WikiLeaks is at it again-this time, State Department in "contigency" mode.

That's wrong. There are many things that become less sensitive information over time (new government with new people is in place).

By the way, has anyone seen The Daily Show with Jon Stewart about this? Was really funny...I don't know how to embed it.

 

^
<table style='font:11px arial; color:#333; background-color:#f5f5f5' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='0' width='360' height='353'><tbody><tr style='background-color:#e5e5e5' valign='middle'><td style='padding:2px 1px 0px 5px;'><a target='_blank' style='color:#333; text-decoration:none; font-weight:bold;' href='http://www.thedailyshow.com'>The Daily Show With Jon Stewart</a></td><td style='padding:2px 5px 0px 5px; text-align:right; font-weight:bold;'>Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c</td></tr><tr style='height:14px;' valign='middle'><td style='padding:2px 1px 0px 5px;' colspan='2'><a target='_blank' style='color:#333; text-decoration:none; font-weight:bold;' href='http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-november-30-2010/the-informant-'>The Informant!</a></td></tr><tr style='height:14px; background-color:#353535' valign='middle'><td colspan='2' style='padding:2px 5px 0px 5px; width:360px; overflow:hidden; text-align:right'><a target='_blank' style='color:#96deff; text-decoration:none; font-weight:bold;' href='http://www.thedailyshow.com/'>www.thedailyshow.com</a></td></tr><tr valign='middle'><td style='padding:0px;' colspan='2'><embed style='display:block' src='http://media.mtvnservices.com/mgid:cms:item:comedycentral.com:366861' width='360' height='301' type='application/x-shockwave-flash' wmode='window' allowFullscreen='true' flashvars='autoPlay=false' allowscriptaccess='always' allownetworking='all' bgcolor='#000000'></embed></td></tr><tr style='height:18px;' valign='middle'><td style='padding:0px;' colspan='2'><table style='margin:0px; text-align:center' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='0' width='100%' height='100%'><tr valign='middle'><td style='padding:3px; width:33%;'><a target='_blank' style='font:10px arial; color:#333; text-decoration:none;' href='http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/'>Daily Show Full Episodes</a></td><td style='padding:3px; width:33%;'><a target='_blank' style='font:10px arial; color:#333; text-decoration:none;' href='http://www.indecisionforever.com/'>Political Humor</a></td><td style='padding:3px; width:33%;'><a target='_blank' style='font:10px arial; color:#333; text-decoration:none;' href='www.facebook.com/thedailyshow'>The Daily Show on Facebook</a></td></tr></table></td></tr></tbody></table>

 

Yes, but really I could care less about sensitivity because it seems to be giving people a license to be liars because they know they will be out of politics by the time the info is declassified.

 

Will you lobby within the Dubai government to make EVERYTHING public? Also, to record and transmit all internal government meetings?

 

No I only support this for Western countries, I think all other countries, specifically the colored and Muslim countries, should be as secretive as humanly possible.

My lobbying for it over here on a message board should not, under any circumstances, be confused with one that is aimed equally and fairly at everyone. I aim to achieve the most extreme amount of bias possible with what I say.

I'm surprised you didn't deduce that, don't you know I'm Arab?

 

So will you?

 

No I only support this for Western countries, I think all other countries, specifically the colored and Muslim countries, should be as secretive as humanly possible.

My lobbying for it over here on a message board should not, under any circumstances, be confused with one that is aimed equally and fairly at everyone. I aim to achieve the most extreme amount of bias possible with what I say.

I'm surprised you didn't deduce that, don't you know I'm Arab?

 

Wikileaks exposes sites US deems critical for national security. Also at the bottom of the article an interesting bit about Australian PM Paul Rudd's advice regarding the PRC.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40526224/ns/us_news-security

WikiLeaks publishes list of worldwide infrastructure 'critical' to security of U.S.
U.S. condemns release as 'irresponsible' amid fears information could be used by terrorists

A list drawn up by U.S. officials of companies and installations around the world regarded as "critical" to the security of the United States has been published online by controversial website WikiLeaks.

The list includesfactories, ports, fuel companies, drug manufacturers, undersea cables, pipelines, communication hubs and a host of other "key resources."

A Danish insulin plant, a company making anti-snake venom in Australia and a Cobalt mine in the Democratic Republic of Congo are also included.
Its publication was denounced as "irresponsible" by U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Philip Crowley, amid fears it could be used as a list of targets by terrorists, Britain's Times newspaper reported.

The document was drawn up after the State Department asked diplomats in February 2009 to identify "systems and assets, whether physical or virtual, so vital to the United States the incapacitation or destruction of such systems and assets would have a debilitating impact on security, national economic security, national public health or safety, or any combination of those matters."

The cable is marked "secret state ... noforn, not for internet distribution." "Noforn" means it should not be shown to foreign governments or other non-U.S. interests.
'Targets for terror'
The Times reported the story with the headline "WikiLeaks lists 'targets for terror' against U.S."

"There are strong and valid reasons information is classified, including critical infrastructure and key resources that are vital to the national and economic security of any country," Crowley told The Times.

"Julian Assange (WikiLeaks's founder) may be directing his efforts at the United States but he is placing the interests of many countries and regions at risk. This is irresponsible," he added.

