I guess something good came from Wikileaks after all

[Guest 6.8 AR]

American Thinker: WikiLeaks Embassy Cables Reveal Venezuela's Health-Care System Collapsing

Maybe a good "unintended consequence"?

I imagine the White House is furious about this since we already know

how Canada and Great Britain's health service is falling apart.

[mikegideon]

I'm pretty OK with the whole Wikileaks thing. just reenforced the fact that our entire world is run by douchebags

[Glenn]

our entire world is run by douchebags

Mike, I don't agree with you very often, but truer words have never been spoken.

We just differ on which one has the least painful nozzle.

Glenn

[sigmtnman]

Ask yourself why the .GOV is able to shut down any website they want, but wikileaks is still up/reachable.

[LagerHead]

I'm pretty OK with the whole Wikileaks thing. just reenforced the fact that our entire world is run by douchebags

That was never in question. However, leaking classified documents to the world reveals information about sources and techniques for intelligence gather and runs the risk of weakening those efforts on a global scale. Not to mention possibly puts in danger agents in the field. Leaking this information in this fashion, regardless of the upside, is a bad thing.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

That's the objection I have with the little puppet Assange. He will get good people killed

in his quest for whatever the hell he is trying to do. He is no better than the people he

rats on.

[Oh Shoot]

Ask yourself why the .GOV is able to shut down any website they want, but wikileaks is still up/reachable.

Actually, the ".GOV" can't, except by convincing any given host to drop it, especially ones that aren't physically hosted in the USA.

However, Julian IS having trouble keeping a hoster all of a sudden. Worldwide, they keep dumping him.

Matter of fact, of all the mirrors I've seen listed, these are about it right now:

wikileaks.dd19.de

www.wikileaks.pl

www.wikileaks.fi

That's Germany, Poland, and Finland, btw.

- OS

edit: btw, if anyone wants to make a donation for support:

http://wikileaks.dd19.de/support.html

Edited December 3, 2010 by OhShoot

[mikegideon]

Mike, I don't agree with you very often, but truer words have never been spoken.

We just differ on which one has the least painful nozzle.

Glenn

We can't differ a lot there, because I don't believe either one does. We have some serious problems, and the choice is either overkill or ignore.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

The one thing that really galls me about this is, the

guy knowingly broke the law. yeh, I'm old fashioned

like that. We need to be doing a better job with our

government, rather than having to see things come

out by the outlaw style "journalism". We have to use

what is exposed because it's already out, but it still

doesn't make it right.

It is another sign of society that bothers me. We are

better than this.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[mikegideon]

That was never in question. However, leaking classified documents to the world reveals information about sources and techniques for intelligence gather and runs the risk of weakening those efforts on a global scale. Not to mention possibly puts in danger agents in the field. Leaking this information in this fashion, regardless of the upside, is a bad thing.

But was there dangerous stuff in there? I haven't read it. If it was just a bunch of gotchas for politicians and diplomats, then it doesn't bother me a bit. If it was useful intelligence, that's a different story. Too bad we can't get a viable assesment for anything these days without reading the source material ourselves.

[LagerHead]

But was there dangerous stuff in there? I haven't read it. If it was just a bunch of gotchas for politicians and diplomats, then it doesn't bother me a bit. If it was useful intelligence, that's a different story. Too bad we can't get a viable assesment for anything these days without reading the source material ourselves.

Here's the problem. What's dangerous and what's not is for analysts to decide. You would be surprised what a good intelligence analyst can pull from a simple communique. And we don't need our enemies, or even our not-so-enemies gathering information about our intelligence gathering techniques regardless of the information provided within. That's why even the techniques themselves are classified. This jackass is endangering American intelligence gathering at best and American lives at worst. I hope he has a very inconveniently timed boating accident very soon.

[sigmtnman]

That's the objection I have with the little puppet Assange. He will get good people killed

in his quest for whatever the hell he is trying to do. He is no better than the people he

rats on.

I have a hard time believing DARPA created something they can't control. They didn't tell the hosts to drop them. They allegedly got the DNS records removed. The whole thing is fishy.

