Anonymous Declares "Infowar" on Wikileaks Opponents

[DiMono]

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

A swede living in Australia isn't exactly under American rule.

We don't charge him with treason, we charge him as a spy, the Espionage Act of 1917 let's the US Government do that.

So if someone tells me something secret, and I share it with other people, that makes me a spy? Wow, you guys are strict.

Seriously, here's the process as I understand it for something being released on Wikileaks:

1) An insider decides "the public needs to know this"
2) That insider sends things to Wikileaks
3) A Wikileaks team makes sure what it's been sent won't put any lives in danger if released
4) The information is made public

It's really pretty transparent. So tell me again how that makes him a spy?

 

[-BloodRush-]

Theres so much ignorance regarding this subject, and so many people just refusing to learn, all talking about it is doing is spreading misinformation over and over again. Calumon had it right. Assange is in trouble for telling the truth. thats it. Dunno about the alleged sexual charges but those are irrelevant anyway. Anon is simply complicating things farther.

 

[Blind Sight]

Julian Assange might be a scumbag, but I fully support what Wikileaks does and it disgusts me that so many people in power are trying to bring them down. God forbid that governments have a bit of accountability for their actions. Not to sounded like a paranoid nut, but there is a lot of things going on that politicians simply don't want you to know, and I really think that stuff should be brought to light.

Folks are playing dirty against Wikileaks, so I have no problem with questionable methods at this point.

Yes, how dare they keep the names of important NATO informants hidden! The monsters!

I can't honestly see HOW people actually support this man, release files of corruption, that's fine... Yet releasing files that homeland security has declared important sites? Listing NATO informant names? Jeez it's like a shopping list for terrorists. People have some odd tendency to think of the government as some "Evil" entity hiding the truth from people, but in reality, it works MUCH more differently. It's not run by saturday morning cartoon villains, it's run by average people like you and me... Honestly, if you were to inform the U.S. Military of Al-Qaeda locations, how and where they acquire funding, and all sorts of stuff that would get you executed on tape... Then you hear that some man on the internet released your name and the name of several other informants... Would you praise the man as a 'hero' who 'fights transparency?


Certain things are MEANT to be kept secret for the greater good... The cuban missile crisis had a lot of "Back alley diplomacy" and secrets about it, and that was to protect the american people. Revealing info that was classified (for a good reason) can do more harm then good in most cases.

And they also released information on UN peacekeeping rape cases that Western countries tried to cover up, as well as evidence that suggests that Americans continued to torture Iraqi prisoners after the prison scandal. Were those actions to 'protect' me? Sometimes their methods are very questionable, such as releasing those installation names (of course, those sites are in other countries, so there's an entire debate to be had to the issues of sovereignty and realist international relations here...), but on the whole they are attempting to make governments accountable for their actions. And no, I don't believe the government is evil, I just believe that the majority of governments have become bloated, corrupt entities that need to have their dirty laundry brought to light. The truth is what matters here, regardless of the consequences. When you allow governments to cover things up 'for the greater good' it is just a slippery slope. Who defines what the greater good is? The government itself, and that's why corruption emerges as a result. My government lying to me is NOT protecting me, they're just trying to protect themselves and their image. My government does NOT know what is best for me, but rather what is best for them, that's just a condition of democratic politics. The bigger a government gets, the more it thinks it can get away with.

And if I actually knew all that Al-Qaeda information, I'd release it myself to the press. In fact, we already know where a lot of terrorist funding comes from, the Taliban makes the majority of their money off of the opium and heroin trade, for example.

 

[Leftnt Sharpe]

I was reading about this in the Times today and they had a little snippet from an 'Anonymous' spokesperson who said they were a force of "chaotic good". This caused me to laugh louder than I should have done and then everyone looked at me. I approve of using the D&D alignment system to describe real life actions.

 

[SilentHunter7]

Read the documents, get information from both sides, weed out the chest pumping and self-righteousness, and make an informed opinion.

