Anonymous Declares "Infowar" on Wikileaks Opponents

[KiKiweaky]

I know they are. The point is that they are lead by clever people, who are lead by cleverer people,who are led by clevererer people, who are led by idiots. Just like the government. If I can quite easily speculate a list of targets to disrupt supply lines, I'm sure their leaders can too, seeing as I'm only 17.

Actually it's mostly ignorant kids, led by manipulative idiots, led by manipulative assholes, but that's neither here nor there when it comes to the issue at hand.

Though it does bear certain parallels to the interior workings of Wikileaks, by some accounts.

You be surprised, what if i told you Ross Kemp met a suicide bomber in Gaza that had just graduated from college with a law degree?

I'd say that there are exceptions to every rule.

Oh no arguments about the 'manipulative idiots' part, doubt you'd ever see them putting on a jacket with 10 pounds of explosive strapped to it.

Sure you say there's an exception to everything, but that doesnt take away from the fact that this 22/23 year old is 'slighlty' more educated than you give him credit.

 

[nomis101uk]

There are no good guys and bads guys in this WikiLeaks game.

Its the little guy exposing things that, for better or worse, the most powerful entities in human history don't want out in the open, and that power is moving to absolutely crush this threat using every last dirty trick in the book. Propaganda, lies, distortion, strong-arm politics, smear campaigns, fear mongering, threats of execution, cohercing foreign governments and businesses into taking the website down...

Maybe there is a grain of truth in what the US and the right wing are saying about some of the leaks being irresponsible. Maybe. But what I find far more disturbing is that people are so ready to believe the propaganda lines put out by establishment power, be it business or political, or that which is put out by a media which reflects those interests. All the establishment has to do in America is bark "national security" and the sheep will fall in line. If they can throw something in about terrorism too, well then that's icing on the cake.

Fuck those people. The American political and corporate system does more damage on a daily basis throughout the world (including to Americans) than WikiLeaks could ever hope to accomplish. Most people know that, but some would prefer to carry on living in their fantasy world.

 

[lettucethesallad]

I never thought I'd live to see the day I'd say this, but...

GO ANON! Geez, finally you people are doing something right.

And go Assange! Being a Swede we get pretty close coverage on the rape trial, and honestly the whole thing does seem pretty sketchy. He was cleared due to lack of evidence, and then suddenly gets arrested again when the Wikileaks controvercy pops up. I'm horrified in general at how these leaks are being treated - media and governments all over the world hounding the ones who exposed the leaks rather than the ones who committed the crimes.

 

[qbanknight]

I'm sorry but to hell with this rapist. His alleged sexual-assault crime aside, the man has exposed HIGHLY classified material on the damn internet. No, I don't mean historical documents concerning the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars. Those documents are history are fully protected by the First Amendment's Freedom of the Press, look up the Pentagon Papers for a similar case involving the Vietnam War and government leaks. I know the man is Australian, but I'm going to judge him by the American legal system.

However, what is NOT PROTECTED is divulging secrets that pose a national security threat. Like say the locations of HIGHLY IMPORTANT sites according to Homeland Security. If I was a terrorist (be it for Al-Qaeda, Neo-Nazi, IRA, etc.) then a list like that is essentially a travel log of where to commit the most horrific result. That's not freedom of the press, that's putting people's lives in danger. So please do not act all surprised when you see politicians in my country calling for his head, he's not some righteous savior...he's a fucking asshole

I can see voicing my own opinions on the matter in this quote will result in a flame duel, so I'll voice another aspect of my curiosity. Why do you include the IRA in your list of feared terrorists? As far as I'm aware of, the U.S has never been a high priority target for Gerry Adams and his crew.

I used IRA in reference to UK targets. The US is indeed not their target, but animosity among SOME members of the IRA against the UK still remains after all these years. They may not be as active like say, Al-Qaeda, but the British government still monitors them as a threat to THEIR security

 

[OuroborosChoked]

Two points
First, A journalist does NOT have an obligation to publish everything he gets his hands on. He can withhold information that might endanger people, like his source. Ever read a news article where they cite a source that request anonymity due to the ongoing investigation or sensitive nature of the topic? They often don't reveal some details of a story for one reason or another. Like for public safety or nation security.

