WikiLeaks Took Advice From Media Outlets 385
formfeed writes "According to the AP (through Google News), WikiLeaks isn't just sitting on the recent material so they can release it bit by bit to the press, as many people implied. On the contrary, it's quite the other way around: 'only after considering advice from five news organizations with which it chose to share all of the material' are they releasing it themselves. These newspapers 'have been advising WikiLeaks on which documents to release publicly and what redactions to make to those documents.' AP questions whether WikiLeaks will follow these redactions, but nevertheless seems quite impressed by this 'extraordinary collaboration between some of the world's most respected media outlets and the WikiLeaks organization.'"
I wonder if some of the anti-WikiLeaks fervor evident among US lawmakers will also be brought to bear against the AP and other mainstream media sources. Update: 12/05 17:42 GMT by T : Yes, that's WikiLeaks, rather than (as originally rendered) WikiPedia. HT to reader Mike Hearn.
Wikileaks supporters should study COINTELPRO. (Score:4, Interesting)
If you want to know how the Feds are going to handle this situation just look at how they handled it in the 60s. The church committee report details what the feds could do in the 1960s. Joel Byran Harris is an ordinary individual who pissed off a high level bank executive in the 1990s and he has been subject to a constant harassment and psychological operation ever since.
Here are the links for anyone who thinks I'm full of it.
http://www.jbhfile.com/index.html [jbhfile.com] [jbhfile.com] and http://www.icdc.com/~paulwolf/cointelpro/cointel.htm [icdc.com] [icdc.com]
one doesn't preclude the other (Score:2, Interesting)
Wikileaks isn't just sitting on the recent material so they can release it bit by bit to the press, as many people implied. On the contrary, it's quite the other way around: 'only after considering advice from five news organizations
Right. Why would the major news organizations possibly be interested in having exclusive access to most of the content? Gee, I wonder.
Also, a slow trickle is much friendlier to their publishing process, and will keep the public's attention longer. I suppose in the end that's not a bad thing, but we're still going to be reading everything through a filter, which is hardly in line with Wikileak's goal.
Also, is anyone else tired of the "wiki" in wikileaks? There's absolutely nothing "wiki" about "Cablegate."
Re:I know it's called WikiLeaks, but... (Score:4, Interesting)
Indeed, Robert Novak should be held to the same standard for reporting that Valerie Plame worked for the CIA. He received classified information, was warned not to divulge it, but did so anyway.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plame_affair#Robert_Novak [wikipedia.org]
The government has vast resources (Score:3, Interesting)
Most Wikileaks supporters are naive and don't understand the imaginably vast resources of the US Government. They also underestimate the ruthlessness of the US Government.
To understand an individual would have to know the history of COINTELPRO. An individual would have to also talk to people who are being gangstalked today or who have been targeted individuals in the recent past to know that the Government is fully capable of covert psychological torture and entrapment. The rape charge, everything Assange and his supporters are dealing with can be found here [jbhfile.com]
If people would have just took these sorts of websites more seriously they'd understand that the Government does not have to kill you, they can just ruin your life in every way possible until you wish you were dead. You'll lose your finances, your friendships, your marriage, your family, and when they are done with you they'll have you looking like a psychopath pedophile, a rapist, a murderer, a snitch (they call it the snitch jacket). They don't follow the law, they don't care about your human rights, they'll destroy your life just as they did to hundreds of thousands in the 60s under COINTELPRO.
Julian Assange has gone too far. If you download his Insurance file or donate money to his site, expect to be put under intense surveilence COINTELPRO style.
Re:Please Give Wikileaks story A Rest (Score:5, Interesting)
That's the point. The answer 'publish nothing' is not recognized data-war tender. The U.S. is clearly hoping for meat space developments to solve this situation.
Otherwise they would have a strategy that involved dealing with the data on the table.
