Ah, so he's a Queenslander. That adds context - we're a special breed north of the Tweed.
To add some other context to non-Australian readers:
* Gallipoli, remembered as Australia's 'coming of age', was a disasterous battle in the First World War. While hardly more pointless than most of that War's assaults, it was more or less the first time we had fought as a sovereign nation and Murdoch's efforts helped shock our young country to that war in general, and the results of our troops still being commanded by our former colonial masters. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gallipoli_Campaign
* The Fitzgerald Inquiry in the state of Queensland revealed corruption that ran through the police force and (via the Police Commissioner) into Cabinet and the Premier. Joh Bjelke-Petersen had been running Queensland for 19 years, supported by the gerrymander in state politics. We Queenslanders have a chip on our shoulder about being overlooked by the officials 'down south' - Joh worked this masterfully (in one election campaign he called Queensland the greatest 'Country' on earth) and while he is still remembered fondly for 'sticking it up them', the corruption of that era is a blight on the nation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joh_Bjelke-Petersenhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitzgerald_Inquiry Incidentally, Chris Masters' famous piece of journalism 'The Moonlight State' was seen as instrumental in propelling public support towards an Inquiry and a change of government.
Assange seems to be positioning himself as another in the long line of Australian journalists (and Australians generally) who believe the 'powers' want to hide the truth. His belief can be neither true nor false; I'm not yet convinced his methodology is supporting the outcomes he seeks BUT, if nothing else, he has certainly revealed by provoking the actions of our PM and other political leaders around the world that there remain powers whose opposition to truth is far stronger than their respect of law and principles like a fair trial.
I'm not Assange's biggest fan (r.e. how he controls Wikileaks) but some of the nonsense coming from the US establishment (and elsehwere) is appalling.
It probably even vindicates what Wikileaks stands for.
This is one of those cases where damage limitation is the sane and sensible response; they've lost those cables, we are going to see them. Deal with it. They need perspective; in the grand scheme of things it is highly unlikely to be "the end of the world". And if it uncovers corruption and naughtiness then all the better.
Hounding Assange and Wikileaks only ends up making them look guilty. Which is stupid, especially as there is nothing (so far) hugely corrupt or terrible in the leaks!
Which makes me wonder what is in the leaks that we haven't seen yet. After all if highly placed officials are getting their panties in a twist based on what we've seen so far then they are over-reacting to put it mildly.
Time will tell. Some of the responses from politicians are beyond the pale and what bugs me more is that nobody even thinks of calling them to account over this, or so much as distancing themselves from these remarks.
"Which makes me wonder what is in the leaks that we haven't seen yet". Maybe there is nothing in those cables, but politicians must be very afraid of what could be published next... Although the irak cables were potentially far more damageable, they were not released in cooperation with major newspapers.
I don't know. Before this 'dump' the rest of the press wasn't involved but this time around they are and I wonder if he asked for advice (and took it) on strategy. In a long-drawn-out media ploy if you put your most interesting stuff out first then it will fizzle out, if you draw it out and put more and more interesting material out then attention will not flag. It could be a deliberate ploy.
I wonder too about the leaks we haven't seen yet either, but at the same time, wouldn't WikiLeaks want to release the most scandalous and head-line grabbing info first? That would go a long way towards vindicating their position in the public eye.
For those who don't click on the link, the article refers to cables in which US diplomats discuss how to quash a journalist writing about a private US military contractor procuring young boys to be sex-party favors in order to help motivate Aghan police recruits. The argument that the US diplomats discuss using in order to prevent publicity is that this reporting will "endanger lives".
I think this is quite scandalous and shocking. Maybe it's just me. I don't understand why stuff like this has not received much press coverage in the US.
It honestly wouldn't shock me that the restarted attacks on North and South Korea weren't because of Wikileaks. Or for that matter, I'd be surprised that the US isn't having setbacks on many diplomatic processes.
I, too, am not shocked that the restarted attacks twixt North and South Korea are not because of Wikileaks.
I think your double-negative statement alluding to Wikileaks not being of world-changing importance has been missed by people who type faster than they can think.
