At first glance, it looks like pretty gruesome Vietnam-war type coverage. Kinda sad that we have to follow up embedded reporter propaganda with proper coverage from data leaks years after the fact.
Some bits: G:
quote:The new logs detail how:
• US authorities failed to investigate hundreds of reports of abuse, torture, rape and even murder by Iraqi police and soldiers whose conduct appears to be systematic and normally unpunished.
• A US helicopter gunship involved in a notorious Baghdad incident had previously killed Iraqi insurgents after they tried to surrender.
• More than 15,000 civilians died in previously unknown incidents. US and UK officials have insisted that no official record of civilian casualties exists but the logs record 66,081 non-combatant deaths out of a total of 109,000 fatalities.
The numerous reports of detainee abuse, often supported by medical evidence, describe prisoners shackled, blindfolded and hung by wrists or ankles, and subjected to whipping, punching, kicking or electric shocks. Six reports end with a detainee's apparent death.
quote:The whistleblowing activists say they have deleted all names from the documents that might result in reprisals. They were accused by the US military of possibly having "blood on their hands" over the previous Afghan release by redacting too few names. But the military recently conceded that no harm had been identified.
DS:
quote:One month before the beginning of the invasion, Bush had blustered that the overthrow of dictator Saddam Hussein and "a new regime in Iraq would serve as a dramatic and inspiring example of freedom for other nations in the region." But the military that withdrew after seven years of war was a demoralized force that had long since ceased to believe in the noble goals of the campaign.
The documents faithfully reflect this change. In the roughly 400,000 documents, the word "democracy" appears only eight times. The "improvised explosive devices" which instilled fear in the hearts of American soldiers, however, are mentioned 146,895 times.
[ April 25, 2011, 02:10 AM: Message edited by: Mucus ]
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I want to say we don't deserve this, but the bush administration assured that we deserved to have a leak like this rubbed in our faces.
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
quote: • More than 15,000 civilians died in previously unknown incidents. US and UK officials have insisted that no official record of civilian casualties exists but the logs record 66,081 non-combatant deaths out of a total of 109,000 fatalities.
This one makes me more than a little bit sick.
Posted by Misha McBride (Member # 6578) on :
quote:66,081 non-combatant deaths out of a total of 109,000 fatalities
Jesus H. Christ
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
we will be greeted as liberators
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:In two Iraqi cases postmortems revealed evidence of death by torture. On 27 August 2009 a US medical officer found "bruises and burns as well as visible injuries to the head, arm, torso, legs and neck" on the body of one man claimed by police to have killed himself. On 3 December 2008 another detainee, said by police to have died of "bad kidneys", was found to have "evidence of some type of unknown surgical procedure on [his] abdomen".
Posted by Danlo the Wild (Member # 5378) on :
So much was 'wasted' on the war it is unquantifiable.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I must admit when I conceptualize the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, I don't really think about what for example the Iraqis who are supposed to be on "our" side do to other Iraqis. That is a grave mistake.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
What astonishes me is that people are surprised or shocked at any of this. What did we think would happen? Wars cause atrocity. Wars are an atrocity.
And next time the drums beat, we will have forgotten this again.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
The Guardian piece breaks the death totals down a bit:
1) Of the total 109,000 deaths 31,780 were caused by emplanted IEDs and 34,814 were due to sectarian killings. The article doesn't break down the remaining 43,000.
2) The 109,000 deaths were classified as 66,081 civilians, 23,984 enemy, 15,196 Iraqi security forces, and 3,771 US and allied soldiers.
3) At least one organization has pointed to the lack of documented civilian deaths in the battle of Fallujah as evidence that there are many civilian deaths not included in the documents.
The other thing made evident from the documents (according to the articles I've read) is that Iran was playing a much more active role than was popularly understood. There appears to be significant documentation of Iranians training and supplying weapons to the Iraqi Shia militias (including advanced IEDs that, as mentioned before, have killed tens of thousands of Iraqis).
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
A couple notes, I think the controversy about FRAGO 242 and knowingly looking the other way during torture is worth emphasizing, i.e. "Provided the initial report confirms US forces were not involved in the detainee abuse, no further investigation will be conducted unless directed by HHQ."
This is notable for two reasons: 1) Although it has partially escaped the collective memory, torture chambers were a highly visible factor cited for why Saddam Hussein *had* to be brought down
quote:President Bush Welcomes Canadian Prime Minister Martin to White House ... PRESIDENT BUSH: A year ago, I did give the speech from the carrier, saying that we had achieved an important objective, that we'd accomplished a mission, which was the removal of Saddam Hussein. And as a result, there are no longer torture chambers or rape rooms or mass graves in Iraq. As a result, a friend of terror has been removed, and now sits in a jail.
quote:Remarks by the President to the Philippine Congress ... We also ended one of the cruelest regimes in our time. Saddam's rape rooms and torture chambers and children's prisons are closed forever. His mass graves will claim no victims. The world was right to confront the regime of Saddam Hussein, and we were right to end the regime of Saddam Hussein.
2) This could potentially have political ramifications in the US and the UK:
quote:The UN has called on Barack Obama to order a full investigation of US forces' involvement in human rights abuses in Iraq after a massive leak of military documents that detail torture, summary executions and war crimes.
The call, by the UN's chief investigator on torture, Manfred Nowak, came as Phil Shiner, human rights specialist at Public Interest Lawyers in the UK, warned that some of the deaths documented in the Iraq war logs could have involved British forces and would be pursued through the UK courts. He demanded a public inquiry into allegations that British troops were responsible for civilian deaths during the conflict. ... Nowak said the US had an obligation "whenever they expel, extradite or hand over any detainees to the authorities of another state to assess whether or not these individuals are under specific risk of torture. If this assessment is not done, or authorities hand over detainees knowing there is a serious risk of them being subjected to torture, they violate article 3 of the UN convention that precludes torture."
I'm not sure how likely "consequences" are in the US given the Obama's past record although it is worth noting that a similar scandal in Canada in regards to Afghanistan lead to a lengthy confrontation between the opposition parties and the Conservative government leading to the partial release of documents and the controversial suspension of Parliament. In that case, the initial "leak" was via Access to Information requests and testimony by a high-ranking diplomat though. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Afghan_detainee_issue Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Minor updates:
quote: WikiLeaks Iraq war logs: Nick Clegg calls for investigation of abuse claims
Any suggestions that the rules of war have been broken or torture condoned are 'extremely serious', says deputy PM
quote:WikiLeaks yesterday promised to publish 15,000 more documents about the war in Afghanistan.
quote:"Assange to CNN: 'Do you want to talk about deaths of 104,000 people or my personal life?'" CNN's answer could not have been clearer: the latter, definitely.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:It is a hallmark of cross-border diplomacy to keep all the bruises hidden, whenever and wherever possible. Or at the very least wait a generation before the fading scars are shown.
That’s why today, nearly 40 years after the fact, we still know only fragments of what the famously pugnacious Richard Nixon had to say about that “clever son of a bitch,” Pierre Elliott Trudeau.
Barely half of the 3,700 hours of Nixon tapes have been made public so far. The full heft of the former president’s views on Canada may not be known for generations to come, if ever.
Contrast that with the almost nuclear silence in Ottawa, Washington and other world capitals Thursday, as tight-lipped officials brace for a vast weekend WikiLeaks dump of America’s dirty diplomatic laundry.
These won’t be stale Nixon-era rants. Rather, they are expected to be startlingly fresh dispatches from America’s inner diplomatic ego — a mountain of classified U.S. State Department documents, some of which may cut to the heart of the here-and-now, from Guantanamo Bay to Afghanistan and beyond, with unkind words for close allies.
quote:The cables could also show that allies sometimes take private actions that directly contradict publicly declared policies. The London-based daily al-Hayat reported that WikiLeaks is planning to release files that show Turkey has helped al-Qaeda in Iraq - and that the United States has helped the PKK, a Kurdish rebel organization.
