Assange says leaks suck.

Looks like he can dish it out but he can't take it.

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/12/21/wikileaks-assange-turns-friends-foes/?test=latestnews

Excerpt:

Speaking from a Suffolk mansion where he is confined on bail, the 39-year-old Australian said that the decision to publish incriminating police files about him was “disgusting.” The Guardian had previously used him as its source for hundreds of leaked US embassy cables.

Assange was understood to be particularly angry with a senior reporter at the paper and former friend, for “selectively publishing” incriminating sections of the police report, although The Guardian made clear that the WikiLeaks founder was given several days to respond.

Assange claimed the newspaper received leaked documents from Swedish authorities or “other intelligence agencies” intent on jeopardizing his defense.

“The leak was clearly designed to undermine my bail application,” he said. “Someone in authority clearly intended to keep Julian in prison.”

you clearly have a hard on for sending this dude down the river..

but to be honest.. That guy dosen't matter any more...

The Wikileaks thing will now live on through the internet..

He is no longer needed..

the only move more fitting wouldve been if the reporter went to his house and punched him in the face and kicked his balls into his throat...and waited for his nausea to pass and then kicked each ball individually

4 Pumpkin Escobar's of fury wrote: the only move more fitting wouldve been if the reporter went to his house and punched him in the face and kicked his balls into his throat...and waited for his nausea to pass and then kicked each ball individually

you seriously think he has balls?

4 Pumpkin Escobar's of fury wrote: the only move more fitting wouldve been if the reporter went to his house and punched him in the face and kicked his balls into his throat...and waited for his nausea to pass and then kicked each ball individually

I believe the quote I read recently went something like this:

"If a dissident in China did this, America/the west would award them a noble peace prize"

I have no hate for the guy. Politicians get away with waay too much.

Why the berkeley do we only decide this dude is a bad guy when he leaks state department cables? When I was in Iraq I wrote hundreds of those military briefs like the ones he leaked before and there is no way innocent people were not killed off of that information.

HiTempguy wrote:

4 Pumpkin Escobar's of fury wrote: the only move more fitting wouldve been if the reporter went to his house and punched him in the face and kicked his balls into his throat...and waited for his nausea to pass and then kicked each ball individually

I believe the quote I read recently went something like this: "If a dissident in China did this, America/the west would award them a noble peace prize" I have no hate for the guy. Politicians get away with waay too much.

true, and Im sure Ego will diasagree on some symantics, but tossing classified info out there may make your website popular, but making a soldiers job tougher doesnt win any cool-guy points in my mind. If we were a communist regime without regard to human rights or personal liberty, I say go ahead and leak it all. But a Democracy (or democratic republic) who make efforts around the globe toward peace and freedom, why do you want to eff with that? Berkely that asshat...kick his balls and punch his throat til his wikileaks

HiTempguy wrote: I have no hate for the guy. Politicians get away with waay too much.

Indeed.. Politicians and big corporations...

Nothing Good is coming from these wikileaks..

Nothing..

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/21/wikileaks-cables-iraq-security-firms

And you know if Haliburton is calling someone a "mafia" They really must be bad folks..

Nope.. We americans who love freedom of speech should try and squelch this stuff. Freedom of speech only applies to americans.. Everyone else can go F off..

Ever think that this is exactly why the world hate us? We are the shining beacon for liberty and freedom in the world, but only tyranny and fear everywhere else..

Remind me.. How many US troops were used in Afghanistan to guard Heroin poppy fields to make war lords happy?

I got to watch a lot of poppy fields get burned down. Even that was done by contractors, if I remember correctly.

http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/12707

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/21/world/asia/21marja.html

http://publicintelligence.net/usnato-troops-patrolling-opium-poppy-fields-in-afghanistan/

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/afghanistan/5674309/Britain-to-continue-poppy-eradication-in-Afghanistan-despite-US-reversal.html

Theres tons more info out there..

But.. Like most of those who are anti wikileaks.. I mean to say those who are trying to render illegitimate the internet as proper media outlet... They'll say the links I posted are worthless and demand I send them a proper western union telegram delivered by pony express.. Assange is worthless. Media has changed.

War on drugs in one area of the world and then helping growing poppies in another.. Do you at least see the hypocrisy? Freedom of information is key.

Don't get me started on that horrible Net Neutrality stuff that creates two tiers of service... One for Wired people and one for Wireless. I love it when we let big corporations write our policy.

Iggy:

You sound like the luster has worn off your support of President Obama, and I agree with you about the value of free speech, and the value of the medium of the internet.

Now that we know the information that US troops are guarding poppy crops, how are we able to use that information to make things better? It looks like a terrible Catch 22 to me- guard the crops and enable the enemy to finance it's operations while turning thousands of people into drug addicts, or destroy the crops and enrage the poor populace thereby encouraging them to take up arms against us (and all free states), which enables the enemy to populate it's extremist forces. It's a win-win for the Taliban and al Qaeda.

