Unlimited Wikileaks Shenanigans

[the last yatto]

Colbert claims Julian Assange didn't violate enough people's privacy to make person of the year

[Requia ☣]

He should have stepped up the release of the bank documents.

[Telarus]

He should have stepped up the release of the bank documents.

This

[Adios]

Assange is wanted for questioning on accusations of rape, sexual molestation and illegal use of force stemming from separate incidents in August in Stockholm. He has not been charged, but he could face two years in prison if convicted.


Assange also condemned the Swedish investigation, complaining that "the whole damn thing is kept secret."
"All hearings in Sweden were secret. A gag order was attempted to be placed upon my Swedish attorney," he told Today. "And the requested conditions upon my extradition to Sweden and arrival in Sweden was that I would be held incommunicado."
http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe...ex.html?hpt=T2

As The World Burns. At least it's not just the USA.

[Cain]

Adam Curtis has something vaugely related to Wikileaks to say

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/adamcurtis/2010/12/wicked_leaks.html

Bradley Manning, the intelligence analyst who is alleged to have leaked the thousands of state department cables, has often been compared to Daniel Ellsberg who leaked the Pentagon Papers in 1971.

But I have stumbled on a film in the archives that tells the story of another leaker in America who tried to do the same thing, but even earlier.

He was a young State Department diplomat who stole and copied thousands of Top Secret cables. Like Daniel Ellsberg, his aim was to release them to stop America's involvement in what he believed was a disastrous foreign war.

He was called Tyler Kent. He was a diplomat at the US embassy in London in 1940 and he wanted to stop President Roosevelt bringing America into the war to help Britain.

It is a fascinating story, but it also brings an odd perspective to the contemporary Wikileaks story.

Tyler Kent was a horrible man. He was a rabid anti-communist who believed that the Jews had been behind the Russian Revolution.

He was convinced that Germany should be allowed to destroy both Communist Russia and the Jews. And America should not get in the way of that being allowed to happen.

Looking back, most people now feel that Daniel Ellsberg was right in 1971 because the Vietnam War had become a horrible disaster that needed exposing.

Today, we are not sure of Bradley Manning's motives (and it hasn't been proven that he is the source of the leak), but again there is a general feeling that it was good thing because the cables have exposed an empty nihilism at the heart of America's foreign policy.

But the perspective the Tyler Kent story brings is the realisation that diplomatic leaks are not automatically a good thing. It just depends on who is using them. And why.

Back in the past Tyler Kent wanted to use secret information to destroy the things that the overwhelming majority of the British people believed in and were prepared to fight for.

Back in 1982, Robert Harris tracked Tyler Kent down. He was living in a caravan in a trailer park on the US-Mexico border. Harris persuaded Kent to be interviewed and then made a film for Newsnight that told the story.

It is a great piece of historical journalism. Kent explains how his aim was to release the secret cables during the Presidential election campaign in 1940. Over 80% of the US population didn't want to go into the war – and the cables showed President Roosevelt secretly promising Churchill help against Germany.

Harris makes a powerful case in the film that if Kent had succeeded America would not have entered the war. And history would have been completely different.

Tyler Kent himself is weird and mesmerising. But still unrepentently anti-semitic.

And the film also shows just how easily Tyler Kent found willing accomplices in the heart of the British Establishment. They wanted to get rid of the Jews and communists too, even at the expense of their own country.

The film begins on the morning of the 20th May 1940. Churchill had been sending secret cables to Roosevelt begging for American help.

[The Johnny]

Isnt that a very subtle "IF PEOPLE LIKE MANNING ARENT STOPPED, HITLER WOULD HAVE CONQUERED THE WORLD/THE NAZIS OF OUR TIME WIN"

[Placid Dingo]

Isnt that a very subtle "IF PEOPLE LIKE MANNING ARENT STOPPED, HITLER WOULD HAVE CONQUERED THE WORLD/THE NAZIS OF OUR TIME WIN"

It feel more like an argument against simplifying things into 'Leaks = Good.'

[the last yatto]

Wasn't there a failed coop to remove Roosevelt

And Wonder if the cold war wouldn't have happened

[The Johnny]

Isnt that a very subtle "IF PEOPLE LIKE MANNING ARENT STOPPED, HITLER WOULD HAVE CONQUERED THE WORLD/THE NAZIS OF OUR TIME WIN"

It feel more like an argument against simplifying things into 'Leaks = Good.'

Werent his leaks good? They are making judgement based on his beliefs, not on his actions.

For example, even if Assange or Manning were rapists, that doesnt change the fact that the leaks are for the good.

[Reginald Ret]

Leaks are good if the public can be trusted.

[Phox]

Isnt that a very subtle "IF PEOPLE LIKE MANNING ARENT STOPPED, HITLER WOULD HAVE CONQUERED THE WORLD/THE NAZIS OF OUR TIME WIN"

It feel more like an argument against simplifying things into 'Leaks = Good.'

I disagree. I do believe the implication is that "Leaks =!= good, and sometimes bad people are responsible for them". Also this line is a pretty blatant attempt to invoke negative feelings about leaks:

Back in the past Tyler Kent wanted to use secret information to destroy the things that the overwhelming majority of the British people believed in and were prepared to fight for.

It's completely unnecessary to the narrative and plays on the biases of the intended audience. This is a persuasive piece, not merely an informative one.

[Placid Dingo]

If you take the stance that leaking information is an inherently good act, you'll object to the lot.

But I kind of think that we should be saying, is this leak good, if so, why and for whom. As opposed to saying 'leaks = good' therefore this leak is good.

[Phox]

If you take the stance that leaking information is an inherently good act, you'll object to the lot.

But I kind of think that we should be saying, is this leak good, if so, why and for whom. As opposed to saying 'leaks = good' therefore this leak is good.

I agree that the idea that "leaks = good" is overly simplistic and is not the correct way of thinking, but I think this article is saying something different.

[Prince Glittersnatch III]

Bank of America...

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/political-economy/2010/12/wikileaks_assange_restates_his.html

...Is gonna get raped.

[Cain]

Uh guys.....do you even know who Adam Curtis is?

He just likes adding historical context to current events, and this is a historical event even I was unaware of, and so found quite interesting.