any citizens accused of being a terrorist and removed to one of these 'locations' has no right to know?

is that the claim.

Taking for granted that a german citizen was reported to have been removed from and imprisoned for 5 months... eh, a quick google leads to this journalists site: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/03/AR2005120301476.html

I mean, i'm not a terrorist, but if my country had secret facilities all over the world and was kidnapping people i'd be pretty damn concerned. You know for civil rights reasons.

Maybe I'm missing some information. Can someone find a working link to the news story around this, if there is one?

@orathaic: From what I read, there are a lot of sites that aren't really suitable for holding hostages or prisoners on that list... That doesn't seem to be the only purpose of the leak.

Hang on a sec... lets get this straight... The US government made a list of its most vulnerable targets across the globe that terrorists could attack with devastating effect, and then gave the access to said list to over two million people???

God save us from American stupidity!

Anyway, wikileaks is trying to have a much bigger publicity effect by releasing this information slowly (so the media can talk about it in small digestable chunks)

The desired impact is for the US people to give a shit about the stuff the US government has been doing in their name.

The understanding is that US actions constitute terrorism against citizens of many other countries.

The fact that other nations are not willing to stand up to the US means that only US citizens have the power to oppose their government (if even then)

Remember Iran want's it's people to believe this is all US propaganda.
From what i've been seeing in the US media SOME people want vilanize wikileaks as terrorists themselves.

Now while i've freely admitted that these leaks are not in 'US natioanl interest' - I do make the claim that they are in the interest of democracy within the US, and i think that is more important than the security which the US government feels it needs to apply around the world...

"From what I read, there are a lot of sites that aren't really suitable for holding hostages or prisoners on that list... That doesn't seem to be the only purpose of the leak."

That wasn't the only purpose of the leak, that is just an example of why we need a leaks site. The purpose as i understand it is to improve democracy by forcing transparency between the US government and it's people.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703989004575653113548361870.html

If this guy's right, Wikileaks' REAL goal isn't to promote government transparency at all... I agree that *a* leak site is probably necessary, but releasing a LOT of things at once-- or even in chunks spaced fairly closely together-- will only result in further opacity, in a battening down of the information hatches.

My claim is that Wikileaks might not be a good site living up to its supposed mission. I am NOT claiming that leak sites are bad in general, nor that information should not be freely shared in an ideal world.

Let's be careful not to put words in my mouth... okay?

"If this guy's right, Wikileaks' REAL goal isn't to promote government transparency at all... I agree that *a* leak site is probably necessary, but releasing a LOT of things at once-- or even in chunks spaced fairly closely together-- will only result in further opacity, in a battening down of the information hatches."

Was this argument valid, say, in the Nixon affair?

If the Uk government had a file that said something like "The lake by your house could be sabataged by terrorist and kill 200 people downstream" would you want to know about it?

I would imagine some of you would because you could make your own arrangements based on the actual risk, ie move or become more observant of possible suspicious goings on;whilst some of you wouldn't for fear that by making the information available increases the chance of the terrorist attack. The problem here is that it isn't possible to tell the people who want to know and not tell the people who don't want to know, and don't want anyone else (terrorists) to know.

Whilst I can understand concern about the release of a list of potentila targets, I really don't think potential terrorists visit Osama in his cave and say they haven't carried out a terrorist activity because they couldn't find a target - they'd be laughed out of the cave. Every shop, every office, every school, every bus, every train every everything is a target that if hit would cause terror thereby advancing the terrorists' aims.

@Maniac, touché.

"Every shop, every office, every school, every bus, every train every everything is a target that if hit would cause terror thereby advancing the terrorists' aims."

Yes but not all targets are of equal value or are equally protected. Knowing which targets the United States is concerned about does two things for terrorists - 1) It lets them know which targets are considered high value to America and points of vulnerability. If someone releases a memo and it says "if they hit us here, here and here, we're screwed or it would cause a lot of disruption due to our lack of X or Y capabilities", that information is valuable to the attackers.

2) It is also important for what it does *not* say. If terrorists have high value targets which are not on the American 'radar', they might go for them because security will be weaker and less vigilant. Always attack your enemy at its weakest point is a basic rule of welfare.