[Oh Shoot]

I have a hard time believing DARPA created something they can't control. They didn't tell the hosts to drop them. They allegedly got the DNS records removed. The whole thing is fishy.

DARPA hasn't had a real handle on the internet since Hector was a pup. A couple of DC phone calls to EveryDNS.net from the right folks would be plenty; it sure was for Amazon Cloud hosting. And Jeff Bezos seems to have turned into a general all around ahole anyway.

DNS is handled world wide on thousands of servers, the EveryDNS is just a paid convenience to speed things up, take DNS server management offsite for various reasons (DOS attacks), etc. Assange can get DNS service from any host that will accept him.

Wikileaks is on several international servers now; I'm sure Assange will choose one at some point to again have pointers from wikileaks.org, or .net, or .com again (I've actually forgotten which ones he owns). Or maybe not; he may feel that having multiple mirrored sites with no universal US "org/com/net" pointer will be less susceptible to hacking and/or political influence.

- OS

[Oh Shoot]

... That's why even the techniques themselves are classified. This jackass is endangering American intelligence gathering at best and American lives at worst...

Let me see here. We're chasing around maybe 50,000 16th century fundamental religious zealot tribal nomads with AKs between Kabul and Islamabad, while supporting both those countries' totally corrupt and ineffectual governments. It's like Elliot Ness making a deal with Al Capone to off his competitors and win the hearts and minds of the rest of Chicago.

Look, if revealing the hypocrisy and absurdity of what we are doing there is made more manifest by these dispatches, perhaps the hue and cry will get us the hell out quicker, and save more US lives.

- OS

[Raoul]

How about this.

Ron Paul Defends WikiLeaks Founder's Rights - Political Hotsheet - CBS News

[sigmtnman]

DARPA hasn't had a real handle on the internet since Hector was a pup. A couple of DC phone calls to EveryDNS.net from the right folks would be plenty; it sure was for Amazon Cloud hosting. And Jeff Bezos seems to have turned into a general all around ahole anyway.

DNS is handled world wide on thousands of servers, the EveryDNS is just a paid convenience to speed things up, take DNS server management offsite for various reasons (DOS attacks), etc. Assange can get DNS service from any host that will accept him.

Wikileaks is on several international servers now; I'm sure Assange will choose one at some point to again have pointers from wikileaks.org, or .net, or .com again (I've actually forgotten which ones he owns). Or maybe not; he may feel that having multiple mirrored sites with no universal US "org/com/net" pointer will be less susceptible to hacking and/or political influence.

- OS

My goodness OS I really didn't want to put this much time in...

Most of us in the US use DNS servers located in the US and more often than not provided by our ISPs through DHCP. Others use openDNS, GOOGLE or some other DNS provider based in the US. If a supposed terrorist internal to the US or External, such as our favorite agent provocetuer or whatever he is, was leaking classified government secrets, the government would have those DNS server keep the wikileaks record from resolving and it would have been done within 24-48 hours of it originally happening... not a year or however long since the puppet popped up. After that, they would have gone to the international backbone providers and started shaping traffic to deny service to any ip address they wanted.

Dont be so silly.

[Oh Shoot]

... the government would have those DNS server keep the wikileaks record from resolving and it would have been done within 24-48 hours of it originally happening... not a year or however long since the puppet popped up. After that, they would have gone to the international backbone providers and started shaping traffic to deny service to any ip address they wanted.

Dont be so silly.

Sure they could control every aspect of the US net, via every persuasive method all the way to martial law, but my point is they can't do it by remotely flipping some hardware or software switches, as the military/govt. is not in control of the commercial infrastructure that makes it all click. Though they'd like to be, and may well actually be ere long.

DARPA, or NSA, or Joe Biden, etc, didn't shut down WikiLeaks' reference in EveryDNS with technology, somebody simply "asked" them to do it and EveryDNS knuckled under and did it. Same as Bezos on Amazon.

- OS

[JayC]

That was never in question. However, leaking classified documents to the world reveals information about sources and techniques for intelligence gather and runs the risk of weakening those efforts on a global scale. Not to mention possibly puts in danger agents in the field. Leaking this information in this fashion, regardless of the upside, is a bad thing.

