Wikileaks releases 92,000 classified documents on Afghanistan

[swansont]

Look at what I was replying to: I was acting under the assumption that any names being left in was a mistake. If, with the gov' not releasing this data, someone else leaks it and does the best they can to protect people on the front line and accidentally leave some names in, and they die, I'd place the blame on the gov' for not doing it themselves and still say WL was justified in leaking the document.

 

 

 

Can you clarify this? You'd place the blame on the government for what, exactly? Does "not doing it" refer to securing the list of names?

[ParanoiA]

Can you clarify this? You'd place the blame on the government for what, exactly? Does "not doing it" refer to securing the list of names?

 

I think he's referring to his point about the government not reporting these incidents. If I understand his argument correctly, he's ok with Wikileaks doing what it is doing if the government is "not doing it" - the assumption being it's the government's responsibility to its people. If the government is reporting this kind of inconvenient information, then Wikileak's necessity becomes more questionable.

[swansont]

I think he's referring to his point about the government not reporting these incidents. If I understand his argument correctly, he's ok with Wikileaks doing what it is doing if the government is "not doing it" - the assumption being it's the government's responsibility to its people. If the government is reporting this kind of inconvenient information, then Wikileak's necessity becomes more questionable.

 

I'd prefer to have Dak confirm this, because I don't think a list of names of people whose lives would be in danger if the names were made public is merely "inconvenient information."

 

I hope that we can all agree that there exists some information that, if released, puts lives in danger. And then perhaps we can move on and agree that the government has no obligation to make this information public.

[Dak]

Hehe, too many pronouns being chucked around the place ambiguously.

 

ParanoiA's "inconvenient information" refers to accurate reports about the war, not the list of names. He's saying if the gov' reported that inconvenient info, then WL's wouldn't have to; and he's right, that's entirely my point.

 

My "not doing it" refers to not performing a managed release of the details of the war themselves (sans ONLY information that would put field-agents at risk). I.e., if anyone dies as a result of this leak it's not WL's fault for doing a bad job, it's the gov's fault for not doing it themselves, thus necessitating a less-well-equipped 3rd party leaking it. And yes, under the assumption that it's the gov's responsibility to be as honest as possible with its population about what they're paying to be done on their behalf for their benifit within their 'democratic' country.

 

Otoh, WL is obliged, imo, to at least try to minimize unnecessary harm. Assange claims to have tried to identify informants and withhold those reports for now, but it seems he maybe didn't do a perfect job (like the gov' could probably have done, if they'd released the data).

 

Certainly, if the gov' was releasing this data and WL leaked it again but less well redacted and without adding anything of any particular importance into the public's reach, thus putting lives at risk for no reason, then I'd think Assange was a pillock.

 

(btw, does anyone else think it's bad practice for the US military reports to have informants names on them in the first place? Sure, there needs to be some record of who the informants are somewhere, but why log it all in the centralized, potentially leakable database?)

 

yes and yes on your last two points, btw.

 

Ah, fair enough. I don't know how much I agree with your reasoning here either, but clearly you weren't presenting the false dichotomy.

 

To be honest, I share the somewhat natural impulse to support and encourage exposing government secrets and such, particularly in a free society that participates in its governing. But I equally challenge the auto-magic notion that it surely must always = good.

 

Well, not always = good, I agree. I guess in this case we'll, to some degree, have to wait to see what new revelations we get about the war vs. how many Afghani informants/US troops die.

[ParanoiA]

Hehe, too many pronouns being chucked around the place ambiguously.

 

ParanoiA's "inconvenient information" refers to accurate reports about the war, not the list of names. He's saying if the gov' reported that inconvenient info, then WL's wouldn't have to; and he's right, that's entirely my point.

 

Well hell, at least we understand each other.

 

(btw, does anyone else think it's bad practice for the US military reports to have informants names on them in the first place? Sure, there needs to be some record of who the informants are somewhere, but why log it all in the centralized, potentially leakable database?)

 

Now that you mention it, yes. That does seem a bit careless. I wonder if that changes now.

[swansont]

Thanks, Dak. I agree that the military/government probably classifies way more information than it needs to based solely on security; there is likely a lot of "sanitizing" classification that happens that occurs solely to prevent embarrassment or for other PR-type reasons.

 

As far as why you have the names in a database, I can only guess, but no matter where you put it, its still leakable. Making it harder to leak by compartmentalizing it also makes it harder to access in general, so it slows everything down. There's a joke that the only secure system is one that never gets turned on, but of course, it's a useless device for getting work done, too. It's a compromise. Anyone dealing with computer security knows that protecting from an internal threat is a whole different ballgame from protecting against an external threat. Despite all the news about hackers, disgruntled (or incompetent) employees do a whole lot of damage to systems, too.