Second, Assange apparently got the information from Bradley Manning. Manning illegally downloaded the information and gave it to Assange. In other words, they all broke laws. Manning is likely to face charges from what I've heard. Not sure if there is more information about it now.

And, yes, they will all likely face trial for this all soon enough. My bet is that the rape allegations will keep Assange in custody long enough for the U.S. to ask to extradite him on espionage grounds. At which point, the rape charges will be dropped because espionage is a far more serious crime in a legal sense. Only a fool actually thinks the rape allegations are real. But I doubt there are many governments that will come to his defense. After all, what happens when he wants to reveal their information?

A few points
1. Wikileaks aren't journalists. They're whistleblowers. They release documents that overly powerful organizations don't want you to see because the public has a right to know. It's called disclosure and it's a GOOD THING.

2. Which documents threaten national security, exactly? The documents that expose the crimes of the government, which might make the people who hate the US hate the US for reasons they can point to (ie they legitimize the causes of those who oppose the US)? I tend the think the US is it's own worst enemy there (see night raids in Afghanistan and the effect they're having on the non-combatant population). The documents that show the world what our politicians think about the politicians of other nations? It might make diplomatic relationships testy, but I don't think anyone's going to start wars over this stuff.

It's interesting that you try to make this point because it's the same point the State Department is trying to push. On the one hand, they say the documents are worthless and not anything of value... but they turn around and say that their release is a threat to national security. You can't have it both ways! Either they're nothing of value or they're dangerous.

Here's some truth: the government doesn't want these documents getting out. We can all agree on that. Why, though? Because it threatens US hegemony and they don't want transparent government. The documents speak for themselves on this point. Just look at the crimes and transgressions covered up by the term "classified". You can get away with a lot when you don't let people know the truth...

3. If there is going to be any legal justice from this situation, Manning should get charged with theft only. Assange, if anything, charged with accepting stolen property. Espionage? Seriously? Was Daniel Ellsberg charged with espionage? He released top secret documents that got egg on the government's face over Vietnam. Swallow that spin, boy!

4. Wikileaks is not in the business of blackmail. Any government not wanting to come to Assange's defense would not be hesitant because of what Wikileaks does but because of US influence. People fear the world's biggest bully. This nonsense is proof of that. A Canadian pundit called for Assange's assassination? Our elected government officials are calling for Assange's full prosecution for espionage and, if the law doesn't fit, they want to change the law! Are you supporting this? Do you really want the world to get to the point that no government crimes can be opposed, where the citizens have no rights (because the government will just change the laws as they see fit, regardless of what they say), and people can be killed for speaking the truth? We're already half-way there, mind you! Did you know the government has a policy in place where any US citizen (abroad) they deem a terrorist, they've authorized themselves to assassinate that person! AND THERE'S NO OVERSIGHT for these decisions, no ground rules for what qualifies as a terrorist, and NO APPEAL PROCESS for anyone who happens to find out they're on the list!

ARE YOU PEOPLE PAYING ATTENTION?

 

[qbanknight]

And by the way, Wikileaks not only revealed important facilities in America, but in UK and in many other countries. So yes, the radical-bombing members of the IRA could possibly use the list. Use your head.

I wonder how much of that list can't be found by Googling "Nuclear power plants/Airports/Factories/Docks/Major cities/whatever in UK/US/Austalia/whatever".

Read this because apparently no one on this fucking site does their homework like a damn adult:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/11932041

You'll see their that these are PARTICULAR locales on the global supply change that could have damaging effects on trade, stocks, lives, currency, public opinion, etc.

