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

Yes there was a lot of information out there saying why invading Iraq was a very bad idea and unnecessary. If you didn't see that you weren't paying attention. Unfortunately most of America wasn't.

 

Almost enough to make you weep, isn't it? Untold hundreds of billions of dollars added to the national debt, a failed war in Afghanistan, a weakened America, a financial meltdown, all thanks to Mr. George W. Bush and a Republican Congress. Republican response? Predictable. Blame a Democratic President and the brief period of Democratic control of Congress for something they created themselves.

 

Of course there was plenty of information available that ran contrary to the administrations narrative. However, what if a website like wikileaks was around to dump all the information that wasn't cherrypicked by the bush admin. Also, the mainstream press wasn't that interested in confronting dissenting opinions. Wikileaks MIGHT have made a difference. It's just conjecture, but I don't think it would have hurt back then.

Check out the "sixteen words" controversy from Bush's 2003 State of the Union address. The document that dissented on the yellowcake theory was declassified AFTER we went into Iraq.

All I am saying is several key pieces of information didn't come out until after we were invading Iraq.

 

Fascinating interview with Assange. It's quite long, but a good read.

I still can't get over the fact that his incoming files is increasing exponentially while his outgoing is linear... craziness. As more gets leaked, more people leak.

 

dubai is a city, man. lol

 

Assange leaks what he gets. Remember that WikiLeaks doesn't actively go searching for this material, they just have people that give it to them. My guess is that he's simply not getting as much material from other countries for various cultural reasons. Also remember that the people leaking these things to him are really putting their neck out there.

Anyway, a pertinent quote from Assange:

Also remember that he releases only what is the most impactful. Calling obviously corrupt governments corrupt (or proving corruption that's already assumed) isn't terribly impactful. Proving that a government as visible as the United States is corrupt when the government tries to give off an aura or impression of no corruption is a bit more meaningful.

Most people want to see everything. I want to see everything. He can only release so much and he only has so much.

Edit: And again, let me strongly suggest that you read the full interview in Forbes, ATW. You can clearly see WikiLeaks is not singling the United States out.

 

<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/jAca9RdGl98?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/jAca9RdGl98?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>

 

I highly doubt if wikileaks had existed in 2002 that it makes much of a difference while the yellowcake theory was declassified after we went into Iraq almost as soon as GW Bush made that statement there were reports raising doubts about it. Same with Powell's presentation to the UN where he laid out the case for invading Iraq. The information was there and while not being shoved in the public's face it wasn't that hard to find info saying why invading Iraq was a bad idea.

 

I'm watching ABC nightly news and their reporter in Beijing said that PRC sources feel that the leak about Chinese frustration over NK might make it harder for the PRC to exert control over NK.

 

Why doesn't ATW understand that what other people in Dubai or the Middle East do is not caused by me?

The strategy is getting old.

1) Promote anti-Islam agenda,
2) When hitting a wall, divert to hate-filled images of people associated with Islam.

I will talk about transparency as I damn well please btw. For all you know, I regulate garbage pick-up in Dubai. If you don't like it, tough luck. As if your few visits to Dubai mean you are suddenly knowledgeable about corruption in the country.

I've been in Germany for two months now, does this make me knowledgeable about corruption in the country?

Anyways, it's painfully obvious you haven't read much about the leaks from the way you are saying that I'm somehow promoting Arab government by being critical of US government. Go read and come back when you have a clue.

The Guardian newspaper has a portal where you can read cables by country. That way, you can be realistic and just click on the Muslim or Arab countries.

 

It certainly hasn't stopped you from singling out Germany when talking about alleged racism in the world (even though you admitted that you did not experience any yourself).

 

Let's see. Two months of interacting with a city in Germany, does not give me direct insight into racial tendencies in this part of Germany? Especially considering I am Arab/Turkish?

and somehow this is the equivalent of you taking short trips to Dubai and discussing corruption among people you have mostly never met or seen in person? You think that handing out at a double decker and gossipping about regional leaders qualifies you? Riiiiiiiight.

Give it a break. I thought I was the only one sick of it, but clearly, it extends beyond those who you are hateful towards.

 

Thanks for posting this interview. I could not open page 5 of it ("error establishing a database connection").

A few take-aways for me:

1) This interview did not ask very critical questions. It sounded more like a fanboy interviewing a star. E.g., where were questions about his legitimation to decide on what to publish or not to publish, about potentially negative consequences for people who have done nothing wrong legally/morally, etc.