The documents reportedly suggest that the United States has supported the PKK, which has been waging a separatist war against Turkey since 1984 and has been classified by the State Department as a terrorist organization since 1979.
News reports from around the globe indicate that foreign governments are bracing for the impact of the revelations.
I'm actually surprised how long these guys are lasting. I would have guessed that the US would have found some extra-judicial methods of shutting them down by now. At least it looks like some disgruntled former Wikileaks people have already setup a "backup" organization, so thats good news when they finally fall.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
We're shocked Assange hasn't been run over by a car and declared a suicide bu US officials hurried to the scene.
Regardless I am completely unsympathetic, they ultimately have no right to complain, "do whatever for our national security" fine, but if you get caught you deserve everything.
It'ld be awesome if Turkey leaves NATO or something similarly major happens.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:It'ld be awesome if Turkey leaves NATO or something similarly major happens.
Why would that be awesome?
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Lulz?
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Lulz?
Turkey not being in NATO and possibly having its EU application rejected as part of the perception that they are just another Muslim country wouldn't be very funny to me.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
They've already being going down that trend already.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
It seems to me that if the rumours are true, then then the two claims (US funded terrorist attacks on Turkey, Turkey funded terrorist attacks on the US in Iraq) balance each other out.
The real question is as a part of the War on Terror, whether the US is prepared to invade itself. "Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists" after all Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: They've already being going down that trend already.
No they aren't, it's still a situation that could go either way.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Ild say that merely being in such a situation inherently implies that they've been following a trend of possible disingagement from the west.
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Ild say that merely being in such a situation inherently implies that they've been following a trend of possible disingagement from the west.
You'd be wrong. If you think that Turkey as a whole is slowly trying to disengage from the West, that is completely undermined by the fact they do have an active application to the EU and they are trying to get it seriously considered.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
This is sounding better and better.
quote:WikiLeaks, the whistle-blowing website, is said to be hours away from releasing around three million secret US government files. ... According to Der Spiegel, which was granted early access to the files, the release will contain more than 250,000 cables and 8,000 diplomatic directives - mostly from the last five years.
The German news magazine took down its article summarising the data dump after publishing it briefly online.
In addition to Der Spiegel, The New York Times, The Guardian, Le Monde and El País are said to have been allowed to review the files beforehand.
According to White House sources cited by a correspondent of the US website Politico, none of the documents are classified as 'Top Secret'. But reportedly six per cent are listed as 'Secret' and 40 per cent as "confidential".
Al Jazeera's Mike Hanna, reporting from Washington, said the leaks are from correspondence "between US diplomats and between US embassies ... not what is said about enemies, but about [US] friends".
He said the files could include particularly sensitive information previously "well out of the public view" about US diplomats' perceptions of crises in Israel and Palestine.
quote:He said that Hillary Clinton, the US secretary of state, had reached out to leaders in China, Germany, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Britain, France and Afghanistan regarding WikiLeaks.
The governments of Canada, Norway, and Denmark also said they had been briefed by US officials.
Israel has also been warned of potential embarrassment from the release, which could include confidential reports from the US embassy in Tel Aviv.
Authorities in Ankara were also contacted, a senior Turkish diplomat told the AFP news agency, speaking on condition of anonymity.
Too bad that the leak will obviously be one-sided from the American perspective, but it sounds totally epic, covering American perceptions of every important country around the world nonetheless.
Edit to add: Some scuttlebutt is that due to the size of the leaks, they might be spreading out the release over multiple days to maximize the coverage. I'm not sure how credible that since they seem to have sent out the whole thing as one encrypted package on p2p already, but we'll see I guess.
[ November 27, 2010, 06:27 PM: Message edited by: Mucus ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
This is extremely, awesomely beautiful.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Alright so the right wing blowhards that I know of are complaining about how this is tantamount to "murder" and wikileaks is responsible for any soldiers that die as a result of this etc, any credibility to this? Is wikileaks in anyway actually responsible for any significant fallout or are they justified in leaking confidential/top secret information?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I think they're ethically responsible, yes. But I suspect the actual military ramifications are going to be few and far between, and are ultimately better to avoid through the simple expedient of being honest with our communications in the first place.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
There is also a Spanish and French newspaper involved in the initial exclusive coverage but Aljazeera is conspicuously absent after having exclusives for the last two, not sure what to make of that. Looks like at least the New York Times is going to spread coverage over 9(!) days.
Also, reports of a coincidental DDOS attack on the main Wikileaks site.
Good Guardian summary of Day 1
quote:Even today there's a lot to read through so here's a brief precis of the initial revelations:
• The US is engaged in a spying campaign against the leadership of the United Nations. A directive issued under Hillary Clinton's name last year ordered American diplomats to seek details about both UN communication systems and personal details for top officials. • Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah has "frequently" urged the US to launch an attack against Iran in order to scupper Tehran's nuclear ambition. • The US has relentlessly pressured other countries, including close allies such as Italy and France, to distance themselves from Iran and assist American efforts to isolate Tehran • There's plenty more to come, including "claims of inappropriate behaviour" by a British royal and allegations of links between Russia's government and organised crime.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
They have a low threshold for revelations. The first is unsurprising in the extreme, the second is only interesting for the mild additional detail (Saudi opposition to Iran's nuclear ambitions is well known), the third is so well known as to be irrelevant, I don't know what's up with the British royal thing, and that there are links between Russia's government and organized crime is common knowledge.
Posted by Bella Bee (Member # 7027) on :
If you want to follow this in a couple of other languages, the Spanish and French papers are:
Every country on earth has diplomats who make rude comments about world leaders. It's just normal. (Though I do want to see what they said about David Cameron - whatever it is I'll probably agree with it). But really, it's the other revelations that are the interesting bit.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: They have a low threshold for revelations. The first is unsurprising in the extreme, the second is only interesting for the mild additional detail (Saudi opposition to Iran's nuclear ambitions is well known), the third is so well known as to be irrelevant, I don't know what's up with the British royal thing, and that there are links between Russia's government and organized crime is common knowledge.
Well, in instances where the names of diplomats are revealed won't it compromise their ability to do their jobs?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Picking the first example, I think there's a difference between knowing in vague detail that the US would spy on political leaders versus knowing precisely that Hilary Clinton specifically ordered the collection of DNA and iris scans on the UN security council in July 2009.
Is it necessarily "surprising"? No, not to me anyways. But does it count as a revelation? To me it does. Among other things, it is the difference between the idea that the US is collecting and exploiting genetic vulnerabilities of world leaders being a conspiracy theory or science fiction and being something in the realm of distinct plausibility.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
This event has made it painfully clear that some people are using the word 'terrorist' as blithely as McCarthy used the word 'communist.' Sarah Palin, in particular, said Julian Assange should be "hunted down with the same urgency we pursue al-Qaeda and Taliban leaders."
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Because, at any moment, a site run by Julian Assange might publish another embarrassing memo written by someone else and leaked by someone else! He's a monster! Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Because, at any moment, a site run by Julian Assange might publish another embarrassing memo written by someone else and leaked by someone else! He's a monster!
I think you are making light of this, and it is more serious than you realize. The data contained in these leaks is intelligence information that can be used by those that dislike the US to justify action against us.
Is Julian Assange a monster though? Depends on if the rape he is charged with actually took place.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
We should stop doing things that justify action against us if that's really a problem, IMO.
(BTW, you should research the "rape" in question -- and particularly what Swedish law considers rape -- before you start thinking of him as an accused rapist by American standards.)