I think the part where the US tried to pawn off their Guantanamo Bay prisoners in such a way that they can not challenge their YEARS of illegal detention was one of the more damning bits.
That's one set of crimes (and the rendition flights) that is going to take a long long time to wash away.
I'm not a big fan of his style either, but compared with the integrity of those accusing him I can make allowances.
It takes but a few minutes to illustrate my point:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DbwiXRmzKi0
Quote - "In its landmark ruling in the Pentagon Papers case, the US Supreme Court said "only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in government". The swirling storm around WikiLeaks today reinforces the need to defend the right of all media to reveal the truth."
New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713 (1971)
"Only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in government. And paramount among the responsibilities of a free press is the duty to prevent any part of the government from deceiving the people and sending them off to distant lands to die of foreign fevers and foreign shot and shell. In my view, far from deserving condemnation for their courageous reporting, the New York Times, the Washington Post, and other newspapers should be commended for serving the purpose that the Founding Fathers saw so clearly. In revealing the workings of government that led to the Vietnam war, the newspapers nobly did precisely that which the Founders hoped and trusted they would do."
Yet it is elementary that the successful conduct of international diplomacy and the maintenance of an effective national defense require both confidentiality and secrecy. Other nations can hardly deal with this Nation in an atmosphere of mutual trust unless they can be assured that their confidences will be kept. And, within our own executive departments, the development of considered and intelligent international policies would be impossible if those charged with their formulation could not communicate with each other freely, frankly, and in confidence. In the area of basic national defense, the frequent need for absolute secrecy is, of course, self-evident.
I think there can be but one answer to this dilemma, if dilemma it be. The responsibility must be where the power is. If the Constitution gives the Executive a large degree of unshared power in the conduct of foreign affairs and the maintenance of our national defense, then, under the Constitution, the Executive must have the largely unshared duty to determine and preserve the degree of internal security necessary to exercise that power successfully. It is an awesome responsibility, requiring judgment and wisdom of a high order. I should suppose that moral, political, and practical considerations would dictate that a very first principle of that wisdom would be an insistence upon avoiding secrecy for its own sake. For when everything is classified, then nothing is classified, and the system becomes one to be disregarded by the cynical or the careless, and to be manipulated by those intent on self-protection or self-promotion. I should suppose, in short, that the hallmark of a truly effective internal security system would be the maximum possible disclosure, recognizing that secrecy can best be preserved only when credibility is truly maintained. But, be that as it may, it is clear to me that it is the constitutional duty of the Executive -- as a matter of sovereign prerogative, and not as a matter of law as the courts know law -- through the promulgation and enforcement of executive regulations, to protect the confidentiality necessary to carry out its responsibilities in the fields of international relations and national defense.
This is not to say that Congress and the courts have no role to play. Undoubtedly, Congress has the power to enact specific and appropriate criminal laws to protect government property and preserve government secrets. Congress has passed such laws, and several of them are of very colorable relevance to the apparent circumstances of these cases. And if a criminal prosecution is instituted, it will be the responsibility of the courts to decide the applicability of the criminal law under which the charge is brought. Moreover, if Congress should pass a specific law authorizing civil proceedings in this field, the courts would likewise have the duty to decide the constitutionality of such a law, as well as its applicability to the facts proved.
" :lol: So much for ANY argument about Free Speech or whether Assange is Good or Evil.
Between having this post censored and the various death threats I’ve been reporting to the authorities and deleting, it’s very much proven that most of these ranters actually believe EXACTLY as I do, just not from a defending America point of view.
To all the Aussies out there – I totally approve of your attitude, though I do wish you’d read the comment thread before ranting. If you had, you’d have realized that I accepted that using Daniel was useless.
Think on this though – If the tables were turned, would you have responded any differently than I did. You responses and threats says you would have done as I did.
All,
This threaded has ended in a very odd Win-Win situation. The specifics of my idea were proven useless and finally removed by fiat (Your Win), but your responses – by and large – proved the lie of your underlying argument (My Win).