 

[qbanknight]

"Historical" means anything that has happened in the past. I said in clear simple terms in my post to read about the goddamn Pentagon Papers. The Papers were highly confidential information that detailed every failure about the Vietnam War up to 1971. One man had access to the thousands of Papers and gave them to the New York Times. The government back then tried to stop the newspaper from reprinting the papers

The SUPREME COURT, our highest court in the land, chose to honor the freedom of the press. They said specifically that no US servicemen were being put in danger by disseminating the Papers and no US Security interests were at stake. They considered the Papers to be describing "history" of a conflict that was ongoing at the time, much like our situation now. Some of Wikileaks information, like US paranoia over Russia, would be protected by this case known as New York Times v. United States. But disseminating a list detailing incredibly vital sites to counter-terrorists? You are jeopardizing people's lives at the point and the Supreme Court will not help you as an American citizen. Do your fucking homework kid. And yes, I'm fully aware that the idiot is not American, but as that is the country that is being offended by this idiot, I provided a legal analysis that treated him as such. And just to follow on that point, yes, non-Americans have enjoyed Constitutional guarantees as well in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld albeit for different reasons.

And by the way, Wikileaks not only revealed important facilities in America, but in UK and in many other countries. So yes, the radical-bombing members of the IRA could possibly use the list. Use your head.

What kind of 'sites' are these then?

Read this: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/11932041

 

[instantbenz]

I'm 100 percent behind anonymous.

Same, but I'm in the back so I can run when they get shot at.

 

[Imat]

I really don't have an opinion on Wikileaks, or Assange, for that matter, but Anonymous I truly dislike. I have yet to see them do anything productive, lofty as their goals are, and often they seem to achieve the opposite of the desired effect. Here's an idea: Get Anonymous to try to cause World Starvation. The various world governments who have the resources to care about ending World Hunger will then see that clearly they need to stop Anonymous, and therefore World Hunger will end. Do the same thing with World Peace, and suddenly the world is infinitely better. Because Anonymous tried, and failed, at yet another ridiculous task.

 

[Imat]

...

What kind of 'sites' are these then?

Read this: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/11932041

After reading that, I am no longer on the fence about WikiLeaks. They crossed a line, from being venerable whistleblowers, to threats to National Security (My country's National Security, specifically). I cannot, in good conscience, support WikiLeaks.

 

[Soushi]

Anonymous, i have one hting to say to you: We may have had our diferences in the past, but in this case, Target and fire.
We should all support wikileaks and what it does, after all, people should not be afriad of thier governments, governments should be afraid of thier people.

 

[KorLeonis]

I haven't read every post yet, so someone may have already mentioned this but...

Wikileaks has not now, nor has it ever, stolen classified or secret documents. Concerned whistle-blowers within the governments and corporations in question send them to Wikileaks because they feel it is information that must be made public. If the people who understand the import of these documents think we should know about them, then I'm glad there is someone willing to publish them.

I admit, Assange himself really does seem to be a bit of an ass, but what he (and the rest of his staff) is doing is a damn fine thing.

 

[Arrogancy]

I know that I'm going to get a lot of flak for saying this, but I am opposed to the Wikileaks exposing confidential diplomatic communiques. I know, that there's an argument about freedom of speech and that old song and dance, but still, this is a matter of international security. Sure, the people have a right to know what their governments are doing, but the governments also have a right to protect the people. One of the ways this is done is by keeping sensitive information classified.

 

[warprincenataku]

You know, information is classified for a reason. The majority of humans barely know how to handle their own lives, much less someone else's. Confidential reports should be kept confidential. All these reports leaking of innocents being shot and things of that nature happen under extreme conditions most of the times where split second decisions are need to be made.

OMG you mean to tell me a soldier accidentally shot a civilian because he thought he was going to kill him! Anyone remember Vietnam where women and children were used as bait and/or walking explosives. There have been countless wars with countless tactics bent on killing people. You as a soldier have literally a split second to decide your outcome plus the outcome of those around you. Sometimes mistakes happen, that is life. Now 1) before anyone gets all bent out of shape picture yourself in the field surrounded by people who want to kill you and see if you don't kill an innocent or two. Hell, you probably have done it a few times by accident in video games. 2) This is only one possible scenario of many that have appeared online.