Violating your oath to protect secrets, is a crime... publishing news, no matter how you get it is not...

Be upset with the military and it's PFC who stole this information, not with a news site for publishing it. BTW a news site not inside the US who has no allegiance to our country.

[JayC]

Who broke the law?

The one thing that really galls me about this is, the

guy knowingly broke the law. yeh, I'm old fashioned

like that. We need to be doing a better job with our

government, rather than having to see things come

out by the outlaw style "journalism". We have to use

what is exposed because it's already out, but it still

doesn't make it right.

It is another sign of society that bothers me. We are

better than this.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I'm not going to labor this to death because you and I see this as different things, JayC.

You seem to think Wikileaks is some kind of credible news source. I don't.

However Assange gained the information that he released to the public, he knew it was an illegal act.

The 1st Amendment doesn't give a damn about a foreigner, especially on foreign soil. It may be that

Assange is never tried, and I doubt he will be, but he had information he shouldn't have and there

is talk of using the Espionage Act against him, or naming him as an enemy combatant.

I view this as the guy that has received stolen goods. He became part of the crime.

Other than that, we'll just have to disagree, okay?

It seems that more crap is becoming okay, when in the past it wasn't. I have a problem with that.

[mikegideon]

Here's the problem. What's dangerous and what's not is for analysts to decide. You would be surprised what a good intelligence analyst can pull from a simple communique. And we don't need our enemies, or even our not-so-enemies gathering information about our intelligence gathering techniques regardless of the information provided within. That's why even the techniques themselves are classified. This jackass is endangering American intelligence gathering at best and American lives at worst. I hope he has a very inconveniently timed boating accident very soon.

Honestly, I can't put up with the news babble long enough to find out if the REAL analysts have said anything about this stuff creating real threats. Can you point me to a link that makes all this stuff more than juicy gossip? Of course sombody is gonna scream national security. That's their favorite tool. Doesn't count when you hear it from some corrupt diplomat.

[Guest mosinon]

I'm not going to labor this to death because you and I see this as different things, JayC.

You seem to think Wikileaks is some kind of credible news source. I don't.

However Assange gained the information that he released to the public, he knew it was an illegal act.

The 1st Amendment doesn't give a damn about a foreigner, especially on foreign soil. It may be that

Assange is never tried, and I doubt he will be, but he had information he shouldn't have and there

is talk of using the Espionage Act against him, or naming him as an enemy combatant.

I view this as the guy that has received stolen goods. He became part of the crime.

Other than that, we'll just have to disagree, okay?

It seems that more crap is becoming okay, when in the past it wasn't. I have a problem with that.

It'd the illegal part I have trouble with. What law was wikileaks violating? And was it illegal in the country where they were doing it?

[Guest 6.8 AR]

There's talk of it being subject to the Espionage Act. I guess you might have to equate an

act of war as being illegal before you argue US laws. If I'm using terms incorrectly, sorry.

It was an act against our country. Sorry, I just don't know how to take it any farther.

Can private documents, classified or not, be considered sovereign property to a state?

I haven't read the Espionage Act

[Oh Shoot]

There's talk of it being subject to the Espionage Act. I guess you might have to equate an

act of war as being illegal before you argue US laws. If I'm using terms incorrectly, sorry.

It was an act against our country. Sorry, I just don't know how to take it any farther.

Can private documents, classified or not, be considered sovereign property to a state?

I haven't read the Espionage Act

Well, you can read Wiki summary of the Pentagon Papers saga, where SCOTUS said that NY Times and Wash Post could not be tried under Espionage Act for publishing them, but Daniel Ellsberg was. Although they did not go so far as to say that an person/agency could not EVER be tried for it.

Pentagon Papers - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Only precedent I know of right off hand.

- OS

[Guest 6.8 AR]

You posted that somewhere else on her, recently. Your post is more than what I remembered

about that event. Thanks for reminding me.

And, due to the recent political environment, we probably agree that it's a toss up if it's ever

to be tried. In other words, who knows who is on first base, much less second base!

I have no knowledge of the Espionage Act, other than what I heard on the radio.