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Geraine,
quote:The data contained in these leaks is intelligence information that can be used by those that dislike the US to justify action against us.
Another thing to be considered - from a strictly rational, facts-based perspective, that is - is 'did the US do the things mentioned in the leaks? Because if we as Americans are going to cry foul on the basis of potential harm done to Americans, well...come on, man. That's a very easy game to get into, and one which we will certainly lose, so I really don't know why you're starting it. One could simply say, "Well, US State/Defense/Intelligence/etc., don't do the things that are being leaked, and people won't take action justified on it."
I mean, it just doesn't make sense, the stance you're suggesting. What moral or ethical right do we have to keep this information secret, exactly? Please note I'm leaving legal and practical questions out, since you're trying to frame this in moral terms, it seems to me.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: We should stop doing things that justify action against us if that's really a problem, IMO.
++
Case in point
quote:NBC's Michael Isikoff has highlighted a case where the leaked information will be used as "a recruiting and propaganda tool" by al-Qaida. This is the revelation that the Yemeni government covered up the American role in missile strikes that killed 41 civilians, including 14 women and 21 children.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
*chuckle* This stuff is so sweet.
quote:The recent Wikileaks diplomatic document dump contains a cable from shortly before Germany's 2009 general election, articulating worries among US diplomats that the German Free Democratic Party's strong support for individual data privacy and protections against unreasonable search and seizure might hinder the efforts of the American national security state....The cable frames the FDP's support for citizens' privacy rights and individual liberties as a hindrance to US security strategy ... In a most ironic turn, the leaked cable scoffs at FDP Parliamentarian Gisela Piltz, who cautioned against data-sharing operations with the US government on the grounds that the US government as a whole lacks effective data protection measures even as it accumulates massive amounts of data on innocent citizens.
quote:Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) Director Judd ... Judd derided recent judgments ... These judgments posit that Canadian authorities cannot use information that "may have been" derived from torture, and that any Canadian public official who conveys such information may be subject to criminal prosecution. ... sections of the court-ordered release of a DVD of Guantanamo detainee and Canadian citizen Omar Khadr (ref D) would likely show three (Canadian) adults interrogating a kid who breaks down in tears. He observed that the images would no doubt trigger "knee-jerk anti-Americanism" and "paroxysms of moral outrage, a Canadian specialty," as well as lead to a new round of heightened pressure on the government to press for Khadr's return to Canada.
Glass half full, glass half empty I guess.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: *chuckle* This stuff is so sweet.
quote:The recent Wikileaks diplomatic document dump contains a cable from shortly before Germany's 2009 general election, articulating worries among US diplomats that the German Free Democratic Party's strong support for individual data privacy and protections against unreasonable search and seizure might hinder the efforts of the American national security state....The cable frames the FDP's support for citizens' privacy rights and individual liberties as a hindrance to US security strategy ... In a most ironic turn, the leaked cable scoffs at FDP Parliamentarian Gisela Piltz, who cautioned against data-sharing operations with the US government on the grounds that the US government as a whole lacks effective data protection measures even as it accumulates massive amounts of data on innocent citizens.
One of the disturbing things about this round of wikileaks is how unsecured the data was. I don't remember where I read it, but the official response that I read was something along the lines of "9/11 showed us that we had problems with overly compartmentalizing information, so we gave most people access to everything." Besides being really scary, this offends me as a IT person.
It illustrates that, as in so many other cases, instead of coming up with a coherent, well thought out strategy to deal with the problem of information compartmentalization, they went with the simplest knee-jerk reaction. In this case, they went with dumping all the information on everyone, which can be as bad or even worse than overly strict restrictions on information.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
It should be noted that Wikileaks also attempted in what looks like a good faith effort to work with the American government to obscure any information that could endanger people, but were summarily rebuffed, being told that the government wasn't going to negotiate on this release of the information.
In my book, that puts the American government as highly responsible for any people who were endangered by the stuff that wikileaks posted. I think it also suggests that they weren't really anywhere near as concerned about the potential danger represented by the information as they said they were.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Well. I kinda think that this kind of development is inevitable if the requirement is: a) to monitor more and more including emails, phone calls, etc. creating an intelligence industry that not only has three million with access to these particular files but as the Washington Post reported, one million with top secret access b) to share that information across multiple agencies and countries This is not to say that they can't try to prevent it (they certainly could have done a better job), but I think they're fighting an uphill battle.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:paroxysms of moral outrage, a Canadian specialty
As Canadian specialities go, I prefer this to poutine.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: We should stop doing things that justify action against us if that's really a problem, IMO.
(BTW, you should research the "rape" in question -- and particularly what Swedish law considers rape -- before you start thinking of him as an accused rapist by American standards.)
I am familiar with the Swedish rape laws, which is why I didn't post something like "OMFG A RAPIST LOCK HIM UP NAO!"
As for your comment about how we should stop doing things that justify action against us... Who are you even talking about? Do you consider yourself personally responsible for the deaths of civilians in Iraq? If you want to talk pure justice, should we send 104,000 US civilians over to Iraq and have them killed? Afterall, that would be the just thing to do.
Punish those involved in the killing of innocents. Lock them up. Don't blame yourself, me, or anyone else. If even one American citizen dies because of these leaks, that is one civilian too many.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Geraine,
quote:The data contained in these leaks is intelligence information that can be used by those that dislike the US to justify action against us.
Another thing to be considered - from a strictly rational, facts-based perspective, that is - is 'did the US do the things mentioned in the leaks? Because if we as Americans are going to cry foul on the basis of potential harm done to Americans, well...come on, man. That's a very easy game to get into, and one which we will certainly lose, so I really don't know why you're starting it. One could simply say, "Well, US State/Defense/Intelligence/etc., don't do the things that are being leaked, and people won't take action justified on it."
I mean, it just doesn't make sense, the stance you're suggesting. What moral or ethical right do we have to keep this information secret, exactly? Please note I'm leaving legal and practical questions out, since you're trying to frame this in moral terms, it seems to me.
Morally, there are times in which you hide information to spare others. If I hear a person saying horrible things about a friend, I may choose not to tell my friend what I heard, because it was cause more harm than good.
Likewise, there are reasons certain things in government are not released to the public. We may not like it, but sometimes it is needed. At times there are secrets that need to be kept in order to prevent harm to others.
That being said, I do not believe that we should hide that we killed so many innocent civilians in Iraq. Rather than hide it and bury it, we should apologize for it and try to make amends. That is our moral obligation. I am fine with documents such as these being leaked if the government was trying to cover them up.
The intelligence information however, specifically when it concerns heads of state should not be released freely. Some of the documents, specifically from Saudi Arabia asking the US to attack Iran, could provoke Iran into attacking the Saudis, Israel, or other countries.
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
quote:More than 15,000 civilians died in previously unknown incidents. US and UK officials have insisted that no official record of civilian casualties exists but the logs record 66,081 non-combatant deaths out of a total of 109,000 fatalities.
How can you be outraged at the potential for one American citizen's death, and not by 66,000 non-American citizen deaths?
And of course you, and me, and every American is somewhat responsible. We vote, pay taxes, and generally support our government.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
I am outraged that we killed innocents. I've never said that I'm not. But I would be equally outraged if an American civilian were killed because of the leak.
Would you? Or would you just shrug your shoulders and say "Oh well, guess we deserved it."
WW, by your logic, if we are all partly responsible, then are all of the innocent civilians in Iraq also responsible for their own deaths? You are on a slippery slope there.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
One might postulate that if the US fears its worst excesses are likely to become public knowledge, then those activities may be more restrained in the future and that innocent lives might actually be saved. It's awfully hard to convincingly argue that this sort of a release is likely to result in a net loss of life, which seems to be the primary argument being made against it.
