Article

2010-11-28 Home Front: Politix

Upcoming WikiLeaks release will endanger "countless lives" according to US government

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by gorb 2010-11-28 04:01|| || Front Page|| [3 views ] Top

#1 Wikileaks is redacting names and identifying details. US Government is very worried, has contacted allies including Australia.

Now Australia has censored Wikileaks in the past, documents they don't want us to see.

I have spent the last couple of hours checking out Wikileaks website which I never bothered to do before, shame on me.

I have discovered it is a treasure trove of information that I have never come across before.

eg: rampant corruption in the Turks and Caicos Islands (UK protectorate) that authorities tried to cover up - but the leaks resulted in the British Government chucking out the constitution and taking over the country

another eg is a subpoena on gmail to reveal the identity of journalists involved in the corruption-busting investigation of that incident. Gmail gave up their IP addresses and identities.

another good one, is a report ordered on toxic dumping along the Ivory Coast by a UK firm. Sadly when I click that link it says 'down for maintenance'... or because it was damaged.

I am getting more familiar with this Wikileaks site I intend to trawl it a bit more carefully as I think it has lots of gems in there

it's not all about destroying our troops and having our allies killed in their beds, you know.

they have other things too...

i am trying now to find the good stuff on my country, the information my government has hidden from me.

Posted by anon1 2010-11-28 05:51|| 2010-11-28 05:51|| Front Page Top

#2 i am curious as to what the US administration is afraid of in relation to it's allies...

what are they going to reveal?? it's the stuff that won't endanger lives that is of the most interest anyway, the geopolitical stuff. I bet there won't be nitty gritty things that endanger lives, and names and identifying features are likely to be redacted

especially after the stink last time.

but i am really curious

i have now found wikileaks on twitter and am looking at that

Posted by anon1 2010-11-28 06:05|| 2010-11-28 06:05|| Front Page Top

#3 hey everyone...
from wikileaks twitter...

UK Government has issued a "D-notice" warning to all UK news editors, asking to be briefed on upcoming WikiLeaks stories.

For those that don't know, a D-notice is how the UK and Australian government gags newspapers. It stands for Defence-notice.

They issue it and legally you must do what it says.

for example: A D-notice was issued over the Nigel Brennan/Amanda Lindhout kidnapping case in Somalia to "protect" the pair.

But the only thing that got protected as time dragged on was the bungling of the bureaucratic agencies working on freeing them. Bungling that included spending more money than was paid for the ransom flying joint teams around southern africa, paying the wrong negotiator who ran off with the money and repeatedly offering a lowball figure that the kidnappers were never going to accept.

D-notices - always protecting someone, but usually not the people advertised.

Posted by anon1 2010-11-28 06:12|| 2010-11-28 06:12|| Front Page Top

#4 another thing i discovered on wikileaks: the list of chinese censorship blacklists for media in the Olympics

and stuff on scientology

but disappointingly half the links are just broken and I wonder why

Posted by anon1 2010-11-28 07:06|| 2010-11-28 07:06|| Front Page Top

#5 jeebus - you do like to hear yourself talk, dontcha?

Posted by Frank G 2010-11-28 07:36|| 2010-11-28 07:36|| Front Page Top

#6 Wikileaks is redacting names and identifying details.

They said that last time, too ...

Posted by Steve White 2010-11-28 10:20|| 2010-11-28 10:20|| Front Page Top

#7 @anon1

I actually understand where you're coming fróm. You see Wikileaks as a form of controlling governments.

Fair enough.

But anyone who works with classified info know why it's classified in the first place. It can save lives.

To blacken the name of an infoirmant is not good enough. A special info, a trivial context can expose a person. The slightest suspicion can kill.

Wikileaks editors are certainly no experts on the matter. Sooner or later they will kill someone.

And claim innocence.