If you want to know classified information, join the military or government. If not, kindly shut the fuck up about it and get on with your life. You're probably too stupid to handle that kind of information anyhow. We have a freedom of information act, all this information can be made available in due time when the information is no longer vital. Sometimes people idiocy just sickens me.

 

[EMFCRACKSHOT]

...

What kind of 'sites' are these then?

Read this: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/11932041

After reading that, I am no longer on the fence about WikiLeaks. They crossed a line, from being venerable whistleblowers, to threats to National Security (My country's National Security, specifically). I cannot, in good conscience, support WikiLeaks.

You realise almost everything on that list can be found through google, and that anyone with a modicum of intelligence can deduce the importance of several of them. I'll give you an example. Its fairly common knowledge that BAE does a lot of work for the UK & US Military, therefore, BAE facilities are an obvious target if someone wants to pose a risk to UK and US national security.
When you consider that those facilities can be found through google anyway, (thats right, their locations are hardly top secret, hell some of them are signposted) the whole idea that this leak compromised national security is absurd. If it did anything to help terrorists, all it did was save them from a tedious google search.
Also, those cables between the US and UK, not so secret. Hell i even remember learning about them from a documentary on WW2 on the BBC. Once again, is not hard to deduce that cables providing a direct line between the US and UK government are a target of vital strategic importance. If you'd studied WW2 you would know their importance. There was a reason they were heavily guarded from the Germans.
Frankly i'm appalled at the reaction from the worlds governments. The people have a right, and the duty, to be informed of the actions of their governments in a democracy. The reasons why should be obvious, but i know that some of you will need clarification anyway.
In a democracy the government is accountable to the people. If the people cannot access the information then how can they hold the government accountable. I would accept that certain pieces of information regarding ongoing operations need to be kept secret, but to keep it secret for years after the fact is ludicrous.
As to the US politicians calling for his execution and so forth, way to completely ignore the ideals your country was founded on.

 

[FFHAuthor]

It's all well and good to sit around in our nice safe little offices and studies and say that Wikileaks should publish information, that we should have total disclosure, that the government is wrong to oppose this site...so on and soforth.

But it's very different if you consider what is getting released in this information. It's not just activities. It's names of people, intelligence sources, not professional soldiers, not spies, but people in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and elsewhere who decided that they were going to tell the US soldiers where the bombs were made that blew up a market. Who said where the weapons stash was, who said who the snipers were. Just average people who live in these places that most of us only hear about on the news.

When we hear about people dying on the news, we don't associate, and I don't think that anybody on Wikileaks or Anonymous can even relate that there are very real people whose lives are being put on the line by these releases. It's just 'America is evil', 'Government secrecy is wrong' and 'I deserve to know'. That's the depth of it. A decision of principle that is easy for them to make, but with no connection to the actual result of what they do. They've put people's lives at risk by releasing this info. Not just American and Allied soldiers, innocent people who just want to be able to live their lives and decided that maybe pointing a finger and saying 'that man placed a bomb on the road', was worth doing.

Do those people care? No. But the groups out there who they informed on, they care. You don't think they're going through this information looking for examples? Looking for people to kidnap and torture so that others will remain afraid, so that we someone sees that sniper, or that bomber, they turn away because they know that if they talk to the Americans they might die because their name will be put out.

It's all well and good to believe in principle, to want to have open government, but these groups and I think precious few people that are making their declarations of support or denunciation lose sight of the fact that yeah, US soldiers might have a harder time, the War in Afghanistan is harder, the War in Iraq is harder...but it's harder because the people who want to help make something of those countries are afraid that they're going to die for trying to help us.

 

[Wildcard5]

I believe that if Mr. Assange did commit a sex crime he should be charged and sent through the system, however I do not think he should be prosecuted any more severely than any average person charged with the same crime Wikileaks founder or not. When justice is impeded by politics we all lose. Either way this will, if nothing else, be quite entertaining...