I’m also shocked that so many of you would lend me so much credence of perceived power and/or authority. I certainly never expected anyone other than my normal readers to engage in this thought experiment…
I really don’t know if that’s gratifying or sobering."
* Sarah Palin says I should be "hunted down like Osama bin Laden", a Republican bill sits before the US Senate seeking to have me declared a "transnational threat" and disposed of accordingly. An adviser to the Canadian Prime Minister's office has called on national television for me to be assassinated. An American blogger has called for my 20-year-old son, here in Australia, to be kidnapped and harmed for no other reason than to get at me.
swombat, just to add a little humor to that. "hunted down like Osama bin Laden"
When exactly did the US of A actually manage to hunt down Osama bin laden? If Assange is hunted the same way, he is sage until around 2030.
Okay, it's not really too much of a big a deal, but the way I read it, it was "TFA" as in "read the fucking article". I thought "come on, dude, it was a valid question": Julian, in his article, doesn't actually mention the source, just some vague reference to an unnamed blogger. Given the seriousness of the kidnap threats, I wanted to find out if it was a credible claim. E.g., I wanted to see the original source and find out (a) who said it (b) what was actually said and (c) ascertain how credible a threat it was.
So when I read "TFA", I thought "come on, dude, that's a bit patronizing, it's a valid question, fair shake of the sauce bottle, mate". I think a few other people thought the same way, too.
There's a world of difference between Julian's assertion of "a US blogger" versus a link to the original source (which jacquesm supplied). Perhaps we're living in the wikipedia generation, but it's quite concerning that people on Hacker News automatically consider assertions to be as credible as original sources!
I mean, seriously, Julian makes a statement about how his son has received kidnapping threats, and people just swallow it without questioning? I'm not saying that I think Julian is lying (and having seen jacquesm's link, it seems like he wasn't), but I think it's incredibly important for anyone wishing to critically analyse current affairs to view all claims, on all sides of the debate, with a skeptical mind.
The only corporate entity so far that does not have egg all over its face on this one is the French OVH which went to a judge to establish whether or not wikileaks was illegal according to French law, the judge rejected the first request and asked for more info on the second, pending a ruling OVH says they've done what they should do and will continue to have wikileaks as a customer until the court tells them otherwise.
Agreed. I saw a great quote from OVH's managing director about how it's not up to them to decide, and it's not up to the politicians to decide, but it's up to the courts. That's the kind of service provider I want.
So since Visa and mastercard vet all their customers so carefully they presumably approve of any porn child or otherwise that is bought on their cards.
I don't think that's entirely fair because if they are aware of a merchant doing such a thing they'd be shut down in a heartbeat.
That said I really don't think they have any business shutting down the flow of funds between parties that have not actually been sentenced (or even accused) of a crime of sorts.
It's a great 'operation ore' defence though.
If a web site was offering payment by Visa/Mastercard then I assumed it was all legal when I signed up to download the pictures - because MC/Visa vet their customers.
Note to foreigners: operation ore was a UK police sweep to arrest pedophiles solely on the evidence that their credit card numbers had been used on child porn sites in the US. The judge rejected claims that the credit cards could have been stolen because of the strenuous efforts credit card companies put into security.
> The judge rejected claims that the credit cards could have been stolen because of the strenuous efforts credit card companies put into security.
Man I would have liked to be an expert witness in that case.
That judge ought to be thrown off the bench for talking out of his honorable ass. Credit card fraud with stolen numbers is so rampant it's not even funny, we reject probably around 40% of the charges (and the users don't complain, right?).
Typically it is not the credit card companies (or the banks) that go to great lengths to protect the card holders but it is the IPSPs and the merchants that try to do the best they can, only to find out that they're holding the bag if a charge is ever contested because VISA, MC and other card companies/issuers do not do anything whatsoever.
I run a web service with a subscription component, friends of mine run an IPSP.
> Is the stolen CC # problem greater with certain kinds of businesses than others?
Yes, absolutely. If you run a service targeted at businesses or teachers or other 'nice' people you're likely not going to see much, if any of this. If you run a site that sells physical goods you'll get plenty but you will be able to do some pretty good checks before shipping the goods and you'll have a signature from a recipient. You will likely also have a list of destinations you do not serve.
