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

<object width="518" height="419"><param name="movie" value="http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/eyeblast.swf?v=hd6UpruzqG" /><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><embed type="application/x-shockwave-flash" src="http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/eyeblast.swf?v=hd6UpruzqG" allowfullscreen="true" width="518" height="419" /></object>

 

He certainly believes that he does but as you note only in the sense of a collective and I would say abstract view given his lack of concern regarding specific people he has endangered.

In regard to a government entity if he is that concerned why not run for office in Australia and try to enact concrete change through the levers of state power? Frankly this seems like romantic self-aggrandizement on his part that you are buying into.

 

Very well put. In principle I don't have a problem with more transparency and we need principled whistleblowers but we also need wisdom. From what I have seen of Assange and wikileaks I am not seeing a lot of wisdom. What I am seeing is self-righteousness that I would say borders on Randian.

 

No matter who might be hurt in the process? No matter that it might make the possibility of avoiding conflict through diplomacy much more difficult?

 

Hysterical given what he is exposing. Sheesh.

I've never directly praised Assange on here I don't think. From what I have read about him he seems to be a bit of a douchebag. But he's got guts, serious guts in facing these powers in the way he has. That's really all I have to say about him -my interest is more in his groups activities, not his cult of personality.

 

They are having a live chat at the Guardian website right now. I found one of his responses interesting, as it reveals his anti-US bias (whether he holds that rightly or wrongly is another question) and basically says that the US are out to kill him. You think that will have no influence on what documents he focuses on when it comes to embarrassing countries?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/blog/2010/dec/03/julian-assange-wikileaks

 

Assange is the "Ralph Nadir" of "whistle blowers." He won't go away, he won't shut up, and he's doing more harm than good.

 

What an arrogant prick. He sounds like the SamFisher of Guardian live chats.

 

Someone finally put pen to my thoughts about Assange:

http://reason.com/archives/2010/12/03/the-wikileaks-debate#comments

 

Same are calling or his death:

Palin: Hunt down Assange like a terrorist
She asks why the WikiLeaks chief is not hunted "with the same urgency we pursue al Qaeda and Taliban leaders"
http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2010/11/29/palin_hunt_down_assange





Many US papers have hinted at it:

Wall Street Journal:

Assange is an enemy of the U.S. [...]

If he were exposing Chinese or Russian secrets, he would already have died at the hands of some unknown assailant. As a foreigner (Australian citizen) engaged in hostile acts against the U.S., Mr. Assange is certainly not protected from U.S. reprisal under the laws of war. [...]

At a minimum, the Administration should throw the book at those who do the leaking, including the option of the death penalty. [...]

[Assange's] mass, indiscriminate exposure of anything labeled secret that he can lay his hands on is a hostile act against a democracy that is fighting a war against forces bent on killing innocents. Surely, the U.S. government can do more to stop him than send a stiff letter.

Utah Standard-Examiner:

We are angered by the continued release of confidential documents that deal with the war on terror. The web site, WikiLeaks, run by an American-hater named Julian Assange, dumped another huge trove of information that puts our allies at risk, threatens diplomatic relations with some of our allies, and endangers many of our fellow citizens.

It is wrong to do this to people who are risking their lives to help our nation in the struggle against terrorism. Frankly, we wouldn't spare a moment of sympathy if a character such as Assange died or was imprisoned as a result of his criminal actions.

New York Post:

[A]cquiescing in such anarchy is...unacceptable. Wherever possible, the full weight of the law must be brought to bear on the leakers -- and the young soldier who started the ball rolling needs to be a very old man when he next breathes free air. [...]

Rep. Pete King, incoming chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, has asked both Clinton and Holder to formally designate WikiLeaks as a terrorist organization.

That may sound radical, but in fact such a designation would prohibit US banks, and companies like PayPal, Visa and MasterCard, from processing payments to the group.

It would also make it a felony to provide WikiLeaks with "material support or resources" -- subjecting anyone who does so to potential federal prosecution.

 

rtsy, yes, true. I think these calls for assassination are wrong.

 

It should be noted that wikilieaks has not released or posted all 250k+ cables. Only 667 have been released, all via newspapers per my understanding.

 

Wikileaks new website www.collateralmurder.com
L and I are NSFW
Short Version
<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/5rXPrfnU3G0?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/5rXPrfnU3G0?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>
Full Version
<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/is9sxRfU-ik?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/is9sxRfU-ik?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>
U.S. soldier eyewitness story
<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/kelmEZe8whI?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/kelmEZe8whI?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

 

problem is, assange isn't a journalist.

 

Everyone's favorite crazy libertarian, Ron Paul, announces his support for wikileaks.

 

The person who leaked the cables should be tried for treason.

 

Who are we to say what should be transparent? Doesn't picking and choosing what should be transparent defeat the meaning of "transparency"?

Alas, it comes down to concept of NIMBY - Not In My Backyard. I'll admit that the reason I'm not 100% behind wikileaks is that, I know deep down inside, I'm a greedy human being. I am ok with the fact that the United States may have done some shady unethical deals and political maneuverings at the international level to ensure that we remain the #1 country. That we enjoy a lot more luxury compared to the avg person in the world. That we let some country off the hook for human rights violations in exchange for cheap oil or something.

 

Skeletons have a funny way of not staying buried.

As the old saying goes... don't start nothing, won't be nothing.

 

If it's not a big deal and you could've waited 15 years, then there's no reason it should've been secret in the first place.