EPTWikileaks - Page 57
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
Klive5ive
United Kingdom6056 Posts
They keep making it out like he's doing something wrong for resisting extradition. Ofc he doesn't want to sit in a cell in Sweden with his lawyer and himself on a gagging order while they mess about with a case he says is laughable. If they want to charge him they should just get on with it he has no obligation to go to Sweden so if he truely believes he's innocent and they're just trying to gag him for political reasons; why would he? | ||
|
Fenrax
United States5018 Posts
I have just now read about "Operation Ore" by chance. Thousands of innocent people's lives were destroyed by falsely being accused of downloading child pornography in Germany and in the UK, but it was never in German mainstream news. ard.de and Spiegel.de, where I usually get my news from have NOTHING. That was a fucking page 1 thing! I don't even know what to say. | ||
|
sc4k
United Kingdom5454 Posts
On December 21 2010 21:24 Klive5ive wrote: I wasn't initally on his side but I hate the way the UK press is interviewing him. They keep making it out like he's doing something wrong for resisting extradition. Ofc he doesn't want to sit in a cell in Sweden with his lawyer and himself on a gagging order while they mess about with a case he says is laughable. If they want to charge him they should just get on with it he has no obligation to go to Sweden so if he truely believes he's innocent and they're just trying to gag him for political reasons; why would he? The UK press is a partisan embarrassment. I still think the only paper that doesn't refer to him as 'alleged rapist' or something about being charged with rape is the Independent. Come on everyone, we all know that he hasn't been charged with 'rape', just some stupid arch-feminist drivel; describing which even 'sex crimes' seems completely overblown. | ||
|
Half
United States2554 Posts
The British government has been training the Bangladeshi Rapid Action Battalion (RAB), condemned by human rights organisations as a "government death squad". http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/22/wikileaks-summary-key-points-day-24 I have to admit, media control to focus on Assange over the actions he exposes is really a very clever ploy. | ||
|
Pyrrhuloxia
United States6700 Posts
http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20101213-taking-stock-wikileaks | ||
|
EtherealDeath
United States8366 Posts
On December 23 2010 18:52 Pyrrhuloxia wrote: Best article I've seen yet on Wikileaks: http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20101213-taking-stock-wikileaks Yep got that in my email when it came out. Really good article, which I realize more and more how true it is every day. | ||
|
antas
Indonesia300 Posts
On December 23 2010 18:53 EtherealDeath wrote: Yep got that in my email when it came out. Really good article, which I realize more and more how true it is every day. +1 Yes, that's a good article. It really gives us another point of view.  | ||
|
xM(Z
Romania5298 Posts
what ppl fail to see is that if something is the way it is (like geopolitics or /we) doesnt mean its the way it is because it needs to be like that. its all just bullshit passed on from past generations. | ||
|
DND_Enkil
Sweden598 Posts
On December 23 2010 19:00 antas wrote: +1 Yes, that's a good article. It really gives us another point of view. Yep that was a really interesting read. The one thing i would like to point out in regards of the "informed" and "uninformed" people reacting to wikileaks is why so many people are uninformed about the reality of the war. Maybe Wikileaks has not released any shocking news, but they are exposing the dirty underbelly of the beast, maybe all the mainstream media knew about it, maybe informed experts knew about it and politicians knew about it but i bet most regular citizens did not know about it. Just because of that i think wikileak fills an important function, when all traditional media are afraid or whatever to dig into this and report about the dirty side of the war (of any war, even this one) something like wikileaks are needed. But that is just my thoughts as a swede... | ||
|
Electric.Jesus
Germany755 Posts
On December 23 2010 18:52 Pyrrhuloxia wrote: Best article I've seen yet on Wikileaks: http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20101213-taking-stock-wikileaks The article is as well-written as could be and yet so dangerously dumb I wanna cry. The core argument is: The leaks are trivial because if you knew it all before, there is nothing new in for you. GO FIGURE. The second main flaw is, in my eyes, that the really important questions numer 4 and 5 ("Fourth, what were their consequences? Finally, and most important, is the WikiLeaks premise that releasing government secrets is a healthy and appropriate act a tenable position?") are not even remotely answered in a sensible way. The author basically point out that the extreme position of assange is not realisitic and that, thefore, the qhole idea is bad. In other words, because an extreme counterporition has certain flaws, you justify maintaining an at least equally flawed system. The answer to questions 4 and 5 will probabaly be much different from that of tha author (an more snesibgle, in my eyes) when one agrees that there is not only black and white but shades of grey. Maybe the best is for governments to become more transparent but to maintain a critical minium of secrecy. | ||