I mean warfare, lol. Sorry, reading term papers.

"Always attack your enemy at its weakest point is a basic rule of welfare."

ROFLCOPTER

@Katsarephat, the WSJ is as reactionary a rag as can be found in the US, it's little more than Fox News in print. The reference is to an editorial opinion clearly written to turn people against Wikileaks, but it includes almost nothing of substance, apart from an anecdotal story about a guy that escaped from Iran. The piece deliberately confuses the free flow of information in the society and across the internet with the free flow of information within a secretive and opaque government. We already discussed (in the other thread you couldn't seem to figure out) Assange's theories about government as conspiracy, and I personally think it's valid. The objective of Wikileaks is not transparency in the sense that the leaks represent transparency (the content is not important), but rather that the leaks put pressure on the government by incrementally restricting the flow of information in the government. Eventually, information becomes so restricted that communication and the passing of information becomes almost impossible and the gov't begins to suffocate. Then (or at any time before that limit is reached) there is a choice to make: continue business as usual (government based on secret) but with the growing impediment to the transfer of information within the government OR a change in the modus operandi toward greater transparency (because if the secrets are no longer necessary, communication is instantly freed up again).

Now seriously, we're talking about a website that has done nothing more than publish received material. There is lots of speculation in the media about how there might be a legal case against Wikileaks, but not a single one has been able to give any indication of what that legal case might be. They did not obtain the information illegally, they have the journalistic obligation to publish the material, they elect to publish the material in it's raw form, without the lens of anyone's interpretation. I insist that what they are doing is an exercise of free speech, and the response of the US has been thoroughly frightening: Paypal, Visa and Mastercard have shut down any transactions with Wikileaks so they cannot receive donations to continue operations. Their bank account in Switzerland was frozen. Sweden has asked to have Assange extradited for a highly irregular sexual assault case about which almost nothing is known in the media. England has placed him under arrest pending a decision on the extradition. In short, Assange is being treated as a terrorist simply for exercising free speech.

Do you realize the implications of what you're saying? According to this same logic, some crank can release confidential information about contract negotiations held between say, unions and their employers. This kind of thing happens all of time in an attempt to embarrass or put pressure on unions, and it never is protected under 'free speech'. If any idiot has the right to publish classified information under the dubious banner of 'free speech', you're opening up a veritable Pandora's Box.

Journalists, if you're willing to call Assange that, cannot sit here and say they only have a journalistic responsibility to release information they receive, and have no responsibility as to what consequences that information might have. This is the same kind of defense Bill O'Reilly and co made when people objected to their 'free speech' of repeatedly calling George Tiller a baby killer, and then lo and behold the guy is assassinated.

Hiding behind free speech is a loathsome practice, and it only occurs when people have no other defense for what they're doing.

Yeah, I don't know, Putin. What is "classified"? Can I just call any piece of information "classified" and prevent it from being published? I don't know about contract negotiations and stuff, why isn't it protected under free speech? Where do you suggest the line be drawn? Nothing should be published that the gov doesn't think should be published? Seems that's erring the other direction. Initially, I don't think they can be held responsible for the gov's lack of security. It's not a secret if you're letting 2 million people have access to it, I don't care what is written on the label.
So? you feel this attack on wikileaks is warranted? How far is the jump from there to registering people like me who write opinions that support Wikileaks?
Why isn't the govt attacking the NYT? they facilitated the leak of the diplomatic cables.

And by the way, I think there are lot's of good reasons why Wikileaks should be doing what it's doing. Freedom of speech is loathsome? maybe. "it only occurs to people that have no other defense for what they're doing?" no. At the very least, it seems the burden of demonstrating why something shouldn't be published is on the shoulders of whoever wants to maintain the secret.