If the net result of the free press is a discouraged, jaded, and angry populace that is pissed off at the leadership and has no recourse, it's hard to see the value. It is dividing the nation and emasculating us. WWII did the opposite, uniting the nation while the only information that the populace ever received was strategically released and outdated military newsreels and theatrics.

The freedoms are being used for manipulating masses of people. Just as our existing free transport system was turned against us on 9/11, our love of free speech is being masterfully turned against us by our enemies. Masses of poor Afghans are being manipulated for revolt, masses of freedom loving Americans are being manipulated for disgust with their own government (which translates into confusion and a lack of support).

I'm not saying the press should not be free, but help me see something positive here about how the information can be applied other than protecting a theoretical freedom.

Conservatives get pissed off that the information is leaked giving the military a black eye. Liberals get pissed off that their government isn't all they dreamed of. Sooner or later somebody in a position of leadership figures out that it is not politically expedient to have a free press, and locks down the flow of information in some way or another. Spin, rinse, repeat.

Looks to me like the bottom line is that the availability of the information (as it is currently practiced, or perhaps in this limited example) ultimately leads to less freedoms. It turns people like Mr. Obama into people like Mr. Bush, and neuters people like Mr. Bush.

It concerns me. I believe in free speech whole heartedly, but how do we apply the freedoms to make a stronger nation? Give me some ideas here. The theoretical isn't translating into the practical.

SVreX wrote: It concerns me. I believe in free speech whole heartedly, but how do we apply the freedoms to make a stronger nation? Give me some ideas here. The theoretical isn't translating into the practical.

I would hope that everyone in the US utilizes this information to help guide them in their voting. Information is the greatest weapon after all. Thomas jefferson said..: “Whenever the people are well-informed, they can be trusted with their own government." I am no lover of Jeffereson, as I generally find his views of government too simplistic for actual implementation, but he wasn't stupid.

Interesting article here.. http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2010/07/11/how_facts_backfire/

Basically the article above says that the political partisans are so wild that no matter if they know the facts in a certain matter it dosen't change their misguided views(cough.. Cough... Birthers).

Shim wrote: Freedom of information is key.

Yes, absolutely, if information is true, then anyone anywhere at anytime should have the right to any information they want, no procedural or legal restrictions should be applied, ever. Maybe next, for the global good, clerks and data entry analysts for medical offices the world over should make public the names of anyone that has HIV, then with the power of modern media, apps can generate specific lists locally that should be published and posted for public view, so people will know who to avoid. Maybe it shouldn't just be HIV, it should be full medical records, so that anyone anywhere can know what conditions someone may have that might be transmitted, without needing something so tyrannical as their consent to make the information public.

It's for the greater good, right? It's all true, right? It's practical and realistic, right? So this kind of information discolure should fall under freedom of speech, right? Due to the wonders of the internet and modern media, here in my armchair I know more about global health, societal change to minimize the spread of disease, and the consequences of making confidential information public than those whose job it is to do those things, right? So if I could get personal health information, by any means, it should be legal for me to make it public, because I, and I alone, with no recognized authority and without divulging the sources of my information, judge that information to be useful to the public?

grpb wrote:

Shim wrote: Freedom of information is key.

Yes, absolutely, if information is true, then anyone anywhere at anytime should have the right to any information they want, no procedural or legal restrictions should be applied, ever. Maybe next, for the global good, clerks and data entry analysts for medical offices the world over should make public the names of anyone that has HIV, then with the power of modern media, apps can generate specific lists locally that should be published and posted for public view, so people will know who to avoid. Maybe it shouldn't just be HIV, it should be full medical records, so that anyone anywhere can know what conditions someone may have that might be transmitted, without needing something so tyrannical as their consent to make the information public. It's for the greater good, right? It's all true, right? It's practical and realistic, right? So this kind of information discolure should fall under freedom of speech, right? Due to the wonders of the internet and modern media, here in my armchair I know more about global health, societal change to minimize the spread of disease, and the consequences of making confidential information public than those whose job it is to do those things, right? So if I could get personal health information, by any means, it should be legal for me to make it public, because I, and I alone, with no recognized authority and without divulging the sources of my information, judge that information to be useful to the public?

yay.. Hyperbole..

Of course there are limits.. And of course there should be privacy limits. Duh...

And at what point do we get to the "wag the dog" stage with our government..

Shim wrote: I would hope that everyone in the US utilizes this information to help guide them in their voting.

A large portion of the populace dont bother to do this with the information available to them now so why will the addition of more information change that?

Sadly those who vote based on facts and legitimate information are a very small percentage. Your average voter (based purely on my non-scientific polling of and discussions with those around me) is at best voting based upon distorted facts presended to them 30 seconds at a time during the latest episode of Dancing with the Stars. They vote based on the party they think they identify with or the person they "like" the best. I say the party they think they identify with because most people couldnt truely tell you much about either party's platform beyond the surface generalizations which are constantly thrown about.

Sadly what we need is not more information, what we need are more informed voters. Sounds the same, but it's very different.

Assange is a douche bag. But that is irrelevant.

Shim wrote: I would hope that everyone in the US utilizes this information to help guide them in their voting.