Thus far no deaths have been tied to previous leaks despite similar complaints at the time of their release.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: It should be noted that Wikileaks also attempted in what looks like a good faith effort to work with the American government to obscure any information that could endanger people, but were summarily rebuffed, being told that the government wasn't going to negotiate on this release of the information.
In my book, that puts the American government as highly responsible for any people who were endangered by the stuff that wikileaks posted. I think it also suggests that they weren't really anywhere near as concerned about the potential danger represented by the information as they said they were.
We do not negotiate with terrorists. Now it's open to interpretation whether wikileaks is a terror group, but they are actively working against the American government, and other governments. I'm sympathetic to the fact that they could *potentially* have lessened the affect of the leak by cooperating, but you can also imagine that this would send something of a wrong message to the world- us working with people who are sharing our classified materials with the public, and with other countries. Aside from that, these materials were obtained illegally- you can't work with people with the understanding that they are breaking your laws. You can't legitimize that kind of behavior by saying, "well, now that's done, so we'll make this easier for you." That's also a hell of a message to send to your intelligence officers- "should you choose to commit treason by sharing classified information with foreign organizations, we'll make it ok by helping them to limit the consequences to your colleagues and friends." Or "don't worry about being too careful with how you handle this highly sensitive sh**, if wikileaks get their hands on it, we'll cooperate with them."
If wikileaks want to conduct their own brand of foreign relations, they shouldn't have an ounce of help from anyone- they should be subject to all the consequences- and all the consequences stemming from their acts are owned, in full, by them. The US cannot change what is in those documents, or the fact that we are responsible for them and for what they contain, however, we cannot support or in any way condone those who actively attempt to breach our security. We might as well hand out guides for terrorists on how to lessen the fallout from nuclear suitcase bombs or something- yes, it might save lives, but it also makes the job easier for wikileaks, which is doing the wrong thing. In my book, you don't help people do the wrong thing.
I'm absolutely in favor of this kind of information coming out. In courts of law and through diligent legislation. I am fully aware that this is a tall order- and that the current government is not even *trying* to redress this. But we don't need foreigners, much less Julian Assange, conducting our foreign relations for us.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: We should stop doing things that justify action against us if that's really a problem, IMO.
I agree, however I don't believe the status quo is anywhere near an ideal answer to this problem.
quote:One might postulate that if the US fears its worst excesses are likely to become public knowledge, then those activities may be more restrained in the future and that innocent lives might actually be saved. It's awfully hard to convincingly argue that this sort of a release is likely to result in a net loss of life, which seems to be the primary argument being made against it.
Sure, I can get behind that. It might have a positive effect on American foreign policy. Maybe. But it might also have a negative effect. If situations like this have the power to shape future decisions, then those decisions may be affected in way you don't acknowledge- they might make us more secretive, more ruthless, they might make our agencies and military leaders less willing to divulge information to the public. I think the government can be forced or pushed, at times, to commit morally reprehensible acts for the sake of our security and prosperity, as best they understand those concepts. I don't want future actions clouded in even greater secrecy. I don't want government agencies operating in the dark, without effective restraints because applying those checks would be too exposing. And if you think these leaks could have the effect of reigning us in, I think you'd also have to consult your knowledge of recent history for some examples of governments reacting rather adversely to foreign scrutiny. And if you think it's far fetched that other countries might try to use and shape media scrutiny of US actions and secrets to their advantage- or that we might react to that kind of pressure in ways neither of us would find tasteful, I would call that fairly naive. So for now, I'm not going to side with people who do not have my government's interests at heart- that is for as long as I am convinced that that government still protects my interests. Maybe I feel all this in a way more strongly because I live abroad- but US foreign policy and diplomacy shapes my own experiences all the time- and in ways that that of no other nation in the world could. I know that the way people see me now is different from how it was 3 years ago, and that is not just because I have changed myself.
[ November 30, 2010, 07:31 PM: Message edited by: Orincoro ]
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: I am outraged that we killed innocents. I've never said that I'm not. But I would be equally outraged if an American civilian were killed because of the leak.
I hope that what you mean by this is that you have two possible states of outrage; none and all the way, and this is why one civilian american death is equal to tens of thousands of other civilian deaths.
Also, if what MrSquicky said about wikileaks trying to work with the american gov to protect people is true, where is the proper place to direct your outrage?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: ... Aside from that, these materials were obtained illegally- you can't work with people with the understanding that they are breaking your laws.
As a point of note, it is clear that Bradley Manning, the original leaker, broke American law when stealing the data. It is far from clear that Wikileaks committed any crimes by receiving the data away from the jurisdiction of American law.
(And it does seem clear that the New York Times is in the legal clear and indeed, co-operated with the US government in redacting the documents)
quote:. I think we can all see how odd that is --- journalism being a field which is ostensibly about speaking truth to power and all that drivel.
This may be the best illustration of the point, also courtesy of Greenwald, in which the "diplomat" is the one who argues for transparency while the "journalist" (the editor of the New York Times as it happens) defends clearing their reporting with the government before reporting it:
quote:I'm absolutely in favor of this kind of information coming out. In courts of law and through diligent legislation.
I believe that this kind of information absolutely must come out if we are, as a people, to restrain our government. However, I believe it cannot legally come out until we have a comparatively restrained government.
Ergo, it must come out illegally.
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
I'm absolutely in favor of this kind of information coming out. In courts of law and through diligent legislation. I am fully aware that this is a tall order- and that the current government is not even *trying* to redress this. But we don't need foreigners, much less Julian Assange, conducting our foreign relations for us.
Okay. Cool. Show me where there's any chance of that actually happening. Show me anyone who could possibly do it. Show me how this necessary thing can come about, in the real world, other than this. What I mean is, this may be naive, but supporting the idea while attacking the only people who dare to do it is naive as well.
Who else will do it? Who in the government will do it right? Where's the legislation? More importantly, how do we get it started? Any ideas? I'd love for this to be done legally, and in a way that is legitimately not releasing the actually important secrets.
But I don't believe our government will do it. So why not?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
It seems like the world is becoming less roomy for Assange.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
RT @carlmaxim: Palin says Julian #Assange should be hunted down like Osama bin Laden. So he should be safe for at least a decade.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: RT @carlmaxim: Palin says Julian #Assange should be hunted down like Osama bin Laden. So he should be safe for at least a decade.
Blammo!
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:The Bush administration pressured Germany not to prosecute CIA officers responsible for the kidnapping, extraordinary rendition and torture of German national Khaled El-Masri, according to a document made public Sunday night by Wikileaks. The document, a 2007 cable from the U.S. Embassy in Berlin, describes a meeting during which the then-deputy chief of the U.S. mission to Germany, John M. Koenig, urged German officials to "weigh carefully at every step of the way the implications for relations with the U.S." of issuing international arrest warrants in the El-Masri case.
In 2003, El-Masri was kidnapped from Macedonia and transported to a secret CIA-run prison in Afghanistan where he was held for several months and tortured before being dumped on a hillside in Albania. The American Civil Liberties Union brought a case in the U.S. on El-Masri's behalf in 2005, charging that former CIA director George Tenet violated U.S. and universal human rights laws when he authorized agents to abduct and abuse El-Masri. Lower courts dismissed the lawsuit on state secrecy grounds, and in 2007 the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the case.
Geez, they kidnapped a German from Macedonia and then dumped him in Albania of all places after being tortured in Afghanistan. And all due to a mistaken name. I know most of this was "known" before.
But Holy Crap.
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
*shakes head sadly*
We would be absolutely livid if this had happened to an American.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
"ceterum censeo Americaninem esse delendam"
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
I think the scary bit for me is the "it could happen to you aspect." It's scary enough in the Maher Arar case, the Canadian who extraordinarily renditioned(?) to Syria for torture based on bad intelligence. I mean, hey, the odds are good that the US doesn't have bad intelligence on you *knock on wood* and you can minimise your time in the States (or passing through the States).