Assange's own words:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/in-depth/wikileaks/dont-shoot-messenger-for-revealing-uncomfortable-truths/story-fn775xjq-1225967241332

not jumping in this, but Putin, that was an epic typo

There are plenty of reasons to want non-disclosure agreements. For one, you don't want competitors or the public to know how your organization or business operates, information that might need to be revealed when you're entering into negotiations with a partner or making a contract. Revealing such information may give others an unfair competitive advantage. Say you're an inventor and your idea is not yet patented, you don't want people you're talking to in a business negotiation to release this information and screw you over. When negotiating possible employment contracts, there is a lot of personal information exchanged, including how much a person is being offered, medical information, etc, and people do not want their employment and interview process being under the microscope of the public. And for reasons similar to the diplomatic cables, people may desire frank and uninhibited discussions that aren't a matter of the public record. There are plenty of reasons to want communication private. Do you open other people's mail? Are laws protecting people's mail authoritarian and undemocratic?

Who determines if something is to be confidential, well, I trust an elected government who has some stake at legitimacy in the eyes of the public over some individual crank who appoints himself the defender of the commonweal. I trust the government over Assange when it comes to what people think is or is not ok to release to the public, or what is or is not a threat to national security. That's their job, not his.

"Initially, I don't think they can be held responsible for the gov's lack of security. It's not a secret if you're letting 2 million people have access to it, I don't care what is written on the label."

So if you deem a person's security as inadequate then you don't have to respect the law? Seems rather cavalier. A good defense for robbers and criminals though. "Hey, I may have robbed your bank, but your security sucks so you deserve it." or "Hey, I might have stolen your mail, but it was left in your box for several days so obviously you didn't care."

And since this hasn't happened before, obviously security wasn't a problem, 2 million people or not.

The day we have individuals declare for themselves what laws they should or should not uphold is a scary day.

"How far is the jump from there to registering people like me who write opinions that support Wikileaks?"

So it's either annihilate all laws respecting confidential information or endure big government tyranny, is it? Is that the choice? Offering political support to idiots is not the same as trying to repeatedly, knowingly and deliberately releasing confidential information. Surely the difference is not as narrow as you pretend it is.

"Why isn't the govt attacking the NYT? they facilitated the leak of the diplomatic cables. "

The NYT is a newspaper. Assange is a lone crank. And there have been calls to investigate the Times, by the way.

"I think there are lot's of good reasons why Wikileaks should be doing what it's doing."

Such as? With the conduct of the Iraq war you might be able to make the case (I still don't think so, but there's a possible argument), but the diplomatic cables absolutely not, and this latest leak there's no way it can be justified.

"At the very least, it seems the burden of demonstrating why something shouldn't be published is on the shoulders of whoever wants to maintain the secret."

That's a rather strange way to view private information and privacy in general, but in any case that burden has more than been met. Has the government really not made an argument that they don't want cables about sensitive locations to be released because it threatens national security? I think they've made that argument many times over. That you don't accept it, is one thing, but the argument has been made.

Law breakers do not get to shout to the authorities about having to first justify the law before any enforcement is attempted.

Are these sites destinations for rendition? (I haven't read more than the first 3 replies and haven't read any article on the recent leaks, nor the Washington Post article referred to.)

@Katsarephat
Wow! terrorism. The favourite argument not only of George W. Bush, but of any U.S. politicians who want to justify any illegal action. When U:S attacked Afganistan few people criticized the U.S decision of invading Afganistan, there was terrorism evidence, though I don't know the details about how thet proved Afg was involved. But when they went to Irak, what was the only (false) justification? terrorism. When they are asked about why they continue there almost a decade later, why U.S has far the biggest war budget in the world, why they continue supporting Israel whit money and weapons, any human rights violation, or just any precedure irregularity found, ... which is the answer? terrorism.

Assange has been finally arrested in the last hours in England, prennial U.S ally, being guilty of what exactly? sexual abuse? And that's all. So simple. Because someone has just published information that has no valid moral reason to be hiden, he's deprived of his freedom. Which is the only justification a politician can have for the fact U.S has obviously pressured all the world to caprure Assange, and dismantle wikileaks? terrorism.
This is pathetic.

(By the way, can some body tell me why is there so many people wanting to make terrorism against U.S.? Why the muslims wanna attack U.S? sure they are just crazy religious fanatics. But why U.S? why no Mexico or Italy? Sure there's absolutely no reason? Sure U.S is absolutely free of any fault?)

