Wikileaks is about to go on trial for treason. under attack.
In response they have released their "Insurance plan". Over a Gig of encrypted secret files. If wikileaks goes down they release the key.
You can get it here:
https://thepiratebay.org/torrent/5723136/WikiLeaks_insurance
What is strange is the cryptic messages on the wikileaks twitter talking about "Reston5"
http://twitter.com/wikileaks
They just recently announced a press conference in Europe.
Somethings going down.
I for one hope the insurance files reveal the secret lizard overlords of mankind but, thats just me.
:tinfoilhat:
I hope they make it out alive. :(
Quote from: Mistress Freeky, HRN on October 21, 2010, 06:35:12 PM
I hope they make it out alive. :(
Dont worry. Whatever they have saved for their insurance plan Im sure its got the Feds scared shitless.
that's awesome...
these are fantastic times. :)
Isn't Assange on the run? I thought I'd heard he's holing up somewhere "undisclosed."
YESSSS!
Quote from: Jenne on October 21, 2010, 07:13:22 PM
Isn't Assange on the run? I thought I'd heard he's holing up somewhere "undisclosed."
Im going to guess its Sweden.
Quote from: Lord Glittersnatch on October 21, 2010, 07:28:44 PM
Quote from: Jenne on October 21, 2010, 07:13:22 PM
Isn't Assange on the run? I thought I'd heard he's holing up somewhere "undisclosed."
Im going to guess its Sweden.
Thought Sweden refused his request...
Ive been thinking about the "Reston5" thing.
Mabye it means
Rest-on-5
as in the rest will be released on the 5th?
:tinfoilhat:
Nice one, wikileaks.
Big brass ones.
I think I figured out what Reston5 is.
http://coresite.com/Northern-Virginia-data-center.php
Its a backup server.
Well, if you know, the government knows too.
Quote from: Jenne on October 21, 2010, 07:13:22 PM
Isn't Assange on the run? I thought I'd heard he's holing up somewhere "undisclosed."
Allegedly he moves around every few weeks to different countries, but has done long before the Pentagon suggested he might like to sit down in a secure facility for a quiet chat.
I believe Wikileaks is trying to negotiate something with Iceland concerning their new transparency laws, but the US is putting a lot of pressure on them to not pass it, because then Wikileaks could work with quasi-governmental protection from there.
Assange seems quite adamant that his next release isn't going to be Iraq War files. Which makes me wonder if that is what the insurance file (which I have had a copy of for a while now) is.
I can't find anything about this supposed trial on Google, source?
Quote from: Requia ☣ on October 21, 2010, 11:36:51 PM
I can't find anything about this supposed trial on Google, source?
Sorry it appears as if my source for that wasnt too great.
I dont think its a trial per say but they certainly are cracking down on them.
Closest thing I found to that:
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/111159-rep-king-calls-wikileaks-treason-calls-for-prosecution
Oh hey, another fucking politician whose never read the constitution :argh!:
Ive heard theories that this could all be some elaborate ruse by the CIA to try and get terrorist IPs.
Quote from: Lord Glittersnatch on October 21, 2010, 08:26:31 PM
I think I figured out what Reston5 is.
http://coresite.com/Northern-Virginia-data-center.php
Its a backup server.
More likely it's a codeword. (Good find though)
Quote from: Lord Glittersnatch on October 22, 2010, 12:32:35 AM
Ive heard theories that this could all be some elaborate ruse by the CIA to try and get terrorist IPs.
What could be, Wikileaks?
I think terrorists have better things to do than induce public servants into leaking documents onto the internet. Though if they were to take this up as a full time occupation, they may find their popularity suddenly soaring among the general population.
Also, Julian Assange is Australian. How is he committing treason against America?
Fascinating shit. Embarrassingly enough, despite having been peripherally aware of WikiLeaks for awhile, I have never actually looked at it. And right now, when I want to, I can't. Downloading the torrent now, though, just in case.