If those are not your target markets then all bets are off and you will likely get bitten badly before you learn the rules by which the game is played.
Holy crap. A simple trip to Wikipedia will reveal that there was over 500 million pounds worth of credit card fraud per year at last count; I can only hope the judge was immediately impeached.
edited to correct 3 order of magnitude error (thanks, jacquesm); but at least I was much closer than a judge, and not using that figure for binding decisions ruining many peoples' lives.
Some have speculated that recent events have been influenced les by the Us state department than by Assange's mention of an upcoming release concerning a major US bank. Based on an earlier interview, there's widespread consensus that this is probably BofA and the interesting material might relate to to the bank's ongoing loan origination/servicing problems, which are causing many to demand the bank take back the risk it sold to others.
Apart from crazy people like Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich --- who claimed that Assange is an "active enemy of the American people", thus implying that everyone who donated money to Wikileaks has given material support to our enemies --- who is seriously claiming that Assange is a "traitor"? From my perspective, the theme that unites all the "formal" claims against Wikileaks is that they are all ludicrous. What crime could he have commited?
Manning is a different story. Someone upthread compared him to Ellsberg (it doesn't help that Ellsberg did, too). But Ellsburg's act was deliberate and carefully planned. Manning, on the other hand, is accused of scooping up vast buckets of documents off SIPRnet servers and then handing them off to complete strangers. Amnesty, the Soros Open Society Institute (to which WL applied for a grant), and the ICG all criticized Wikileaks --- the whole organization --- for not being careful enough in redacting documents. Yet we're to believe that a single private in the military could possibly have judged the impact of what he was handing to Wikileaks?
Adrian Lamo --- who I don't know from Adam, and whose story I've never followed --- took a vast helping of shit for exposing Manning. I don't know what his motives were and I don't care. But I will say that if Manning was even modestly competent with technology, Lamo may have saved his life by stopping him.
Hmm, I didn't realize Newt Gingrich was crazy. I wonder if your list of crazy people includes virtually everyone not in your preferred political party.
"Yet we're to believe that a single private in the military could possibly have judged the impact of what he was handing to Wikileaks"
Err, you take thousands of documents labeled "private" or "secret" and release them to the media and think what? That it is no big deal?
Yes, when you imply that thousands of Americans are guilty of giving material aid to an active enemy of the United States (a federal crime) because they've donated money to someone who posted documents that were handed to him --- when you, in effect, suggest that the New York Times is an accessory to an act of war on the United States ("act of war", by the way, being Newt's own words) --- yeah, I get to call you a crazy person. You are of course free to disagree.
No, suggesting that Julian Assange might not in fact be an active enemy of the United States and that his supporters might not be stepping close to the line of committing treason does not mean that I think Wikileaks is no big deal.
My favorite part about WL --- a subject I would happily support banning from Hacker News --- is how aggressively it tries to co-opt people into one of two factions. On this side, you have people who believe consent-based sexual assault legal frameworks are an tool of US hegemony, and on the other side you have people who believe that patriotism requires supporting the notion of guy with a bunch of leaked documents being assassinated. It's just a catalyst for drama.
The irony to this subthread? I was agreeing with you.
That he turned himself in is (mostly) irrelevant in the UK legal system. Here we don't have laws that cover what the swedes have supposedly charged him with, instead he's being charged with rape. If he successfully fights to be tried here he'll walk because what they're claiming in Sweden doesn't constitute rape in the UK.
He was unable to give an actual physical address. Under the UK legal system you have to be bailed to an address. A PO box isn't enough. The chances of flight are high if the shit does hit the fan (compared to most people bailed) and (for example) the US decides to invoke the extradition treaty we signed in 2003 on the grounds of the espionage act 1917. That would be my move if I was a really stupid American FBI Director looking to alleviate political pressure from the senate and executive.
The other thing as well is that a rape charge generally doesn't get bail here, so he was already on shaky ground to start with.