Anyway, I'd like to ask U.S. something: You'r in your right to try to prevent and punish terrorism, but ¡without becoming a terrorism yourself!.

By the way,
http://www.jornada.unam.mx/2010/12/08/cartones/fisgon.jpg
this is in spanish, but I think anyone can catch the idea

"(By the way, can some body tell me why is there so many people wanting to make terrorism against U.S.? Why the muslims wanna attack U.S? sure they are just crazy religious fanatics. But why U.S? why no Mexico or Italy? Sure there's absolutely no reason? Sure U.S is absolutely free of any fault?)"

So there was no Madrid bombing? London bombing? Bali bombing? Riyadh bombing? No attack in Mumbai? (Hell there are terrorist attacks in Pakistan virtually daily).

And that's only the successful ones. We're not even talking about the attempts that have been foiled.

And I have no idea why Muslims want to attack the US. Our foreign policy has done nothing but help spread Islamism throughout the world. Fort Dix? That attack was done by Muslims we helped take over the Balkans. Figure that one out.

Madrid and London. U.S. allies. Pakistan has not the most pacific relations with India, where Mombay is located.... anything else?
And no, I wasn't referring Fort Dix. I was just asking (and that's why I put that in parenthesis)

Ah, I was forgetting Israel, of course, I have no idea why Muslims wanna attack Israel

Muslims do not want to attack the US (or any other country) some terrorist who happen to be Muslims want to terrorise. Catholics did not want to attack the UK, some terrorist who happened to be Catholic wanted to terrorise. It may be easier for the terrorist to use a person's religion to encourage them to commit acts of terrorism, but it is wholely wrong to say that Muslims want to attack anyone.

of course, you'r right Maniac, I should have said "why some muslims" instead of "why muslims"

@checkmate: Whoa whoa whoa, where did I say Assange was a terrorist? Where did I say terrorism fears justified various political reactions?

All I'm trying to suggest is that Wikileaks' purpose, as defined on its site, is being ignored in favor of... something else. I don't quite know what.

As far as terrorism claims go, I think it's fair to say that maybe some of that information could influence terrorism against the United States. That's really true of any information that anyone puts out there. But Wikileaks has a special place of dislike in my mind because it's going against its otherwise quite noble purpose, and making people who really believe in free media information and actual whistleblowing look bad.

"Madrid and London. U.S. allies. Pakistan has not the most pacific relations with India, where Mombay is located.... anything else?"

I also forgot Russia and China, they aren't US allies. They're victims of Islamist terrorism also (Chechnya and Xinjiang). So it seems everyone is to blame except the Islamists.

Yeah so you don't exactly have to do much to 'offend' Islamists. All you have to do is draw a cartoon or threaten to burn a book and there will be blood. Compared the crimes committed by Islamists against non-Muslims, the offenses of the victims of Islamist terrorism are minor. Compared to what the US and the West has done to other parts of the world, like Latin America and Africa, the offenses are minor.

"And I have no idea why Muslims want to attack the US. Our foreign policy has done nothing but help spread Islamism throughout the world. Fort Dix? That attack was done by Muslims we helped take over the Balkans. Figure that one out."

Osama bin Laden explained very clearly why it is a duty in his eyes for every Muslim to attack America. He gave three justifications in the 1998 'fatwa': 1) American occupation of Saudi Arabia, 2) the American economic blockade of Iraq, which by our own government's admission killed hundreds of thousands of people, and 3) American support for Israel. I'm sure the list of grievances would be different if written today, but I'm sure you get the point.

I'm a bit puzzled by your claim that US foreign policy has helped spread Islamism over the whole world - can you explain a bit more?

And the "Fort Dix Six" were largely (just like the Portland 'bomber', and indeed pretty much all domestic 'terrorists' who've been arrested in the last ten years) if not entirely encouraged and supported by an employee of the Secret Police, without whom there most likely never would've been a 'plot', if there was one at all. One of the 'plotters' even called the Philadelphia police on this 'terrorism facilitator' (as one such character liked to be called in another case). Like nearly all terror trials in this country, it was a sham designed to keep the populace alarmed and nothing more.