|
QuanticHawk
United States32113 Posts
On December 23 2010 18:52 Pyrrhuloxia wrote: Best article I've seen yet on Wikileaks: http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20101213-taking-stock-wikileaks It is good and true: the people making the most noise about these leaks are typically people that were uninformed from the get go. But, just like most of the people babbling over the leaks that never actually read them, I'm sure this article will get quickly dismissed without ever being read. So, for those people, consider this little train of thought about your 'benevolent' hero (who also has a book deal, but absolutely no other interests besides freedom of information and peace!) (regarding Assange's threats to reveal information if he is harmed, but keep it if he is not, and his secrecy regarding funding and other business practices) "...Assange is absolutely committed to revealing the truth unless it serves his interests not to, in which case the public has no need to know." On December 23 2010 19:46 DND_Enkil wrote: The one thing i would like to point out in regards of the "informed" and "uninformed" people reacting to wikileaks is why so many people are uninformed about the reality of the war. Maybe Wikileaks has not released any shocking news, but they are exposing the dirty underbelly of the beast, maybe all the mainstream media knew about it, maybe informed experts knew about it and politicians knew about it but i bet most regular citizens did not know about it. All it proves is that your average citizen is hilariously uninformed. The war, gory details, civilian casualties, human rights abuse—it's all been covered by new media, old media, print media, tv media.... | ||
|
mmp
United States2130 Posts
On December 23 2010 22:40 Hawk wrote: It is good and true: the people making the most noise about these leaks are typically people that were uninformed from the get go. But, just like most of the people babbling over the leaks that never actually read them, I'm sure this article will get quickly dismissed without ever being read. So, for those people, consider this little train of thought about your 'benevolent' hero (who also has a book deal, but absolutely no other interests besides freedom of information and peace!) (regarding Assange's threats to reveal information if he is harmed, but keep it if he is not, and his secrecy regarding funding and other business practices) "...Assange is absolutely committed to revealing the truth unless it serves his interests not to, in which case the public has no need to know." All it proves is that your average citizen is hilariously uninformed. The war, gory details, civilian casualties, human rights abuse—it's all been covered by new media, old media, print media, tv media.... I don't think you're looking at the bigger picture. The cables have shed light on numerous crimes and wrongdoings by numerous parties (not just the US) on various issues (not just Iraq & Afghanistan). The press that is harping that the leaks don't tell us anything we didn't know, or at best are mere gossip and intrigue about Italy, Libya, US-Russia, etc. : these writers are either parroting the government's line (which is a line, they are very concerned about the leak) or are willfully indifferent to the meaningful stories that have come out since. While I might generally hold beliefs that the government is doing wrong things around the world, it makes a great difference to talk about the crimes of yesterday as though they are a basis for paranoia today, and actually learning about the crimes that are happening today. There is a difference between suspicions of wrongdoing and proof of wrongdoing -- primarily that you cannot hold a mainstream debate on suspicions and distrust alone. You cannot challenge sitting officials on the basis that, "the government has always been corrupt in the past so you must be acting wrongly now." And it helps to dispell the illusions that sitting governments place over their electorate. The fact of the matter is that governments lie to our faces and steal from us behind our backs, but we won't know the facts of the crime until the damage has already been done. The more information we can get out sooner, the more effectively we can react without a prolonged hearsay debate and get the crooks out of office. Unfortunately there are deeply-entrenched interests in American politics, which is perhaps why so many elites in America are skeptical about the effect of the leaks. But we are seeing a stronger impact from the global audience that is perhaps more politically receptive to news of corruption at home. It is also worth noting that it is only the American elites and their political sympathizers at home that seem to find Wikileaks so goddamn boring. As far as I've read, just about everyone else in the free-thinking world seems to be very interested in and supportive of Wikileaks. Nor do they apologize for corrupt officials that hide behind the "might is right" doctrine. | ||
|
Danjoh
Sweden405 Posts