Personally I think him being in the UK was a bad move to start with, this is probably the last country you want to be apprehended in if you're on the run from the states, just ask Gary McKinnon.
Just because he turned himself in doesn't mean that he wouldn't flee afterwards.
Wikileaks is in a very large part about influencing perception. Everything has a purpose. Again, someone who has been trekking around the globe because many government are after him is hardly not an escape risk.
Wouldn't his skipping bail ruin everything he's worked for and towards with Wikileaks? It just doesn't make sense to me that he's considered a flight risk.
The 'risk' would be that he would flee abroad, and last I checked England was an island.
Also, fleeing would make him look pretty bad in the eyes of many and I personally don't think he would be stupid enough to do so (that's not much of a guarantee, I'll give you that), since capture (see 'island') is almost inevitable.
I wonder if anybody has access to what those maximum penalties of the charges brought are (under Swedish law), and how they relate to being jailed pending an extradition hearing. That would be interesting because I read in one uncorroborated source that the punishment for the circumstances described is actually a fine, rather than jail time and it would seem that if that is really the case that any jail time at all (such as pending this hearing) would be excessive. If Assange fights extradition do they plan to hold him in custody during the whole time ? And if so how is that different from using this as a ploy to simply lock him up because he's a 'risk' ?
As European countries come England is the hardest to get in and out of and it's not like Julian Assange is not going to be recognized on sight by half a million people at least by now.
The boats all leave from ports where there are customs inspections, crew and captains who would all not be too happy giving shelter to a fugitive, international airports need a pass by immigration and the chunnel does too.
Lots of illegals make it in and out of Britain but they don't start off as high profile fugitives.
I think you're giving him too much credit. The best he could probably do is go to ground inside England but even that is not that simple.
No, I think you're overestimating the difficulty of leaving a country illegally, even England. Assange isn't a poor "illegal", he's a guy with money and ideological supporters.
To be pedantic, England is not an island, nor is the UK, strictly speaking (it shares a land border with the Republic of Ireland). Great Britain is an island.
Should have just tortured and murdered lots of people and made himself dictator - then the UK home office would be falling over itself not to arrest him.
On the other hand this may be the safest place for him. If he accidentally "shoots himself in the back of the head while shaving" while in police custody that should bring down the current coalition government.
If all wikileaks was doing was publishing information about illegal or highly suspect acts by the government it'd be one thing. But that isn't all they're doing, and it is these other releases that has really pissed me off. For instance, what legitimate purpose does it serve to release a list of infrastructure that are critical to national security? (http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jWvPaI6hI...)
If diplomacy is so important to the people of the world, why are so many people cheering on the fact that wikileaks has made it almost impossible for diplomats to give frank and honest assessments of the countries in which they work? When wikileaks makes everything "transparent", everything becomes opaque, because no diplomat will write any memos or share information with one another. Wikileaks is a tremendous blow to anyone who wants to see international problems come to a peaceful and diplomatic resolution.
Here's the Australian infrastructure that is listed as critical to US national security:
"Australia: Southern Cross undersea cable landing, Brookvale, Australia Southern Cross undersea cable landing, Sydney, Australia Manganese -- battery grade, natural; battery grade, synthetic; chemical grade; ferro; metallurgical grade Nickel Mines Maybe Faulding Mulgrave Victoria, Australia: Manufacturing facility for Midazolam injection. Mayne Pharma (fill/finish), Melbourne, Australia: Sole suppliers of Crotalid Polyvalent Antivenin (CroFab)."
Maybe if you worked at the Crotalid plant making rattlesnake antivenin and you might like to know that you were a possible terrorist target due to your role in safeguarding the US.
Crikey's ‘Critical infrastructure’ = hysterical reaction had more on this, including
In the event al-Qaeda wants to prosecute a death-by-rattlesnake strategy in the United States, yes, it could take out Mayne Pharma’s Melbourne plant, in the hope of increasing the number of deaths from snake bite, although most rattlesnake bites are not lethal. Or … maybe that would just increase sales of the other, Mexican-developed antivenin Antivipmyn, which some practitioners regard as cheaper and more effective than Crofab.
