Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Government The Media Politics Your Rights Online

WikiLeaks Begins Release of 2.5m Syrian Emails 322

Posted by timothy
from the so-no-stopping-at-the-syrian-embassy dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

WikiLeaks Begins Release of 2.5m Syrian Emails

Comments Filter:
  • And this is why (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Phrogman (80473) on Thursday July 05, 2012 @08:33AM (#40550639) Homepage

    We need Wikileaks. Information like this will likely prove to be very informative.

    • Re:And this is why (Score:5, Insightful)

      by plover (150551) * on Thursday July 05, 2012 @08:42AM (#40550753) Homepage Journal

      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.

      • by SuricouRaven (1897204) on Thursday July 05, 2012 @08:57AM (#40550903)
        Future events like these will affect you in the future, my friend.
      • Re:And this is why (Score:5, Informative)

        by Phrogman (80473) on Thursday July 05, 2012 @09:22AM (#40551243) Homepage

        Sure, I should have said more evidently. I thought I was being obvious, but obviously I was not :P

        Despite the legions of posters on this site (and every other site I have been to so far) who seem to feel that because Wikileaks DARED to releas US Government secrets that were submitted to them, Assange should be hung, drawn and quartered in public for having the temerity to do so, I think that Wikileaks serves a very valuable service to the bulk of humanity who might be interested in the things their governments are doing in their name and often keeping them from knowing. Releasing the emails from the Syrian government might prove to be very important and have a useful bearing on what is and has been going on there. Without some organization like WL we wouldn't see this stuff at all as members of the public. Moreover, the legion of journalists that will descend on this stuff wouldn't have the ability to root through it and summarize the key information they come across, and then disseminate to us in a more readable format.

        Assange may be an egotistical ass, but the legion of the same posters above who are willing to see him tried and convicted of rape, without charges, without a court deliberation after a trial etc is getting rather annoying to me at least. If he's guilty then let him be charged and tried etc. Until then, he's innocent, just as anyone else who hasn't been charged is innocent. Stating otherwise is just ad hominem attacks that serve no purpose other than to show the poster's personal bias/agenda. What he is doing is a remarkable job of staying in the news, and thus advertising Wikileaks though. He's a figurehead that garners a lot of attention - or an attention whore in other words, and he's doing that very effectively. I have a feeling his greatest crime in the eyes of most US posters though is that he dared to do something that might reflect badly on the US, and "my country tis of thee" etc, they don't want to see a foreigner criticize the US, I guess only US citizens can do that without rancor it seems.

        I think the world needs to do something about the situation in Syria. This information might give us a chance to be better informed on what has happened there and what is happening there, how can that be a bad thing in the long run? Unless of course it turns out that US Government agencies and US Corporations are implicated in the massacre of civilians there - then those same people I mentioned above will only have more ammunition for their arguments as to why Assange should be tried, convicted of treason (against a country he is not a citizen of) and then executed.

        • Despite the legions of posters on this site (and every other site I have been to so far) who seem to feel that because Wikileaks DARED to releas US Government secrets that were submitted to them, Assange should be hung, drawn and quartered in public for having the temerity to do so, I think that Wikileaks serves a very valuable service to the bulk of humanity who might be interested in the things their governments are doing in their name and often keeping them from knowing.

          I may be misremembering, but I was under the impression that the people here generally support the actions of Wikileaks, even if they're not the biggest fans of Assange himself. On most other US news sites it's exactly how you say.

        • by Rei (128717)

          If he's guilty then let him be charged and tried etc

          Glad to see we're in agreement on this one. Step one, in accordance with Swedish law, he needs to stop running and hand himself over for extradition to the country so that he can be charged on Swedish soil.

          • Re:And this is why (Score:5, Interesting)

            by SvnLyrBrto (62138) on Thursday July 05, 2012 @10:37AM (#40552223)

            Look at it from HIS point of view though.