@Putin: "There are plenty of reasons to want non-disclosure agreements..." _________We aren't talking about non-disclosure agreements, but since you brought it up, is a non-disclosure agreement somehow binding on third parties that accidentally get hold of the information?

"There are plenty of reasons to want communication private. Do you open other people's mail? Are laws protecting people's mail authoritarian and undemocratic?" ________Yes, I grant you that. It is a felony to open someone else's mail. That is not, however, in question. The question is: is it a felony to make public info from a letter someone else opened?

"Who determines if something is to be confidential, well, I trust an elected government who has some stake at legitimacy in the eyes of the public over some individual crank who appoints himself the defender of the commonweal. I trust the government over Assange when it comes to what people think is or is not ok to release to the public, or what is or is not a threat to national security. That's their job, not his." _______If it isn't clear yet, I don't trust the government, and I can give you 1001 reasons they've given me not to trust them. The honesty of Assange is not in question. The government hasn't made any comment regarding the authenticity of the documents.

"So if you deem a person's security as inadequate then you don't have to respect the law?" _____What law is it exactly that you want me or Wikileaks to respect? What law has been broken? Is it applicable to extra-nationals?

"Seems rather cavalier. A good defense for robbers and criminals though. "Hey, I may have robbed your bank, but your security sucks so you deserve it." or "Hey, I might have stolen your mail, but it was left in your box for several days so obviously you didn't care."" ________This line of argument is simply obnoxious, not to mention ad hominem. If it's a good defense for robbers does that means it's unacceptable? Are accused robbers and criminals now not entitled to a defense?

"And since this hasn't happened before, obviously security wasn't a problem, 2 million people or not." ______Are you being facetious? Obviously, this was not information that the US Gov was trying to keep hidden. If I have information I don't want to become public and I make that information available to 2M people, should I be entitled to shut down the financial operations of the person or entity who finally makes the information public? And what of the fourth party that actually prints the information but which had nothing to do with the procurement? Are you getting a sense of how specious your line of argument is here?

"The day we have individuals declare for themselves what laws they should or should not uphold is a scary day." I'm still lost as to what laws exactly were broken by Wikileaks. I do hope you can enlighten me on this point. To date, to the best of my knowledge, Assange has only been formally accused of some kind of sexual assault. In point of fact, the behaviour of the US Gov is more akin to rules of engagement than pursuit and prosecution of a criminal.

"So it's either annihilate all laws respecting confidential information or endure big government tyranny, is it? Is that the choice?"______no. I still don't know what laws Wikileaks has broken. It is clear that if they have broken any, then the NYT, The Guardian, Der Spiegel, Le Monde and el Pais have broken the same law. Curiously, they are not under attack by the US Gov. Given the disproportionate response of the US Gov, if it turns out that in fact no law has been broken, or that whatever law that has been broken is not applicable to extra-nationals, or that the US Gov is applying its recourse unequally to different entities that have broken an applicable law, it is not such a leap to start worrying about how the US Gov will respond to people who have publicly supported Wikileaks.

"The NYT is a newspaper. Assange is a lone crank."______You are suggesting that newspapers have extra rights under the law that individuals don't have? I wonder if you can enumerate them.

"And there have been calls to investigate the Times, by the way."_______Well, I feel so much better.

Me: "I think there are lot's of good reasons why Wikileaks should be doing what it's doing."

Putin: "Such as? With the conduct of the Iraq war you might be able to make the case (I still don't think so, but there's a possible argument), but the diplomatic cables absolutely not, and this latest leak there's no way it can be justified." Are you pretending you haven't read my comments on this issue? Publishing received information wholesale forces the government to either severely restrict it's internal channels of communication or change it's policy toward greater transparency. Being that the modus operandi until now of the government has been to systematically deceive the citizens it purportedly governs, I can't help but see this turn of events as a welcome innovation.

"At the very least, it seems the burden of demonstrating why something shouldn't be published is on the shoulders of whoever wants to maintain the secret."

"That's a rather strange way to view private information and privacy in general, but in any case that burden has more than been met. Has the government really not made an argument that they don't want cables about sensitive locations to be released because it threatens national security?"_______They have asserted such, but I haven't seen anything resembling a legal argument.