Or they could sever the Southern Cross fibre optic cable in Sydney (“Australian link broken — rest of world isolated!”). But then, terrorists would know about that from Wikipedia, rather than WikiLeaks. Or perhaps they’d find out from the website of the cable owner.
In fact if you want the exact spot for that cable, consult ACMA’s handy “Sydney Submarine Protection Zones”, which details the precise location of these important pieces of communication infrastructure.
Australia's Foreign Minister - who has been reasonably conspicuous in the cables released so far - covered this issue during a presser on Monday:
QUESTION: Mr Rudd, just on that question. Do you think WikiLeaks will have a chilling effect on diplomacy, and, you know, back-room talks.
KEVIN RUDD: I think it's having a focusing effect.
QUESTION: As far as, you know, making people more cautious, and making diplomacy [indistinct]?
KEVIN RUDD: I think foreign ministers around the world, from countries of all sorts of political traditions, are scratching their heads about this one at the moment - I'm just being frank with you - and particularly when, if we are dealing with diplomatic communications the content of which, if we are to be consistent with our profession, we then don't comment on.
At the same time this has created real difficulties in various other parts of the world. Let's just put all this in a bit of context. You've had recent reports concerning - heads of government have been accused of corruption, being associated with the Mafia, been urging the United States to go to war against particular countries. I mean this has been happening in recent times. And without commenting, again, on the content or accuracy of any of those reports, it does create a separate and new dynamic.
Now, what's the challenge for all of us? I was actually asked this question in Bahrain yesterday - what now happens? I think, rule number one for our friends in the United States is how do you tighten things up a bit? I think that's a fair old question.
REPORTER: Security [indistinct]
KEVIN RUDD: Well, it's just - you know, maybe two million or so people having access to this stuff is a bit of a problem.
REPORTER: It's not the Lady Gaga CD.
KEVIN RUDD: The - that could be a bit of a problem.
But secondly, I reckon, what I believe to be the professional challenge for all of us, is to get on with the business, because all the big challenges we're dealing with haven't gone away.
I had a question before about the Korean Peninsula, that is real, and live, and contemporary. And diplomacy, and the business of diplomacy, is underway, as we speak, on that. And if diplomacy gets it wrong on that then we all pay a very big price.
So these challenges don't just go into suspended animation while we work our way through this stuff. So my answer, in Bahrain, as it is here today, is all of us to get on with the business, and not to become fundamentally side-tracked by all of this.
But there are deep lessons, in terms of providing proper protection for such a large volume of diplomatic documents.
I would imagine that the cables mention the targets because they actually have some security - since they are critical (or perhaps Echelon is looking for their mentions?). So if I were a terrorist and be looking for a target I would certainly avoid those. Besides it doesn't look like the terrorist have any problem with coming up with important and visible targets.
To show how ridiculous some of the secrets are and to dissuade governments for keeping so many of them?
The post office tower - a 600ft tall microwave relay with a revolving restaurant on top - in central london is secret.
It didn't appear on maps and any mention of it was removed from parliament reports.
If the average person was as interested in exposing the dirty side of government and big business as Mr Assange we wouldn’t be in this position. He most decidedly isn’t average.
How is representing an opinion being a troll? Fact is, I don't like the guy, I don't trust his intentions, and I think Wikileaks is a worldwide disaster.
I just don't understand why reasonable objections are so quickly criticized here.
OK, look at the comment you originally replied to. It's a "reasonable objection" about Wikileaks. It also has actual content and a point that it makes, as opposed to, say, being a one-line opinion with no support. Now look at your comment.
I replied to a comment in the thread, re-enforcing that commenters opinion. I'm sure people don't like it, and that's fine, but to consistently be downvoted every time I post a negative reaction to Assange is absurd. I wish we, as a community, could elevate ourselves above the infighting reminiscent of an MSNBC or FOXNews.
Please consider the possibility that you haven't learned to post your negative reactions in a thoughtful way, rather than that the community is simply downvoting opinions they don't like.