The Egyptians have apparently been saying this for years. The U.S. will enter into new theaters of combat with no concern for the opinion of established actors in the arena. Instead they listen with half an ear, then return to telling the established actors what the U.S. wants them to do.
The net result here is that WikiLeaks gets to start doling out National Security level assignments and drawing up the game plan. Currently Assange is only a few pieces short of being able support a cabinet, storm Sealand, and demand U.N. recognition of sovereignty. All because we are forcing his organization to grow up into a full fledged Intel agency and polarizing other sovereigns into his camp.
If anyone is worried about a stateless future ruled by paramilitary actors start taking notes. The U.S. government appears to be hellbent on making that future a reality.
Re:They want to publish only about 100 of 250000.. (Score:5, Interesting)
Internet war? No it's more dangerous than that. (Score:5, Interesting)
The people who are close to Julian Assange are at risk of their lives being ruined. The people donating money to Julian Assange are at risk of their lives being ruined. By a government that will stop at nothing to stop Julian Assange.
This means informants. This means entrapment. This means torture. This means psychological operations. This means black ops, false flags, black bag, honey trap operations.
This means ruined marriages, ruined careers, mysterious illnesses, mysterious criminal charges like tax evasion to further drain financial resources, psychiatric diagnosis from professionals like paranoid schizophrenia, ruined friendships, destroyed reputation, being labeled a pedophile, rapist, snitch/informant, or being entrapped / locked in prison and then being labeled any of these things.
The Government will do everything short of kill you. They'll try to make you kill yourself with psychological operations. They'll try to manipulate other people into killing you with rumors, smears, and character assassination, and they'll keep you from being able to make any money by lawsuits, blacklists, etc.
Internet war is just war. It's not something that geeks do on the internet with DDOS. It's when lives are permanently destroyed in the real world by blackmail, extortion, manipulation, humiliation, etc.
Go read your history kid (Score:5, Interesting)
Cause you have a lot to learn.
When the government stops using its authority to make things secret to largely cover up fraud, waste, abuse of power, and naked greed THEN we'll have a discussion about it. Until then tough shit for them. If it takes having Wikileaks and Julian Assange out there to clean it up then I say I want to see 100 or 1000 more just like them. Turn over every single rock under which any secret lurks. Secrecy is a tool of evil, pure and simple.
Re:Wikileaks supporters should study COINTELPRO. (Score:4, Interesting)
You see though how ordinary HR people are just as fucked up in this particular case:
From the first link:
"I answered no, but also made a note for a verbal qualification as I did have a transgression on my record, from when I was 17 years old and for which I was never convicted of any crime; I was sure this incident would turn up in any public record background check and so I simply mentioned it.
As it turns out, upon hearing that I had a felony charge on my record, albeit without any subsequent conviction, HR immediately had a genuine grade-A freak out, called security and had me escorted from the building!"
Somebody was covering his ass, and then the thing started rolling once FDIC got involved. It kind of makes sense that banks would like to employ higher standards, but on the other hand he doesn't have to mention anything from before he was 18 years old.
When I stayed in the US I always had this feeling that people were terribly paranoid, I wonder how your society turned out that way. I mean you would like to blame the guy who keeps on harassing the poor SOB now but I would also blame HR for their reaction, they could have behaved far saner even though they have a tough job of predicting peoples future behaviour.
Re:I know it's called WikiLeaks, but... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Internet war? No it's more dangerous than that. (Score:3, Interesting)
Which is it?
What an interesting strategy you've outlined here. If a person wants to have non-consensual sex with 14-year olds, all they have to do is "leak" some documents and then, regardless of their known history, they're automatically free of suspicion when it comes to whatever crimes they happen to engage in.
Personally, if I were you, I'd get out of the house more. Read the newspaper. Get involved in your local politics. Make some friends. Because this whole recluse bit is really fucking up your world view.