"Law breakers do not get to shout to the authorities about having to first justify the law before any enforcement is attempted."_______I really hope that you are able to demonstrate that Wikileaks has in fact broken a law and that the response chosen by the Govt. is contemplated under the law. Because I like you and I enjoy our conversations.

http://www.avaaz.org/en/wikileaks_petition/?cl=850242544&v=7730

a petition against stupidity in hte US press...

I wonder if the fact that Wikileaks is not properly licensed under Swedish law will affect their legal defence?

http://www.sydsvenskan.se/kultur-och-nojen/article1196808/English-version-Swedish-law-does-not-protect-Wikileaks-sources.html

I do not understand the law here. Do you need to be a registered journalist to exercise this level of "free speech"? Will Assange be treated as the source or the journalist?

thanks ora.

What surprises me in the entire debate around Wikileaks is that it is about Wikileaks. The US government has seriously misbehaved in their diplomacy, both towards their own people, and towards other nations and organisations. Of course, this has been suspected by many, but it has always been denied. Until now.

The US can't pretend nothing happened, they've been caught with their pants down, so to speak. A honest diplomat, as I imagine all of you are, would admit his mistake, apologise, and try to work on a new relationship. But not the US. Their strategy now is to divert as much attention as possible to Julian Assange and Wikileaks. And it truly perplexes me to see that it works.

What do we consider more important? That the single most powerful country in thye world is consistently lying to its own citizens, parliament, NATO allies and the UN, that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the coming one in Iran are framed, or that some Swedish-Australian guy allegedly had unprotected sex one time?

"if you don't like the story change it..." - well known tactic in our modern information warfare. Of course very few people outside of the US pay much attension to such crap (we don't get as many terrible news channels)

Unfortunately this whole process devalues news agencies in general, and thus weakens democracy. If a thinking person no longer trusts the news then he becomes powerless and the state gains undue influence over his life...

The responce of the US gov and media is a demonstration in fact of one of the biggest failings of our current system of democracy, and i for one appluad Jullian Assange for his courage in opposing this system (while i have no reason to refer to any unrelated issue of a sexual assault charge - unless it is related as some would have us believe as some kind of US plot to smeer Assange's name... )

You can discuss the morality of reasling information which can be used to target US citizens the day you judge equally the actions of the US government who put those citizens in danger in the first place.

It is NOT the duty of any journalist or swedish website to do their best to defend the security of a US citizen, that is the duty of the US government.

I can see multiple criticisms of the US gov on this issue, failed security which resulted in the leak. A moral failing which resulted in the whistleblower to find the need to leak this information (even at the risk of being charged with treason) - that is the moral failing of the US gov which lead someone to feel something needed to be revealed to the people; The strategic failing in the middle east - though i do not find them responcible for the actions of terrorists, they are responcible for their own actions in the past 30 years in the region.

As was pointed out above Osama claimed the US occupation of Saudi Arabia as one of their 'great sins' and the entire policy of the US for 30-40 years in the middle east has been one which resulted in the hostility of many. (this does not excuse their actions, those who resort to violence or attempt to incite violent actions are themselves culpilable - HOWEVER the US gov is responcible for creating a situation where is it easier for these terrorists to recruit, and if this results in deaths of US civilians then it is a failing of that gov.)

I don't try to claim that wikileaks is not going to have to wonder if their actions will result in individual deaths, but it is a global struggle in which they play a very small part. I do think it is iresponcible of them to release these documents to the public, but they are not of gov, they are not expected to be held to the same standards as a government.

If you wish to charge them for their actions you must first look to what came before which made them chose this course, and hold your own government responcible for the choices it made.

They are but a tiny branch on the tree of transparency, and they fight for democracy which is sadly missing from our 'free world' - we are indeed free to listen to whatever lies our politicians tell us, or apathetically ignore them and leave the decision making to those more popular than us.

John Stewart rallied to restore sanity, because that is sadly lacking from the US political process and media. Good luck with your media circus, and i hope you can find a way to mend all the leaks