Anonymous Declares "Infowar" on Wikileaks Opponents

[Actual]

"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

So you're now siding with Wikileaks and freedom of information?

These sites are all public knowledge. They are listed as sensitive because an analyst sat down and figured out that they were vital to the smooth running of the country. Anyone could have put this list together, I could have if I'd wanted to.

If the information was dangerous wikileaks would not have released it. They made some mistakes years ago about releasing sensitive information and since then they've only released safe information.

 

[Saucycarpdog]

I'm amazed how the unabashed proliferation of a nation's sensitive info is no longer defined as 'treason'.

I don't see how it could be treason considering wikileaks is a swedish site. You have to go against your own country to be considered treason.

 

[JaredXE]

Just thought I'd point out he's not American, so they can't charge him with treason.

Treason is betraying your own country.

They are trying to get him on espionage charges. He's considered a hostile spy against American interests. It amounts to the same thing when it comes to jail, torture....I mean "enhanced interrogation", and potential death penalties.

 

[EMFCRACKSHOT]

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?

Firstly, any direct line to your closest ally is of incredible strategic importance,this should be clearly obvious to anyone. Its really not that hard to pick out targets of strategic importance, but terrorists don't often go for a strategic target, they go for an emotional one. Most of these strategic targets are too well defended for your garden variety terrorist anyway. And its also not that hard to secure them from terrorists. If you were dealing with a trained squad of SAS type saboteurs then maybe i could agree with you but those haven't been around in the UK since WW2.
All of this is completely besides the point anyway. The fact is he leaked information that was never really hidden, and the politicians are decrying it as being far more dangerous to national security that it is in reality, to move people away from discussing the real issue. That being the transparency of the government, and the level to which we can hold them accountable.

 

[Kathinka]

and what about us non-americans. there is 6 billion of us out there, you know^^
we would like to know when the us military is again and again murdering innocents or putting people into concentration camps without trial and tries to cover it up. maybe it's for the best of mankind if sensitive information of that kind is getting out, even if or maybe especially because it poses a danger to some people.

I'm all for military accountability. I'd point out that despite everything, our military does avoid killing civilians whenever possible. If you are referring to the concepts of the "War on Terror" which is basically the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq then you can blame our politicians and top military brass.

But do not blame the American troops for killing civilians. They are only soldiers following orders. I've heard just as many stories of soldiers, in the perfect position to fire on enemy troops, which would save their allies, having to wait for an okay to engage. Innocent people die in war. That is unavoidable. There will never be a way to prevent 100% of unintended death in war.

As for Guantanamo Bay, that is a whole other issue. It should be shut down. The people housed within should either be put on trial or freed. End of story.

of course you are right, the big overall-strategy is plotted by the higher ups. but i was refering to the numerous incidents where single soldiers killed civilians or surrendered combatants out of a whim, for fun, out of sloppienes. and the worst thing: most of them walked or got away with minimal punishment, little more then a raised index finger.

 

[thephich]

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.

I feel like the knowledge of the significance of power plants is quite obvious. One only needs to follow the media to know that the Niagara Falls plant supplies power for a large percentage of southern Ontario, as well as large portions of the states bordering or near the plant. It is common knowledge, or knowledge easily obtained.

But on the topic of what was released, I have nothing against - and am fully for Gov't transparency - but names of people need to be censored. But on the flip side, Amnesty international did turn down helping so...

 

[thephich]

Sorry double post.

 

[Ericb]

Hamas has done a lot of good stuff too. So has the Yakuza, Pablo Escobar, and probably also Hitler. Anon are still cyber-terrorists.

http://www.cracked.com/article/238_5-inspiring-acts-kindness-by-terrifying-crime-syndicates/

Sweeping Generalization [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accident_%28fallacy%29] with a pinch of Godwin's Law [http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ptitle7vljslfu?from=Main.GodwinsLaw]

 

[MrDumpkins]

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

How long have you had the internet? Anyone with a brain and Google Earth can find the locations of military bases, Government buildings etc. Don't be a fucking idiot.

Exactly... I don't understand why this guy is even in jail. Posting documents like these to the public only help people that want to be informed get informed.

I'm sure all of the terrorist organizations already have this information if he already found it. Which is very bad, don't get me wrong. I'm just saying the terrorists aren't going on wikileaks to find this kind of information.