My world view is that Julian Assange and his supporters are enemies of the USA and are soon going to be treated that way. I'm seeing the machinery in motion. But if you know something I don't about the US government because you have friends in high places why don't you enlighten me, because from what I know about the US government (at least the black ops agency types),
They are completely ruthless. They have no respect for human rights. They will do anything to get information including torture. They'll entrap people just like they did to the Muslim teen in the newspapers that I don't read. They'll careers. Randy Quaid is right to fear the US Government.
In fact I'd say anyone with any degree of social intelligence or psychological intelligence would understand the psychology and tendencies of the leadership to know that these guys mean serious business, are results oriented, and see it as a war which they have to win at any cost to human life/rights.
Look at the war on drugs, look at the war on terror, look at the war against communism. I've studied it all. Maybe you should study a bit more.
Re:I know it's called WikiLeaks, but... (Score:2, Interesting)
Board of Directors have to make certain kinds of decisions, and those decisions are pretty narrowly constrained. They have to be committed to increasing profit share and market share. That means they're going to be forced to try to limit wages, to limit quality, to use advertising in a way that sells goods even if the product is lousy. Who tells them to do this? Nobody. But if they stopped doing it, they'd be out of business. Similarly, if an editorial writer for the New York Times were to start, say, telling the truth about the Panama invasion -- which is almost inconceivable, because to become an editorial writer you'd already have gone through a filtering process which would weed out the non-conformists -- well, the first thing that would happen is you'd start getting a lot of angry phone calls from investors, owners, and other sectors of power. That would probably suffice. If it didn't, you'd simply see the stock start falling. And if they continued with it systematically, the New York Times would be replaced by some other organ. After all, what is the New York Times? It's just a corporation. If investors and advertisers don't want to support it, and the government doesn't want to give it the special privileges and advantages that make it a "newspaper of record," it's out of business.
-Noam Chomsky
Afghan War Logs (Score:5, Interesting)
were far more damaging to the US govt than the State Department leaks have been so far.
The problem I think is the bank leaks. I suspect they will be on the same par as the other leaks, but banks being banks, the attacks from the establishment will be far greater in force.
Re:Traditional media is under control (Score:4, Interesting)
Exactly. Part of our problems are a result of the free press being neutered. It gives us a continuous stream of tabloid style "people behaving badly" crap, but it's all personal baggage and gossip. The real crimes go unreported because professional political reporters know their career is over if the invites to the press conferences dry up. They can avoid that by sticking to gossiping about the designated scapegoat. Newspapers don't pay reporters to spend weeks pursuing a single story anymore, they need easy sources to keep up the volume.
This is why the DOJ fights so hard for a narrow definition of press. They don't want people with day jobs who can afford to spend weeks digging to be granted appropriate legal protections.
Re:Go read your history kid (Score:2, Interesting)
Secret encryption codes. Secret cash flow to some of his editors. Secret travel plans. Secret negotiations with media outlets prior to making public announcements. Secret relationships with document thieves. Secret financial sponsors. You know, secret stuff.
Isn't WikiLeaks -a- media organization? (Score:4, Interesting)
They seem to have all the same functions as the free press, albiet without any hollywood gossip or corporate owners.
Is there some legal definition which excludes WikiLeaks from being called a media organization?
Re:I know it's called WikiLeaks, but... (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually the Supreme Court ruled that the press absolutely have the right to print about "Top Secret" stolen documents when it is news worthy or in the interest of the public good.
The press is not liable for the theft of information that someone else did. That is the law of the United States and is Constitutional law now. Period end, do not pass go. Everyone can scream what about the people in the reports, or what about the damage it might do. It does *NOT* matter. It is 100% legal, end of story.
This was true for the "Pentagon Papers" that were "Top Secret" documents. It was true of the "Watergate Scandal" papers that were "Secret" and "Top Secret". It didn't matter how they were classified, the courts ruled the press didn't steal them, and it was in the interest of the public to see them, so they could legally publish them. End of story.
You can even then throw in the whistle blower laws, and it becomes even more clear that this is supported by law and the Supreme Court.