Quote from: Cain on October 22, 2010, 09:01:15 AM
Quote from: Lord Glittersnatch on October 22, 2010, 12:32:35 AM
Ive heard theories that this could all be some elaborate ruse by the CIA to try and get terrorist IPs.
What could be, Wikileaks?
I think terrorists have better things to do than induce public servants into leaking documents onto the internet. Though if they were to take this up as a full time occupation, they may find their popularity suddenly soaring among the general population.
Also, Julian Assange is Australian. How is he committing treason against America?
I believe "espionage" is a more appropriate term.
Actually, the correct term is whistleblowing.
But pushing for him to be tried under espionage laws would make more sense, unless US law considers you only capable of espionage if you're working for a foreign state or something.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z1pTl8KdREk
Daniel Ellsberg talks about Wikileaks.
Liam, in the case of the leaked Afghanistan war files, Wikileaks offered to let the Pentagon scrub out what they considered vital intelligence which could lead to a person getting harmed well before it's release.
They refused, meaning Wikileaks had to do the job themselves.
I have to say I AM of two minds on what Assange et al are up to, just by virtue of the fact that they are putting poor kids like my husband's cousin (the young Afghan army interpretor) in jeopardy. If someone comes after Joe because of what's going on in Wikileaks, that'd probably make me think like Liam that there's some definite innocent blood on Assange's and his colleagues' hands.
New post on Wikileaks Twitter
QuotePentagon says it expects 'nothing new' in next Wikileaks dump. 'Nothing new' to THEM goes without saying.
:lulz:
Well, the Pentagon has admitted that so far not a single person named in the War Diaries has come under any kind of threat due to them.
Maybe the Taliban are slow readers. Or, more likely, they believe that Wikileaks is a US sponsored operation spreading purposeful disinformation. Either way, the Pentagon's own people say that no-one has used the information within for military purposes.
I also think would be rather more blood on the Pentagon's hands, given they were offered a chance to edit the diaries to remove this information, but instead threw a temper tantrum and refused. It looks like Wikileaks knew it was a mammoth task and went to them purposefully to avoid such a situation, and were turned away.
Or the Taliban dont know how to torrent.
:lulz:
It's hard to get broadband wireless up in the mountains.
"Abdul, it says the download is going to take three weeks. THREE WEEKS, you useless son of a camel's vomit. No, I cannot just "leave the laptop on overnight", not unless you want to wake up with an infidel flying robot killing you to death. Yes, I know that's a redundant phrasing, shut the hell up".
Quote from: Cain on October 22, 2010, 08:01:34 PM
It's hard to get broadband wireless up in the mountains.
"Abdul, it says the download is going to take three weeks. THREE WEEKS, you useless son of a camel's vomit. No, I cannot just "leave the laptop on overnight", not unless you want to wake up with an infidel flying robot killing you to death. Yes, I know that's a redundant phrasing, shut the hell up".
:lol: More like Donkey's vomit for Afghanistan, but :mittens:
http://twitter.com/wikileaks
This just in
QuoteIraq War Logs reveal torture (video) http://bit.ly/bqHDpe
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/23/world/middleeast/23intro.html?_r=2
QuoteIran's military, more than has been generally understood, intervened aggressively in support of Shiite combatants, offering weapons, training and sanctuary and in a few instances directly engaging American troops.
Oh shit.
Quote from: Cain on October 22, 2010, 09:01:15 AM
Also, Julian Assange is Australian. How is he committing treason against America?
I believe Rep. King's charge of treason was directed at the Americans who leaked the information to Assange, not against Assange himself.
Quote from: Liam on October 22, 2010, 08:00:52 PM
Aaah. That I did not know. Everyone's playing a crafty old game with this one, who's to tell if indeed its NOT a deliberate disinfo release. Seems pretty daft not to just go in and edit out anything too secret, unless they want them to know that they know ... ag.
I guess they could of thought that it was a waste of time, because (being a governement agency) they probably would have also scrubbed out stuff that made them look bad, which would have just pissed Wikileaks off.