 

[SilentHunter7]

A Transparent Government is one thing. But what Assange is doing is so above and beyond exposing corruption. Yes, the true facts about the wars we're in should be disclosed to the people. A democratic government should not be lying about the facts of a conflict it started.

However, when you leak classified documents listing a series of sites that could potentially cripple the country if attacked, that's not just whistle blowing. That's threatening the National Security of a sovereign nation.

When you leak the names of foreign civilians that are assisting U.S. troops, that's not whistle blowing. That's threatening innocent people's lives.

What the hell is he trying to accomplish by doing this? Having a list of targets the government already possessed publicly available sure as hell isn't helping the citizens. Ratting out people who are assisting us in rebuilding their war torn country sure as hell isn't helping the citizens.

What will Assange say should one of these sites be attacked? What will he say if the Taliban start executing up people collaborating with US troops. All that blood will be on his hands. But I assume he and those that buy into his particular brand of transparency will find some way to absolve himself of any wrongdoing.

 

[Chrinik]

I'm amazed how the unabashed proliferation of a nation's sensitive info is no longer defined as 'treason'.

That´s because he is not the one comitting the treason...and they know that.
Treason is done by the people GIVING him the information (and if found out will be charged heavily)...his act of releasing them to the public is not treason since he can do what the fuck he want´s with information given to him by pure freedom of speech.

It´s also fun how the governments around the world don´t drive the "deny everything" route and go straight to "kill that ************!".
I mean, all he does is doing what polititians CLAIM to be doing...and I mean, if polititians wouldn´t be doing shady buisness, they wouldn´t have to be concerned.

 

[SilentHunter7]

How long have you had the internet? Anyone with a brain and Google Earth can find the locations of military bases, Government buildings etc. Don't be a fucking idiot.

Yeah, but they don't have professional analysis on exactly what kind of damage hitting those sites will do.

It's one thing to know that hitting a power station will be a serious blow. It's quite another to know how much replacing the station will cost, the cost of secondary damages such as looting and accidents resulting from the attack, the cost of maintaining/restoring order, exactly what federal, state, and municipal resources the attack will lock up, the security measures in place to prevent an attack, etc.

With analysis like that, you can plan to do the most damage with the least amount of resources. And I guarantee you, noone would've had access to THAT.

 

[Canadamus Prime]

Can anyone stop the cannons firing?
I still see Anon as a hero, people over look all the good stuff they have done.

For example...?

 

[Chrinik]

A Transparent Government is one thing. But what Assange is doing is so above and beyond exposing corruption. Yes, the true facts about the wars we're in should be disclosed to the people. A democratic government should not be lying about the facts of a conflict it started.

However, when you leak classified documents listing a series of sites that could potentially cripple the country if attacked, that's not just whistle blowing. That's threatening the National Security of a sovereign nation.

When you leak the names of foreign civilians that are assisting U.S. troops, that's not whistle blowing. That's threatening innocent people's lives.

What the hell is he trying to accomplish by doing this? Having a list of targets the government already possessed publicly available sure as hell isn't helping the citizens. Ratting out people who are assisting us in rebuilding their war torn country sure as hell isn't helping the citizens.

What will Assange say should one of these sites be attacked? What will he say if the Taliban start executing up people collaborating with US troops. All that blood will be on his hands. But I assume he and those that buy into his particular brand of transparency will find some way to absolve himself of any wrongdoing.

"Tough Luck?" "Shit happens?" "You finally get what you deserve for messing in other countrys affairs?" (by no means my words, don´t quote ME on this, this is exaggerating)
I dunno, but terrorists don´t need all this information from some dude on the internet. Real terrorists just bomb anything they like, and even if they bomb half a country to shit that wouldn´t be a threat to national security...you know what is? LETTING OTHER PEOPLE INTO YOUR COUNTRY! Serriously, anything short of locking your borders is just and invitation for wrongdoers to do so in your homeland...it is inevitable.
If you believe that all the past decades terrorist attacks have been committed by ill-tempered pissed off muslims at all...

 

[Lem0nade Inlay]

Personally I think Assange did the wrong thing here. I'm all for him releasing war info, but releasing things like "Sites around the World which are important to Americas economy and sustainability." Why would you release that? It's like saying to a bunch of terrorists "Here are the best places in the World to attack to screw up America, go nuts."