View Poll Results: How long will they last?

Voters
0. You may not vote on this poll
  • He will end up in the trash-can tomorrow.

    0 0%
  • I give him 1-2 years before he falls.

    0 0%
  • I will give him 4 - 5 years before he is jailed for "speeding".

    0 0%
  • He will make it, monopolize it. I'm sure.

    0 0%
Results 1 to 1 of 1

Thread: The Social Service Office: Wikileakes.org - How long will it survive? + NYT article

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Kjertesvein's Avatar Remember to smile
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Mišaldir
    Posts
    6,679
    Tournaments Joined
    1
    Tournaments Won
    0

    Default The Social Service Office: Wikileakes.org - How long will it survive? + NYT article

    Thailand, Israel, Russia, North-Korea, Iran and China are countrys which activly supress freedom of expression. Are and going to censor Wikileaks?

    Any one heard of it? If you think "no", then you should definitly google it, wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikileak or simply go directly to wikileaks.org befoer you are by the .


    NY-Times Article:
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

    The war on WikiLeaks and why it matters

    Julian Assagne, editor of Wikileaks.org

    A newly leaked CIA report prepared earlier this month (.pdf) analyzes how the U.S. Government
    can best manipulate public opinion in Germany and France -- in order to ensure that those
    countries continue to fight in Afghanistan. The Report celebrates the fact that the governments of
    those two nations continue to fight the war in defiance of overwhelming public opinion which
    opposes it -- so much for all the recent veneration of "consent of the governed" -- and it notes that
    this is possible due to lack of interest among their citizenry: "Public Apathy Enables Leaders to
    Ignore Voters," proclaims the title of one section.

    But the Report also cites the "fall of the Dutch Government over its troop commitment to
    Afghanistan" and worries that -- particularly if the "bloody summer in Afghanistan" that many
    predict takes place -- what happened to the Dutch will spread as a result of the "fragility of
    European support" for the war. As the truly creepy Report title puts it, the CIA's concern is: "Why
    Counting on Apathy May Not Be Enough":

    The Report seeks to provide a back-up plan for "counting on apathy," and provides ways that the
    U.S. Government can manipulate public opinion in these foreign countries. It explains that French
    sympathy for Afghan refugees means that exploiting Afghan women as pro-war messengers
    would be effective, while Germans would be more vulnerable to a fear-mongering campaign
    (failure in Afghanistan means the Terrorists will get you). The Report highlights the unique ability
    of Barack Obama to sell war to European populations (click on images to enlarge):

    It's both interesting and revealing that the CIA sees Obama as a valuable asset in putting a pretty
    face on our wars in the eyes of foreign populations. It is odious -- though, of course, completely
    unsurprising -- that the CIA plots ways to manipulate public opinion in foreign countries in order
    to sustain support for our wars. Now that this is a Democratic administration doing this and a
    Democratic war at issue, I doubt many people will object to any of this. But what is worth noting
    is how and why this classified Report was made publicly available: because it was leaked to and
    then posted by WikiLeaks.org, the site run by the non-profit group Sunshine Press, that is
    devoted to exposing suppressed government and corporate corruption by publicizing many of
    their most closely guarded secrets.

    * * * * *
    I spoke this morning at length with Julian Assange, the Australian citizen who
    is WikiLeaks' Editor, regarding the increasingly aggressive war being waged against WikiLeaks by
    numerous government agencies, including the Pentagon. Over the past several years, WikiLeaks --
    which aptly calls itself "the intelligence agency of the people" -- has obtained and then published a
    wide array of secret, incriminating documents (similar to this CIA Report) that expose the activities
    of numerous governments and corporations. Among many others, they posted the Standard
    Operating Manual for Guantanamo, documents showing how corrupt offshore loans precipitated
    the economic collapse in Iceland, the notorious emails between climate scientists, documents
    showing toxic dumping off the coast of Africa, and many others. They have recently come into
    possession of classified videos relating to civilian causalities under the command of Gen. David
    Petraeus, as well as documentation relating to civilian-slaughtering airstrikes in Afghanistan which

    the U.S. military had agreed to release, only to change their mind.

    All of this has made WikiLeaks an increasingly hated target of numerous government and
    economic elites around the world, including the U.S. Government. As The New York Times put it
    last week: "To the list of the enemies threatening the security of the United States, the
    Pentagon has added WikiLeaks.org, a tiny online source of information and documents that
    governments and corporations around the world would prefer to keep secret." In 2008, the U.S.
    Army Counterintelligence Center prepared a secret report -- obtained and posted by WikiLeaks --
    devoted to this website and detailing, in a section entitled "Is it Free Speech or Illegal
    Speech?", ways it would seek to destroy the organization. It discusses the possibility that, for
    some governments, not merely contributing to WikiLeaks, but "even accessing the website itself
    is a crime," and outlines its proposal for WikiLeaks' destruction as follows (click on images to
    enlarge):

    As the Pentagon report put it: "the governments of China, Israel, North Korea, Russia, Vietnam
    and Zimbabwe" have all sought to block access to or otherwise impede the operations of
    WikiLeaks, and the U.S. Government now joins that illustrious list of transparency-loving
    countries in targeting them.