2) The guy, just judging from that interview, seems to revel in the attention, and clearly seems ego-driven.

3) That said, his site provides an outlet for people who want to find someone to turn to to reveal real abuse. So it could be interesting what they will come up with in the future, e.g. the stuff about a major bank.

4) I wonder how long the guy will live.

By the way, I thought this part was funny, in light of the discussion in the previous few posts.

 

Let's see - you are posting freely from Germany and you can say whatever you want and you can access any website you want, right?

Can you say the same about people who access the internet from Dubai?



Riiiiiiight.

Get off the high horse.

 

Ironically, I think page 5 was the most crucial in him explaining why he does what he does, namely the first sentence of his response to the first question. Because of that, here is the entire page:

It sort of opened my eyes to the motivation behind it all... and it's begun to make a whole hell of a lot of sense to me.

I would like to see his response to the accusation that his leaks put lives in danger, however. If agrees, how does he sleep at night? If he doesn't, why does he think it doesn't?

A question I'm personally torn with in deciding my opinion on it all is this: if leaking these things cause lives to be lost, who is to blame? The leaker, or the entity that was doing the unethical behavior in the first place? I feel it's somewhat of a chicken-or-the-egg sort of question.

 

You never fail to rinse and repeat. But by now we all know what it means when you start posting pictures.

Have fun!

 

Thanks for re-posting this. I am on a bad internet connection right now, so might have been something on my side trying to access it and then it went to the cache and got the same error again.

Yeah. I can see his arguments, but I would also be interested in an answer to the question if "unequal" leaks do not end up in unfair results. Just taking his example with the Chinese food-producing companies: The leak out of one of the companies that does something unethical might put that company out of business, in favor of its competitor. Now, who knows if the competitor does not do things that are 10 x more unethical? So his argument is somewhat flawed because he automatically assumes that the consequences of leakage and publication will be positive. But that might not be true. If they lead to one of the less unethical players (e.g. arguably the USA, when you look at politics) being put on the defensive, it might just make it easier, at least temporarily, for the more unethical players to pretend they are morally superior.

 

What is that even supposed to mean? Is that the best answer you have? Weren't you just here, lecturing us about transparency and freedoms?

Do people on this thread even know that one cannot even access:

Skype (totally blocked)
Flickr
all websites with a .il (Israel) domain
any website that is considered "insulting to islam"

etc. etc. etc. from Dubai?

And the founder of Wikileaks specifically mentioned Dubai as the one place in his interview that threatened him with dire consequences.

And we have someone who works for the government of Dubai here, lecturing us about freedoms - as a reaction, I point out that Dubai is not exactly the poster boy for transparency and freedoms, and provide examples, and someone is quick to jump at my throat for it.

Interesting.

P.S.: In fact, I doubt that one can even access wikileaks from Dubai. Will try it out.

 

Your logic is sort of flawed. We shouldn't point out unethical behavior of Company A because Company B (that would benefit from a leak about Company A) could be just as unethical? So what, we should just let it all slide?

If we attack unethical Company A (even if B is just as bad), we put fear into Company B. Perhaps they would change their unethical behavior or they'd have a leak themselves. Perhaps not. Nonetheless, 1 unethical company is probably better than 2.

And like he said, the more leaks he publishes, the more leaks he gets (exponentially). The more companies are uncovered, the more uncovering that will get done and the more fear that will scare these companies into ethical behavior. Yes, it's somewhat idealistic, but I think it's a lot better than just letting unethical behavior slide.

 

Old, but I feel a lot of people never noticed/saw 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.colbertnation.com'>The Colbert Report</a></td><td style='padding:2px 5px 0px 5px; text-align:right; font-weight:bold;'>Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c</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.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/260785/april-12-2010/exclusives---julian-assange-unedited-interview'>Exclusive - Julian Assange Extended Interview</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.colbertnation.com/'>www.colbertnation.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:260785' 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.colbertnation.com/full-episodes/'>Colbert Report 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/'>2010 Election</a></td><td style='padding:3px; width:33%;'><a target='_blank' style='font:10px arial; color:#333; text-decoration:none;' href='http://www.colbertnation.com/video/tag/March%20to%20Keep%20Fear%20Alive'>March to Keep Fear Alive</a></td></tr></table></td></tr></tbody></table>