A lot of people use the down button to say "I disagree". No real news there, but it's best not to take downvotes to mean anything more than you have less than a 50% popular opinion.
He talks about Murdoch's actions in "1958" but then says that his actions are happening nearly a century later. Was that date inaccurate? Because 52 years doesn't strike me as a full nearly-a-century.
Julian Assange mentions a young Rupert Murdoch writing in 1958 and suggests that the Murdoch's observation reflected on the latter's father's actions in World War 1 nearly 100 years ago. Within Australia the date is probably understood from cultural memory/context.
The "truth" has limits on publication: privacy, confidentiality, privilege, security, etc. Just because something is the truth, does not mean it is right to publish it. Assange is not a whistle blower. He is not exposing any misrepresentations or cover-up. He is simply exposing America's secrets in order to hurt America. That is criminal.
In doing business with criminals, you become one IMO. Sure, technically he's not violating any laws, but I think that points to flaws in the justice system (worldwide, not just the US) more than it does to his nobility.
If someone illegally sells/steals/shares confidential information, then where does the chain of responsibility/legality stop?
Excellent question. Please google the Pentagon Papers and educate yourself some more on the subject. If we followed your conclusion pretty much all the newspapers in the world that actually did their jobs would be in the docket tomorrow.
There has always been a tug-of-war between the press and the government about what is and what is not permitted and it is universally recognized that a free press is essential to the functioning of democracies.
The issue at stake here is a complicated one, whether or not wikileaks is part of the press, and even if it isn't whether it should be counted as such.
Governments the world over, from the worst to the best have figured out a loophole in the whole 'free press' business, which is to use 'access' as a coin with which to control the press. In a world where eyeballs govern the budgets of newspapers not having access directly affects a newspapers bottom line. WikiLeaks circumvents the access trick by simply not being susceptible to that kind of leverage and it is exactly because of that that I suspect that they are seen as 'dangerous' by those in power.
I don't see the issue as free press. I don't believe that our press has ever been more free than it is today.
The issue I'm concerned with is that this turns people like Manning into heroes.
Freedom of the press was not created to protect classified documents. They didn't exist at the time. It was created to protect the press' right to contradict and/or point out the flaw in the government system, and the people that manage it.
It's meant to prevent government censorship.
And legal or not, I'm just not comfortable with this level of freedom with national secrets. We'll see how it plays out over the long-term, but I don't think it's a fear of Assange you see, but fear of what these documents will do to strengthen our enemies.
I'm referring to enemies of the West. If you live in the US, UK, or Eastern Europe and don't believe we have common enemies, then you are sadly mistaken.
So, because of your experience in Afghanistan (you were there as an aid worker?) you have decided that wikileaks is somehow illegal.
There are fanatic idiots everywhere, that does not mean that we can't strive for a more open government, especially not when it has come to light time and time again that our governments and corporations do not just have secrets because we all benefit from them, but for the most part that they have secrets in order to cover up the lies and the corruption.
If it weren't for that wikileaks would not even exist.
I'll take the extra 0.000025% (that's a doubling) chance of dying in a terrorist attack because of that, which is still substantially less than dying of old age in my bed.
Please enlighten us. I have a friend who served a tour in Afghanistan around the same time period and he reported that most people there were friendly and just wanted to be able to live in peace...
I was there as a US Army NCO. I'm not afraid, I'm simply pointing out that there are people that despise the West, and it's bad enough that we have to take it from them...we shouldn't have to take it from our own people too.
I didn't say Wikileaks is or should be illegal...I asked where we draw the line. I don't think Wikileaks is a benefit, that's all. I think it has the potential to do good, but the way he's released documents has been more reckless than intentionally beneficial.
Can't we push for an open government without extremes? I'd say that our electoral process still functions well, as does the legislative one.
Can't we push for an open government without extremes?
I'm not sure that we can. On the one side, we have well intentioned individuals who forthrightly believe that secrecy is the only way to protect our freedoms and way of life, and whom will stop at nothing keep anything detrimental to that goal from being revealed to the public and our "enemies". On the other, you have equally well-intentioned people who, for the most part, acknowledge that there are things that are completely reasonable to keep secret but that most things probably oughtn't. To have an open government balanced correctly, we need transparency extremists. Otherwise, the balance of power is wholly on the side of people who want to keep secrets, leaving us with a less open, less transparent government.