I dunno, maybe they care more about looking good to the public, than actually looking after their operatives/troops.
Also, I was watching an inerview/report with/about Assange, and that guy is really freaking paranoid. Then again, I guess he has pissed off a few people.
Quote from: Rumckle on October 23, 2010, 03:20:48 AM
Quote from: Liam on October 22, 2010, 08:00:52 PM
Aaah. That I did not know. Everyone's playing a crafty old game with this one, who's to tell if indeed its NOT a deliberate disinfo release. Seems pretty daft not to just go in and edit out anything too secret, unless they want them to know that they know ... ag.
Also, I was watching an inerview/report with/about Assange, and that guy is really freaking paranoid. Then again, I guess he has pissed off a few people.
The CIA are not good enemies to have.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d_0-KUaQl7k
This is hilarious.
Note the white light behind the good and noble reporter and the red light behind the evil and nasty Assange.
:lulz:
Quote from: Lord Glittersnatch on October 23, 2010, 06:10:34 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d_0-KUaQl7k
This is hilarious.
Note the white light behind the good and noble reporter and the red light behind the evil and nasty Assange.
:lulz:
Love the creepy background music when Assange is talking too. :lulz:
Quote from: Rumckle on October 23, 2010, 03:20:48 AM
Quote from: Liam on October 22, 2010, 08:00:52 PM
Aaah. That I did not know. Everyone's playing a crafty old game with this one, who's to tell if indeed its NOT a deliberate disinfo release. Seems pretty daft not to just go in and edit out anything too secret, unless they want them to know that they know ... ag.
I guess they could of thought that it was a waste of time, because (being a governement agency) they probably would have also scrubbed out stuff that made them look bad, which would have just pissed Wikileaks off.
I dunno, maybe they care more about looking good to the public, than actually looking after their operatives/troops.
Also, I was watching an inerview/report with/about Assange, and that guy is really freaking paranoid. Then again, I guess he has pissed off a few people.
What Kissenger and McNammara learned and taught their administrations and what is no doubt taught to future DoD and state dept officials is that the TV coverage of Vietnam was what turned Americans against the war. This is probably true.
THe coverage of the Iraq war was nothing more than a video game ported to television.
If we had the same coverage in Iraq and Afganistan we had in Vietnam, there would be a much stronger opposition IMO.
Quote from: Cain on October 22, 2010, 07:53:21 PM
Well, the Pentagon has admitted that so far not a single person named in the War Diaries has come under any kind of threat due to them.
Maybe the Taliban are slow readers. Or, more likely, they believe that Wikileaks is a US sponsored operation spreading purposeful disinformation. Either way, the Pentagon's own people say that no-one has used the information within for military purposes.
I also think would be rather more blood on the Pentagon's hands, given they were offered a chance to edit the diaries to remove this information, but instead threw a temper tantrum and refused. It looks like Wikileaks knew it was a mammoth task and went to them purposefully to avoid such a situation, and were turned away.
The absolutely hilarious part about all this is that the
US Pentagon is accusing someone else (a non-profit journalism group, no less) of having
blood on it's hands.
Every death from the Wikileak Iraq documents on one map:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/datablog/interactive/2010/oct/23/wikileaks-iraq-deaths-map
Quote from: Iason Ouabache on October 25, 2010, 06:57:59 AM
Every death from the Wikileak Iraq documents on one map:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/datablog/interactive/2010/oct/23/wikileaks-iraq-deaths-map
... damn.
It lists deaths as coalition, iraq, civiilan or enemy.
It also lists the cause of death.
Quote from: Joh'Nyx on October 25, 2010, 09:31:37 AM
It lists deaths as coalition, iraq, civiilan or enemy.
It also lists the cause of death.
How do they determine "cause of death: Wikileaks" ?
Quote from: Triple Zero on October 25, 2010, 01:47:25 PM
Quote from: Joh'Nyx on October 25, 2010, 09:31:37 AM
It lists deaths as coalition, iraq, civiilan or enemy.