But in this case, all I need is some dude with a similar name and its not like Chinese names are terribly unique. And I don't need to be flying through the US, you can just be kidnapped in the dead of night.
And then dumped in the middle of nowhere without so much as an apology, c'mon.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: I think the scary bit for me is the "it could happen to you aspect." It's scary enough in the Maher Arar case, the Canadian who extraordinarily renditioned(?) to Syria for torture based on bad intelligence. I mean, hey, the odds are good that the US doesn't have bad intelligence on you *knock on wood* and you can minimise your time in the States (or passing through the States).
But in this case, all I need is some dude with a similar name and its not like Chinese names are terribly unique. And I don't need to be flying through the US, you can just be kidnapped in the dead of night.
And then dumped in the middle of nowhere without so much as an apology, c'mon.
Dude! I already said I felt bad!
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
I'm just venting in general. I respect those (especially expatriates) who can sympathize with the worries that can come with being subject to a capricious and alien legal system.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
Geez, they kidnapped a German from Macedonia and then dumped him in Albania of all places after being tortured in Afghanistan. And all due to a mistaken name. I know most of this was "known" before.
But Holy Crap.
Hey now, Albania isn't that bad. In fact, they probably did him a solid by dropping him off there. My wife is from there, and I'll say that when I visited my in-laws a couple years ago I was very impressed. There must be something in the water there, because 90% of the women are absolutely beautiful.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Which reminds me, by the time he got back home (which was about half a year later), because no one had bothered telling his family what was going on, they had already left thinking that he had just run away.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Creepy yet predictable development:
quote:The US struck its first blow against WikiLeaks after Amazon.com pulled the plug on hosting the whistleblowing website in reaction to heavy political pressure.
The company announced it was cutting WikiLeaks off yesterday only 24 hours after being contacted by the staff of Joe Lieberman, chairman of the Senate's committee on homeland security.
...
The department of homeland security confirmed Amazon's move, referring journalists to Lieberman's statement.
Kevin Bankston, a lawyer with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which supports internet freedom, said it was not a violation of the first amendment but was nevertheless disappointing. "This certainly implicates first amendment rights to the extent that web hosts may, based on direct or informal pressure, limit the materials the American public has a first amendment right to access," Bankston told the website Talking Points Memo.
quote:When American TV and movie producers want action, the formula involves Middle Eastern terrorists, a ticking nuclear device, and a (somewhat ironically, Canadian) guy named Sutherland. Canadian producers don't need to look so far -- they can find all the action they need right on the U.S.-Canadian border.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: No doubt they threatened to start enforcing state sales tax laws if Amazon didn't drop their hosting.
Food for thought
quote:Human Rights Watch urges the following principles as relevant to legislating on corporate responsibility to uphold human rights: ... 4. COMPANIES NOT TO ACT AS VOLUNTARY CENSORS OF PROTECTED SPEECH: Companies have no business making decisions about what political or religious content should or should not be censored. Companies should be prohibited from taking actions on their own to censor political or religious speech. Such proactive censorship is usually done in anticipation of government demands or preferences, without a legally binding order to remove specific material having been received. Censorship carried out proactively as the result of testing to identify what material the government is censoring and then taking action on this information in absence of any specific, legally binding court order, should be prohibited. Companies should also be prohibited from complying with oral, undocumented requests from the American authorities for censorship of political and religious speech. This includes manual deletion of content in addition to the filtering of it. Companies should be required to challenge every order to censor non-violent political and religious speech in the American courts. Companies should be prohibited from complying with an order unless the order is made by a court. Acting in this way will help with America's often stated goal of building the rule of law.
Hrrm, to agree with HRW or not... Hrrm.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
A Canadian human rights worker's take on these leaks. Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Goes back to the first page with
quote:Originally posted by MattP: ... Thus far no deaths have been tied to previous leaks despite similar complaints at the time of their release.
I think.
In the end, it all depends on your view of the balance between the good that the state department might do in terms of visibility on human rights and the bad that it might do. As the former assisstant Secretary of State on the Colbert Report emphasized, an important goal of the US diplomatic core is still to build up consensus and coalitions of the willing to go to war. Toss in the examples above where the diplomats actively applied pressure to reduce visibility on human rights, and I think it becomes a dubious proposition that there is a net positive on that front.
(Also, I suspect there's a lot less pressure to leak Canadian diplomatic cables than American ones)
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
This issue I think is separable from the main WikiLeaks story, the story of what happens to censorship and government control of what is shown on the Internet I think has repercussions for everyone, but especially for the small government folks who I would have thought would be all over it.
There's a good editoral by Rebecca MacKinnon here which covers some of my ideas on this.
quote:We are facing new questions on which Americans have no clear consensus, and which were not covered in civics class: How will decisions made by private internet and telecommunications companies about what content they will or won't allow affect the ability of citizens to carry out informed debate on important matters of public concern? What are the private sector's obligations and responsibilities to prevent the erosion of democracy?
While Amazon was within its legal rights, the company has nonetheless sent a clear signal to its users: If you engage in controversial speech that some individual members of the U.S. government don't like -- even if there is a strong case to be made that your speech is constitutionally protected -- Amazon is going to dump you at the first sign of trouble.
Let's hope that there will always be other companies willing to stand up for our rights as enshrined both in the U.S. Constitution and in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights -- and by extension their right to do business with us.
The future of freedom in the internet age may well depend on whether we the people can succeed in holding companies that now act as arbiters of the public discourse accountable to the public interest.
And it only becomes more relevant as companies that provide visualizations on even the number of various cables (Tableau) or DNS service (EveryDNS) join Amazon in their stance (or rather lack of a stance) on Human Rights Watch point 4 from above. http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/blog/2010/dec/03/wikileaks-knocked-off-net-dns-everydns Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: A Canadian human rights worker's take on these leaks.
Definitely worth reading.
I was 100% behind the Iraq war leaks, including the Apache-gunning-down-civilians. But I'm not sure I see any great good that can come from leaking these diplomatic cables.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Sweet, I mean seriously (Well, maybe. I'm not sure whether "consult" means a trial or just asking for an informal opinion)
quote:The server OVH, which the government claimed was partly hosting Wikileaks site from northern France, has hit back.
It will consult a judge on whether it is legal to host the whistleblowing site in France. The server said "it's not up to politicians or OVH to demand or decide the site's closure".
quote:Islamabad, Pakistan (CNN) -- A court in Pakistan rejected a citizen's petition seeking a ban on the WikiLeaks website, a Pakistani government official told CNN. The petition was submitted by a citizen named Arif Gondal who described the recent diplomatic cables leaked by WikiLeaks as an attempt to damage Pakistan's image and defame its leaders, said Muhammad Salim, a government lawyer in Punjab Province. The court rebuffed the petition on the grounds that the petitioner has not been harmed by the Wikileaks website, Salim said. "Information should not be hidden, especially in the 21st century," the Judge said in court, according to Salim. "One should bear the truth no matter how harmful it is."
[ December 03, 2010, 02:06 PM: Message edited by: Mucus ]
Posted by Rawrain (Member # 12414) on :
I keep secrets from all of you; it's better for your own good if you didn't know anything that's happening in the background. Live sheep liveeeeee.
Posted by Week-Dead Possum (Member # 11917) on :
Rawrain, reign it in please.
You can tell me your bank account numbers without fear of me stealing from you. But you shouldn´t, because that information is valuable, and dangerous for you, and I don´t need it.
