dagblog - Comments for "Assange in Vanity Fair"

Absolutely. I myself am a

Atheist — Fri, 14 Jan 2011 17:46:56 +0000

Absolutely. I myself am a strong supporter of many particular actions of Assange, but I am not an unqualified supporter of his.

How about the question I

A Guy Called LULU — Fri, 14 Jan 2011 17:41:42 +0000

In reply to For both #1 and #2, I was

How about the question I posed to you regarding support of Assange?

Only slightly off-topic, but

Anonymous — Fri, 14 Jan 2011 17:37:14 +0000

In reply to Assange in Vanity Fair

Only slightly off-topic, but related, and germane to the future of whistle-blowing, this administration has prosecuted more whistleblowers than any previous President. His DoJ has even renewed a subpoena to compel testimony from James Risen who is an heroic figure to me and many other Americans, exposing a botched CIA mission that may have accidentally given nuclear secrets to Iran.

Thomas Drake's prosecution is afoot; his crime was trying to SAVE millions of dollars being wasted in wiretapping schemes, not to DERAIL the program, but make it more tech efficient.. He went to the Baltimore Sun to expose it, as no one in the program would take notice of his advice. (The waste was a bit of a scandal for some small amount of time.) He faces prison time if convicted. Eric Holder and Obama's DoJ are worse than idiotic on leaks; if these prosecutiuons happened under Bush, Dems would be livid.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/12/us/politics/12leak.html?pagewanted=2&_r=2&hp

For both #1 and #2, I was

Atheist — Fri, 14 Jan 2011 17:28:17 +0000

In reply to 1) Was it wrong for the

For both #1 and #2, I was referring to the piece of information (regarding Morgan Tsvangirai) that Assange wanted redacted, but that the Guardian did not redact.

1) Was it wrong for the

A Guy Called LULU — Fri, 14 Jan 2011 17:24:58 +0000

In reply to The Salon article you cite

1) Was it wrong for the Guardian to release that information?

Which information do you refer to? In general, I believe it to be absolutely correct for the Guardian to release the information it received from Wikileaks. The specific question of propriety addressed in Greenwaldt's article comes from the release of a particular bit which revealed the name of a person who might be put in jeopardy by that release, information that should have been redacted. Most people would consider that to be a mistake and to be wrong. The point of Greenwaldt's article is that the Guardian made the mistake. They are the entity that released that information to the world and therefore to those that might harm the person named. The Guardian then published a story that said Assange was the one who made the mistake. There is no question who was the delinquent party in that case, it was the Guardian.
I have a question for you. Do you recognize the difference between being an unqualified supporter of Assange and being a strong supporter of a particular action performed by Assange?

2) Would the Guardian have had that information had it not been for Wikileaks?

I have no reason to believe that the Guardian or any other news source would have any classified information that was not leaked to them or to someone or some group which would then pass it on to them.

Hey Sleepin'. I guess I've

quinn esq — Fri, 14 Jan 2011 16:40:19 +0000

In reply to What about those Reuters

Hey Sleepin'. I guess I've been disturbed by the Assange thing because the very people who should be excited about this new development - one which I regard as huge - have instead fallen face-first into the personal stuff. The substance of the leaks, the historic nature of what's changed - these things have faded back into the wallpaper.

I mean, Sarah Ellison is SUPPOSED to be a "serious" reporter, right? She was at the WSJ for 10 years, knows a lot about Murdoch and his machinations, and now - this big piece on The Guardian and Wikileaks.

But take just this little paragraph. And read it knowing that the media has turned over the fact of his rape charges, and the condom breaking, about 1001 times. Watch what she does with it:

The Guardian, like other media outlets, would come to see Assange as someone to be handled with kid gloves, or perhaps latex ones—too alluring to ignore, too tainted to unequivocally embrace. Assange would come to see the mainstream media as a tool to be used and discarded, and at all times treated with suspicion.

Ever so cute, eh? Latex. Alluring. Tainted. Used and discarded. etc.

This reporter is just another empty-headed ass writing for the big American media machinery that just cannot seem to get enough of this sort of cellar-dwelling.

I guess what really intrigues me, and what I see as historic - a shifting of the plates that underlay our society - is that Wikileaks shows us, in a big way, that we have a powerful new tool, and forum, for getting at the guts of what goes on with the great powers and towers of the age - the corporation and the government. Both state and market are terrified of this shit, and so they should be.

It's like the printing press hitting the church, and we're not even discussing it. I just read Steven Johnson's book on innovation, and he points out that the major use of the printing press in its early decades was... printing indulgences for the church. In other words, the powers of the age used it, and the printers had to accept it, because that's what made them money. But it fed an extreme overreach by the church, and more importantly, fuelled a backlash that eventually tore the old world in two.

But here, instead of discussing that, we're actually into whether or not Gutenberg had a drinking problem, and whether his relations with Cardinal Vickers are the best possible.

Anyhoo. Good to see you. And yes. Bradley's in jail, and Assange is under arrest, and nobody gives a shit. Welcome to the Working Week.

The Salon article you cite

Atheist — Fri, 14 Jan 2011 15:38:30 +0000

In reply to Not sure what your point is

The Salon article you cite raises some interesting questions itself that I'd like supporters of Assange to answer. Personally, I don't think Assange is evil, but nor do I think that Wikileaks is an unadulterated good thing.

1) Was it wrong for the Guardian to release that information?

2) Would the Guardian have had that information had it not been for Wikileaks?

The second question is mostly rhetorical, unless you think the answer is no. In which case, I'm interested in the explanation. As for the first question, if your answer is no, then that's perfectly consistent with being a unqualified supporter of Assange. If your answer is yes, however, I'm wondering how exactly that line is drawn, and who gets to draw it? (Note: I'm not addressing the obvious double-standards and hypocrisy when it comes to the Guardian exactly because they are obvious. I feel the need to mention this because I'm afraid otherwise people are going to think I'm defending the Guardian.)

What about those Reuters

SleepinJeezus — Fri, 14 Jan 2011 15:37:35 +0000

In reply to Drivel.1. Dozens of negative

What about those Reuters journalists who were gunned down by our military? Whatever became of the ones responsible? Is there any attempt to hold anyone accountable for this murder of innocents?

And now that I think about it...

By my calculation, it is now approaching eight months since U.S. Citizen Bradley Manning has been held in detention under questionable circumstance (torture?). Has he yet been brought before a judge for an arraignment to hear whatever charges are being made against him? Last I heard, he was undergoing a mental evaluation, Is this to assess his present mental and emotional stability? Or is it instead an effort to "get his mind right" for whenever the time is chosen to actually introduce him (and his captors) to the Rule of Law?

There are a lot of questions that the wikileaks story raises in my mind. What kind of a pissing match might (or might not) be ongoing between Assange and The Guardian simply isn't one that really stirs my curiosity.

Sorry, but this seems more like turning on the TV to see the news and finding Entertainment Nightly in its place. WTF, the news really couldn't be all that interesting anyway, so we might as well grab the popcorn and enjoy the show, eh?

(No subject)

Donal — Fri, 14 Jan 2011 15:35:33 +0000

In reply to Donal, that is an excellent

Donal, that is an excellent

tmccarthy0 — Fri, 14 Jan 2011 14:28:36 +0000

In reply to What is interesting to me

Donal, that is an excellent description! I love it.