            If he did not rape those women, then he's got a corrupt government and police force on a witch hunt, trying to frame him far a crime he didn't commit. Presumably, this is being done by Sweden at the behest of the US government, which wants his head served up on a platter. Why anyone surrender himself to that situation. It's not like he'd get anything resembling a fair trial, in Sweden, or here after the inevitable rendition.Â

            If he DID rape those women, then he really is a scumbag of scumbags, every bit as bad... worse... as the republicans here make him out to be. Why would you expect that a lowlife like that would have even a sliver of honor? And every second he dodges extradition is another second he dodges justice and if free to rape again.Â

            Innocent *or* guilty, his circumstances don't exactly favor surrender.

            • by sjames (1099)

              Even in your post, the smear campaign's effect can be seen. The crime he is accused of in Sweden isn't what MOST countries would call rape. A better translation would be "general douchbaggery with sex involved".

              IF proven true, it would hardly make him a paragon of virtue, but it wouldn't even be considered to rise to the level of a crime in most countries.

          • Re:And this is why (Score:4, Insightful)

            by Phrogman (80473) on Thursday July 05, 2012 @10:42AM (#40552303) Homepage

            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.

        • Re:And this is why (Score:4, Insightful)

          by FingerDemon (638040) on Thursday July 05, 2012 @10:12AM (#40551883) Journal
          I have mixed feelings about Wikileaks. On the one hand, I like when gov't wrong doing that has been covered up is revealed. But on the other, Assange has the view that countries should always say the same things in public as in private (He said so in 60 minutes inteview). I think this is just not a standard that any nation can live up to. Most decent people don't live that way and neither would I expect well run nations to do so. Even allies will make public statements while having more private views and back channel communications. I really don't see that as wrong. It is only if it is used to propagate hurtful lies or hide important truths that make it wrong.
          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.
        • by dbIII (701233)

          Unless of course it turns out that US Government agencies and US Corporations are implicated in the massacre of civilians there

          Even if they are not, the co-operation between US agencies and Syria with the "extreme rendition" incidents (ie. torture of US prisoners subcontracted out to Syria) is probably enough for some to argue that releasing stuff about Syria that could implicate people from the USA is "unpatriotic".
          It's an odd situation where joint operations were carried out with a nation that the general

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      The only problem is that is Assange is throwing in with people like Putin and Chavez, who kill their journalist opponents or, if they're lucky, just get railroaded into jail. Chavez just completed the dictator trifecta -- hassled opponents and journalists, silencing them. Got the "emergency" power to pass law by decree (the "dictator" part of "dictatorship"), and, just recently, outlawed sales of guns and ammunition.

      • Re:And this is why (Score:5, Insightful)

        by daem0n1x (748565) on Thursday July 05, 2012 @09:19AM (#40551201)

        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: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Anonymous Coward

          Anyone who rules by decree is a dictator. It doesn't matter where are they are from, or what they do.

        • by tnk1 (899206)

          The fact that the US Government has supported dictators in the past doesn't change the fact that Chavez is one. In fact, you'd think we'd know a dictator when we see one, given our vast experience.

          Also, the fact that the people like him doesn't mean he isn't a dictator. You don't usually get to be a founding dictator in a country by being unpopular. In fact, the real problem with him is not that he's popular or unpopular, but that he's squelching opposition and changing the laws to favor himself. That m

      • by Nadaka (224565)

        How exactly is Assange "throwing in with people like Putin and Chavez"? I have literally seen no indication he is, and releasing information damaging to Syria is explicitly taking a stand against something that Putin is supporting.

      • Isn't 'getting railroaded into jail' exactly what is happening to Assange? He released some information that the US wanted to keep secret (acting like a journalist, except not being completely muzzled by the owners of his newspaper/TV station), so there were immediate demands that he be either locked up or just killed, even from members of the government.

  • I guess as long as there are no pics of the prophet then no one will mind.
    Oh, who am I kidding? No one will care much outside Syria anyway, at least not for more than 5 minutes and a tweet or 2.
  • by PerlPunk (548551) on Thursday July 05, 2012 @08:36AM (#40550673) Homepage Journal
    Wikileaks is a project waiting for just one of those less politically correct countries like Syria but that has enough time on their hands to send a hit squad to wipe them out permanently--as in personnel and extended family if necessary.
    • Yep, because a military strike into a first world country would do so much for Assad's position.