It also lists the cause of death.
How do they determine "cause of death: Wikileaks" ?
Well, thats just by process of elimination:
-Not dead by drones? Check
-Not dead by friendly fire? Check
-Not dead by air strike? Check
-Not a smudgy person? Check...
Quote from: Joh'Nyx on October 25, 2010, 09:21:10 PM
Quote from: Triple Zero on October 25, 2010, 01:47:25 PM
Quote from: Joh'Nyx on October 25, 2010, 09:31:37 AM
It lists deaths as coalition, iraq, civiilan or enemy.
It also lists the cause of death.
How do they determine "cause of death: Wikileaks" ?
Well, thats just by process of elimination:
-Not dead by drones? Check
-Not dead by friendly fire? Check
-Not dead by air strike? Check
-Not a smudgy person? Check...
Then how do they differentiate it from "death by qxapoiu" ?
Quote from: Triple Zero on October 25, 2010, 01:47:25 PM
How do they determine "cause of death: Wikileaks" ?
Those are the ones Julian has gone out and killed himself.
I read an article in the NY Times yesterday about Assange: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/24/world/24assange.html
Apparently he's much admired by his supporters, but increasingly regarded as kind of a dictatorial douchebag.
Quote from: Rumckle on October 23, 2010, 03:20:48 AM
Quote from: Liam on October 22, 2010, 08:00:52 PM
Aaah. That I did not know. Everyone's playing a crafty old game with this one, who's to tell if indeed its NOT a deliberate disinfo release. Seems pretty daft not to just go in and edit out anything too secret, unless they want them to know that they know ... ag.
I guess they could of thought that it was a waste of time, because (being a government agency) they probably would have also scrubbed out stuff that made them look bad, which would have just pissed Wikileaks off.
I dunno, maybe they care more about looking good to the public, than actually looking after their operatives/troops.
While it may have been a waste of time, it's still standard practice for news organizations and government agencies to do this prior to releasing secret information. I think it has more to do with not wanting to legitimize wikileaks by cooperating, they want to build a case that this is an act of aggression against the US and not reporting.
And now a Fox News "analyst" thinks that the guys from Wikileaks should be declared "enemy combatants":
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/10/fox-news-editorial-wikileaks-employees-declared-enemy-combatants/
QuoteLeading the attack on whistleblower web site WikiLeaks, Fox News editorialist and former Bush-era US State Department official Christian Whiton said on Monday that the US should classify the proprietors of WikiLeaks as "enemy combatants," opening up the possibility of "non-judicial actions" against them.
"So far, the Obama administration appears to have been asleep at the wheel in responding to this," he wrote for FoxNews.com on Monday. "The same is true of the Democratic-controlled Congress, which has no fewer than ten committees of jurisdiction that could be doing something about this—but which are not."
He proposed a number of actions the US could take to shut down the secret-spilling site for good:
Quote1. Indict Mr. Assange and his colleagues for espionage, regardless of whether he is presently in a U.S. jurisdiction, and ask our allies to do the same.
2. Explore opportunities for the president to designate WikiLeaks and its officers as enemy combatants, paving the way for non-judicial actions against them.
3. Freeze the assets of the WikiLeaks organization and its supporters, and sanction financial organizations working with this terrorist-enabling organization so they cannot clear transactions denominated in U.S. dollars.
4. Give the new U.S. Cyber-Command a chance to prove its worth by ordering it to electronically assault WikiLeaks and any telecommunications company offering its services to this organization.
5. Holding meaningful congressional hearings to look into how this much classified information could ever be compromised and how the U.S. can better identify and combat political warfare organizations like WikiLeaks.
The writer's other recent hits: recommending that Republicans in Congress withhold money from health care recipients, calling for a US-sponsored coup in North Korea and praising Bill O'Reilly's crusade against National Public Radio.
"Non-judicial action" is newspeak for "assisination".