I did and it shows your government spying on the UN, trading gitmo detainees in corrupt trade, lying in public to no end. This after the claims of transparency of the Obama administration, not to mention the promises of peace. Really think twice, thrice before coming out of the US and accusing anyone else on Earth of being uninformed or hypocrite because as always America's first.

If you honestly don't think that the United States has spies from every single NATO country operating inside it, you're a fool. Everyone knew we were spying on them. We know everyone's spying on us. And since when has trading prisoners for political favors been a crime? Obama's been trying to close Guantanamo Bay for 2 years now. All those prisoners have to go somewhere, and no U.S. state wants them. I thought you libertarian types WANTED Gitmo closed.

And, lying in public to no end?? Please, 90% of these cables confirm what we already knew. If anything, these cables show that our government is more honest than you think. Unless you're talking about how each and every report from an ambassador to Hillary Clinton isn't posted on the White House website. In which case, that's just completely unreasonable. I mean yeah, these reports will be exploited to advance U.S. interests, but that's the reason you have ambassadors. That's the reason you conduct diplomacy. IT'S WHAT EVERY SINGLE COUNTRY HAS BEEN DOING SINCE MESOPOTAMIA.

Oh and America is always first? How about Saudi Arabia trying to pressure the U.S. into bombing Iran, while publicly supporting them? How about Yemen trying to pressure Obama to authorize Air-strikes inside they're own borders, while they take care of the cover up?

The U.S. government is a far cry from an evil autocracy. The people who lived in 1930's Germany, or even Modern-day Russia would scoff at you for even suggesting it.

First a democracy is actual power to the people, not a show of making a vote every 4 years while money and corporate interests decide what's important. Secondly, nobody would have never accused the U.S. government of hyper-competentence really: for 8 years it has been ruled by a semi-retarded war criminal, and this massive information leaking has shown everybody your ability.

It's still a rule of the people. The fact that most of the people are willfully ignorant doesn't change that.

Massive information leak? Please, these cables are nothing more than a fart at the dinner table. Embarrassing? Yes. Inconvenient? Yes. To the level of the Pentagon Papers? Not a chance in hell. The media is just blowing it up for ratings, like they do with everything.

And really... really... you come out accusing people of being ignorant of the facts, and DARE talking about the US respecting other countries' sovereignty? While you are occupying foreign countries under false premises in this very moment. After igniting countless proxy wars all over the world (Nicaragua, Panama, Iran, Vietnam, Chile to name a few) where you blatlantly disregarded popular vote in favor of your favorite dictator.

And where was Australia, and Europe during all this? Oh yeah, right at our side. Citizens who live in glass countries shouldn't throw stones. Don't act like your country is this beacon of freedom and tolerance. You guys would've pulled the same shit if you were in power. Actually history has showed that many countries have done far, FAR worse. When Britain was a super power, they enslaved entire continents. France started a series of the largest wars in history. The Romans persecuted dozens of religions. Germany exterminated over 10 million people. Russia exterminated over 50 million, and impoverished half of Europe.

The amount of restraint the U.S. has shown in the past 50 years is incredible. That's not to say we're perfect. Far from it. As you've pointed out, we've done a lot that we should be ashamed of, and we have a duty to both ourselves and the world to do better. But don't act like we're the world's bogeyman either.

Sites that are in OTHER COUNTRIES? Saudi oil fields, indian mines: so to speak, foreign resources. That the cables discovered being surveiled by the US leaving the host countries in the dark. How's that for your country's respect of others? Or do you consider world resources ownership an essential right of America?

What are you even talking about anymore? Those sites are vital to the way the United States, and the rest of the western world operates. Of course the U.S. has an interest in keeping those sites protected. And keeping the host countries in the dark? Why the hell would they even care that their mine is a strategic U.S. resource. It doesn't affect them. Or at least it didn't until WikiLeaks put a big bullseye on them by releasing that information.

Unless you think we should've let them know we depend on that site. Which is just stupid. You don't go to a used car dealer, and point out which car you've fallen in love with. That's just asking to get the price bumped up by several thousand dollars.