    It's not difficult to understand why the Pentagon wants to destroy WikiLeaks. Here's how the
    Pentagon's report describes some of the disclosures for which they are responsible:

    The Pentagon report also claims that WikiLeaks has disclosed documents that could expose U.S.
    military plans in Afghanistan and Iraq and endanger the military mission, though its discussion is
    purely hypothetical and no specifics are provided. Instead, the bulk of the Pentagon report focuses
    on documents which embarrass the U.S. Government: information which, as they put it, "could
    be manipulated to provide biased news reports or be used for conducting propaganda,
    disinformation, misinformation, perception management, or influence operations against the U.S.
    Army by a variety of domestic and foreign actors." In other words, the Pentagon is furious that
    this exposing of its secrets might enable others to engage in exactly the type of "perception
    management" which the aforementioned CIA Report proposes the U.S. do with regard to
    the citizenry of our allied countries.

    All of this is based in the same rationale invoked by President Obama and the Democratic
    Congress when they re-wrote the Freedom of Information Act last year in order to suppress
    America's torture photos. It's the same rationale used by all governments to conceal evidence of
    their wrongdoing: we need to suppress our activities for your own good. WikiLeaks is devoted to
    subverting that mentality and, relatively speaking, has been quite successful in doing so.

    For that reason, numerous governments and private groups would like to see them destroyed.
    Corporations have sued to have the site shut down. And in addition to this 2008 Pentagon report,
    WikiLeaks has acquired, though not yet posted, other U.S. Government classified reports on its
    activities, including a U.S. Marine Intelligence Report and an analysis prepared by the U.S. military
    base in Germany, both of which speak of WikiLeaks as a threat. Moreover, the FBI has refused to
    provide any information about its investigations and other activities aimed at WikiLeaks, citing, in
    response to FOIA requests, national security and other excuses for concealing it.

    * * * * *

    In my interview this morning with Assange, he described multiple incidents that clearly signal a
    recent escalation of surveillance and other forms of harassment directed at WikiLeaks. Many of
    those events are detailed in an Editorial they just published, which, he explained, was part of an
    effort to publicize what is being done to them in order to provide some safety and buffer. A good
    summary of those events is provided by Gawker. As but one disturbing incident: a volunteer, a
    minor, who works with WikiLeaks was detained in Iceland last week and questioned extensively
    about an incriminating video WikiLeaks possesses relating to the actions of the U.S. military.
    During the course of the interrogation, the WikiLeaks volunteer was not only asked questions
    about the video based on non-public knowledge about its contents (i.e., information which only
    the U.S. military would have), but was also shown surveillance photos of Assange exiting a recent
    WikiLeaks meeting regarding the imminent posting of documents concerning the Pentagon.

    That WikiLeaks is being targeted by the U.S. Government for surveillance and disruption is
    beyond doubt. And it underscores how vital their work is and why it's such a threat.

    WikiLeaks editors, including Assagne, have spent substantial time of late in Iceland because there is
    a pending bill in that country's Parliament that would provide meaningful whistle blower
    protection for what they do, far greater than exists anywhere else. Why is Iceland a leading
    candidate to do that? Because, last year, that nation suffered full-scale economic collapse. It was
    then revealed that numerous nefarious causes (corrupt loans, off-shore transactions, concealed
    warning signs) were hidden completely from the public and even from policy-makers, preventing
    detection and avoidance. Worse, most of Iceland's institutions -- from its media to its legislative
    and regulatory bodies -- completely failed to penetrate this wall of secrecy, allowing this corruption
    to fester until it brought about full-scale financial ruin. As a result, Iceland has become very
    receptive to the fact that the type of investigative exposure provided by WikiLeaks is a vital national
    good, and there is real political will to provide it with substantial protections.

    If that doesn't sound familiar to Americans, it should. At exactly the time when U.S. government
    secrecy is at an all-time high, the institutions ostensibly responsible for investigation, oversight and
    exposure have failed. The American media are largely co-opted, and their few remaining vestiges of
    real investigative journalism are crippled by financial constraints. The U.S. Congress is almost
    entirely impotent at providing meaningful oversight and is, in any event, controlled by the factions
    that maintain virtually complete secrecy. As I've documented before, some alternative means of
    investigative journalism have arisen -- such as the ACLU's tenacious FOIA litigations to pry
    documents showing "War on Terror" abuses and the reams of bloggers who sort through, analyze
    and publicize them -- but that's no match for the vast secrecy powers of the government and
    private corporations.