Quote from: Iason Ouabache on October 26, 2010, 06:24:27 AM
And now a Fox News "analyst" thinks that the guys from Wikileaks should be declared "enemy combatants":
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/10/fox-news-editorial-wikileaks-employees-declared-enemy-combatants/
QuoteLeading the attack on whistleblower web site WikiLeaks, Fox News editorialist and former Bush-era US State Department official Christian Whiton said on Monday that the US should classify the proprietors of WikiLeaks as "enemy combatants," opening up the possibility of "non-judicial actions" against them.
"So far, the Obama administration appears to have been asleep at the wheel in responding to this," he wrote for FoxNews.com on Monday. "The same is true of the Democratic-controlled Congress, which has no fewer than ten committees of jurisdiction that could be doing something about this—but which are not."
He proposed a number of actions the US could take to shut down the secret-spilling site for good:
Quote1. Indict Mr. Assange and his colleagues for espionage, regardless of whether he is presently in a U.S. jurisdiction, and ask our allies to do the same.
2. Explore opportunities for the president to designate WikiLeaks and its officers as enemy combatants, paving the way for non-judicial actions against them.
3. Freeze the assets of the WikiLeaks organization and its supporters, and sanction financial organizations working with this terrorist-enabling organization so they cannot clear transactions denominated in U.S. dollars.
4. Give the new U.S. Cyber-Command a chance to prove its worth by ordering it to electronically assault WikiLeaks and any telecommunications company offering its services to this organization.
5. Holding meaningful congressional hearings to look into how this much classified information could ever be compromised and how the U.S. can better identify and combat political warfare organizations like WikiLeaks.
The writer's other recent hits: recommending that Republicans in Congress withhold money from health care recipients, calling for a US-sponsored coup in North Korea and praising Bill O'Reilly's crusade against National Public Radio.
"Non-judicial action" is newspeak for "assisination".
and torture
Quote from: Cainad on October 26, 2010, 01:32:23 AM
I read an article in the NY Times yesterday about Assange: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/24/world/24assange.html
Apparently he's much admired by his supporters, but increasingly regarded as kind of a dictatorial douchebag.
Some organisations need that as a driving force. Zappa was apparently one.
So was Kevin Rudd (Might not have paid off long term, but won him an election.)
Remember the NYT have something of a vendetta against Assange. Most of their writers willingly cheerleaded the war in Iraq, and published propaganda coming directly from Rumsfeld and the White House as "evidence" of Saddam's imminent threat (and this attitude continues. The NYT spun the US military handing over detainees to known torturers who worked previously for Saddam as "US treat detainees better than Iraqis", for example). Assange is doing their job better than them, and exposing them for the cheap propagandists they are. That's gotta sting, just a little bit.
That's not to say Assange hasn't come across as a little.... odd to me before now... but given the kind of lifestyle he is apparently leading, that may not be too surprising. He was also a rather accomplished hacker, back in the day, and that's a group that certainly has a fair share of oddballs as well.
Quote from: Iason Ouabache on October 26, 2010, 06:24:27 AM
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/10/fox-news-editorial-wikileaks-employees-declared-enemy-combatants/
QuoteHe proposed a number of actions the US could take to shut down the secret-spilling site for good:
Quote1. Indict Mr. Assange and his colleagues for espionage, regardless of whether he is presently in a U.S. jurisdiction, and ask our allies to do the same.
2. Explore opportunities for the president to designate WikiLeaks and its officers as enemy combatants, paving the way for non-judicial actions against them.
3. Freeze the assets of the WikiLeaks organization and its supporters, and sanction financial organizations working with this terrorist-enabling organization so they cannot clear transactions denominated in U.S. dollars.
4. Give the new U.S. Cyber-Command a chance to prove its worth by ordering it to electronically assault WikiLeaks and any telecommunications company offering its services to this organization.
5. Holding meaningful congressional hearings to look into how this much classified information could ever be compromised and how the U.S. can better identify and combat political warfare organizations like WikiLeaks.
The writer's other recent hits: recommending that Republicans in Congress withhold money from health care recipients, calling for a US-sponsored coup in North Korea and praising Bill O'Reilly's crusade against National Public Radio.
