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.
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.
Re:And this is why (Score:4, Funny)
Re:And this is why (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
A police officer recently explained to me "we can only be where we are" as I complained that they had speed traps in thoroughfares with no residential instead of near schools where safety would matter.
Then he wrote me the ticket ;-)
Re:And this is why (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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)
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)
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: (Score:3)
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)
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)
Anyone who rules by decree is a dictator. It doesn't matter where are they are from, or what they do.
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re:And this is why (Score:4)
Re: (Score:3)
There was evidence of vote tampering and fraud in that election.
Re:And this is why (Score:4, Informative)
Care to cite any evidence? As far as I know, elections in Venezuela are closely watched by thousands of UN observers, and they never declared any significant fraud since Chavez is in power. Check this [cartercenter.org].
Which is more than you can say about Baby Bush's first election...
Re:And this is why (Score:4, Interesting)
Anyone who rules by decree is a dictator. It doesn't matter where are they are from, or what they do.
In fact, you'd think we'd know a dictator when we see one, given our vast experience.
You [wikipedia.org] would [saskfarmersmarket.com] hope [prisonplanet.com] so [wordpress.com], but to be honest I don't have a lot of faith in your judgement. Sorry.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re:And this is why (Score:4, Informative)
http://articles.cnn.com/2009-08-18/world/venezuela.radio_1_venezuelan-president-hugo-chavez-venezuelan-law-press-freedom?_s=PM:WORLD [cnn.com]
http://www.salon.com/2012/06/02/venezuela_prohibits_sales_of_guns_ammunition/ [salon.com]
Of those twelve seconds, I spent three picking out sources from the "liberal media". Just for you.
Re: (Score:3)
You articles show that he asked for emergency powers after a disaster, that he implemented gun control laws and that he closed some private media corporations (since when is CNN liberal?!). The first two are opinions about possible future dictatoryness. Note the words 'critics warn' and 'said[...]a U.S. government office'. This is not evidence, it is opinion. The last one is the only one that even
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
citation 2 [fas.org]
citation 3 [cpj.org]
citation 4 [blogspot.ca]
citation 5 [guardian.co.uk]
citation 6 [rsf.org]
citation 7 [laht.com]
citation 8 [globaljournalist.org]
citation 9 [utexas.edu]
citation 10 [cpj.org]
Okay, there's 10 citations for you. Begin your spin, denouncements, deflections, justifications, and outright lies.....
Re:And this is why (Score:5, Informative)
The Bank of America data (along with some other interesting stuff) was deleted by Daniel Domscheit-Berg [huffingtonpost.com].
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I still don't know how that fucker sleeps at night.
Re:And this is why (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
He sleeps very well, I guess. On a pillow made of money...
Disclaimer: I have no idea what actually transpired but such "unfortunate events" exactly in the right time always make my skin crawl....I smell a rat
Re: (Score:3)
ow that fucker sleeps at night
On the pile of cash the CIA paid him as a plant and agent provocateur.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:And this is why (Score:5, Funny)
And they say that the Titanic was sunk by someone named Iceberg! Clearly the world zionist conspiracy is afoot!
Re: (Score:2)
There's a good chance it's going to turn out to be too much, too soon. There's a reason that "truth and reconciliation" type things are handled gently, and only after the gunplay has died down. See South Africa, East Germany, etc. Now is not the time, and this is not the method. A rash of revenge killings isn't going to help Syria move forward as a country.
The reason that "truth and reconciliation" is 'handled gently' is that it tends to occur in places where the necessary political will isn't available to manage actual justice. It's a feel-good way of letting your criminals off the hook because you are too weak, or too compromised by them, or too sympathetic toward them, to do anything else.
An actual justice system is, of course, preferable; but revenge killings are sometimes the only sort of judgement to which one's malefactors can ever be expected to b
Re: (Score:2)
No, because eventually all persons die, whereas the cycle of vengeance can continue unabated, ergo impunity is not uglier than vengeance.
Re: (Score:2)
Forgiveness isn't weakness. Revenge is due to the weakness of having to obtain an emotional vindication against someone else who may have wronged you or your family, but without any way of restoring the dead to life or removing the pain of torture, rape, etc. All that is required for civilization to maintain peace and security is to ensure that those who may have committed those crimes are unable to do so in the future. It doesn't matter if they are living in a comfortable exile except for those who feel
pics? (Score:2)
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.
How Wikileaks will take itself out. . . (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Yep, because a military strike into a first world country would do so much for Assad's position.