Ah yes... Utopia. (heavy sigh)

I like the things you say. They just don't reconcile with what I see.

I believe you will actually use the information for exactly that purpose as best you are able to. I do not, however, have the slightest inclination to believe that it will equate to an informed electorate.

Millions of people- "If you promise to protect my entitlements, I'll vote for you regardless of what you actually do".

Millions more people- "If you promise to cut my taxes or protect my investments, I'll vote for you regardless of what you actually do".

It's pathetic.

Additionally, even the informed are uninformed. Weren't you pretty confidant (and informed) in Mr. Obama? (no foul intended- just an observation, with a bit of respect). Has that played out the way you expected?

I think there is a nearly complete disconnect between the information and the reality for the American voter, regardless of how much information they have.

SVreX wrote:

Shim wrote: I would hope that everyone in the US utilizes this information to help guide them in their voting.

Ah yes... Utopia. (heavy sigh) I like the things you say. They just don't reconcile with what I see. I believe you will actually use the information for exactly that purpose as best you are able to. I do not, however, have the slightest inclination to believe that it will equate to an informed electorate. Millions of people- "If you promise to protect my entitlements, I'll vote for you regardless of what you actually do". Millions more people- "If you promise to cut my taxes or protect my investments, I'll vote for you regardless of what you actually do". It's pathetic. Additionally, even the informed are uninformed. Weren't you pretty confidant (and informed) in Mr. Obama? (no foul intended- just an observation, with a bit of respect). Has that played out the way you expected? I think there is a nearly complete disconnect between the information and the reality for the American voter, regardless of how much information they have.

Obama is a disappointment. While he passed some of the things I was hoping for; He did not effectively change the government in a way in which I would have liked or he said he was going to do. (open government etc.) Which at the end of the day is a greater disappointment than missing some of his promises. you get it?

It is sad

Shim wrote: Obama is a disappointment. While he passed some of the things I was hoping for; He did not effectively change the government in a way in which I would have liked or he said he was going to do. (open government etc.) Which at the end of the day is a greater disappointment than missing some of his promises. you get it? It is sad

I suppose I'm in an even sadder state.... I'm surprised Obama has accomplished as much as he has. I had no delusions he would actually do most of what he promised to do... simply because those promises were unrealistic. I'm sorry, but anyone who believed what he said during his campaign is a fool.

That said, I voted for Obama... but that vote wasn't as much for him as it was against the idea of that nut-case from Alaska being a 70 year-old heart-beat away from the Presidency. Otherwise, a lot of more center-leaning Democrats might have voted for McCain. And the GOP wasn't going to let that happen - hence we got Palin.

Both sides knew this would be a doomed Presidency. There is simply no way to turn things around as quickly as the instant-gratification-American-populace wants. The Republicans just did a better job of setting up a losing ticket.

Ian F wrote: I'm sorry, but anyone who believed what he said during his campaign is a fool.

people who believed Chris Columbus were considered fools. The wright bros.. Also fools.

Seriously? You're really making that comparison?

Maybe I'm just jaded... I don't really believe anybody anymore.

I will give him that one. Big things can be done if you really want to. He made us believe he did, and maybe he thought he could. If he had been able to create jobs, get us off the addiction to foreign dinojuice etc etc, everyone would be all "hes the greatest!!!1!". I voted for him ,and feel cheated, just like the rest of you. But dont think it cant be done, it just wasnt. Id say those were fair comparisons.

Shim wrote:

Ian F wrote: I'm sorry, but anyone who believed what he said during his campaign is a fool.

people who believed Chris Columbus were considered fools.

And it turns out they were! Getting to the Far East via the Atlantic? Morons.

4 Pumpkin Escobar's of fury wrote: But dont think it cant be done, it just wasnt..

BINGO!

It was just too hard.

Shim wrote:

grpb wrote:

Shim wrote: Freedom of information is key.

Yes, absolutely, if information is true, then anyone anywhere at anytime should have the right to any information they want, no procedural or legal restrictions should be applied, ever. Maybe next, for the global good, clerks and data entry analysts for medical offices the world over should make public the names of anyone that has HIV, then with the power of modern media, apps can generate specific lists locally that should be published and posted for public view, so people will know who to avoid. Maybe it shouldn't just be HIV, it should be full medical records, so that anyone anywhere can know what conditions someone may have that might be transmitted, without needing something so tyrannical as their consent to make the information public. It's for the greater good, right? It's all true, right? It's practical and realistic, right? So this kind of information discolure should fall under freedom of speech, right? Due to the wonders of the internet and modern media, here in my armchair I know more about global health, societal change to minimize the spread of disease, and the consequences of making confidential information public than those whose job it is to do those things, right? So if I could get personal health information, by any means, it should be legal for me to make it public, because I, and I alone, with no recognized authority and without divulging the sources of my information, judge that information to be useful to the public?

yay.. Hyperbole.. Of course there are limits.. And of course there should be privacy limits. Duh... And at what point do we get to the "wag the dog" stage with our government..

And I'm glad we have you and Assange to determine what those limits should be.