    • by daveschroeder (516195) * on Thursday July 05, 2012 @08:52AM (#40550853)

      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.)

      • Perhaps they are all evil, but differ in degree?
        • by daveschroeder (516195) * on Thursday July 05, 2012 @09:23AM (#40551261)

          They're all SOMETHING, and differ in degree, but the US and the principles for which it stands, however imperfectly throughout history, can definitely not be generalized as "evil". I can't say the same for totalitarian states — throughout history, or now.

          Saying it's all "just different kinds of evil" shamefully ignores the countless tens millions of people who have died under the repression, tyranny, and selfishness of totalitarian regimes.

          Yes, be vigilant. Yes, identify injustice. Yes, call out abuse. But as soon as you start believing the US is "just as bad" (or some similar sentiment) as any other government, but "just in a different way", you have lost all perspective on the realities of history and the world in which we live.

          • The problem with moral relativism

            What does that have to do with moral relativism?

            can definitely not be generalized as "evil".

            Apparently it can.

            Saying it's all "just different kinds of evil" shamefully ignores the countless tens millions of people who have died under the repression, tyranny, and selfishness of totalitarian regimes.

            The fact that it could be worse does not mean that it's not bad.

            But as soon as you start believing the US is "just as bad" (or some similar sentiment) as any other government, but "just in a different way", you have lost all perspective on the realities of history and the world in which we live.

            What? It looks to me like he was just saying that some can be more evil than others but the less evil ones can still be evil.

          • by Hatta (162192)

            Yes, call out abuse. But as soon as you start believing the US is "just as bad" (or some similar sentiment) as any other government, but "just in a different way", you have lost all perspective on the realities of history and the world in which we live.

            I see you're watching this thread. I look forward to your response to BForrester [slashdot.org] who demonstrates that the US isn't "just as bad" but worse by roughly an order of magnitude in absolute terms.

            The fact is, it's you who have lost all perspective on historical r

            • Oh, is this the part where we get to play human calculus? Where how many Syrians killed under their own government can somehow be viewed in the exact same light, without any context whatever, as the Iraqi lives lost during the US military action in Iraq?

              Do you believe the US indiscriminately slaughters civilians with intend as a matter of policy, and that even in examples where civilians have died, has actually wanted that to occur? When civilians have died in Iraq or Afghanistan, it has served as a distin

      • by copponex (13876) on Thursday July 05, 2012 @09:24AM (#40551275) Homepage

        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.

        You are absolutely right, and absolutely wrong.

        In December of 2001, U.S. agents arranged to have a German citizen flown to a Syrian jail called the Palestine Branch, renowned for its use of torture, and later offered to pass written questions to Syrian interrogators to pose to the prisoner, according to a secret German intelligence report shown to TIME on Wednesday. The report is described in the new book Ghost Plane: The True Story of the CIA Torture Program by British investigative journalist Stephen Grey. The complex arrangement was part of the CIA's sprawling practice of extraordinary renditions, the secret transfer of terror suspects to hidden prisons across the world -- which has involved the aid of numerous foreign governments and the knowledge of key Western European allies, according to the book, which was shown to TIME by the author. After U.S. officials long refused to confirm the CIA's secret detention of terror suspects abroad, President Bush last month admitted that terror suspects had been transferred abroad to secret CIA facilities, but U.S. officials continue to deny that such prisoners have been tortured, saying that foreign governments assured them that they would be treated fairly.

        Inside the CIA's Secret Prisons Program, Time Magazine, 2006 [time.com]

        And before you backpedal on what happened to Maher Arar:

        This week the Supreme Court denied, without comment, the appeal of Maher Arar, a dual citizen of Canada and Syria who was arrested in transit through JFK airport in 2002, then shipped off to Syria and tortured for 10 months. Arar's abuse allegedly included repeated beatings with electrical cables and confinement in a cell the size of a grave. When they realized they had the wrong guy -- the really, totally, and utterly innocent guy -- Arar was released without charges. He was then completely exonerated of any link to terror by the Canadian government, which impaneled a commission to investigate the incident, issued a 1,000-plus-page report on the matter, held its own intelligence forces responsible for their role in the screw-up, then apologized and paid Arar $9.8 million. Whereas the U.S. government -- as Glenn Greenwald observes -- has never apologized, never acknowledged any wrongdoing, never held anyone responsible, and, on President Barack Obama's watch, has only redoubled its efforts to prevent Arar from having even a single day in court.