The U.K. government also condemned the publication of the document. "The leaks and their publication are damaging to national security in the United States, Britain and elsewhere," a spokesman for the Prime Minister David Cameron said in a statement, according to NBC News. "It is vital that governments are able to operate on the basis of confidentiality of information."
Sir Malcolm Rifkind, a British lawmaker who has served as both defense and foreign secretary, told The Times that the publication of the list was "further evidence that they (WikiLeaks) have been generally irresponsible," adding that it was "bordering on criminal."

"This is the kind of information terrorists are interested in knowing," added Rifkind, who now serves as chairman of the British parliament's Intelligence and Security Committee.

Kristinn Hrafnsson, a WikiLeaks spokesman, told The Times that the list had been made available to 2.5 million people including military personnel and private contractors by the U.S. government, saying this was a "very wide distribution for information claimed to be of such high sensitivity."

"In terms of security issues, while this cable details the strategic importance of assets across the world, it does not give any information as to their exact locations, security measures, vulnerabilities or any similar factors, though it does reveal the U.S. asked its diplomats to report back on these matters," he told the paper.
"This further undermines claims made by the U.S. government that its embassy officials do not play an intelligence-gathering role," he added.

A global arrest warrant for Assange was issued last week by Interpol for alleged sex crimes committed in Sweden. Assange has denied any wrongdoing.

In Australia, the government and police have been taking advice on whether WikiLeaks and Assange, who is an Australian, have broken any laws by publishing the cables.
"I think the focus will ultimately be a United States law enforcement action, and if that is the case the Australian government will provide assistance there," Australia's Attorney-General Robert McClelland said.

Other revelations from the WikiLeaks documents included a suggestion by Australian Foreign Minister Kevin Rudd to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton that the U.S. should be prepared to use force against China in March 2009.
According to the leaked cable, Rudd — who speaks Mandarin Chinese and is regarded as an expert on the country — advised Clinton to try to integrate "China effectively into the international community ... while also preparing to deploy force if everything goes wrong."

He also said China's stance on separatist Taiwan was both "sub-rational" and "paranoid."

Rudd refused to confirm the cable's contents Monday, but added: "The business of diplomacy is not to roll over and have your tummy tickled from time to time, by China or anybody else. This is part and parcel of relations between states."

 

I don't think we have ever seen a more clear demonstration of the massive collusion between government and corporate entities.

Disturbing.

 

Am I missing something? Listing critical sites seems like a bad idea to me, even if they are corporate installations.

 

Usual routine - lecturing everyone, but then avoiding the question if you practice what you preach. Which only leaves the conclusion that you do NOT practice what you preach.

 

I don't see the rationale behind leaking this information. i believe wikileaks made a blunder by making it public. There is no reason to publish a list of critical infrastructure by people who claim to be whistleblowers. This information does not uncover any corruption or allegations thereof, has nothing to do with exposing any governmental or corporate entity's clandestine actions or agenda. I can only conclude that this is a big "**** you" to the US by assange, or some sort of action to try to get governments to back off on pressure to wikileaks. If that's so, I really think this is the wrong way to go about it and will end up hurting wikileaks' stated cause in the future. Of course, this is assuming that wikileaks' raison d'etre is in good faith and not just a front to job whoever Assange has a beef against.

 

Really? I see a lot better examples in the House and Senate every day.

I don't why this is a huge deal - for example, this hideous building, formerly owned & occupied by Bell Atlantic a/k/a Verizon, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/375_Pearl_Street - was probably one of the most important facilities in america for most of its life, far more vital than any military base. But not because of any sinister massive collusion, but because it was a switching center for pretty much each and every telecomm on the whole eastern seaboard. Of course it's a strategically important facility, but there's nothing collusive about it.

 

[non sequitur][/non sequitur]

 

Yes, really. I was referring to the efforts to shut down or shut up wikileaks. It's amazing what a phonecall from Joe Lieberman coupled with some extremely loose "terms of use" policies can accomplish.

 

Ofcourse, why would I?

I should be above the law and allowed to have my own standards, while holding everyone else to a different standard.

I would hate Assange if he revealed UAE government secrets. As long as he sticks to US, Israeli and European info, I support him all the way.

I'm sorry I wasn't clear enough for you to come to this conclusion sooner. I thought it was obvious. My bad.

 

I think Assange has done ****ed up. Before the diplomacy leak, I could see an argument that the dangers posed to individuals by the leaks are justified by the exposure of atrocities and malfeasance committed. You can't really make a genuine argument like that for this diplomacy leak where no such evil-doing is revealed and yet dangers are still created. He undermines whatever value to the public wikileaks might otherwise have had. Does he have Maverick Carter advising him?

 

It was obvious. You are like the kid that got caught red-handed and then tries to save the situation by pretending it was all a joke.

 

Missed this earlier.

I'm talking about Assange's earlier release of documents about Iraq and Afghanistan where they named Afghans and Iraqis that had cooperated with NATO and in some cases even information about their families.

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101206/ap_on_re_us/wikileaks
http://activepolitic.com:82/Outside_News/1052.html

damn, the powers that be are really ratcheting up the pressure on wikileaks; first joe lieberman calls amazon and has them drop wikileaks' DNS registry (meaning you can't access wikileaks.org anymore), then paypal freezes wikileaks' donation account, then the swiss close one of assange's bank accounts, then mastercard puts a blanket ban on him. wow lol.