Posted by Rawrain (Member # 12414) on :
I don't believe in banks, I am a matress stuffer :D
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:ID 10ASTANA72
SUBJECT KAZAKHSTAN: MONEY AND POWER ... ¶7. (S) The Ambassador asked if the corruption and infighting are worse now than before. Idenov paused, thought, and then replied, “No, not really. It’s business as usual.” Idenov brushed off a question if the current maneuverings are part of a succession struggle. “Of course not. It’s too early for that. As it’s always been, it’s about big money. Capitalism — you call it market economy — means huge money. Listen, almost everyone at the top is confused. They’re confused by their Soviet mentality. They’re confused by the corrupt excesses of capitalism. ‘If GOLDMAN Sachs executives can make $50 million a year and then run America’s economy in Washington, what’s so different about what we do?’ they ask.”
I have to wonder about the possibility that historians will look back at this in a few decades as the turning point toward a Great Firewall with American characteristics.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I wonder how many Americans will just sheepishly roll over and tolerate government censorship of the Internet? All of them, or just most of them?
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Both make some good points. I didn't realize Wikileaks had put up blueprints for a nuclear weapon. That strikes me as extremely bad judgment, though perhaps not enough to outweigh the good they've done if it was an isolated incident.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Another comment on the uniqueness of this turning point
quote:Reporters Without Borders condemns the blocking, cyber-attacks and political pressure being directed at cablegate.wikileaks.org, the website dedicated to the US diplomatic cables. ... This is the first time we have seen an attempt at the international community level to censor a website dedicated to the principle of transparency. We are shocked to find countries such as France and the United States suddenly bringing their policies on freedom of expression into line with those of China. We point out that in France and the United States, it is up to the courts, not politicians, to decide whether or not a website should be closed.
And they aren't exactly slouches when it comes to criticizing censorship in China either.
I think the international nature of this also should be emphasized. Each of those four companies aren't just blocking access to services by users in Chimerica, they're blocking access for everyone, whether German, Canadian, or French.
Edit to add: It is also truly strange to see people in China on Twitter, that normally pass around tips on how to circumvent the Chinese firewall through VPNs and alternate hosting services start passing around tips on how to route around the blocks on WikiLeaks. I suppose if the proponents of censorship have gone global, so have the opponents.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I wonder how many Americans will just sheepishly roll over and tolerate government censorship of the Internet? All of them, or just most of them?
Too few for censorship to really be viably effective for at least a decade, but perhaps too many to keep long-term plans from ultimately being viable, maybe?
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: No doubt they threatened to start enforcing state sales tax laws if Amazon didn't drop their hosting.
Food for thought
quote:Human Rights Watch urges the following principles as relevant to legislating on corporate responsibility to uphold human rights: ... 4. COMPANIES NOT TO ACT AS VOLUNTARY CENSORS OF PROTECTED SPEECH: Companies have no business making decisions about what political or religious content should or should not be censored. Companies should be prohibited from taking actions on their own to censor political or religious speech. Such proactive censorship is usually done in anticipation of government demands or preferences, without a legally binding order to remove specific material having been received. Censorship carried out proactively as the result of testing to identify what material the government is censoring and then taking action on this information in absence of any specific, legally binding court order, should be prohibited. Companies should also be prohibited from complying with oral, undocumented requests from the American authorities for censorship of political and religious speech. This includes manual deletion of content in addition to the filtering of it. Companies should be required to challenge every order to censor non-violent political and religious speech in the American courts. Companies should be prohibited from complying with an order unless the order is made by a court. Acting in this way will help with America's often stated goal of building the rule of law.
This quote from HRW seems insane to me. There is a huge difference between freedom of speech and forcing companies to participate in said speech. If a newspaper wants to publish something, that's fine. If a newspaper chooses not to publish something because they think the writer is a crackpot, or is trying to damage the country, the newspaper is well within its rights to "censor" that writer by not publishing it.
Likewise, didn't Amazon choose to drop wikileaks? So... is HRW really arguing that they should be made to not do that, for fear of censoring someone? Sorry, no. Freedom of speech doesn't extend into forcing other private entities to help you.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
And how do you feel about when they said:
quote: ... we are urging U.S. media companies to take a proactive role in challenging the American governments’ demands for censorship and surveillance. The private sector has a shared responsibility to help safeguard free expression. And when their business dealings threaten to undermine this freedom, they need to consider what’s right, not simply what’s a quick profit.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
I have no problem with them urging companies to challenge government demands for censorship. That sentence seems fine to me.
It's when they say things like companies should be required to do so that I think they're ultimately a bunch of statists who are just as bad as the worst government censor, they just exercise their beliefs differently.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Fair enough. Intriguing.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Unless they were asked to do so and decided to take the easy way out, its not so much as forcing them as putting reverse pressure on them to go "hey, what the hell hero?"
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Blayne the first quote he posted explicitly used words like "prohibited" and "required." In my universe, these are much more synonymous with force than they are with asking.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote: Likewise, didn't Amazon choose to drop wikileaks? So... is HRW really arguing that they should be made to not do that, for fear of censoring someone? Sorry, no. Freedom of speech doesn't extend into forcing other private entities to help you.
C'mon, Dan. Did Amazon choose to drop? Well, so far as we know, yes. But don't be obtuse. Amazon has some very real, very large financial and political incentives to please the people who were putting some pretty hefty pressure on Wikileaks, and you and I both know it. 'Choice' starts to get a bit murky there, not as clear as choosing between coke and pepsi.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: [QUOTE] ...not as clear as choosing between coke and pepsi.
Would that all choices could be so clear cut!
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote: Likewise, didn't Amazon choose to drop wikileaks? So... is HRW really arguing that they should be made to not do that, for fear of censoring someone? Sorry, no. Freedom of speech doesn't extend into forcing other private entities to help you.
C'mon, Dan. Did Amazon choose to drop? Well, so far as we know, yes. But don't be obtuse. Amazon has some very real, very large financial and political incentives to please the people who were putting some pretty hefty pressure on Wikileaks, and you and I both know it. 'Choice' starts to get a bit murky there, not as clear as choosing between coke and pepsi.
I'm really not trying to be obtuse, I promise. I certainly get your point, but I'm not sure I agree that it makes the "choice" murky. Those factors may well have entered into Amazon's decision (they probably did!) but ultimately it was still their decision. Unless one thinks that the US government placed intense, clandestine pressure on Amazon directly, and that seems too conspiracy theoryish for me barring evidence.
No, assuming no secret government agents were sent to "help" Amazon's choice, I don't see the choice as having been compromised. This seems reminiscent of people claiming that Dr. Laura and Rick Sanchez etc. were all "censored." Even if a company in question doesn't specifically object to a given example of speech, if they fear the fallout of being seen to endorse such speech they are absolutely in their rights to stop supporting it.
What am I missing?
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
PS: On Coke or Pepsi, the correct choice is... neither.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Those factors may well have entered into Amazon's decision (they probably did!) but ultimately it was still their decision. Unless one thinks that the US government placed intense, clandestine pressure on Amazon directly, and that seems too conspiracy theoryish for me barring evidence.
I'm not arguing it made the decision less their choice, I'm just pointing out the actual facts of the matter - Amazon's very real, undeniable vested interest in pleasing certain people - render their 'choice' a lot less idealistically clean and pure than your words were indicating, and much more jaded and cynical and murky.
I'm also pretty sure that when the Founding Fathers or anyone else was originally concocting ideals of censorship and freedom of speech, one of the things they didn't have in mind was groups choosing whether or not to effectively censor media outlets on the basis of appeasing the government.
quote:...if they fear the fallout of being seen to endorse such speech they are absolutely in their rights to stop supporting it.
What am I missing?