[Pangloss]

Dak, just to bookend this, I don't think there's a single thing that could be found in those documents that could change public opinion about the already-stated timetable for withdrawal, and I'm opposed to leaking information that undermines intelligence operations and puts people at risk over a stated political agenda. In my opinion that's not just a slippery slope, it's sliding a long way down it and inviting the Other Guys to do the same (and raise the ante further) when they get back into power.

 

But I respect your opinion on it, and just to find some common ground, I agree that secrecy frequently goes too far, and I have no problem with people using this data now that it's out there to analyze what's happened and look for fault.

[ParanoiA]

Wikileaks founder Julian Assange accused of rape. Woah, WTF?

 

The warrant was issued late yesterday, said a spokeswoman at Sweden's prosecutors' office in Stockholm.

 

She said Assange should contact the Swedish police for questioning about the accusations of molestation and rape in two separate cases "so that he can be confronted with the suspicions".

 

Assange has denied the charges, which were first reported by the Swedish tabloid Expressen, on Wikileaks' Twitter account.

 

He implied that they were linked to the release by the whistleblowers' website of a huge cache of US military records on the Afghan war, which were published in collaboration with the Guardian and two other newspapers.

 

Assange wrote: "The charges are without basis and their issue at this moment is deeply disturbing."

 

Earlier postings on the Twitter account implied the accusations were part of a dirty tricks campaign against the Wikileaks founder, who has been strongly criticised by the Pentagon.

 

"Expressen is a tabloid; No one here has been contacted by Swedish police. Needless to say, this will prove hugely distracting.

 

"We were warned to expect 'dirty tricks'. Now we have the first one."

 

Well this should be interesting...

[Pangloss]

"Dirty tricks"? Well if he's gonna throw that out there then I guess I'm free to speculate. If it's one of those "she said she was 18 deals" then it's not like he didn't play a role (unless of course the CIA used its orbital mind control lasers -- gotta watch out for those!).

 

But perhaps it's more along the lines of a complete fabrication. I guess we need more info. Perhaps we can find out from someone on the inside who has, oh I don't know, maybe access to certain documents....

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

http://www.swedishwi...kileaks-founder

 

Swedish prosecutors said Saturday they had cancelled an arrest warrant issued for the founder of controversial whistleblower website WikiLeaks, Julian Assange, suspected of rape in Sweden.

 

"Chief prosecutor Eva Finne has come to the decision that Julian Assange is not suspected of rape," said a statement on the prosecution service's website.

 

Well, I guess they take it back.

[ParanoiA]

Well...not quite...

 

The arrest warrant filed Friday had also mentioned a molestation charge, but molestation -- which is not limited to child victims in Sweden -- is not a crime punishable behind bars in Sweden.

 

Karin Rosander, a spokeswoman for the prosecutor's office, told CNN affiliate TV4 that Assange is still being investigated for molestation. Earlier, Rosander told CNN that Assange was arrested in absentia Friday night, and faced charges in relation to two separate instances, but she did not have more detail about when the alleged crimes occurred or the identities of the alleged victims.

 

Woah, they seriously don't put people away for molestation in Sweden?

 

I don't know, sounds to me like it's going to be unfounded also.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

What exactly is the penalty, then, if he is found guilty of molestation? Some sort of fine?

[Pangloss]

I liked the "arrested in absentia" bit.

[Marat]

It's always difficult to translate the terms of one legal system into those of another, and this becomes especially tricky when the translation is being made from civil law systems, such as Sweden has, and the legal system most of us are familiar with, the common law. It appears that 'legal grounds for arrest' as the notion is being used in the Swedish legal system amounts to something more like 'legal grounds for detention and questioning' in common law, which involves a much lower standard than the grounds for arrest. Sweden only wanted to confront Mr. Wikileaks with evidence, not charge and imprison him pending trial, as they seemed to explain their grounds for 'arrest in absentia.'

 

But from the fact of the charge and its quick withdrawal I would guess that the back story is both dramatic and amusing, involving a lot of diplomatic arm-twisting from the U.S. to get Sweden to act as its attack dog to teach people not to play fast and loose with American secrets. Once Sweden regained its composure and sense of national pride after caving into the first phase of American pressure, it reasserted its principles of legal fairness and withdrew the charges.

 

Sexual molestation may just amount to the crime of sexual touching, which includes any unwanted touching in an intimate area. An airport security guard would commit this crime hundreds of times a day during pat-down searches if the people patted down did not consent first.