On December 23 2010 22:40 Hawk wrote: It is good and true: the people making the most noise about these leaks are typically people that were uninformed from the get go. But, just like most of the people babbling over the leaks that never actually read them, I'm sure this article will get quickly dismissed without ever being read. So, for those people, consider this little train of thought about your 'benevolent' hero (who also has a book deal, but absolutely no other interests besides freedom of information and peace!) (regarding Assange's threats to reveal information if he is harmed, but keep it if he is not, and his secrecy regarding funding and other business practices) "...Assange is absolutely committed to revealing the truth unless it serves his interests not to, in which case the public has no need to know." All it proves is that your average citizen is hilariously uninformed. The war, gory details, civilian casualties, human rights abuse—it's all been covered by new media, old media, print media, tv media.... To be fair tho, the media is rarely neutral in their reporting, and most of the time have a political agenda. Picking one side and blowing it out of proportion, and ignoring news that would prove the opposite. So you'd have to read probably 4-5 different papers per day to get somewhat informed. This becomes very clear during election times. And lets not forget, Wikileaks isn't all about the cables. They revealed documents showing proof that rivalring oil companies are sabotaging eachothers drills, causing oil leaks similar to what happened in the gulf of Mexico, but on a smaller scale. | ||
|
QuanticHawk
United States32113 Posts
And of course all forms of media have some bias. My point is that anyone who thinks wikileaks is any different is a dumbass. For some reason, the majority likes to hold it to a different standard despite being structured almost the same as any media organization Even Assange's former employers will confirm for you that there is plenty of editing and filtering of information going on http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/wikileaks-splits-as-volunteers-quit-to-set-up-rival-website-2157420.html Yesterday WikiLeaks members who fell out with Mr Assange over his leadership style and personal politics said they were days away from launching OpenLeaks, an alternative whistle-blowing site which will forgo having a strong editorial figurehead deciding what to publish. | ||
|
mmp
United States2130 Posts
On December 23 2010 23:30 Hawk wrote: Did either of you even read the article I quoted???? I don't quite understand the argument. Are you upset that most people aren't well informed about crimes and wrongdoing, or are you upset that Wikileaks published inconsequential information for political reasons? | ||
|
QuanticHawk
United States32113 Posts
I pretty much agree with all points stated in that well written article | ||
TanGeng
Sanya12364 Posts
On December 24 2010 01:03 Hawk wrote: People are uninformed, people mistakenly think that wiki/julian are free of bias, most of the leaks are void of any kind of real value beyond shock (OMG US diplomats think that Berscolini is a whore monger!). It is TMZ-ish stuff. Occasionally news-worthy stuff comes out, but most of it is shit. I pretty much agree with all points stated in that well written article The TMZ stuff is all selected by the newspapers to which Wikileaks sent the cables. Wikileaks is doing less of the selection and it's the newspapers that are leaking whatever they think will play in their country. As for other competing leak organizations, more is better. Bring them on!! We'll see everything exposed, including all of the mundane stuff. | ||
|
QuanticHawk
United States32113 Posts
On December 24 2010 01:39 TanGeng wrote: The TMZ stuff is all selected by the newspapers to which Wikileaks sent the cables. Wikileaks is doing less of the selection and it's the newspapers that are leaking whatever they think will play in their country. As for other competing leak organizations, more is better. Bring them on!! We'll see everything exposed, including all of the mundane stuff. I agree that more competition is better, especially in the media, but my point in posting that was showing that people actually within wikileaks are saying what I've said all along: Julian, like every other human being that has ever worked in the journalism industry, has his own biases and convictions that which ultimately influence what gets published and what doesn't. Almost every person seems to forget as he goes about martyring himself, talking about how he'll only release some super secret stuff if he gets hurt, but not otherwise. And no, the TMZ-type irrelevant stuff is released by wikileaks. There's no news value in confidential assements of foreign diplomats by there American counterparts. Etc etc. Most things have no shown any real corruption or anything of value. It's more 'hey, look! we can get confidential stuff from disgruntled workers!' | ||
|
mmp
United States2130 Posts
On December 24 2010 01:50 Hawk wrote: I agree that more competition is better, especially in the media, but my point in posting that was showing that people actually within wikileaks are saying what I've said all along: Julian, like every other human being that has ever worked in the journalism industry, has his own biases and convictions that which ultimately influence what gets published and what doesn't. Almost every person seems to forget as he goes about martyring himself, talking about how he'll only release some super secret stuff if he gets hurt, but not otherwise. And no, the TMZ-type irrelevant stuff is released by wikileaks. There's no news value in confidential assements of foreign diplomats by there American counterparts. Etc etc. Most things have no shown any real corruption or anything of value. It's more 'hey, look! we can get confidential stuff from disgruntled workers!' You sound pissed. What is your beef? | ||
| ||