What I'm suggesting you're missing is that fears of government-sponsored fallout isn't really supposed to be one of the considerations in whether or not a private group decides to carry another private group's media offerings, Dan. It's pretty straightforward. That's de facto censorship, isn't it?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Dan, two Senators talked to Amazon executives for six hours. I have no difficulty imagining that threats were made; I was only half-kidding about the sales tax thing, becuase I know it's a thorn in the side of the senators in question.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: PS: On Coke or Pepsi, the correct choice is... neither.
The correct choice is a small amount of Pepsi. More sugar tastes better but then gets sickening when you have too much.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Dan, two Senators talked to Amazon executives for six hours. I have no difficulty imagining that threats were made; I was only half-kidding about the sales tax thing, becuase I know it's a thorn in the side of the senators in question.
I would perhaps hedge at having difficulty imagining threats were made, because that's the sort of thing that can get folks into all sorts of trouble if later proven. But frankly I have no difficulty at all in imagining all sorts of veiled suggestions and not-so-veiled blandishments were offered, Dan, which is precisely what I was getting at. How much 'choice' is it if some very powerful folks come on over and give you a huge helping of carrot to help you along?
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Tom, Rakeesh, how would you suggest a situation like this be handled to prevent coercion against Amazon?
I agree with you that Dan's position leaves open the possibility of de facto censorship, but I'm not sure I can see a better alternative that doesn't.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Yeah, Rakeesh, I do see what you're saying. And I'm sure that would strongly influence Amazon's choice. And I'm not even saying that this is a good thing, per se, or that any US Senators should have done that (I agree with you, Rakeesh, regarding whether or not actual threats were made. Sorry Tom, but that seems to venture too far into a conspiracy theory sort of mindset that I try to avoid.)
But, even assuming this is a bad enough thing that we want to stop it, I'm adamantly opposed to the sort of "solution" HRW suggests. Private companies are not usually, and shouldn't specifically be, in the business of promoting all forms of speech. Private companies tend to have specific business goals, and if they feel a given expression of speech runs counter to their goals, I can't see any compelling reason why they should be forced to support it. So, as Destineer asked, even if this situation is bad, what exactly is the alternative? How do we plan on stopping it?
Posted by SoaPiNuReYe (Member # 9144) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I wonder how many Americans will just sheepishly roll over and tolerate government censorship of the Internet? All of them, or just most of them?
Well, what else can we do? I've had the feeling from the start of this whole WikiLeaks controversy that the American public is stuck on the sidelines watching the whole thing. Maybe if the anons over at 4chan stir something up people themselves could actually do something to fight this, but for right now the mainstream media is either blacking out the entire story or too busy railing on Assange to actually devote much coverage to the how active the government has become in censoring the website. People themselves have no real direct forum to really state their complaints against this type of behavior.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Amusing at least
quote: kaepora Nadim Kobeissi by evgenymorozov Anonymous has mobilized in defense of WikiLeaks > http://uiu.me/4.png #anon #wikileaks #cablegate
...
evgenymorozov Evgeny Morozov Gingrich: Assange is an ‘enemy combatant’ http://goo.gl/b2Yh5 (in that case, the country where he's hiding must be Yemen)
Posted by SoaPiNuReYe (Member # 9144) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: Amusing at least
quote: kaepora Nadim Kobeissi by evgenymorozov Anonymous has mobilized in defense of WikiLeaks > http://uiu.me/4.png #anon #wikileaks #cablegate
...
evgenymorozov Evgeny Morozov Gingrich: Assange is an ‘enemy combatant’ http://goo.gl/b2Yh5 (in that case, the country where he's hiding must be Yemen)
I think the funniest thing about that second link is how he blames Obama for everything.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I'm not advocating Amazon be compelled to sponsor Wikileaks's speech, Dan. I was originally only taking issue with your first characterization,
"Likewise, didn't Amazon choose to drop wikileaks? So... is HRW really arguing that they should be made to not do that, for fear of censoring someone? Sorry, no. Freedom of speech doesn't extend into forcing other private entities to help you."
I don't think it's reasonable to argue Amazon's 'choice' was very pure as you seemed to suggest, certainly not in a strict 'marketplace of ideas' sense as the Founders would have originally intended. Do you still stand by that idea, or am I misunderstanding you?
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I'm not advocating Amazon be compelled to sponsor Wikileaks's speech, Dan. I was originally only taking issue with your first characterization,
"Likewise, didn't Amazon choose to drop wikileaks? So... is HRW really arguing that they should be made to not do that, for fear of censoring someone? Sorry, no. Freedom of speech doesn't extend into forcing other private entities to help you."
I don't think it's reasonable to argue Amazon's 'choice' was very pure as you seemed to suggest, certainly not in a strict 'marketplace of ideas' sense as the Founders would have originally intended. Do you still stand by that idea, or am I misunderstanding you?
Perhaps it's a misunderstanding. I wasn't really trying to comment on the purity of the choice. My only real point was that they did have a choice, and HRW's suggestion seems to run exactly counter to the whole "choice" concept. Certainly, Amazon felt it was to their benefit to drop Wikileaks, and one can make a reasonable argument that this decision was based largely on pleasing the government. And that's lame. I don't want to government to have that much power, by any means.
Again, my only real objection is that HRW's solution doesn't really involve limiting government power to prevent this from happening. It just involves putting different (government?) pressures on companies.
So, yeah. Recap: Wasn't trying to say Amazon's choice was pure, sorry if I came off that way. Was saying HRW's suggestion was vile and not a good solution in any way.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
quote: And censorship should not be in any way accepted by any company from anywhere. And in America, American companies need to make a principled stand. This needs to be part of our national brand. I’m confident that consumers worldwide will reward companies that follow those principles.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
Amazon
Tableau
EveryDNS
PayPal
Visa and Mastercard next?
Answer is Mastercard
quote:"MasterCard is taking action to ensure that WikiLeaks can no longer accept MasterCard-branded products," a spokesman for MasterCard Worldwide said today.
I'll replace Mastercard's spot with, say, Twitter.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I'm actually intrigued by what illegal behavior both MasterCard and PayPal think WikiLeaks is engaged in.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Something I'm interested in is who Mastercard thinks they're kidding. It isn't as though their service isn't used for all sorts of sleazy or even illegal activity already.
ETA: Which isn't exactly unnatural, I mean credit cards will be misused. But for them to get holier-than-though about Wikileaks says (to me) a lot more about who is upset about Wikileaks than their stance about their cards being used 'badly'.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
I doubt they think they're kidding anybody. Honestly, it's like you guys were suddenly born yesterday- you know better than to be so naive.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
It seems like they're asking to be sued, though, by citing illegal behavior in a situation in which, to the best of my knowledge, absolutely no charges of any kind have been filed. Then again, it's not like Assange can safely show up in a courtroom to have this conversation.
Posted by Week-Dead Possum (Member # 11917) on :
And they have about, oh, a million times his resources. And a lot more to lose.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Huh, Visa too. That was fast.
I'm running out of companies here. What's left? Facebook? I'm marginally surprised that both of these actions were taken to affect not only American citizens, but everyone else as well.
The thing is, since they're cutting off not just Assange, but the whole of the WikiLeaks group, theoretically someone else could show up. Although the odds are obviously slim.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Just one good reason why the internet is in need of an internationally regulated currency system not dependent on private businesses. That is, internationally regulated. The US government should also not be able to shut down the movement of money across the net.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: In 2003, El-Masri was kidnapped from Macedonia and transported to a secret CIA-run prison in Afghanistan where he was held for several months and tortured before being dumped on a hillside in Albania. The American Civil Liberties Union brought a case in the U.S. on El-Masri's behalf in 2005, charging that former CIA director George Tenet violated U.S. and universal human rights laws when he authorized agents to abduct and abuse El-Masri. Lower courts dismissed the lawsuit on state secrecy grounds, and in 2007 the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the case.