 

[The Atomic Lamp]

Can I point out to everyone that saying he is putting peoples lives at risk that, these people have been sent to war. I mean surely the goverment that sent them there should also receive the same criticism.

Secondly, does nobody think its wierd that the rape charges have suddenly come out now? I mean come on.

Finally, to everyone suggesting what he did was illegal: do you not think that the american and british goverments should face war crimes?

 

[Skipid]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dH5ZoOZ4fI4


Hey guys, I found a media source that isn't corrupt. Let's see what they have to say about the issue.

 

[tricky_tree]

Alright you little dumbshit, read this article http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/11932041 and then you can tell me I am a fucking idiot. Of course I fucking know Google Earth exists, THAT's not the problem. What IS a problem is if you have a list of confidential places that are considered important in the global commerce. Grow the fuck up

If you were committed to carrying out a terrorist attack, you'd do your research. Granted the list makes it slightly easier but you have to remember those that plan out the attacks aren't the peasants who carry them out. They're smart. You're naive if you think that those locations were never looked at, or wouldn't be in the future. If they are truly that important then they will suitably guarded and thorough background checks on all employees. Setting of C4 at the entrance gate of an insulin factory is pretty ineffective, so they'd need to be inside. Good security, very small chance of attack

 

[ibatterbadgers]

Didn't happen.

Don't know where you're getting your information but what you've described is not what's going on. He first contacted the US department of defense and asked them to cooperate in ensuring that none of the information he released could harm any lives but their response was understandably: release nothing.

He now has a team of journalists checking the information to ensure it's not dangerous before releasing it. Assisting with this are a number of international, reputable news providers, most notably, the UK Guardian. Look up what's been released so far, nothing dangerous except to the careers of some politicians, particularly Hilary Clinton who broke international law by instructing diplomats to spy at the UN.

Now the "rape" charge is not a rape charge at all. It's a charge of sexual misconduct, apparently in Sweden this is a very loose definition, in this case he's being charged for sex without a condom, apparently, this is so bizarre I'm not sure of my facts.

Oh he was already cleared of this crime but they decided to re-open the case after the wikileaks controversy heated up.

http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/08/25/wikileaks-founder-julian-assange-cleared-of-sex-charge-in-sweden/

This paragraph is particularly interesting:

If any of these bozos did twenty minutes of research, they might have found Ardin?s blog? "my feminist reflections and comments on animal rights, swedish politics and cuba from a political scientist, christian left and long distance runner" - and read her post, with the help of a Scandinavian comrade or Google Translate, "Våldtäkt en del av mäns makt" ? rape [is] a part of men?s power. Or they would have seen this article from Ardin?s days at Uppsala University, where she, in her role as some sort of equality watchdog, denounced the tradition of singing ribald student songs, which included "references to genitalia and serious sexual content," as "offensive and stereotypical." She is, in other words, rather sensitive on gender issues. Or this blog post on how one can exact "legal revenge" on men who have been ?unfaithful.? According to The Guardian, sources close to the investigation claim that she filed a complaint because Assange didn?t wear a condom during sex. So the boring truth is that Assange didn?t come up against a CIA conspiracy, but the rather broad Swedish conception of what constitutes a sexual crime.

From this article:
http://reason.com/blog/2010/08/25/the-boring-truth-about-those-j

If that's true, one of the women accusing him is clearly nuts.

This. But media hysteria and the ill-informed masses help to twist, corrupt and hide so much of the truth that the story that is being reported is so far from fact as to make it laughable. Most people that rant about how 'dangerous' the information in the cables is haven't even read the damn things themselves, they just go on what the media has told them.

 

[Molander]

I don't see how this is helpful. Ok, so Anon takes down a couple of sites for some time. All that says is that there are some people upset over Asssange's treatment. It's not really doing anything but causing a minor annoyance in the grand scheme of things. Not only that, but usually this stuff is a small group out to make a name for themselves and not really caring either way.

