WikiLeaks Begins Release of 2.5m Syrian Emails 322
judgecorp writes "WikiLeaks has started publishing 2.5 million emails from Syrian political figures and other bodies. The material will embarrass Syria, as well as other governments according to Julian Assange (still hiding in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London). As well as revealing the behaviour of the Syrian regime, the emails will also expose the hypocrisy of other governments and companies, Assange has said."
And this is why (Score:5, Insightful)
We need Wikileaks. Information like this will likely prove to be very informative.
How Wikileaks will take itself out. . . (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Droning on and on (Score:5, Insightful)
The leaks with a twist... (Score:4, Insightful)
"the emails will also expose the hypocrisy of other governments and companies"
In other words he will filter out data that will United States and Western Europe in a good light.
My prediction it will show that Companies are dealing with Syria by working around any laws to stop them, and there are some politicians who were willing to look the other way for some concessions, and Oil...
If you don't know this stuff is actually happening then you are either an idiot, or you live in Mr. Happy land where your country can do no wrong.
Re:And this is why (Score:5, Insightful)
Information like this will likely prove to be very informative.
And bananas will likely prove to taste very much like bananas, and books will likely prove to contain words.
I think you were trying to make a point, but it really got lost in your posting.
You're talking to the wrong crowd (Score:5, Insightful)
Most of the commenters here will twist this story into how the US is somehow evil, and drone on (pun intended) about how the US and West governments and/or corporations and/or political systems are what's wrong with the world, when in reality, people are suffering and dying under actual tyranny and oppression.
Like in Syria.
It's about time Wikileaks lived up to its initial stated mission [archive.org] of "exposing oppressive regimes in Asia, the former Soviet bloc, Sub-Saharan Africa and the Middle East," instead of becoming an anti-US pulpit for a self-righteous egomaniac who has openly said if he was asked to choose between "advocate"/"activist" and "journalist", he would choose "advocate" [nytimes.com], and who answered "I'm too busy ending two wars," [washingtonpost.com] in response to a reporter asking for clarity on an issue.
(And no, this doesn't mean the US and West are all-perfect or all-wise — what it means is that people need to get out of their bizarro world and get some perspective on things. A clue wouldn't hurt, either.)
Re:You're talking to the wrong crowd (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:The leaks with a twist... (Score:4, Insightful)
"the emails will also expose the hypocrisy of other governments and companies"
In other words he will filter out data that will United States and Western Europe in a good light.
So, when he filters you accuse him of cherry-picking. When he publishes everything you accuse him of publishing shitloads of irrelevant and mundane data. If you want to bash the man, at least get your hatred bullshit straight! It the US and Western Europe are so pure and clean they should have nothing to fear, should they?
My prediction it will show that Companies are dealing with Syria by working around any laws to stop them, and there are some politicians who were willing to look the other way for some concessions, and Oil...
If you don't know this stuff is actually happening then you are either an idiot, or you live in Mr. Happy land where your country can do no wrong.
One thing is people gossiping about that. It's only one more conspiracy theory to add to the lot. But this is evidence. It's quite different. You're just trying to spin it to your liking. If there weren't embarrassing details for the West you'd be screaming and shouting about how monstrous the Assad regime is, and how this is the definitive evidence to justify an invasion!
Re:And this is why (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh, you Americans! You have supported all kinds of terrible dictators in Latin America. It takes a lot of nerve to be calling Chavez a dictator!
The only reason you hate him is because he was one of the first Latin American leaders that showed you the finger and you couldn't eliminate! A few others have followed the example, which revolves your guts. Latin America is no longer your backyard, get used to it. If you want oil, pay for it big time, instead of bribing a few officers, like usual.
If Venezuelans don't want Chavez in power, it's not like they don't have options. Just vote for someone else. It's called democracy, you Americans hypocritically blabber about it ad nauseam. But guess what, he greatly reduced poverty, gave education and healthcare to those who never had anything, he's trying to reduce violence, etc. The majority of Venezuelans are very poor and are living a lot better since he's in power. Maybe they simply... well... like him!
Re:You're talking to the wrong crowd (Score:5, Insightful)
You are absolutely right, and absolutely wrong.
Inside the CIA's Secret Prisons Program, Time Magazine, 2006 [time.com]
And before you backpedal on what happened to Maher Arar:
So, we took an innocent man, illegally shipped him off to Syria (probably in exchange for easing off pressure on the Assad regime), tortured him, and now we're denying him his day in court to hold our government to account. Stop pretending that you, or the American government, has any principled position on matters of human rights. Syrian torture facilities are just dandy when we want to use them. The fact is that we have put more bodies in the ground this decade than the Assad regime has in it's entire family history.
That's why you focus on Assange, instead of dealing with what his organization has revealed. The truth isn't important to you. Protecting American state power is. Oddly enough, the American government keeps telling me that they're free to subpoena everything about me and my life, and that I should have nothing to fear if I have nothing to hide, and now we're saying the same thing. Why is the American government so afraid of the truth?
As a huge world power, they've got lots of little people like you, desperately clinging at the teat of the empire, ready to kill eno
Re:You're talking to the wrong crowd (Score:4, Insightful)
Countries with the greatest capacity to do harm, and the likely propensity to exercise that power should be under the greatest scrutiny.
Deaths in Syrian uprising: nearly 18,000
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_uprising_(2011%E2%80%93present)#Deaths [wikipedia.org]
Deaths in US-Afghanistan War: nearly 18,000
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2010/aug/10/afghanistan-civilian-casualties-statistics [guardian.co.uk]
Deaths in US-Iraq war: approximately 110,000
http://www.iraqbodycount.org/database/ [iraqbodycount.org]
So, while Syria certainly needs to be on the watch list, and it is very advantageous for the supporters of that regime to be unmasked and exposed, the Western governments do not get a free pass just because some people have concluded that they are not oppressive or dangerous to their own people.
Re:And this is why (Score:3, Insightful)
Anyone who rules by decree is a dictator. It doesn't matter where are they are from, or what they do.
Re:You're talking to the wrong crowd (Score:5, Insightful)
*Sigh*
Now we're getting into semantics, but it's not necessarily malicious, nor murder, nor "illegal" to kill in war. It is possible for a killing, even in wartime, to be all of those things. This wasn't one of those times. It's also possible to kill civilians accidentally and still not have it be malicious or a crime. Yes, someone is still dead — but intent matters, even in war. This is not a new construct.
Re:You're talking to the wrong crowd (Score:4, Insightful)
I hope the amount of incorrect, ranting assumptions you've made about me and what you think I stand for made you feel better.
I don't discount any of the facts about individual incidents in your comment, nor would I ever be foolish or arrogant enough to say the US has never made a mistake — we have made plenty and will make plenty more — but let me ask you something:
Do you believe that the world and humanity would be better off if the US hadn't existed after, say, WWII? Not just from a geopolitical perspective, but from perspectives of technology, medicine, and similar?
Do you believe that someone like, say, China, or an amalgamation of warring mideast states, or perhaps even an old Soviet superstate would be a better global steward than the United States and the West?
If you can answer "Yes", or even "Perhaps", to either of those questions, we share no common ground from which to even have a discussion.
Re:Above the law ? (Score:5, Insightful)
Fugitive?
The women wanted him to take an HIV test and asked police for advice. Random attorney jumped and called it rape. Some sane guy read it and said 'what lol' and dropped the case. Said retard attorney dug it back up along with the help of Bodström, with whose help they poisoned his well and made him look like a rapist in the medias (which is all owned by the Bonnier group).
Assange offered to be questioned/interviewed, but the attorney declined. He did so again and warned that he was headed overseas, but she declined. Then when he's at the airport some minutes before takeoff, she issues an arrest warrant for questioning, and later the interpol most wanted call. The ladies involved who asked about what they could/should do about the hiv test are long since out of the picture.
There are lots of precedents where Swedish authorities have interviewed/questioned people over phone, or even by traveling to the country where the person is to do it there. Ny and Bodström don't want to; they want him inside Sweden.
Once here they can ship him off to US in all accordance with Swedish law, without any court proceedings (or if any then behind closed doors as is usually reserved for sexual assault on minors, very hush hush). The temporary surrender agreement that we have with the states just demands that the reason why the US wants the extraditee mustn't be political.
The secret grand jury has had ample time to invent a new interpretation of the espionnage laws by now, so when he lands at JFK they'll be waiting with an orange jumpsuit, a pair of zipties and a tazer. After a ~year of psychological torture (sleep deprivation is very very very effective), Manning could easily be coaxed into saying Assange made him do it, and then he'd get gitmoed.
I don't think they'll suicide him right away lest he become a martyr. Though I guess they could do the burial-at-sea thing again.
Re:And this is why (Score:4, Insightful)
As for his criminal accusations, I don't know what to think. I am skeptical of the accusations and the way they were made. But I am equally skeptical of the defense of him I have heard. I don't know what the truth is. I can only hope if he committed a crime, he gets a fair trial. And if he didn't, that all accusations and allegations would be dropped.
If the U.S. is involved in the massacre of civilians in Syria, I would want to know about it. And I would want those responsible to answer for it. However, I do think that scenario unlikely in the case of Syria, from what I have read.
Re:You're talking to the wrong crowd (Score:4, Insightful)
Then why are they releasing information on Syria, a decidedly anti-western country?
Re:And this is why (Score:4, Insightful)
Well I can't argue that myself. However, he seems to think that the whole purpose of them wanting him to go to Sweden is so that he can then be extradited directly to the US, and he apparently feels that the US Gov't is somewhat irritated with him for some reason.
Since the Swedes have allowed the US to use extraordinary rendition against at least one individual in Sweden in the past, and since they have already questioned him, determined that there was no case, and given him permission to leave, I don't think his suspicions are entirely unreasonable. I don't pretend to know all the details, understand Swedish law or understand the finer nuances of how Swedish law defines sexual misconducts (its much more defined there than it would be in Canada (where I am from) or the US (where most of you are). I can understand someone deciding that having already been examined, and given permission to leave because no charges were going to be laid after answering all the questions put to him, he might decide he doesn't see why he should have to go through that whole process again.
Then we have the various questions about why the 2 women raised the whole issue in the first place and their (to me at least) somewhat suspicious behavior, plus the fact that one of them has had some connection to the CIA in the past (if that is true). Assange has to be fairly paranoid and I am sure this all feeds that - whether or not there is any justification to his fears.
I am not defending him mind you, just saying I can understand why he doesn't want to go to Sweden.
Personally, I am now of the mind that the US does want him, but mostly so they can use him in the trial of Bradley Manning. Assange has had so much publicity that if the US does extradite him they will have to watch what they do with him under the world's eyes (although that often doesn't seem to matter to the US Gov't I admit). Manning on the other hand is clearly someone they want to try and punish. Its two ends of the same problem. If the US shows they will locate, try and punish harshly anyone who reveals stuff to Wikileaks, then they achieve the same goal: preventing something similar from happening in the future.