I'm simply pointing out that there are people that despise the West, and it's bad enough that we have to take it from them...we shouldn't have to take it from our own people too.
Despise is perhaps too strong a word, particularly in regards to "our own people". But regardless, what if there are very good reasons to despise the West? Everything the West does is not ok simply because you and I live in it. A good portion of the enemies you're referring to have very valid grievances with the West. That their tactics for dealing with those grievances are not my tactics (or Wikileaks tactics) does not in any way deter from the validity of their grievances (or mine).
With what? That there can be valid grievances with Western policies? That anyone could have a valid reason for hatred?
If you killed my brother, I'd have a significant feeling of hatred towards you. You can call me a coward all you want, but my feeling would be 100% valid. Now apply that principle to the tens and hundreds of thousands of families that have had Western gov'ts kill their civilian family members (as collateral damage). Those Western gov'ts may have reasons they consider good for having killed those civilians (or causing the deaths, however you want to think about it), but you cannot expect the surviving families are going to nod their heads and say "OK, I guess it had to be that way".
I think this quote puts it in perspective:
“Hatred is self-punishment. Hatred it the coward's revenge for being intimidated.”
It doesn't, really.
let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater. The truth is always somewhere in the middle.
... and an apple a day keeps the doctor away? "Hatred does not cease by hatred, but only by love." The truth is staring you in the face.
So you apply to the government for a job and in your job application, you put your address, social security number, telephone number, your personal references, etc. Then the government does a background check on you including your credit history, transcripts of interviews with your friends and family, copies of sealed court records, and copies of medical records obtained to qualify for employer insurance.
One country wants to buy airplanes from another country. It has offered $1 million for the airplanes, but the seller wants $2 million. The country writes an email saying it is willing to pay $2 million, but wants to negotiate. If a newspaper published the email the seller would demand $2 million costing the country an additional $1 million.
Suppose the military had a remote missile launch capability that allowed generals to telephone in and launch a missile. A newspaper gets hold of the phone number and launch codes allowing anyone to launch the missiles.
Under your reasoning, it is right to publish these.
It is criminal in the general sense. He will be prosecuted for violating any statutes if there is jurisdiction. I don't see how I oversimplified; truth has limits, so you can "shoot the messenger". Truth is not a defense if you exceed the limits I mention.
To add some other context to non-Australian readers:
* Gallipoli, remembered as Australia's 'coming of age', was a disasterous battle in the First World War. While hardly more pointless than most of that War's assaults, it was more or less the first time we had fought as a sovereign nation and Murdoch's efforts helped shock our young country to that war in general, and the results of our troops still being commanded by our former colonial masters. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gallipoli_Campaign
* The Fitzgerald Inquiry in the state of Queensland revealed corruption that ran through the police force and (via the Police Commissioner) into Cabinet and the Premier. Joh Bjelke-Petersen had been running Queensland for 19 years, supported by the gerrymander in state politics. We Queenslanders have a chip on our shoulder about being overlooked by the officials 'down south' - Joh worked this masterfully (in one election campaign he called Queensland the greatest 'Country' on earth) and while he is still remembered fondly for 'sticking it up them', the corruption of that era is a blight on the nation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joh_Bjelke-Petersen http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitzgerald_Inquiry Incidentally, Chris Masters' famous piece of journalism 'The Moonlight State' was seen as instrumental in propelling public support towards an Inquiry and a change of government.
Assange seems to be positioning himself as another in the long line of Australian journalists (and Australians generally) who believe the 'powers' want to hide the truth. His belief can be neither true nor false; I'm not yet convinced his methodology is supporting the outcomes he seeks BUT, if nothing else, he has certainly revealed by provoking the actions of our PM and other political leaders around the world that there remain powers whose opposition to truth is far stronger than their respect of law and principles like a fair trial.