Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Leafsnail]

Wow... this actually feels like the background plot of a really bad Bond movie.

EDIT: And I just read about baseless accusations that Woman W is a CIA agent.  If that is true, then there is no other possibility.

[Vactor]

Firstly there is nothing to be gained by beating the keycode out of him, or even obtaining it, the government would be interested only in preventing that information from existing.  If there is something truly juicy in the insurance file he would have definitely sent the key to the people within the government, so that they could see for themselves what was at stake.  If he didn't do that, then it would appear to them to be a bluff. (its like hiding a gun in your pocket, if you refuse to take it out and show people its a gun, then they'll just figure its a banana) 

Secondly he has stuck himself into a bad situation, where (assuming that he's got something important in the insurance file) he makes himself criminal by releasing it, and is then guilty of what he claims to be innocent from.  Any government prosecution can be dragged out, and englaciated to ensure that there is never a moment of high energy that would stimulate the sudden release of this information.  (its the idea of a rape whistle being only useful when you are suddenly attacked, if someone did the same thing extremely slowly, you would never know at what point you should start blowing your whistle(double paren i know, but yeah its a strange example)).

Thirdly, towards aqizzar's idea  of there being no legal secrets, to a certain point that is how the US government operates.  There is no legal repercussions for simply knowing something you shouldn't.  You can't be arrested, or convicted of knowing too much.  For people who are granted clearance to something, and then violate that trust, there are legal issues, as I think there should be.  People lose sight of the fact that government is society, if you pursue and then betray your society's trust, it is society's prerogative to have punishment and deterrents.  If one person's actions are to the detriment to society at large, they have given up their  place within it.  (I guess i would see this as equivalent to white collar crime, no one has had physical harm, but it weakens society to allow it.)

And finally, I always find it funny how conspiracy theorists think that the government is abysmal at everything, except for misleading the public, at which they are magical men that can do as they please with impunity throughout the world, and they are taking a personal interest in YOUR life!   Anyone who has worked with or for the government knows that there is no broad hidden government agenda, and that generally speaking the right hand doesn't know what the left hand is doing... ever..

Thats not to say that government can't be effective, or good, simply that the modern american government is too large to have the type of cohesion that would be necessary to carry out a conspiracy. (many millions of people would have to be in on it)  The innane subject matter which has been released is a pretty good showing of how inconsequential government secrets really are.  If there was something big he could run up the banner, some sort of vast corruption or malfeasance, he would have already.  The insurance file is almost certainly simply damaging to US security

[ChairmanPoo]

If there was something big he could run up the banner, some sort of vast corruption or malfeasance, he would have already.

You didn't check the logs too throughly (or articles about them, for that matter), did you? There's quite a bit of brown amid the grey.

[Osmosis Jones]

http://www.ellsberg.net/archive/public-accuracy-press-release

Apparently, everything happening to Assange has happened before, from the guys who released watergate.

[Vactor]

If there was something big he could run up the banner, some sort of vast corruption or malfeasance, he would have already.

You didn't check the logs too throughly (or articles about them, for that matter), did you? There's quite a bit of brown amid the grey.

I've been reading (probably half) the times articles that come out, and have npr on while i get up and go to work.  While much of it is quite interesting, there dosen't seem to be much to the latest batch aside from personal assessments of foreigners made in confidence, and some old fashioned international politiking.

You could say that a lot of the stuff that came out isn't very nice, but nothing so far has pointed towards the government working against its citizenry, or there being an institutional problem with how the military regards civilians in a warzone. (remember i said institutional, the errant actions of a single group of soldiers, while bad, is not indicative of the management of an entire military force.)

[SalmonGod]

Not to sound bombastic, but this is literally history in the making.  Information, the release of it, and the legal and technological apparatus have never created a situation like this before, and it will definitely set a huge precedent, in thought if not in any particular law, of how governments in the future will respond to info leaks.

This is an extremely important event.  It's going to set the tone for a lot of society in the near future.  It's going to set precedents not only legally, but at the very core of our culture.  We're about to see how brazenly those in power will seek vengeance in plain sight on those who dare defy them at a point in the information age will everyone will be plainly aware of what's going on.  Then on the other hand we'll see just how complacent the greater population really is.  We'll see just how much blatant illegal force, ulterior motive, and covering up we're willing to put up with.  I think this is the greatest stress test of public faith and apathy the world has ever seen.

Considering I'm the only person among my 60 or so facebook friends who is posting anything on the subject and the prevailing topic around the office is still sports... I see little promise.

[Renault]

Careful you don't understate anything there, Salmon.

[Urist Imiknorris]

Facebook is a really bad metric for gauging public interest.

[Sir Pseudonymous]

Firstly there is nothing to be gained by beating the keycode out of him, or even obtaining it, the government would be interested only in preventing that information from existing.  If there is something truly juicy in the insurance file he would have definitely sent the key to the people within the government, so that they could see for themselves what was at stake.  If he didn't do that, then it would appear to them to be a bluff. (its like hiding a gun in your pocket, if you refuse to take it out and show people its a gun, then they'll just figure its a banana)

Right, they wouldn't be after the key, because that won't do anything to stop the dissemination of the documents.

Secondly he has stuck himself into a bad situation, where (assuming that he's got something important in the insurance file) he makes himself criminal by releasing it, and is then guilty of what he claims to be innocent from.  Any government prosecution can be dragged out, and englaciated to ensure that there is never a moment of high energy that would stimulate the sudden release of this information.  (its the idea of a rape whistle being only useful when you are suddenly attacked, if someone did the same thing extremely slowly, you would never know at what point you should start blowing your whistle(double paren i know, but yeah its a strange example)).