        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

        • by daveschroeder (516195) * on Thursday July 05, 2012 @09:47AM (#40551565)

          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.

      • by BForrester (946915) on Thursday July 05, 2012 @09:26AM (#40551301)

        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.

        • by Rei (128717) on Thursday July 05, 2012 @10:31AM (#40552119) Homepage

          Iraq Body Count is one of the lowest estimates out there. There are three peer-reviewed studies on it (IBC is not among them): the Iraq Family Health Survey, the Lancet survey, and the Opinion Research Business survey. The Lancet's value of 655k dead by June 2006 (601k from violence, and of those, 181k from the coalition and 276k where the killer was unknown) is the middle one of the three. They also have had the most feedback on the paper and the best sampling, so if anyone is going to cite just one work on the subject, it should probably be them.

      • 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,"

        What, like releasing 2.5 million emails from Syrian political figures? I just love how you brainless "patriots" will praise people as long as they only criticize the people your leaders have decided are "bad guys", but as soon as they reveal how close the "good guys" come to being bad, you decry them for being anti-American. You're not looking for information, you're looking for useful propaganda. A true patriot would be backing what America stands for, not what America does just because it's America doing

    • You mean, like any of the biggest military powers which were concerned by the diplomatic cables?
    • by daem0n1x (748565)

      Like Syria had any capability to do anything like that!

      And everybody knows he has nothing to fear from the civilised western countries, does he? When have they ever done anything like that?

      Stop watching NCIS. It's fiction, you know? And bad one.

    • by gl4ss (559668)

      well, they tried but they tried buying the service from columbian cartels.

      but seriously, basically you're suggesting that journalists should be scared of offending some fucking douchebag dictators who have their hands full with their own very, very pissed off rebels, activists and dictator-to-be wanabes. hell, you're suggesting that we should just stop talking shit about every regime because otherwise they'll come and kill everyone of us! like in their shitty propaganda! What the fuck??

      fuck that, of course

  • Finally... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by olau (314197) on Thursday July 05, 2012 @08:37AM (#40550681) Homepage

    ...some real, possibly world-changing leaks stories instead of all the crap about Assange and his whereabouts.

    There was a news report on Danish television about the Syrian regime and how it's treating dissidents. That was not pleasant to watch.

    • by L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) on Thursday July 05, 2012 @09:03AM (#40550985)
      I keep hearing about what is happening in Syria, and wonder exactly the UN is for if not stopping exactly that kind of shit.
      • The UN has sent many strongly-worded letters to the Assad regime and has sent observers to take note of what's happening.

        • by Rei (128717)

          And if that doesn't work, they're going to tattle to Syria's mom.

      • by tbannist (230135)

        The U.N. exists to prevent the U.S., China, England, France and Russia from going to war with each other. That is its primary purpose, that's why each of those nations have permanent security council seats and vetos. China and Russia and have been using their vetos to allow the Syrian bloodshed to play out. The implicit threat is that they would consider going to war over the issue if the rest of the world intervenes.

    • by Hatta (162192)

      Indeed. This is Syria's business.

  • Assange has requested asylum from Equador. We all know where he is. Last I heard, he was also on the ballot in Australia and has a TV show on hulu.com, so he's not exactly low-profile either.

    • by bsane (148894)

      'hiding' is exactly what he is doing, it has more than one meaning:

      http://www.thefreedictionary.com/hiding [thefreedictionary.com]

      v.intr.
      2. To seek refuge.

