people that brings it to fruition. Self preservation would say, especially after reading the stuff he got, that it would be safer to let the bastards be bastards.

I think the first one was not too bad and he went with his ideals, this one I think he has pissed off people that are somewhat famous for attempting poorly thought out schemes. He knows it but his ego won't let him walk away.

[Turkey]

Bernard L. Madoff, on 02 December 2010 - 08:07 AM, said:

I'm like a kid at Christmas awaiting his bank leaks that will take down a major bank.

I'm hoping he throws a curveball and it's the Federal Reserve he's talking about.

[ummester]

Turkey, on 01 December 2010 - 10:04 PM, said:

I'd go along with that only with respect to information that is leaked in advance of military operations.

Otherwise I don't see why it is a problem, unless the military did something dodgy why does it matter? Again this is a line that defense forces and governments around the world will repeat as often as possible so that people accept it.

I'm sure many Americans voted depending on their views on the Iraq war and with more information they could have cast a better-informed vote. If they knew then what they know now about the weapons of mass destruction lies that Bush and co. told them I doubt Dubya would have got his second term.

Some of the best warfare tactics are the dodgiest. Not saying I would make them, or agree with them but war is a dirty business. Probably the dirtiest. It revolves around killing humans from other countries and sometimes sacrificing humans from your own to achieve a goal. Once that is accepted, morals must take a back seat, surely?

There was propaganda on both sides of the fence in the 1st and 2nd world wars. Again, not saying I agree with it but... if Americans knew in advance how dodgy the oil collecting last ditch to save the dying US economy invasion of Iraq was, what would it take to get soldiers there? Then, what kind of fighters would they be?

Why is it that less Arabs, with poorer arms, tech and Infrastructure always seem to hold out so long when invaded? I'd hazard a guess it has something to do with their convictions (as irritatingly fundamentalist as many may be).

Morale, however false, has a huge effect on a soldiers performance. Why do you think it is mostly young men sent to die? Here I'd hazard a guess it's easier to fill their testosterone driven sense of romance with something righteous and worth fighting for. I was in the army as a young fella and I believed then that dying for your country was a worthy sacrifice. Now, I'd only willingly sacrifice my life for my sons or Mrs ummester - amazing what time and knowledge changes. If I had the knowledge of how corrupt politics and warfare was when I was young, I probably wouldn't have thought the same way. I recon, it's that kind of thinking that things like the wikileaks make governments so afraid of losing.