Except he wouldn't be the one releasing the documents at that point (and, again, that wouldn't be illegal, because he was never under any obligation not to release them in the first place, unlike his sources), and if they're released then he's probably already dead. Honestly though, I don't think he really cares about what happens to him at this point; he's an anarcho-libertarian extremist that has explicitly stated his goal as antagonizing sovereign governments into becoming more authoritarian, because that will magically lead to their downfall and the creation of an anarchist utopia.

And finally, I always find it funny how conspiracy theorists think that the government is abysmal at everything, except for misleading the public, at which they are magical men that can do as they please with impunity throughout the world, and they are taking a personal interest in YOUR life!   Anyone who has worked with or for the government knows that there is no broad hidden government agenda, and that generally speaking the right hand doesn't know what the left hand is doing... ever..

Most conspiracy theorists are either paranoid schizophrenics, isolationist anarcho-libertarians, or both. Why would their world view be anything resembling rational? That said, these aren't really conspiracy theories, considering it's all just speculation about things that are technically admitted conspiracies, on both sides. Of course US intelligence is conspiring within itself, and presumably with other nations, over what should be done. That's its job, and they've proven time and again they can assassinate people. Hence Assange's own conspiracy (with his lawyer and associates) to make assassinating him an undesirable course of action, which he has loudly broadcasted to ensure anyone who might feel like offing him, government or not, thinks twice.

Thats not to say that government can't be effective, or good, simply that the modern american government is too large to have the type of cohesion that would be necessary to carry out a conspiracy. (many millions of people would have to be in on it)  The innane subject matter which has been released is a pretty good showing of how inconsequential government secrets really are.  If there was something big he could run up the banner, some sort of vast corruption or malfeasance, he would have already.  The insurance file is almost certainly simply damaging to US security

Right. Everything that's been released so far only shows that US intelligence is doing what fucking intelligence agencies do: collect fucking information, and that it's comprised of humans who say human things.

[Urist Imiknorris]

Assange will die by releasing something that makes the Tea Party look bad, which will result in an angry mob several million strong screaming for his head.

[Vactor]

Assange will die by releasing something that makes the Tea Party look bad, which will result in an angry mob several million strong screaming for his head.

arial photography will later show the attendance to actually be 27,000.

*rimshot*

[SalmonGod]

Anyone who has worked with or for the government knows that there is no broad hidden government agenda, and that generally speaking the right hand doesn't know what the left hand is doing... ever..

If anything, this is just a source of greater obfuscation.  The vast majority of government workers are little better than simple wage laborers, and it's still a few who have real authority.  Everyone else is just adding weight to the Milgram Experiment.  They're simply doing what they're told for no other reason than it's what they're told and giving it little thought beyond that.  Not many will steadfastly refuse to do something they disagree with, even in an atmosphere where refusal would have little consequence.  Now add to the equation that certain things can be assumed about people who would be willing to work for the government in the first place (an existing acceptance of the establishment, for instance), and that as employees there actually are real consequences for refusal.... and Bradley Manning is your statistical anomaly.  And I guess the trouble is people simply can't believe the level of internal dissent could be so small.

[alway]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/08/wikileaks-cables-warthogs-ambassador-zimbabwe?intcmp=239
Most important leak EVAR. Seriously, did Assange figure the whole leaks thing was too serious and needed some comic relief?

[SalmonGod]

Facebook is a really bad metric for gauging public interest.

It's a good way of gauging the attentions of people you know, as representative of ordinary people.  It's certainly better than gauging by mass media commentary.  Professional commentators may provide interesting reading, but they don't represent the attentions of the population.  They're just doing their job.  Forums and news story comments don't work either, since they only represent the people who are actively seeking such things out.  If I post updates and personal thoughts to 60 friends who are checking in while going about their daily lives, and they don't see it worthy of any comment... it's a pretty good indicator to me that the majority probably don't care.

[Vactor]

Anyone who has worked with or for the government knows that there is no broad hidden government agenda, and that generally speaking the right hand doesn't know what the left hand is doing... ever..

If anything, this is just a source of greater obfuscation.  The vast majority of government workers are little better than simple wage laborers, and it's still a few who have real authority.  Everyone else is just adding weight to the Milgram Experiment.  They're simply doing what they're told for no other reason than it's what they're told and giving it little thought beyond that.  Not many will steadfastly refuse to do something they disagree with, even in an atmosphere where refusal would have little consequence.  Now add to the equation that certain things can be assumed about people who would be willing to work for the government in the first place (an existing acceptance of the establishment, for instance), and that as employees there actually are real consequences for refusal.... and Bradley Manning is your statistical anomaly.  And I guess the trouble is people simply can't believe the level of internal dissent could be so small.

it indicates that the level of dissentable material just isn't there.  As much as conspiracy theorists like to think that we live in a totalitarian state that has such a well developed business plan that it can forsee any possible attempt to undermine it, it just isn't the truth, what I am talking about in the quote is departmental disconnect, the division and distribution of decision making, as well as the structural oversight designed into these programs have created a type of government that takes itself to court.  If you were to actually get down and dirty into the mechanics of how the government is actually run, you would quickly discover that the opposite of what you stated is true.  Agencies are moved primarily by the staff, and the heads of departments mainly make policy decisions that are proposed and developed by large groups of people within a department who do extensive studies on a topic.