[DJBruce]

So the Swedish prosecutor has decided to open an official investigation, and has asked for Julian Assange to be brought in for questioning.

 

My link

STOCKHOLM—A Swedish prosecutor said she would open a formal investigation into an allegation that WikiLeaks' founder Julian Assange engaged in "molestation" of a woman.

 

Chief Prosecutor Eva Finne, in a statement on the prosecutor's website, said she has asked police to bring Mr. Assange in for questioning

 

Wikileaks apparently is set to release some leak from the CIA today. This could get really interesting if it has anything to do with the allegations.

[DJBruce]

Never mind my speculation that the leak might be about the rape case. The leak was of a document discussing what would happen to America's world standing if it came to be known as an exporter of terrorism. It was an interesting read though.

[Dak]

unless of course the CIA used its orbital mind control lasers -- gotta watch out for those!

 

Or one of their 14-year-olds who look and act 20, if you want a more realistic way of controlling someone's actions into committing ' child molestation' (AoC is apparently 15 in sweden).

 

What exactly is the penalty, then, if he is found guilty of molestation? Some sort of fine?

 

No idea how reliable it is, but: http://www.ageofconsent.com/sweden.htm

 

But from the fact of the charge and its quick withdrawal I would guess that the back story is both dramatic and amusing, involving a lot of diplomatic arm-twisting from the U.S. to get Sweden to act as its attack dog to teach people not to play fast and loose with American secrets.

 

Or it could be a WikiLeaks supporter trying to make it appear as if the US gov' is playing Sneaky Buggers. Or he could have fiddled a kid. Or the US could be trying to associate paedophillia with 'leaks', in order to aid framing an upcoming argument about censorship in terms of 'think of the children'.

 

Probably best to ignore the issue, tbh.

[Pangloss]

Or one of their 14-year-olds who look and act 20, if you want a more realistic way of controlling someone's actions into committing ' child molestation' (AoC is apparently 15 in sweden).

 

It's possible. I think the reason people find that hard to believe is that it's hard to picture President Obama ordering such an act. And if it were some sort of conservative rogue agent within the CIA who did it to hurt Obama, then they'd probably want us to know that the CIA did it. Which leaves only the possibility of a conservative rogue agent who (A) disagrees with Obama's decision not to order this sort of action, but (B) doesn't hate Obama enough to get him into this kind of trouble!

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

It's worth noting that "molestation" under Swedish law does not have to be sexual. It's better translated as "harassment."

 

http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2010/08/julian_assange_1.html

 

Bizarrely the offence for which Julian is wanted for questioning in Sweden was dropped from rape to sexual harassment, and then from sexual harassment to just harassment. The precise law in Swedish, as translated for me and other Sam Adams alumni by our colleague Major Frank Grevil, reads: "He who lays hands on or by means of shooting from a firearm, throwing of stones, noise or in any other way harasses another person will be sentenced for harassment to fines or imprisonment for up to one year."

 

 

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Wikileaks update:

 

http://edition.cnn.c...dex.html?hpt=T2

 

Washington (CNN) -- The online leak of thousands of secret military documents from the war in Afghanistan by the website WikiLeaks did not disclose any sensitive intelligence sources or methods, the Department of Defense concluded.

 

Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said there is still concern Afghans named in the published documents could be retaliated against by the Taliban, though a NATO official said there has been no indication that this has happened.

 

So far, looks like the horrors that were promised have not occurred. Rumor has it, though, that Wikileaks has several hundred thousand Iraq war documents they'll be releasing sometime next week.

[jackson33]

The Pentagon is bracing itself for the potential fallout of the release of secret documents detailing the inner workings of the Iraq War. According to multiple reports, the Pentagon has been sifting through the database where the documents originated. A Pentagon spokesperson said that it set up a 120-person task force several weeks ago to determine the potential implications and damage of the military reports being leaked.[/Quote]

 

http://mashable.com/2010/10/15/wikileaks-to-release-400000-secret-documents-as-funding-concerns-loom/

 

The documents are expected to be released simultaneously by The New York Times, The Guardian and Der Spiegel, the same organizations that released the Afghanistan “War Logs.”[/Quote]

 

http://www.myfoxny.com/dpps/news/wikileaks-to-release-400000-iraq-war-files-dpgonc-km-20101017_10153285

 

Apparently tonight or Monday, but the concern in my mind should be on who is leaking these files. Since for all practical purposes anything destructive to the American Government has already been discussed or revealed to a large degree and these documents deal in past tense, I fail to understand the concerns.

 

As for the revelation the Afghan releases were much to do about nothing, I think many here suggested that outcome....