dagblog - Comments for "Assange, Irony and Secrets"

What looks bad are illegal

Decader — Mon, 20 Dec 2010 13:14:05 +0000

What looks bad are illegal actions.

This isn't about "embarass the diplomatic corps". It's about heavy handed actions like the US shutting down a Spanish court's inquiry on torture.

If you think any of these issues would get bigger play without Assange, you don't really understand how people drift to personalities more than facts.

Again, Saturday Night Live packages it all in ways people understand - we really are propping up guys who fly around with briefcases full of money, money that's used to work directly against our military operations, as just one example.

I'd prefer they left out Qaddafi and his prostitute nurse and others like this - more tabloid fare than helpful news. (Okay, if you're Libyan and you really don't understand how the world works, it might be news)

Actually there are people

David Seaton — Mon, 20 Dec 2010 10:22:11 +0000

In reply to Assange is a weekly item on

Actually there are people around the world that say the leaks make the US diplomats look pretty good, professional, well informed, pro-active etc, what looks bad is that somebody like Pfc Manning having access to the traffic. Turning it all into a story about Julian Assange is a huge mistake of Wikileaks part... no face was necessary at all.

Assange is a weekly item on

Decader — Mon, 20 Dec 2010 08:38:06 +0000

In reply to Assange's biggest mistake was

Assange is a weekly item on Saturday Night Live - making the US Government look foolish. Nothing could be better for Wikileaks. Wouldn't have happened without a face.

Wikileaks is playing softball, whatever with the US military - if they were any kinder, there wouldn't be a story at all.

Assange's biggest mistake was

David Seaton — Mon, 20 Dec 2010 07:32:27 +0000

In reply to Assange, Irony and Secrets

Assange's biggest mistake was to take the bait and turn himself or let himself be turned into the poster boy for the data-dump. People who have in turn taken the bait and accepted him as a hero are going to be bitterly disillusioned.

"Outing" the State Department, using Army personel is the ultimate in hardball. If Assange had done it to the Russians he would have died of plutonium poison and if he had done it to the Israelis his body would probably never be found (probably some rabbi in New Jersey would be marketing his kidneys). Assange is counting on the Americans not being as rough as the above mentioned... big mistake, we're just more hypocritical.

Unlike the NY Times, the

Decader — Mon, 20 Dec 2010 03:25:52 +0000

In reply to I think people who avoid the

Unlike the NY Times, the Guardian has it tougher - the British courts don't usually change or ignore the law to protect the whims of the ruling power the way the US courts do. Guess that's the advantage of having a Parliamentary system? Thought it would be the other way.

I missed your link

A Guy Called LULU — Mon, 20 Dec 2010 03:18:07 +0000

In reply to Your Info Cleaing House

I missed your link yesterday.

I don't know either how they get away with printing complete articles but I also don't see any damage done when they could have posted a link to the same affect. I would assume the wrong sourceing was a mistake since I don't see any obvious motive to do it wrong.

"Those leaks could even come from inside Wikileaks itself, don't you see?"

No, I don't see how they could have come from inside Wikileaks itself. I see how they could have been passed through Wikileaks but assuming they are real they must have originated from Swedish authorities.

I think people who avoid the

artappraiser — Mon, 20 Dec 2010 03:15:56 +0000

In reply to Assange, Irony and Secrets

I think people who avoid the fact that it's The Guardian who published this stuff are lilkely to make faulty conclusions. It's not like it's any old source, it's one that probably has had a closer relationship to him than any other major media organization and also one with a vested interest in making sure that what he and they have published of U.S. government docs isn't deemed criminal.

Your Info Cleaing House

artappraiser — Mon, 20 Dec 2010 03:09:08 +0000

In reply to Theleaked allegations against

Your Info Cleaing House source has a terrible glanrg mistake in telling you their cut and paste of Nick Davies article is an Independent piece. It's a Guardian piece! The docs were leaked to The Guardian, and that it the piece they published on them.

I don't know how they still get away with pasting full articles from other sources and not linking to them, and then in this instance add insult to injury but not even bother to source it correctly. It's quite important to do that with this article in particular as.a major point of the irony is that this was leaked to The Guardian, Assange's main partner in publishing what Wiklileaks has gotten in US documents. This time that partner decided to publish what they got from someone else on him. Those leaks could even come from inside Wikileaks itself, don't you see? The Guardian certainly has some connections there

It's easy to access the original Guardian article, it's here:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/17/julian-assange-sweden

And not only that, I posted a link to it right here on DAG Blog in the In The News column yesterday:

http://dagblog.com/link/10-days-sweden-full-allegations-against-julian-a...

Along the lines of The Guardian having some of the best access to Wikileaks staff, take note of the paragraph I decided to use as an excerpt when I posted the link to it here:

The co-ordinator of the WikiLeaks group in Stockholm, who is a close colleague of Assange and who also knows both women, told the Guardian: "This is a normal police investigation. Let the police find out what actually happened. Of course, the enemies of WikiLeaks may try to use this, but it begins with the two women and Julian. It is not the CIA sending a woman in a short skirt."

First, I don't know his aims

Donal — Mon, 20 Dec 2010 02:31:26 +0000

In reply to Well, I think I

First, I don't know his aims yet. That brief manifesto (if it's really his) makes him out to be a behind-the-scenes revolutionary trying to defeat the invisible conspiracy. In one interview he claims he's a sort of libertarian. I actually like him better as a revolutionary, but that would mean he has an agenda, which does not lend itself to complete transparency.

Second, as I mentioned, I find it unlikely that the MSM will reveal anything that would really indict their corporate masters. Most of what has been revealed is not particularly surprising to me. That could change. And I agree that sending stuff to Amy Goodman or Alexander Cockburn would be cool.

Third, and from the other end, as it were, if WikiLeaks was just a conduit, I worry about making anonymous leaking too easy. To me, whistleblowing should be a little bit risky. We see what happens when anonymous government sources can leak directly to the media. Why is it any better when someone goes through WikiLeaks or OpenLeaks? Or some new entrant like BreitbartLeaks or DrudgeLeaks?

Nor do I have an answer. The

Elusive Trope — Mon, 20 Dec 2010 01:55:06 +0000

In reply to Yes, I agree entirely. Of

Nor do I have an answer. The closest to one I can get to is "it depends.'