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: (Score:2)
The problem with moral relativism (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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
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)
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: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:You're talking to the wrong crowd (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry to disappoint, but I'm not paid to do anything. By your logic — especially since you're posting as AC and thus hiding your identity! — you must be shilling for some agenda, no? Please also explain how Syria's actions can be defended.
I do find it amusing that anyone you disagree with must be "playing political games", and that you think I should have a "disclaimer" in my sig. That says what? "Warning — you may find ideas which run counter to yours difficult to swallow"?
Give me a break
Re: (Score:2)
(Successful troll is successful.)
So let me get this straight:
You believe that I'm posting on slashdot as part of official duties, and that I am being paid to do this — AND that I make no effort to hide who I am — wait, wait, let me guess: so that I have some Princess-Bride-poison-scene plausible deniability or some other nonsense, instead of, oh, I don't know, just hiding my identity or even posting as AC?
Wow. Just...wow. Thanks for putting a smile on my face! :-)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:You're talking to the wrong crowd (Score:4, Interesting)
The video was not "chilling" unless you expect war to be a happy affair
Most people don't think about the costs of war. Presenting them with actual footage really does chill the general public. If it didn't, they wouldn't bother hiding it from us.
Yes, war is hell and sometimes people choose to do it anyway. But if they do, they should be presented with the consequences of their choices as directly and as often as possible. This is the service that Wikileaks provided with its release of Collateral Murder.
Re: (Score:2)
Then why didn't the military release the collateral murder video itself? If this is the kind of thing we want to achieve, then they should be proud of their successes.
No, the actual reason is that most people are horrified by unnecessary killing, and you are just a sick fuck.
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: (Score:2, Interesting)
Neligence matters too, and that's where the US troops in the video fell foul.
Most militaries in the world are trained to confirm their targets before firing, America fails miserably at this which is precisely why it's everything from the butt of countless friendly fire jokes, to being see as a hated occupying army by the Iraqis and Afghans.
The fact is the people in question, and most certainly the vehicle that tried to help were not an immediate threat to anyone. Any other military force with a care for hum
Re:You're talking to the wrong crowd (Score:4, Informative)
You would be wrong. The entire video does not show the crime, it shows the context for the crime that takes place in one specific part of the video.
When the van pulls onto the scene in the video, you can hear the gunner begging for permission to open fire. And then lying to his CO over the radio, claiming that the people were collecting guns and bodies, when they were very very clearly only retrieving the 1 wounded survivor. Wither or not there was some mistaken identity earlier is debatable. but that specific instance with the van? That is most definitely a crime.
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:3)
Finally... (Score:5, Interesting)
...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.
Re:Finally... (Score:4)
Re: (Score:2)
The UN has sent many strongly-worded letters to the Assad regime and has sent observers to take note of what's happening.
Re: (Score:3)
And if that doesn't work, they're going to tattle to Syria's mom.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. This is Syria's business.
Assange is not hiding. (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
'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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
What makes you think he would ever get a day in court in the US?
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: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: (Score:2)
It was filtered out.
2.5m? (Score:4, Funny)
They're releasing 2.5metres of emails? Or maybe it's miles!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
2.5 metres of emails is a decent amount of data on a modern data tape.
Govt. By The People, FOR The People .... (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Why don't you publish all of your work emails, since you have nothing to hide. Assuming you aren't an unemployed basement-dweller, that is.
In the case of a great many civil servants, all their work emails are subject to public records laws. Unless their employer feels like stonewalling for them, or they work largely on classified stuff, the main thing keeping their email unpublished is lack of interest...
List of Releases (Score:5, Informative)
Was it just me? (Score:2)
Wikileaks joins Syria bashing train? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
... 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!"
Re:Droning on and on (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Above the law ? (Score:4, Interesting)
Wow, talk about wild eyed assertions. Accusing Wikileaks of being a front for "something else" with absolutely no evidence whatsoever. Sounds to me like you just don't like what they do, so you will say any damn ridiculous thing you can to try and discredit them.
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: (Score:2)
We try really hard to keep them locked up in basements and such, but occasionally the crazy gets out.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, the Prime Directive [wikipedia.org] wasn't invented yet in this time and age. It is exactly this current kind of overzealous interventionism with all those painful unintended consequences that will eventually lead the world to adopt it sometime in the future.
Re: (Score:3)
Sorry, but that is 100% false and pure victim smearing [guardian.co.uk]. And there is no such charge as "sex by surprise". The charge they want to try him for (well, one of the four) is "mindre grov våldtäkt" ("minor rape" - literally, "less than major rape"), but had it happened in the UK it would simply be prosecuted as "rape". Which isn't speculation; that's what the British lower court determined and what the high court upheld. The total maximum penalty is 4 years jail time.
The term "sex by surprise" comes