    • Uh if hes not "hiding" he fucking should be. Basically he has leaked confidential U.S. documents, that makes him a high priority target, and if he is extradited, 1 of two things will happen, one: he will be executed (not likely) two: he will be prosecuted for some crime and put in a hole for the rest of eternity (most likely). is this instance hiding is not a cowardly thing, is a survival tactic.
      • Uh if hes not "hiding" he fucking should be. Basically he has leaked confidential U.S. documents, that makes him a high priority target, and if he is extradited, 1 of two things will happen, one: he will be executed (not likely) two: he will be prosecuted for some crime and put in a hole for the rest of eternity (most likely).

        Precedent from Watergate says that Assange has nothing to fear from a US Court for the leaked documents.

        Unless, of course, it can be proved that he either paid or encouraged Manning t

  • by jellomizer (103300) on Thursday July 05, 2012 @08:39AM (#40550713)

    "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.

    • by daem0n1x (748565) on Thursday July 05, 2012 @09:09AM (#40551053)

      "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!

  • 2.5m? (Score:4, Funny)

    by hobarrera (2008506) on Thursday July 05, 2012 @08:48AM (#40550819) Homepage

    They're releasing 2.5metres of emails? Or maybe it's miles!

    • by Quakeulf (2650167)
      They're using standard-issue A4 office printer paper, which is quite thin. Besides, I don't think the governments communicated enough.
    • by Kinthelt (96845)

      The length of a standard DDR3 DIMM is 82mm. So assuming each DIMM is 1GB that comes out to approximately 30.5 GB of emails.

    • 2.5 metres of emails is a decent amount of data on a modern data tape.

  • by King_TJ (85913) on Thursday July 05, 2012 @08:58AM (#40550925) Journal

    This concept may be foreign to some people living on this planet, but certainly as a U.S. citizen, I was raised believing in the idea. As an adult, I've learned what a fantasy it really is today ... but that's doesn't mean it's not a worthy goal to keep striving for.

    So thanks again, wikileaks -- because a govt. keeping secrets isn't a very accountable one.

    • I do think that governments keep too many secrets. That said, a government should have the capability to keep some secrets.

      While it would be interesting, I don't want to know (for example) the list of spies we have planted in the Iranian government. I don't want to know the location of our nuclear warheads. I also don't want to know every detail of the president's schedule for the next six months.

      A fully transparent government is a wonderful ideal, but like many ideals it just doesn't work well in practice.

      • by Hatta (162192)

        I don't want to know (for example) the list of spies we have planted in the Iranian government.

        I do. Those spies are almost certainly making our diplomatic relations with Iran worse. I don't feel safer with spies in Iran. If I knew exactly how many spies we had in Iran, I could pressure my representative to hold hearings to justify our espionage.

        I don't want to know the location of our nuclear warheads.

        I do. Then I could go protest there.

        I also don't want to know every detail of the president's schedule

    • So thanks again, wikileaks -- because a govt. keeping secrets isn't a very accountable one.

      The problem I have is that the GOVT should still be able to keep secrets from OTHER governments. Let's assume that what you want is for the U.S. GOVT to not keep any secrets from you, theoretically a valid U.S. citizen. But, I argue that we still want to keep those secrets from other governments, including our possible and potential allies. WikiLeaks unfortunately makes no such distinctions. So, explain to me why you think that a particular sovereignty should not keep any information from other nations

  • List of Releases (Score:5, Informative)

    by mat.power (2677517) on Thursday July 05, 2012 @09:43AM (#40551515)
    Here's the link: http://wikileaks.org/syria-files/releases.html [wikileaks.org]
  • At first glance, I read that as "Sybian Emails", and was wondering what the contents could possibly be.
  • It looks like Julian Assange is seeking to endear himself with the US government in joining the Western-led anti-Syrian bashing train. But somehow, I doubt this will help him redeem himself in the eyes of the Empire. And no, don't get me started about how evil the Assad regime is, considering that the only realistic alternative [bbc.co.uk] could be a lot worse. Quo vadis, Wikileaks?
    • by dkleinsc (563838)

      ... could be a lot worse.

      A lot worse for whom exactly? Certainly not the portions of the Syrian population that are getting killed by their own government.

      I mean, how exactly would you react if the US government started dropping bombs on, say, Houston? Would you want the rest of the world to say "Hey, that's better than having a Texan in the White House!"

6 Curses = 1 Hexahex

Working...