Posted by European Conservative 2010-11-28 11:57|| 2010-11-28 11:57|| Front Page Top

#8 Another theory about classified information is to camoflage the stuff that really deserves to be classified by producing tons of other documents that really don't need to be classified. That way a spy doesn't know if it's worth it to grab that file or not.

I don't mind releasing some of this stuff, but how do you recognize when it puts someone's life in danger? Sometimes you can tell the difference, but these hacks are releasing everything. And while we are calmly discussing it here, there may be folks out there who are getting disemboweled right now because of what this a$$ and his accomplices have done.

I couldn't sleep at night if I did that.

Posted by gorb 2010-11-28 12:48|| 2010-11-28 12:48|| Front Page Top

#9 Oh I will say it---shut it down Anon1. Your tawdry antics and indifference to suffering caused by your "man" Asssnge has garnered you enough attention- a test of a real man is whether he would do military service, not rat out those who do. Classified and secrecy was how we won WWII--the paradigm shift this traitor is attempting is depraved indifference. And your denial
of the harm being caused by this traitor brands you. Pretty much your are a criminal in my view.

Posted by Fire and ice 2010-11-28 16:39|| 2010-11-28 16:39|| Front Page Top

#10 I wouldn't call anon1's fawning worship of Assange and Wikileaks criminal. Criminally stupid and naive as to consequences to real people and nations, yes. Morally retarded, certainly. An actual criminal, no.

Oh, and keyboard diarrhea, yes

Posted by Frank G 2010-11-28 17:51|| 2010-11-28 17:51|| Front Page Top

#11 Assange is depraved and indifferent. Those who
turn a blind eye to it are no better, IMHO. Same as is I saw a man about to jump off a bridge and knowing he'd be killed I pushed him instead of dialing 911. Either you care about preventing loss of innocent life or you don't. Assange doesn't. Anon 1 doesn't. / rant off

Posted by Fire and ice 2010-11-28 18:04|| 2010-11-28 18:04|| Front Page Top

#12 Hello European Conservative

Yes I agree with you. This is a problem.

It is true those people at Wikileaks are probably not experts in that field at all, and could cause great harm.

Gorb: yes I agree with you also. You don't know really, unless you carefully redact and they are advertising a massive dump of material, so you'd wonder how they got the time to trawl through it all and carefully redact all identifying details.

Fire and Ice, Frank G: if all you can do is attack the person and not make valid points, then that is pretty silly. Why not just shoot everyone who disagrees with you? Great attitude to freedom there...

Posted by anon1 2010-11-28 19:31|| 2010-11-28 19:31|| Front Page Top

#13 Make a valid point. You first

Posted by Frank G 2010-11-28 19:47|| 2010-11-28 19:47|| Front Page Top

#14 My pointing out Assange's depraved indiiference is a valid point. The law and legal definition is to constitute depraved indifference, the guilty's conduct is so deficient in moral concern, so lacking in regard for the life or lives of others and so blameworthy as to warrant criminal
liabilty.
Second, WWII was won against Germany through use of secrecy, and classified information, as well as getting access to the enemy's classified information.

Assange and yourself support and seek to recklessly and systematically reveal things with tconcious intent even though it will / may cause death.

You made your assertions, and they prove beyond a shadow of doubt that you support Assange with complete disregard of the attending deaths that result.

Posted by Fire and ice 2010-11-28 19:49|| 2010-11-28 19:49|| Front Page Top

#15 Anon1, afraid you don't have the moral high ground vantage point from which to look down on others and request they don't attack you, especially since you support attacking our military with wanton lack of care.

Posted by Fire and ice 2010-11-28 19:53|| 2010-11-28 19:53|| Front Page Top

#16 I can see the rationale for excusing what this guy does, but the bottom line is that he's our enemy, and he should be treated as such.

Posted by AuburnTom 2010-11-28 20:06|| 2010-11-28 20:06|| Front Page Top

#17 anon1 -- and knowing info like the screw up of the British sailors, etc, etc, etc, all that stuff you are revealing --- helps my life, how?

We all know gov't is too much into our lives and they screw up. But releasing info that makes us look bad, or puts any of our folks in harms way does what to improve my safety from those who don't like us very much or betters my life?

Helps me how? Why do I have "a need to know?"

For me, I want all our folks to be able to do and to say what needs to be done and said.

Posted by Sherry 2010-11-28 20:22|| 2010-11-28 20:22|| Front Page Top

#18 The only benefit to our side of these data dumps is that it supports what we who've actually been paying attention have been saying all along... finally shutting up those who said we were lying. Otherwise we've learnt absolutely nothing new, based on what I've read about the previous data dumps and the current one. DrudgeReport has links to the latest published articles. In other words, at a cost that has already started to be paid in blood (both our troops and native collaborators), refusal of future assistance both in the war zones and on political battlefields and, most importantly, enemy propaganda, we have gained absolutely nothing from Mr. Assange's efforts.

On the other hand, a large percentage of his best people have quit the enterprise because -- as they've stated to the media for attribution and publication -- they believe Mr. Assange is doing a very bad thing for very bad motives. Winston Churchill would have had him shot. But then, Mr. Churchill was quite happy to order his people to steal a dead body, plant fake documents on it detailing an entirely false plan for the invasion of Europe. Thus is revealed the superior moral standards of Mr. Assange vs. then-British Prime Minister Churchill.

Posted by trailing wife 2010-11-28 20:51|| 2010-11-28 20:51|| Front Page Top

#19 TSA just took down 70+ websites for violating copyright laws.

Copyright.

Priorities people.

These wikileaks sites should all be shut down using the Internet DNS protocol and router backbone. Further, each of the wikileaks people, every one of them from the bottle-washer to the rapist-in-chief, should all be sitting in small rooms in an unnamed Saudi detention area located in the Empty Quarter. Water will be delivered every Tuesday via Inshala air cargo.

To fail to do this or worse is to demonstrate that America is not a serious nation that respects its allies and its own laws.

Posted by rammer 2010-11-28 22:22|| 2010-11-28 22:22|| Front Page Top

#20 TW...agreed. The irony of this is: we (the US government) have put out what is essentially a "hit" on Anwar al-Awlaki (a US citizen) for what in is essence treason. As worthy as he is of a merciless, long, and painful death...it is a violation of the 6th Amendment.

Now we have a non-US citizen who is arguably guilty of revealing state secrets, endangering US citizens, etc. and so on ad finitum and is also worthy of a merciless, long, and painful death...and yet he walks free.

Posted by anymouse 2010-11-28 22:27|| 2010-11-28 22:27|| Front Page Top

#21 What, if anything, is wikileaks trying to show specifically? Are there any specific charges or problems which they are pointing out?

Is there a specific smoking gun which they are pointing out? Which justifies putting real live people's lives and families at risk of torture and death? And I am talking about real-life torture not the hyped up waterboarding torture the media talks about

Or are they just releasing them to cause as much harm as possible?

Unless they actually show something serious - I would say the latter.

Posted by CrazyFool 2010-11-28 22:39|| 2010-11-28 22:39|| Front Page Top

#22 As weak as the response of the US government has been, it seems they OK with the way the WikiLeaks factor tips the balance.

Posted by gorb 2010-11-28 23:26|| 2010-11-28 23:26|| Front Page Top

00:24 JosephMendiola
23:39 crosspatch
23:26 gorb
23:23 M. Murcek
23:22 Skidmark
23:19 Skidmark
22:51 crosspatch
22:39 CrazyFool
22:34 tipper
22:34 anymouse
22:27 anymouse
22:22 rammer
22:16 JosephMendiola
22:14 anymouse
22:10 badanov
22:08 JosephMendiola
22:02 JosephMendiola
21:50 JosephMendiola
21:40 Water Modem
21:27 Dave UK
21:17 pan
21:11 Dave UK
21:08 Redneck Jim
21:08 trailing wife