It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
So – if a bunch of formerly-hidden documents were to surface that told us all what we already know…and has been publicly & universally denounced anyway – what’s the effect?
What do you know of me? What do you know of my family or circumstances? How are you going to do something about these dictators you’re apparently aware of?
When YOU take one of them down…please come back on this site – announce your victory to us all. Tell us how you did it…
I do not particulalry remember Julian threatening Benedict. As far as i know, Julian Assange actually finds Benedict to be a respectable and nice fellow. He doesn't hate benedict, he hates the movie.
While most journalists at the Guardian dislike Julian Assange as a person, i assume that some may support him. As such, the journalists who do support him may have tainted their articles with biased opinions (which they are not meant to do).
Many WikiLeaks supporters pin the rift on Daniel's jealousy of Assange. I tend to think that both individuals had different opinions on what WikiLeaks should be, hence the rift.
I agree, but i think it is much more complicated than the two polar opposite opinions...It is hard to say what exactly went on without actually being there.
I think it may be due to the fact that the organisations behind said journalists are inherently different. I don't know, but i would like to see WikiLeaks take up more investigative and traditional journalistic work.
I do agree that the KGB done very well at concealing the very nature of the documents, even to the point of tricking journalists though. It is just a shame that it actually happened. It wouldn't surprise me if the same tricks are continuing today...
Okay, perhaps i stepped over the line there. Some journalists may have been lazy, but others may not have looked hard enough.
daaskapital
While i do not know Julian's ultimate motives (he may very well be protected asset, for all we know), i do find his basic ones (internet freedoms, privacy etc) just, for the most part.
Just out of curiosity, what were the three predictions?
starheart
...I'm not saying that the US problems are less importants than those of these villagers. I'm saying, we should know about ALL of them. Corruption doesn't stop after Europe and US, it extends to the Middle-East, and Asia, and Africa.
It seems that these people's nationality too serves as the criteria of "do we expose and care for them, or not"; because these people's governments are our enemies, we discard the little people who are also the enemy of their governments. Because we're in war with Syria, it seems that we shouldn't care about whatever horrible Syria does to its own Syrians.
I'm just saying. Corruption is everywhere; why then ALL corruptions aren't exposed. Who exposed that China beats to death its citizens when they spend more than 4 hours on the Web? It was a random magazine/newspaper. Why then Wikileaks, the leader in exposing corruption and horrible deeds doesn't expose things like that?
It has been my understanding, all along, that WikiLeaks is virtually & merely an outlet...and not a news organization. I could be wrong...but, again, that is what I have understood.
I cannot speak to the possibility that some of the information dumped in their lap has to do with subjects you are interested in... I, likewise, cannot speak to whether they choose not to publish some of it, because it isn't sensational enough (or - for whatever other reasons).
If you follow Jennifer Robinson's Tweets ( @suigenerisjen )...I think you'll find that she has been VERY vocal and interested in the plight/s of some in the same kinds of matters, as you seem to be pointing at.
If she is the legal representative (or - a legal representative) for WikiLeaks...and WikiLeaks does not care about third-world despots and dictatorial atrocities...why does she spend so much time trying to draw the attention of anyone-who-will-listen/care to it...?
So - any information I might have given (and I had a boat-load) to some WikiLeaks-style outlet...would have been primarily associated with (thus, affecting) people in the USA.
Does that make me un-caring?
All it makes me...is...local.
I cannot report on what I am not privy to...
Maybe you know a whole lot more than I do about WikiLeaks...
If so - I would like to know what you know, as it would allow me to form a more-(better)-rounded opinion. (really!)
Their lives are a necessary sacrifice for the vision of China that I promote. In fact, in order for China to become what I dream, up to half of China's population will have to be sacrificed. China is too over-populated; our dream of an utopian country cannot happen if it stays so.
Thanks for making the conversation civil and appealing!!!
I have been in position to open the records to a couple of major "disclosures" to the public...(through the years)...and, for one reason or another, have not. (won't go into it, here... may never disclose... then again -- may...but it won't be as potent as it would have been, had I disclosed back when)
What I was privy to...had little to do with foreign (non-U.S.) governments ---- because I was not exposed to the same.
I was exposed to, and privy to, and intimately involved with...something that was happening in the USA...
starheart And there's a difference between leaking corruption, and promoting outright revolution.
Does WikiLeaks officially espouse overthrowing the US government?
You said in another post that revolution was something that no 'outlet' (such as wikileaks) had addressed, but I don't really see how that is their problem or their job.
I was totally against publishing the names of individuals but they changed that.
What you are saying amounts to, nobody should reveal anything true but bad about a government, lest someone else decide the government should be overthrown, and the follow-on chaos be worse than it was to begin with. And so the problem is "revealing the truth about something bad." I think... that is not the problem.
starheart
No, not them (or, at least, they haven't said so). But Anonymous...
They help Wikileaks by hacking into governmental accounts
It wasn't revolution not being adressed by outlets that I deplored, it was entire villages banned from leaving their borders and ravaged by famine, while their governments was feasting and oblivious to their population; almost no outlet ever addressed that.
These innocent people got their names all smudged by scandals they never participated. And those names were never edited.
What you are saying amounts to, nobody should reveal anything true but bad about a government, lest someone else decide the government should be overthrown, and the follow-on chaos be worse than it was to begin with. And so the problem is "revealing the truth about something bad." I think... that is not the problem.
I don't think it was necessary to publish all 400 000 documents, no.
Corruption must be exposed. But what people decides to do with this information is what is the fine line;
and this is also the responsibility of the outlet or newspaper when exposing the files.
If you know that the files you're going to expose will provoke more harm in the long-term, you try to release it in its most tame version.
But also, the problem lies with the population, who immediately (with some help from organisations like Anonymous) look at the news, and goes: "Well, we have to revolt, there's no other way that it will stop", without realising how history went.
the problem goes back to the outlet, who, instead of realising how the population takes the released files, ignores the reactions and continues...
Notheycant
I'm still not sure what to make of "We Steal Secrets"
swanne
ANONYMOUS HACKS EVERYTHING! No privacy can exist if they can hack every bloody computer on Earth! It's not like if they are the FBI, they are ANONYMOUS, a bunch of revolts who has nothing better to do than to check everyone's closet out of pure curiosity!
So if corruption is to be exposed (as you've said), we'll have to trust corrupt governments and business to altruistically volunteer their own exposure, because if a neutral party such as WikiLeaks should publish it, WikiLeaks becomes responsible for
(a) any evil NOT exposed via them and hence not acted upon, or
(b) any evil that IS exposed via them and hence acted upon.
Analogies, as a thought experiment:
1. Hijackers and passengers get on a plane. Hijackers abuse everyone by taking over. Copilot hits speaker which lets people know the cabin is under hostile command. Some passengers fight back, leading to other deaths or even a crash. Guilty party: the copilot who let everyone know what was going on.
2. Criminal and victim and bystander walk down a street at night. Criminal attacks victim. Local homeowner turns on porch light when hearing all the screams. Bystander sees what's happening, runs up and joins the fight, leading to possible injury or death of one or more of the three. Guilty party: the guy whose porch light allowed the bystander to see and react and hence 'change the dynamics' of the original crime or response to it.
spartacus699
we should examine this name a bit:
Julian Assange is actually a code word for: Joe Lie En Azz Agent
He's basically a provocator. We're all sitting around thinking he's the good guy. They make him look that way. But actually he's just a disinformation agent. A provocator, put there by the g-v to raise chaos.