 

[spectrenihlus]

And by the way, Wikileaks not only revealed important facilities in America, but in UK and in many other countries. So yes, the radical-bombing members of the IRA could possibly use the list. Use your head.

all that shit is on google maps/earth and a bunch of other mapping services show all of that and have done for years. since bombs arent going off in them every day its maybe not a big deal?
the IRA have been getting along just fine for years without wikileaks and they tend to target civilian areas and barracks anyway which arent exactly top secret.
try again fearmonger.

Yes but what was unknown was the importance of these locations to the United States, Did you know that a power station in Canada if it were to be destroyed would cripple parts of the United States. I bet you didn't and I bet you that there is no reason for you knowing this anyway.

 

[spectrenihlus]

And by the way, Wikileaks not only revealed important facilities in America, but in UK and in many other countries. So yes, the radical-bombing members of the IRA could possibly use the list. Use your head.

all that shit is on google maps/earth and a bunch of other mapping services show all of that and have done for years. since bombs arent going off in them every day its maybe not a big deal?
the IRA have been getting along just fine for years without wikileaks and they tend to target civilian areas and barracks anyway which arent exactly top secret.
try again fearmonger.

Yes but what was unknown was the importance of these locations to the United States, Did you know that a power station in Canada if it were to be destroyed would cripple parts of the United States. I bet you didn't and I bet you that there is no reason for you knowing this anyway.

 

[Imat]

...

What kind of 'sites' are these then?

Read this: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/11932041

After reading that, I am no longer on the fence about WikiLeaks. They crossed a line, from being venerable whistleblowers, to threats to National Security (My country's National Security, specifically). I cannot, in good conscience, support WikiLeaks.

You realise almost everything on that list can be found through google, and that anyone with a modicum of intelligence can deduce the importance of several of them. I'll give you an example. Its fairly common knowledge that BAE does a lot of work for the UK & US Military, therefore, BAE facilities are an obvious target if someone wants to pose a risk to UK and US national security.
When you consider that those facilities can be found through google anyway, (thats right, their locations are hardly top secret, hell some of them are signposted) the whole idea that this leak compromised national security is absurd. If it did anything to help terrorists, all it did was save them from a tedious google search.
Also, those cables between the US and UK, not so secret. Hell i even remember learning about them from a documentary on WW2 on the BBC. Once again, is not hard to deduce that cables providing a direct line between the US and UK government are a target of vital strategic importance. If you'd studied WW2 you would know their importance. There was a reason they were heavily guarded from the Germans.
Frankly i'm appalled at the reaction from the worlds governments. The people have a right, and the duty, to be informed of the actions of their governments in a democracy. The reasons why should be obvious, but i know that some of you will need clarification anyway.
In a democracy the government is accountable to the people. If the people cannot access the information then how can they hold the government accountable. I would accept that certain pieces of information regarding ongoing operations need to be kept secret, but to keep it secret for years after the fact is ludicrous.
As to the US politicians calling for his execution and so forth, way to completely ignore the ideals your country was founded on.

Important in WW2, sure, but with modern communications who knows how important they are. Well, everybody does now. This list isn't about finding the sites, its about handing a comprehensive list of everything we consider valuable, things we really don't want destroyed yet don't have the means of keeping completely secure, to a veritable toddler...With explosives...The toddler may have caused wanton destruction before, but now you've said "Don't touch these things, they're important," the toddler has no choice but to touch them, which will lead to breakage. Of course the people who would want to hurt a country such as America are not toddlers. That just means that they have a choice whether or not to touch, and they'll go ahead and break.

Imagine giving a list of your greatest fears and self-doubts to the evilest man in existence. That man now has a complete list of how to systematically destroy you piece by piece. Sounds like such a list shouldn't be accessible to anyone but yourself, don't it?

Anyways, the point is moot. I've heard enough to withdraw my neutrality. I will not actively seek the destruction of either party, but neither will I support WikiLeaks in any way.