    The need for independent leaks and whistle-blowing exposures is particularly acute now because, at
    exactly the same time that investigative journalism has collapsed, public and private efforts to
    manipulate public opinion have proliferated. This is exemplified by the type of public opinion
    management campaign detailed by the above-referenced CIA Report, the Pentagon's TV
    propaganda program exposed in 2008, and the ways in which private interests
    covertly pay and control supposedly "independent political commentators" to participate in our public debates and shape public opinion.

    Last month, I was on a panel at the New School's Conference on how information is controlled in
    a democracy, and also on the panel were Daniel Ellsberg, who risked his liberty to leak the
    Pentagon Papers, and The New York Times' David Barstow, who won the Pulitzer Prize for
    exposing the Pentagon's propaganda program. Ellsberg described how massive is the apparatus of
    secrecy in the National Security State, and Barstow made the vital point -- which I summarized in
    the clip below when speaking later that day at NYU Law School -- that the public and private
    means for manipulating public opinion are rapidly increasing at exactly the same time that checks
    on secrecy (such as investigative journalism) are vanishing:



    Aside from the handful of organizations (the ACLU, the NYT) with the resources and will to
    engage in protracted FOIA litigations against the government, one of the last avenues to uncover
    government and other elite secrets are whistle blowers and organizations that enable them.
    WikiLeaks is one of the world's most effective such groups, and it's thus no surprise that they're
    under such sustained attacks.

    This is how Assange put it to me this morning in explaining why he believes his organization's
    activities are so vital and why he's willing to make himself a target in order to do it:
    This information has reform potential. And the information which is concealed or
    suppressed is concealed or suppressed because the people who know it best
    understand that it has the ability to reform. So they engage in work to prevent that
    reform . . . .

    There are reasons I do it that have to do with wanting to reform civilization, and
    selectively targeting information will do that -- understanding that quality
    information is what every decision is based on, and all the decisions taken together
    is what "civilization" is, so if you want to improve civilization, you have to remove
    some of the basic constraints, which is the quality of information that civilization
    has at its disposal to make decisions. Of course, there's a personal psychology to it,
    that I enjoy crushing bastards, I like a good challenge, so do a lot of the other
    people involved in WikiLeaks. We like the challenge.
    The public and private organizations most eager to maintain complete secrecy around what they do
    -- including numerous U.S. military and intelligence agencies -- are obviously threatened by
    WikiLeaks' activities, which is why they seek to harass and cripple them. There are numerous ways
    one can support WikiLeaks -- donations, volunteer work, research, legal and technical assistance --
    and that can be done through their site. There aren't many groups more besieged, or doing more
    important work, than they.


    This organisation got to big a big ass leach on the back of every governmental agency in the world. Some of their work is Daniel arap Moi family corruption, Bank Julius Baer lawsuit, Guantįnamo Bay procedures, Scientology, Hack of Sarah Palin's Yahoo account, ,BNP membership list, Climate Research Unit e-mails, Internet censorship lists, Bilderberg Group meeting reports, 2008 Peru oil scandal, Toxic dumping in Africa: The Minton report, Kaupthing Bank, 9/11 pager messages AND the most vital case: U.S. Intelligence report on Wikileaks.

    How long do you think it will last before the mob charge them for some petty herecy?
    Last edited by Kjertesvein; March 29, 2010 at 07:34 AM.
    Thorolf was thus armed. Then Thorolf became so furious that he cast his shield on his back, and, grasping his halberd with both hands, bounded forward dealing cut and thrust on either side. Men sprang away from him both ways, but he slew many. Thus he cleared the way forward to earl Hring's standard, and then nothing could stop him. He slew the man who bore the earl's standard, and cut down the standard-pole. After that he lunged with his halberd at the earl's breast, driving it right through mail and body, so that it came out at the shoulders; and he lifted him up on the halberd over his head, and planted the butt-end in the ground. There on the weapon the earl breathed out his life in sight of all, both friends and foes. [...] 53, Egil's Saga
    I must tell you here of some amusing tricks the Comte d'Eu played on us. I had made a sort of house for myself in which my knights and I used to eat, sitting so as to get the light from the door, which, as it happened, faced the Comte d'Eu's quarters. The count, who was a very ingenious fellow, had rigged up a miniature ballistic machine with which he could throw stones into my tent. He would watch us as we were having our meal, adjust his machine to suit the length of our table, and then let fly at us, breaking our pots and glasses.
    - The pranks played on the knight Jean de Joinville, 1249, 7th crusade.













    http://imgur.com/a/DMm19
    Quote Originally Posted by Finn View Post
    This is the only forum I visit with any sort of frequency and I'm glad it has provided a home for RTR since its own forum went down in 2007. Hopefully my donation along with others from TWC users will help get the site back to its speedy heyday, which will certainly aid us in our endeavor to produce a full conversion mod Rome2.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •