Interpol issues 'red notice' for arrest of WikiLeaks' Julian Assange

[JUDAS]

Assange's terrorist like attacks on the US

Oh dear. You were keeping it together until that point.

Gee aren't the Wiki boys threatening to release information that will be damaging to the banking system. Seems like a terror threat to me, although anarchists act like it's a Christmas gift.

Are you saying that if information comes to light that the large financial institutions have acted illegally, perhaps with the collaboration of the govt, this should be accepted? Are the banks so big and powerful they should be considered above the law?

I will add for clarity that I have not reached a decision on the rights or wrongs of the current situation but, am enjoying the debate.

[SweeneyAgonistes]

A corporation is not a person either, but it is necessary for corporation to have confidential information to operate, the same is true for governments. Do you really want the rest of the world to have access to everything your government is doing. What does that do for your national security? Why do we have to live in glass houses?

And the rules which apply to people clearly don't apply to corporations either so I'm not sure what the point of that was. I would like to have a government which had nothing to hide. And, to be fair to HMG, although there's been some stuff which no doubt made a few people in government embarrassed - "Cameron not up to the job", hehehe - it's not been a threat to national security. But if it is necessary for a government to keep secrets from its people, which might or might not be true, that still doesn't excuse the suppression of Wikilieaks, particularly so when it's being carried out by the american state through extra-legal means.

Gee aren't the Wiki boys threatening to release information that will be damaging to the banking system. Seems like a terror threat to me, although anarchists act like it's a Christmas

They planned to release stuff from a major bank but if you think revealing what a bank says to itself in private is a 'terror threat' then you really ought to take a few days off from Glenn Beck

[mark45y]

It is arguable to say the least that wikileaks has harmed America (mmeaning the USA I guess). The USA has a fine constitution guaranteeing freedom of speech and exercising the right of that anywhere in the world is likely something any true amercian patriot would support. Of course wikileaks has harmed the US government in terms of the personnel in it and those faux patriots who cheerlead US government action while forgetting what the country is all about may dislike this, but it could be argued that the US government by denying everything the country was established for is harming the American (US) people more than wikileaks.

It really comes down to what do you believe in and what is America (US). Is it an example to all based on freedom including constitutionally guaranteed freedom of speech or is it about being a militaristic power that routinely undermines the very principles on which it was established through government and pottnially and maybe ibn proactice poltically appointed and politically motivated courts reinterpretation of the constituion to devalue it? In a free democracy it is the duty of the people to remain vigilant to and prevent government and opther bodies from corrupting that democracy. To do this people need information. When the government says something is secret and it you shouldnt know it, it is likely something you should know more often than not.

So you believe governments can function without secrets?

Do you have curtains at your house?

I believe as an ideal governments should function without secrets ans as with all ideals that is something we shoudl strive towards. Right now though we arent there, but every step in that direction not only helps but also makes it harder for government to do things in the name of their people that are wrong.

Wars are just or not depending on who wins. It is impossible to tell in a contemporary setting who is right unless one knows who will win. While the outcome is in doubt debate will always rage on moral rights or wrongs. War in real terms does not depend on declarations but on people fighting.

Terrorists don't see themselves as terrorists they see themselves as soldiers. Armies see terrorists as terrorists. People who blow up civilians in a pizza parlor see the civilians as the enemy. The people in the pizza parlor see themselves as pizza eaters. So perhaps for the purposes of this limited discussion we could allow that right or wrong has little to do with the actual conduct of that war. Both sides are trying to win by any means they have at their disposal.

I find it difficult to believe that one would strive for openness and transparency during war.

Chess is a game of war and I doubt that hammerred would strive for a chess game where the players posted their future intentions on their forehead for the other player to see.

In any conflict be it trade or war between two countries success in large part may depend on accurate intelligence (knowing the other sides secrets).

In personal relationships, ones thoughts are private. I doubt many married people would stay married if their thoughts became the property of their spouse. Secrets of countries are not much different.

[SweeneyAgonistes]

Gov't SECRETS have been released in the past, true. But this is different. Assange didn't target one secret, he posted a quarter of a million cables. Imagine what would happen if in your company had a controversial policy and instead of someone leaking a few emails related to it, they released all company emails from the previous 15 years. That's what Assange did.

Yes, Wikileaks revealed that Trafigura were dumping toxic waste in Africa and in the process poisoning thousands of people. Revealing this information is unarguably a good thing. If anyone has a problem with that, they really need to spend a few months working through their moral framework.

Edited December 11, 2010 by SweeneyAgonistes

[KhunAussie52]

6,562,626 is the number or supporters from around the world who have voiced there support for Wikileaks to date!!

The numbers are growing by the second.

http://www.avaaz.org/en/index.php

[JUDAS]

It is arguable to say the least that wikileaks has harmed America (mmeaning the USA I guess). The USA has a fine constitution guaranteeing freedom of speech and exercising the right of that anywhere in the world is likely something any true amercian patriot would support. Of course wikileaks has harmed the US government in terms of the personnel in it and those faux patriots who cheerlead US government action while forgetting what the country is all about may dislike this, but it could be argued that the US government by denying everything the country was established for is harming the American (US) people more than wikileaks.

It really comes down to what do you believe in and what is America (US). Is it an example to all based on freedom including constitutionally guaranteed freedom of speech or is it about being a militaristic power that routinely undermines the very principles on which it was established through government and pottnially and maybe ibn proactice poltically appointed and politically motivated courts reinterpretation of the constituion to devalue it? In a free democracy it is the duty of the people to remain vigilant to and prevent government and opther bodies from corrupting that democracy. To do this people need information. When the government says something is secret and it you shouldnt know it, it is likely something you should know more often than not.

So you believe governments can function without secrets?

Do you have curtains at your house?

I believe as an ideal governments should function without secrets ans as with all ideals that is something we shoudl strive towards. Right now though we arent there, but every step in that direction not only helps but also makes it harder for government to do things in the name of their people that are wrong.

Wars are just or not depending on who wins. It is impossible to tell in a contemporary setting who is right unless one knows who will win. While the outcome is in doubt debate will always rage on moral rights or wrongs. War in real terms does not depend on declarations but on people fighting.

Terrorists don't see themselves as terrorists they see themselves as soldiers. Armies see terrorists as terrorists. People who blow up civilians in a pizza parlor see the civilians as the enemy. The people in the pizza parlor see themselves as pizza eaters. So perhaps for the purposes of this limited discussion we could allow that right or wrong has little to do with the actual conduct of that war. Both sides are trying to win by any means they have at their disposal.

I find it difficult to believe that one would strive for openness and transparency during war.

Chess is a game of war and I doubt that hammerred would strive for a chess game where the players posted their future intentions on their forehead for the other player to see.

In any conflict be it trade or war between two countries success in large part may depend on accurate intelligence (knowing the other sides secrets).

In personal relationships, ones thoughts are private. I doubt many married people would stay married if their thoughts became the property of their spouse. Secrets of countries are not much different.

Now, that is a deadly analogy to make your point

[softgeorge]

6,562,626 is the number or supporters from around the world who have voiced there support for Wikileaks to date!!

The numbers are growing by the second.

http://www.avaaz.org/en/index.php

Not only there but on facebook and the likes also

[KhunAussie52]

6,562,626 is the number or supporters from around the world who have voiced there support for Wikileaks to date!!

The numbers are growing by the second.

http://www.avaaz.org/en/index.php

Not only there but on facebook and the likes also

Do you have a link to the poll on facebook?

[SweeneyAgonistes]

In personal relationships, ones thoughts are private. I doubt many married people would stay married if their thoughts became the property of their spouse. Secrets of countries are not much different.

A government is not the same as a person. It's just not. Really.

Of course, I might be wrong so could you explain why they are sufficiently similar for yet another ludicrous analogy - this time about infidelity (????) - to be appropriate. Thanks.

[canuckamuck]

Gov't SECRETS have been released in the past, true. But this is different. Assange didn't target one secret, he posted a quarter of a million cables. Imagine what would happen if in your company had a controversial policy and instead of someone leaking a few emails related to it, they released all company emails from the previous 15 years. That's what Assange did.

Yes, Wikileaks revealed that Trafigura were dumping toxic waste in Africa and in the process poisoning thousands of people. Revealing this information is unarguably a good thing. If anyone has a problem with that, they really need to spend a few months working through their moral framework.

Had Wiki the restraint to filter its leaks to include only things like this, I doubt there would be much debate about their merit. But they don't use much restraint, they just puke it all out there for everyone to see. Be they an enemy, friend, or innocent bystander. Intelligence is the most valuable weapon of war, and despite the good Wiki may have managed to do, the door was left wide open for guys like radical Islamic clerics (for example) to use this information to kill and destroy. Maybe you feel this is an acceptable risk, but I don't think you or Wiki has the right to decide.

I think every Wikileaks supporter should post their internet passwords up on Facebook to show how much faith they have in fellow man to do the right things.

Edited December 11, 2010 by canuckamuck

[KhunAussie52]

Gov't SECRETS have been released in the past, true. But this is different. Assange didn't target one secret, he posted a quarter of a million cables. Imagine what would happen if in your company had a controversial policy and instead of someone leaking a few emails related to it, they released all company emails from the previous 15 years. That's what Assange did.

Yes, Wikileaks revealed that Trafigura were dumping toxic waste in Africa and in the process poisoning thousands of people. Revealing this information is unarguably a good thing. If anyone has a problem with that, they really need to spend a few months working through their moral framework.

Had Wiki the restraint to filter its leaks to include only things like this, I doubt there would be much debate about their merit. But they don't use much restraint, they just puke it all out there for everyone to see. Be they an enemy, friend, or innocent bystander. Intelligence is the most valuable weapon of war, and despite the good Wiki may have managed to do, the door was left wide open for guys like radical Islamic clerics (for example) to use this information to kill and destroy. Maybe you feel this is an acceptable risk, but I don't think you or Wiki has the right to decide.

I think every Wikileaks supporter should post their internet passwords up on Facebook to show how much faith they have in fellow man to do the right things.

As i recall.wikileaks provided the information to 5 media outlets.Some if not all.Deleted names before publication.

Also, did they not contact the US administration !!

[KhunAussie52]

Missing the Point of WikiLeaks

Many Americans I have been speaking to over the past few days have expressed outrage at the leaking of private diplomatic cables by WikiLeaks. They assign the words 'traitor' and 'terrorist' to the person who leaked the files and to WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange. A friend of mine told me that he believes Assange should be assassinated and that the leaker should be hung.

I can sympathize with their point of view - they believe that the leaks put them directly in danger as it reveals sensitive information about security and the personal names of American government employees.

However, there is an implicit assumption that the US government is working in their interests both domestically and abroad. And the evidence would seem to counter that assumption.

Over the past 50 years, the US government has been slowly hijacked by corporate interests so that in its current incarnation, it acts as an enforcer for the wealthy and powerful. This means bailouts for the banks at home, and invasions abroad to secure oil for Haliburton and Bechtel.

Any keen, neutral observer of American politics understands that the country is an empire, and anyone not ideologically wedded to the idea of American exceptionalism can understand why its actions around the world are viewed with deep suspicion. The US has engaged in vicious wars around the globe, both covertly and overtly in order to enforce an economic or military stranglehold on countries it deems strategically useful.

This isn't new and every empire under the sun has engaged in similar, brutal activities.

The actions of the United States government has been deeply harmful to its own citizens and to populations around the world, and that is why it is so important to know what it is doing. Governments classify information not necessarily to protect the population from external threats, but to protect itself from its own population. The WikiLeaks revelations that the US has been spying on UN officials and killing civilians in Afghanistan, Yemen and Iraq is illegal and immoral. The next batch of WikiLeaks documents will outline exactly what the banks have been doing in collusion with the government, and you can bet your last dollar that it won't reveal any sympathy for middle classes and the poor.

WikiLeaks puts in writing what many observers already know - that the US government is engaging in all sorts of sordid, illegal activities. And the more concrete evidence the population has, the less it will be able to do it in the future.

If a Chinese government worker leaked documents proving the Chinese government was engaged in espionage and civilian killings in Tibet he would be hailed as a hero for telling the truth. He may be putting government workers at risk and pose a threat to China's national security (although the latter is highly debatable), but he would also be calling attention to illegal activity and helping stop his government commit crimes in his name.

http://www.thedailybanter.com/tdb/2010/12/missing-the-point-of-wikileaks.html

[KhunAussie52]

The latest Wikileak scandal has set off a global diplomatic crisis that will see relations strained between the US and many of its allies. The leaked US embassy cables reveal in detail what America thinks about foreign leaders and shows highly sensitive information regarding international relations, particularly in the Middle East.

Revelations that the US embassy and Obama administration has little regard for David Cameron and that the Saudi government has been pressing the US to attack Iran will have major repercussions in the coming years. While there may be no immediate action, there will be shifts in policy from the respective countries that could be enormously damaging to US interests. The news that US diplomats were used to spy on foreign leaders, and amazingly the UN Chief Ban Ki Moon, also furthers the perception that the US is an imperial empire that seeks to use foreign countries and international organizations for its own interests. As the Guardian reports:

The cables published today reveal how

the US uses its embassies as part of a global espionage network

, with diplomats tasked to obtain not just information from the people they meet, but personal details, such as frequent flier numbers, credit card details and even DNA material.

Classified "human intelligence directives" issued in the name of Clinton or her predecessor, Condoleezza Rice, instruct officials to gather information on military installations, weapons markings, vehicle details of political leaders as well as iris scans, fingerprints and DNA.

Many on the right and in the corporate media have denounced the release of the embassy cables and are calling for the Wikileaks site to be taken down. Some are even calling Wikileaks a terrorist organization for putting US lives at risk.

While the leaks will certainly damage US interests and possibly endanger lives, the insight the world now has to the empire that has wrought immense destruction to the world over the past 10 years is invaluable. America has illegally invaded two sovereign nations, is actively engaged in a vicious cold war against Iran and has been covertly spying on its allies. It has also undermined democratic elections around the world (think Venezuela, Iraq and Palestine) and has projected its economic power to cripple competitors and destroy economic sovereignty.

No country has the power to overtly defy the US - it is simply too powerful. But revealing its inner workings gives the world a weapon against its more malevolent impulses. The US will no longer find its allies so willing to cater to its orders, and it will find a world more willing to look outside for trade and strategic political alliances. It will find a world no longer enthralled by American might and it will have to face the new political reality that it is an empire in decline.

But above all, the Wikileaks documents prove that the best weapon against power is truth.

[KhunAussie52]

The latest Wikileak scandal has set off a global diplomatic crisis that will see relations strained between the US and many of its allies. The leaked US embassy cables reveal in detail what America thinks about foreign leaders and shows highly sensitive information regarding international relations, particularly in the Middle East.

Revelations that the US embassy and Obama administration has little regard for David Cameron and that the Saudi government has been pressing the US to attack Iran will have major repercussions in the coming years. While there may be no immediate action, there will be shifts in policy from the respective countries that could be enormously damaging to US interests. The news that US diplomats were used to spy on foreign leaders, and amazingly the UN Chief Ban Ki Moon, also furthers the perception that the US is an imperial empire that seeks to use foreign countries and international organizations for its own interests. As the Guardian reports:

The cables published today reveal how

the US uses its embassies as part of a global espionage network

, with diplomats tasked to obtain not just information from the people they meet, but personal details, such as frequent flier numbers, credit card details and even DNA material.

Classified "human intelligence directives" issued in the name of Clinton or her predecessor, Condoleezza Rice, instruct officials to gather information on military installations, weapons markings, vehicle details of political leaders as well as iris scans, fingerprints and DNA.

Many on the right and in the corporate media have denounced the release of the embassy cables and are calling for the Wikileaks site to be taken down. Some are even calling Wikileaks a terrorist organization for putting US lives at risk.

While the leaks will certainly damage US interests and possibly endanger lives, the insight the world now has to the empire that has wrought immense destruction to the world over the past 10 years is invaluable. America has illegally invaded two sovereign nations, is actively engaged in a vicious cold war against Iran and has been covertly spying on its allies. It has also undermined democratic elections around the world (think Venezuela, Iraq and Palestine) and has projected its economic power to cripple competitors and destroy economic sovereignty.

No country has the power to overtly defy the US - it is simply too powerful. But revealing its inner workings gives the world a weapon against its more malevolent impulses. The US will no longer find its allies so willing to cater to its orders, and it will find a world more willing to look outside for trade and strategic political alliances. It will find a world no longer enthralled by American might and it will have to face the new political reality that it is an empire in decline.

But above all, the Wikileaks documents prove that the best weapon against power is truth.

http://www.thedailybanter.com/tdb/2010/11/wikileaks-strikes-at-the-heart-of-the-america-empire.html

[koheesti]

Missing the Point of WikiLeaks

WikiLeaks puts in writing what many observers already know - that the US government is engaging in all sorts of sordid, illegal activities.

Illegal activities? Like what for example?

[KhunAussie52]

Quote from John Pilger

Their current propaganda is that Wikileaks is "irresponsible". Earlier this year, before it released the cockpit video of an American Apache gunship killing 19 civilians in Iraq, including journalists and children, Wikileaks sent people to Baghdad to find the families of the victims in order to prepare them. Prior to the release of last month's Afghan War Logs, Wikileaks wrote to the White House asking that it identify names that might draw reprisals. There was no reply. More than 15,000 files were withheld and these, says Assange, will not be released until they have been scrutinised "line by line" so that names of those at risk can be deleted.

The pressure on Assange himself seems unrelenting. In his homeland, Australia, the shadow foreign minister, Julie Bishop, has said that if her right-wing coalition wins the general election on 21 August, "appropriate action" will be taken "if an Australian citizen has deliberately undertake an activity that could put at risk the lives of Australian forces in Afghanistan or undermine our operations in any way". The Australian role in Afghanistan, effectively mercenary in the service of Washington, has produced two striking results: the massacre of five children in a village in Oruzgan province and the overwhelming disapproval of the majority of Australians.

Last May, following the release of the Apache footage, Assange had his Australian passport temporarily confiscated when he returned home. The Labor government in Canberra denies it has received requests from Washington to detain him and spy on the Wikileaks network. The Cameron government also denies this. They would, wouldn't they? Assange, who came to London last month to work on exposing the war logs, has had to leave Britain hastily for, as puts it, "safer climes".

On 16 August, the Guardian, citing Daniel Ellsberg, described the great Israeli whistle blower Mordechai Vanunu as "the pre-eminent hero of the nuclear age". Vanunu, who alerted the world to Israel's secret nuclear weapons, was kidnapped by the Israelis and incarcerated for 18 years after he was left unprotected by the London Sunday Times, which had published the documents he supplied. In 1983, another heroic whistle blower, Sarah Tisdall, a Foreign Office clerical officer, sent documents to the Guardian that disclosed how the Thatcher government planned to spin the arrival of American cruise missiles in Britain. The Guardian complied with a court order to hand over the documents, and Tisdall went to prison.

In one sense, the Wikileaks revelations shame the dominant section of journalism devoted merely to taking down what cynical and malign power tells it. This is state stenography, not journalism. Look on the Wikileaks site and read a Ministry of Defence document that describes the “threat” of real journalism. And so it should be a threat. Having published skilfully the Wikileaks expose of a fraudulent war, the Guardian should now give its most powerful and unreserved editorial support to the protection of Julian Assange and his colleagues, whose truth-telling is as important as any in my lifetime.

I like Julian Assange’s dust-dry wit. When I asked him if it was more difficult to publish secret information in Britain, he replied, “When we look at Official Secrets Act labelled documents we see that they state it is offence to retain the information and an offence to destroy the information. So the only possible outcome we have is to publish the information.”

Edited December 11, 2010 by KhunAussie52

[KhunAussie52]

Missing the Point of WikiLeaks

WikiLeaks puts in writing what many observers already know - that the US government is engaging in all sorts of sordid, illegal activities.

Illegal activities? Like what for example?

Take of your blinkers and do some reading!!!

[KhunAussie52]

What Assange will be remembered for is being the man who began the destruction of the net. Just like Sept 11 screwed up air travel around the world permanently.

It is too bad that he can not be charged with that. Espionage will have to do.

He is an Australian citizen.he has nothing to answer for!!!!!

[KhunAussie52]

Missing the Point of WikiLeaks

WikiLeaks puts in writing what many observers already know - that the US government is engaging in all sorts of sordid, illegal activities.

Illegal activities? Like what for example?

The war in Iraq.......!

[mark45y]

Gov't SECRETS have been released in the past, true. But this is different. Assange didn't target one secret, he posted a quarter of a million cables. Imagine what would happen if in your company had a controversial policy and instead of someone leaking a few emails related to it, they released all company emails from the previous 15 years. That's what Assange did.

Yes, Wikileaks revealed that Trafigura were dumping toxic waste in Africa and in the process poisoning thousands of people. Revealing this information is unarguably a good thing. If anyone has a problem with that, they really need to spend a few months working through their moral framework.

Had Wiki the restraint to filter its leaks to include only things like this, I doubt there would be much debate about their merit. But they don't use much restraint, they just puke it all out there for everyone to see. Be they an enemy, friend, or innocent bystander. Intelligence is the most valuable weapon of war, and despite the good Wiki may have managed to do, the door was left wide open for guys like radical Islamic clerics (for example) to use this information to kill and destroy. Maybe you feel this is an acceptable risk, but I don't think you or Wiki has the right to decide.

I think every Wikileaks supporter should post their internet passwords up on Facebook to show how much faith they have in fellow man to do the right things.

As i recall.wikileaks provided the information to 5 media outlets.Some if not all.Deleted names before publication.

Also, did they not contact the US administration !!

Snips from a news story. I think the newspaper is OK and not one of those nut case internet sites but you never know. Maybe you could check it out. www.theaustralian.com, what do you think is it OK?

WikiLeaks defector Daniel Domscheit-Berg reveals Julian Assange's siege mentality

Until this month "Daniel Schmitt" was the second most public face of WikiLeaks after Mr Assange, giving hundreds of interviews in defence of the organisation's mission to put classified documents directly on the internet.

Initially, the WikiLeaks experiment was hailed as a turning point in investigative journalism and Mr Domscheit-Berg, as its press spokesman, was at the helm. Then things started to go wrong.

The publicity drawn by this year's controversial revelations of Afghan war documents started to push WikiLeaks beyond its limits.

Increasingly, WikiLeaks seemed to be fighting a battle with the US Administration rather than providing a platform for whistleblowers around the globe.

The point seemed to be driven home when Afghan collaborators of the Allies were exposed to mortal danger by the leaked information. The question of responsibility appeared to have been pushed to one side in the rush to score a publicity coup.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/wikileaks-defector-daniel-domscheit-berg-reveals-julian-assanges-siege-mentality/story-e6frg6so-1225930625424

From the NY times.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/24/world/24assange.html?_r=2&scp=1&sq=wikileaks+chief+trailed+notoriety&st=nyt

Now it is not just governments that denounce him: some of his own comrades are abandoning him for what they see as erratic and imperious behavior, and a nearly delusional grandeur unmatched by an awareness that the digital secrets he reveals can have a price in flesh and blood.

Several WikiLeaks colleagues say he alone decided to release the Afghan documents without removing the names of Afghan intelligence sources for NATO troops. “We were very, very upset with that, and with the way he spoke about it afterwards,” said Birgitta Jonsdottir, a core WikiLeaks volunteer and a member of Iceland’s Parliament. “If he could just focus on the important things he does, it would be better.”

[chuckd]

6,562,626 is the number or supporters from around the world who have voiced there support for Wikileaks to date!!

The numbers are growing by the second.

http://www.avaaz.org/en/index.php

According to the UN, there are 6,830,000,000 citizens of the world.

That means there are 6,823,,437,374 citizens that have NOT registered their support for Wikileaks.

When you get to 68,300,000 let us know. That will be 1% of the world's population.

[KhunAussie52]

6,562,626 is the number or supporters from around the world who have voiced there support for Wikileaks to date!!

The numbers are growing by the second.

http://www.avaaz.org/en/index.php

According to the UN, there are 6,830,000,000 citizens of the world.

That means there are 6,823,,437,374 citizens that have NOT registered their support for Wikileaks.

When you get to 68,300,000 let us know. That will be 1% of the world's population.

How many of these numbers have access to the internet?

[KhunAussie52]

No evidence that WikiLeaks releases have hurt anyone

American officials in recent days have warned repeatedly that the release of documents by WikiLeaks could put people's lives in danger.

But despite similar warnings before the previous two releases of classified U.S. intelligence reports by the website, U.S. officials concede that they have no evidence to date that the documents led to anyone's death.

Before Sunday's release, news organizations given access to the documents and WikiLeaks took the greatest care to date to ensure no one would be put in danger. In statements accompanying stories about the documents, several newspapers said they voluntarily withheld information and that they cooperated with the State Department and the Obama administration to ensure nothing released could endanger lives or national security.

The newspapers "established lists in common of people to protect, notably in countries ruled by dictators, controlled by criminals or at war," according to an account by Le Monde, a French newspaper that was among the five news organizations that were given access to the documents. "All the identities of people the journalists believed would be threatened were redacted," the newspaper said in what would be an unusual act of self censorship by journalists toward government documents.

The newspapers also communicated U.S. government concerns to WikiLeaks to ensure that sensitive data didn't appear on the organization's website.

"After its own redaction's, The (New York) Times sent Obama administration officials the cables it planned to post and invited them to challenge publication of any information that, in the official view, would harm the national interest," The New York Times said in a story published on its website Sunday. "After reviewing the cables, the officials - while making clear they condemn the publication of secret material - suggested additional redaction's. The Times agreed to some, but not all."

The paper said it also passed the government's concerns to WikiLeaks "at the suggestion of the State Department."

Unlike the release earlier this year of intelligence documents about the war in Afghanistan, when WikiLeaks posted on its website unredacted documents that included the names of Afghan informants, WikiLeaks agreed this time not to release more than 250,000 documents because they hadn't been vetted by the U.S. government.

The newspapers said WikiLeaks had agreed to release only the documents used in preparation for articles that appeared in the five publications, which in addition to Le Monde and The New York Times included Great Britain's Guardian, Germany's Der Spiegel and Spain's El Pais.

"Together, the five newspapers have carefully edited the raw text used to remove all names and indices whose disclosure could pose risks to individuals," Le Monde said.

Le Monde also said U.S. officials would have the opportunity to argue their point of view in its columns.

Sunday's release showed a growing willingness on the part of WikiLeaks to cooperate with the government on the document trove.

When the first batch of documents was released this summer, WikiLeaks unapologetically released the names of Afghan informants, which U.S. officials charged could lead to their deaths. In the second batch, released in October, which focused on the Iraq war, WikiLeaks withheld names but didn't work with the U.S. government to determine what could endanger U.S. national security.

Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell has said previously that there was no evidence that anyone had been killed because of the leaks. Sunday, another Pentagon official told McClatchy that the military still has no evidence that the leaks have led to any deaths. The official didn't want to be named because of the issue's sensitivity.

"We have yet to see any harm come to anyone in Afghanistan that we can directly tie to exposure in the WikiLeaks documents," Morrell told the Washington Post on Aug 11. But "there is in all likelihood a lag between exposure of these documents and jeopardy in the field."

Despite that, the government has maintained that the release of the documents could put people in grave danger. In a letter to WikiLeaks Saturday, the State Department's legal adviser, Harold Koh, said that the release "could place at risk the lives of countless innocent individuals - from journalists to human rights activists and bloggers to soldiers to individuals providing information to further peace and security."

"Despite your stated desire to protect those lives, you have done the opposite and endangered the lives of countless individuals. You have undermined your stated objective by disseminating this material widely, without redaction, and without regard to the security and sanctity of the lives your actions endanger," Koh said.

It wasn't immediately clear how Sunday's release would endanger secret U.S. programs, though it wasn't difficult to conclude that some of the releases could endanger local officials' political futures.

One cable, for example, describes a meeting between Gen. David Petraeus, then the commander of U.S. Central Command, and Yemen's president where they were discussing what was apparently a U.S. bombing campaign against al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula. According to the cable, Yemeni President Ali Abdullah Saleh began to "joke that he had just 'lied' by telling his Parliament that the Yemeni forces were responsible for attacks carried out by the U.S.

"We'll continue saying the bombs are ours, not yours," the cable quotes Saleh as saying.

[Wallaby]

Similar statement our PM John Howard made when in government when half a million people took to the streets in protest some years ago. He said that it was a small percentage of people in relation to the population of that city and nothing to worry about.

He not only lost the election but he also lost his seat in parliament.

Just because it is a small percentage of people that get off their ass to do something does not mean they only have that amount of support. That would be disastrous thinking.

Also in my country a government can easily be voted in with less than 50% of the votes and has done numerous times. This present government included.

Edited December 11, 2010 by Wallaby

[SweeneyAgonistes]

Had Wiki the restraint to filter its leaks to include only things like this, I doubt there would be much debate about their merit.

That's true but only because nobody would pay the slightest attention. How many people on this board knew about Trafigura? No more than a handful.

Intelligence is the most valuable weapon of war, and despite the good Wiki may have managed to do, the door was left wide open for guys like radical Islamic clerics (for example) to use this information to kill and destroy

What information? That Putin is tied in with the mafia? That the americans asked the Ugandans about any war crimes they were about to commit but not to not commit them? That Berlusconi takes money from Russia? That the Chinese politburo are behind attacks on Google? That the Americans have spied on the head of the UN? That the Saudis wanted to start a war in the Lebanon? That Shell have spies throughout the Nigerian government? That Pfizer use dirty tricks against African governments? Perhaps you associate with a different type of turrrrrst but I don't think that many 'radical Islamic clerics' (yawn) are going to be strapping on their dynamite as a result of those revelations. If governments are corrupt and criminal, letting their people know about this - and that includes people other than americans, though americans, as usual, seem blissfully unaware of their existence - is exactly the right thing to do.

[koheesti]

Missing the Point of WikiLeaks

WikiLeaks puts in writing what many observers already know - that the US government is engaging in all sorts of sordid, illegal activities.

Illegal activities? Like what for example?

The war in Iraq.......!

I don't think anyone needed Wikileaks to tell them the US was involved in a war in Iraq.

My question remains - can you or anyone else list any of these "all sorts of sordid, illegal activities" the US government has been engaging in that the latest leaks of 250,000 cables have exposed?

[KhunAussie52]

Missing the Point of WikiLeaks

WikiLeaks puts in writing what many observers already know - that the US government is engaging in all sorts of sordid, illegal activities.

Illegal activities? Like what for example?

The war in Iraq.......!

I don't think anyone needed Wikileaks to tell them the US was involved in a war in Iraq.

My question remains - can you or anyone else list any of these "all sorts of sordid, illegal activities" the US government has been engaging in that the latest leaks of 250,000 cables have exposed?

So is it your belief that the war in Iraq was legal

Quote from Wikipedia.

The invasion of Iraq was neither in self-defense against armed attack nor sanctioned by UN Security Council resolution authorizing the use of force by member states and thus constituted the crime of war of aggression, according to the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) in Geneva.^[56][57] A "war waged without a clear mandate from the United Nations Security Council would constitute a flagrant violation of the prohibition of the use of force.” We note with “deep dismay that a small number of states are poised to launch an outright illegal invasion of Iraq, which amounts to a war of aggression.”^[57][57][58]

Then Iraq Ambassador to the United Nations Mohammed Aldouri shared the view that the invasion was a violation of international law and constituted a war of aggression,^[59] as did a number of American legal experts, including Marjorie Cohn, Professor at Thomas Jefferson School of Law and president of the National Lawyers Guild^[60] and former Attorney-General of the United States Ramsey Clark.^[61]

[canuckamuck]

That is general knowledge and from Wikipedia not Wikileaks

[SweeneyAgonistes]

My question remains - can you or anyone else list any of these "all sorts of sordid, illegal activities" the US government has been engaging in that the latest leaks of 250,000 cables have exposed?

It's mostly fairly second-order stuff: doing nothing about possible Ugandan war crimes, assorted episodes of spying, the astonishing level of corruption in Afghanistan, the unofficial war in Yemen, troops in Pakistan. I'm sure there's more but that's what I can think of off the top of my head.

[Wallaby]

My question remains - can you or anyone else list any of these "all sorts of sordid, illegal activities" the US government has been engaging in that the latest leaks of 250,000 cables have exposed?

It's mostly fairly second-order stuff: doing nothing about possible Ugandan war crimes, assorted episodes of spying, the astonishing level of corruption in Afghanistan, the unofficial war in Yemen, troops in Pakistan. I'm sure there's more but that's what I can think of off the top of my head.

Is spying on the head of the UN illegal? I mean, it is spying, same thing the US is accusing Assange of doing.

I just wonder what any journalist would do with the leaks if it fell into their hands. My guess is a lot of front page stories. The govt could then put enormous pressure on the owners/editors not to print more. Maybe that is why the govt is so upset, they can't strong arm wikileaks and the ego is bruised.