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: It seems like they're asking to be sued, though, by citing illegal behavior in a situation in which, to the best of my knowledge, absolutely no charges of any kind have been filed. Then again, it's not like Assange can safely show up in a courtroom to have this conversation.
quote: "MasterCard rules prohibit customers from directly or indirectly engaging in or facilitating any action that is illegal,"
That's not such a stretch. The documents were leaked illegally, and wikileaks facilitated their distribution.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Those are two different sets of people though. The rule would seem to block people from donating to Manning for the purposes of leaking, but not necessarily to WikiLeaks for distribution. It wouldn't be clear how that rule would distinguish between WikiLeaks distributing the cables to the Guardian versus the Guardian distributing the cables to the NYT for example.
Also, as PJCrowley helpfully suggests, there should at least be charges of some sort. Innocent before proven guilty after all.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
*nod* Not only is it unclear that WikiLeaks is doing anything illegal, WikiLeaks hasn't even been charged with a crime.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Distributing classified information is only illegal if you're a govt employee.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: *nod* Not only is it unclear that WikiLeaks is doing anything illegal, WikiLeaks hasn't even been charged with a crime.
That is not in the letter of the statement. I don't think the fact that they haven't been charged is material to the matter at hand- they are involved in a clearly illegal leak of information from the US federal government.
quote: Distributing classified information is only illegal if you're a govt employee.
Visa and Mastercard policy is not law, it's policy. And pay attention to the wording used to explain the decision- it relates to facilitation of a crime. In this case, the law was broken by a federal employee leaking the intelligence to wikileaks, so wikileaks is an ex post facto party to that crime, if not a defendant or conspirator.
Posted by Rawrain (Member # 12414) on :
It's only illegal if you want it to be :D
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Man. So, this due process thing I've heard so much about. Did the US repeal that or something?
On a humorous note, from the Guardian live-blog:
quote:5.30pm: With perfect timing an email arrives from Philip Crowley at the state department:
quote:The United States is pleased to announce that it will host Unesco's World Press Freedom Day event in 2011, from 1-3 May in Washington, DC.
Ironic? Read the next paragraph from the press release:
quote:The theme for next year's commemoration will be 21st Century Media: New Frontiers, New Barriers. The United States places technology and innovation at the forefront of its diplomatic and development efforts. New media has empowered citizens around the world to report on their circumstances, express opinions on world events, and exchange information in environments sometimes hostile to such exercises of individuals' right to freedom of expression. At the same time, we are concerned about the determination of some governments to censor and silence individuals, and to restrict the free flow of information. We mark events such as World Press Freedom Day in the context of our enduring commitment to support and expand press freedom and the free flow of information in this digital age.
Shameless. You really could not make it up.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:In this case, the law was broken by a federal employee leaking the intelligence to wikileaks, so wikileaks is an ex post facto party to that crime, if not a defendant or conspirator.
By this logic, neither Visa, MasterCard, nor PayPal should have accepted eBay or Napster payments.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Seems like if I'm haring correctly that WikiLeaks assets in Swiss and in Paypal have been seized.
What alternatives do they have to keep functioning?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Not too many, unless its other officers are willing to risk their own personal finances.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:In this case, the law was broken by a federal employee leaking the intelligence to wikileaks, so wikileaks is an ex post facto party to that crime, if not a defendant or conspirator.
By this logic, neither Visa, MasterCard, nor PayPal should have accepted eBay or Napster payments.
Neither of those cases are parallel, but anyway, I am not making a logical argument, I am stating the what I see as the probable reasoning behind this particular decision, which reasoning I felt was being misinterpreted. Namely, people were claiming Mastercard and Visa were calling Assange's actions criminal, however their statement clearly noted that they were also concerned with parties facilitating criminal acts. Whether that reasoning is sound or whether it is self-consistent with the past actions of these companies is debatable.
If you want to talk about the consistency of that position, I can comment on my overall impression. In the case of Napster and Ebay, legitimate uses exist, and are the at least publicly stated purposes of the services (with varying degrees of truth value), whereas wikileaks could be characterized as an organization set up to facilitate theft of classified data. Note, not the facilitation of the actual theft, but rather facilitation of the act where the desired result is its dissemination on the internet. So, say, in the way that a chop shop does not steal cars, but rather is set up to receive stolen cars, which are stolen for that purpose (not a stellar analogy, but a rough and ready one nevertheless). The same logic *ought* to have applied to Napster, but we're also talking 10 years of the RIAA later, and the world of intellectual property is not what it used to be- claiming a legitimate use when the clear purpose is illegitimate was once a useful stalling tactic, and is now less so.
All of that's open to interpretation, but the exact same logic would not apply in all three cases. Particularly, due diligence for Mastercard and Visa would demand that they recognize that wikileaks' primary purpose may be facilitation of illegal leaks, especially considering Assange so obligingly states that as the group's position, to wit: "catching bastards."
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Once more unto the breach.
quote:More than 700 leaked secret files on the Guantánamo detainees lay bare the inner workings of America's controversial prison camp in Cuba.
The US military dossiers, obtained by the New York Times and the Guardian, reveal how, alongside the so-called "worst of the worst", many prisoners were flown to the Guantánamo cages and held captive for years on the flimsiest grounds, or on the basis of lurid confessions extracted by maltreatment.
quote: Among inmates who proved harmless were an 89-year-old Afghan villager, suffering from senile dementia, and a 14-year-old boy who had been an innocent kidnap victim.
The old man was transported to Cuba to interrogate him about "suspicious phone numbers" found in his compound. The 14-year-old was shipped out merely because of "his possible knowledge of Taliban...local leaders"
quote:One Briton, Jamal al-Harith, was rendered to Guantánamo simply because he had been held in a Taliban prison and was thought to have knowledge of their interrogation techniques.
quote:Another prisoner was shipped to the base "because of his general knowledge of activities in the areas of Khowst and Kabul based as a result of his frequent travels through the region as a taxi driver".
quote:The files also reveal that an al-Jazeera journalist was held at Guantánamo for six years, partly in order to be interrogated about the Arabic news network.
I was all like 'hey guys take a look at this!' and the response could be universally distilled down to "sam, we reached our limit and capped out our loathing and moments of painful confrontation, and at this point whenever we're painfully reminded that we were run by evil clowns, we just shut down"
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
(Interesting because of their role on influencing the Arab revolutions and public opinion in the Middle East)
Also:
quote:Detainees’ Lawyers Can’t Click on Leaked Documents
Anyone surfing the Internet this week is free to read leaked documents about the prisoners held by the American military at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, to print them out or e-mail them to friends.
Except, that is, for the lawyers who represent the prisoners.
On Monday, hours after WikiLeaks, The New York Times and other news organizations began publishing the documents online, the Justice Department informed Guantánamo defense lawyers that the documents remained legally classified even after they were made public.
Hurray! Been hearing unconfirmed hints about a second leaker in the US leaking stuff on the NSA for a few weeks now, including the Glenn Greenwald tweets hinting at it, but it looks like there's confirmation now.
quote: The federal government has concluded there's a new leaker exposing national security documents in the aftermath of surveillance disclosures by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden, U.S. officials tell CNN. Proof of the newest leak comes from national security documents that formed the basis of a news story published Tuesday by the Intercept, the news site launched by Glenn Greenwald, who also published Snowden's leaks. ... In a February interview with CNN's Reliable Sources, Greenwald said: "I definitely think it's fair to say that there are people who have been inspired by Edward Snowden's courage and by the great good and virtue that it has achieved." He added, "I have no doubt there will be other sources inside the government who see extreme wrongdoing who are inspired by Edward Snowden."
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)