What about point 4? That sounds pretty reasonable? [ok just the first part, actually] I mean, if there is an organisation spilling your state secrets, why not hack / DDOS them?
Quote from: Triple Zero on October 26, 2010, 03:03:25 PM
Quote from: Iason Ouabache on October 26, 2010, 06:24:27 AM
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/10/fox-news-editorial-wikileaks-employees-declared-enemy-combatants/
QuoteHe proposed a number of actions the US could take to shut down the secret-spilling site for good:
Quote1. Indict Mr. Assange and his colleagues for espionage, regardless of whether he is presently in a U.S. jurisdiction, and ask our allies to do the same.
2. Explore opportunities for the president to designate WikiLeaks and its officers as enemy combatants, paving the way for non-judicial actions against them.
3. Freeze the assets of the WikiLeaks organization and its supporters, and sanction financial organizations working with this terrorist-enabling organization so they cannot clear transactions denominated in U.S. dollars.
4. Give the new U.S. Cyber-Command a chance to prove its worth by ordering it to electronically assault WikiLeaks and any telecommunications company offering its services to this organization.
5. Holding meaningful congressional hearings to look into how this much classified information could ever be compromised and how the U.S. can better identify and combat political warfare organizations like WikiLeaks.
The writer's other recent hits: recommending that Republicans in Congress withhold money from health care recipients, calling for a US-sponsored coup in North Korea and praising Bill O'Reilly's crusade against National Public Radio.
What about point 4? That sounds pretty reasonable? [ok just the first part, actually] I mean, if there is an organisation spilling your state secrets, why not hack / DDOS them?
Heaven hath no fury like a hacker hacked...
Quote from: Triple Zero on October 26, 2010, 03:03:25 PM
Quote from: Iason Ouabache on October 26, 2010, 06:24:27 AM
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/10/fox-news-editorial-wikileaks-employees-declared-enemy-combatants/
QuoteHe proposed a number of actions the US could take to shut down the secret-spilling site for good:
Quote1. Indict Mr. Assange and his colleagues for espionage, regardless of whether he is presently in a U.S. jurisdiction, and ask our allies to do the same.
2. Explore opportunities for the president to designate WikiLeaks and its officers as enemy combatants, paving the way for non-judicial actions against them.
3. Freeze the assets of the WikiLeaks organization and its supporters, and sanction financial organizations working with this terrorist-enabling organization so they cannot clear transactions denominated in U.S. dollars.
4. Give the new U.S. Cyber-Command a chance to prove its worth by ordering it to electronically assault WikiLeaks and any telecommunications company offering its services to this organization.
5. Holding meaningful congressional hearings to look into how this much classified information could ever be compromised and how the U.S. can better identify and combat political warfare organizations like WikiLeaks.
The writer's other recent hits: recommending that Republicans in Congress withhold money from health care recipients, calling for a US-sponsored coup in North Korea and praising Bill O'Reilly's crusade against National Public Radio.
What about point 4? That sounds pretty reasonable? [ok just the first part, actually] I mean, if there is an organisation spilling your state secrets, why not hack / DDOS them?
Methinks the Streisand Effect would come into play.
It should be noted there is a distinct difference between whistleblowing (which is leaking secret information about illegal and unethical activities by governments) and just leaking/stealing secrets. Governments almost routinely use secrecy laws to hide their own culpability in a multitude of sins, not necessarily because they "need" to remain secret. It's not like Wikileaks is picking exclusively on America here, either, they've hosted information showing Kenyan police being involved in political assassinations, the wheelings and dealings of Swiss banks, and how UK and Dutch companies called the shots when it came to extracting a pound of flesh from Iceland.
Also, here is an article (http://feeds.salon.com/~r/salon/greenwald/~3/rfedoTts-AU/burns) which explains in more detail how the character assassination done in the NYT relied on a single source and is more telling of NYT priorities than it is of Assange's personality.