On the Wikileaks thing, I think there are some good and bad aspects to it. There shouldn't be so much of this "veil of secrecy" attitude where everything is covered up and hidden from the general public. As long as the information isn't too sensitive or dangerous, then I don't see the huge problem here. I may be shortsighted about it, but that's just how I see it.

The thing is it's a protest they have done a real protest IRL aswell against the Scientology Church but someone has to do it...

 

[Macgyvercas]

Bring em down, Anon. We need to teach the governement to stop hiding shit from us. I want to know what the hell is in Area 51, damnit!

Well it?s an air force flight test center so I'm gonna take a wild guess and say experimental aircraft's.

I should probably take this time to mention that I happen to be one of those crazies who believe the government is hiding proof of extra-terrestrial life there. And don't even get me started on Roswell.

 

[Ascarus]

Personally, outside of all of this i found the below to be the most amusing aspect of this ordeal:

(article shamelessly stolen yesterday from reddit.com)

http://wonkette.com/431902/u-s-state-department-hilariously-announces-world-press-freedom-day

If you don't feel like reading the short article, this is the golden quote from the State Department:

(The US is) concerned about the determination of some governments to censor and silence individuals, and to restrict the free flow of information.

L.O.L.

 

[incal11]

The problem with your logic is that being a "dick" is totally subjective. If your directly opposed to the US, or we're trying to get something out of you that we want, then by definition our envoy might be a "dick" as far as your concerned.

I was refering to how diplomats tend to say very undiplomatic things behind each others back. As Wikileak proved this in itself is a liability.
There's different ways to get something you want, among them are the polite request and the compromise. Now if you can't get what you want by honest means, am I a dick for trying to uncover what you are trying to do ?

If our diplomats were a bunch of bimbos/himbos who liked everyone they wouldn't be effective.

You're taking what I said too far. Cynically trying to turn things your way is not good on the long term, we won't get out of this never ending cycle of war and poverty this way. I'm trying not to verse on idealism, but it's plain defaitism to think that it can never ever happen so it's not worth trying to make the world a little better somehow. Wikileaks may not be the right way, you can argue, but it's at least a try.

All that outing this kind of thing does is make certain nations look idiotic, remove plausible deniability by confirming who did what, and ultimatly put a lot of lives in danger.

That is exactly why I think that wikileak may be a good thing. People that make stupid mistakes should not be in charge then, what use is plausible deniability for people like that, if not to cover up their own inanity ? Nations already look idiotic to each other, most secrets are actually not that surprising, and cover ups are mostly used to hide the useless deaths of innocent civilians instead of saving lives.

Not to mention the issue that part of the problem with something like Wikileaks is that it has an agenda of it's own (despite what it's members might say). It's targeting very specific nations, people, and organizations.

It's simply the nature of the site to seek dirty secrets were they are in greater numbers, dictatorships and countries with irresponsible foreign policies for instance.

On top of that, there is no excuse for releasing information on classified goverment/military operations and outposts.

This is a point where we agree, though that might depend on the nature and outcome of some military operations.

I could be wrong about that, but it's hard to support a free information agenda on the Internet, when your actions are empowering people who generally seem to by definition want to end free information entirely.

That is only one aspect of what wikileaks did, also while I tend to agree with your take on anonymous what you really fear here is anarchism not lies behind a smile.

I think that the principle behind wikileak is something humanity needs, though it still have to be done more responsibly.

ps: and have a look at the post below mine ^^

 

[The Youth Counselor]

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?

I just wanted to give you props for everything you said, because it is all that needs to be said.

 

[Rainforce]

Let's put it this way:
If Assange dies by any means,
the US goverment WILL be held responsible, including all the fun that follows.
So it should be in their best intention to save this persons life, or their PR shield will be more than completely broken.

Untill he does somthing to piss off someone else powerful like China, Russia or Israel then the U.S gov could kill him with impunity. Well now that puts assangue in kind of a tight spot now doesnt it, aw well I guess hell just keep leaking stuff on the U.S gov untill they finally murder him out of spite, it seems like thats what hes best at anyway.

It totally doesnt matter whos fault it really is. everyone will look at the US.
Thats kinda the point ^^