Frankly there is not much the US or other governments could have done to stop it. They could have just taken it with a certain stoic grace but the hysterical hullaballoo that they created in response shows them up more than the leaks, IMO.
Agreed with Nexxo, The information is not sitting in one big lump on a server somewhere. Thousands of copies have been distributed to various people and if someone offs Julian or things get to pressured, then the whole thing will come out at once. Wikileaks is back up at wikileaks.ch and now has the site mirrored on 208 different sites! EDIT: Proud to have made my 10 euro contribution!
Yeah that's true. Maybe i am just overly suspicious. What has amused me though is the general response a lot of countries have given with the basic gist of "Ha! Sucks to be you. We don't really care that much though, you should see what we say about you " lol After reading through a lot of them there isn't really that much(from what i have read which is nowhere near all of what's available) which could cause any massive trouble except for the Korea related stuff. Worst possible time for them to come out in that regard.
It will be interesting to see how far WikiLeaks goes. Many have said they will be saving the best 'til last, or even saving the best as protection by not releasing it unless they come under legal or physical threat by the US. If I was the US I'd just stay quiet and get on with life. You live and learn sort of thing. Todays leak regarding key-sites to their national security is very interesting to read. Anti-snake venom factory in Australia for one, insulin plant in Denmark (both of these taken from BBC news site), the list is huge in the actual cable - this goes to show how deep their intelligence work goes. It's kinda daunting to think how deep they think! Plotting against Iran and middle-east countries was/is a big mistake. No one wants to deal with a two-faced government, and now countries will sympathise even more with Irans and Palestines struggles. Still, if you read up on many of the books detailing their past 'business dealings', there are (so far) much worse things they've done in the world than WikiLeaks has revealed.
Of course it is information that terrorists already know, or could find out for themselves with a bit of Googling (I can think of a few other facilities that ought to be on the list, in fact). Nothing new here. If anything it is reassuring to know that the US government has a better idea of potential terrorist targets than I thought they had. The terrorists aren't interested anyway. All their efforts thus far have been on mediapathic targets: public buildings and transport, icons of industry and government. They don't really think that far out of the box. Fundamentalists don't --it's what makes them fundamentalists.
Are you a representative of said terrorists? Unless you are, you doing nothing but guessing. Guessing is a game that often has the result in those who are guessing to be wrong. There are some quite sophisticated terrorist cells, that would love confirmation on key strategic targets, and would be prepared to use this data. To claim otherwise shows ignorance to the terrorist organisations that are currently in service. It isn't just Al Quieda we need to worry about, it's just about every terrorist organisation who has an axe to grind with either the UK, US, the West or a combination. Even if the terrorists do not use this resource, it still does not justify the publication of the data. How exactly is the release of this particular data a worthy move in the supposed quest that Wikileaks has? I think it was just a move by them to keep the media interest high. To sum up, what exactly was the purpose of Wikileaks releasing this data? That is the question we should be asking. I can see no reason why Wikileaks felt the need to release this data, other than to keep the media's interest. If this is the case, then Wikileaks is (and has been) doing nothing more than self gratifying. Almost forgot - The US once thought that terrorists couldn't intercept our commercial aircraft, use them as weapons and turn our cities into targets, how did that one pan out again? Kinda bucks the theory that all terrorists are still the neanderthals waving their little, harmless axes around.
I've been wanting to use a smiley I've seen here since I first gave Nexxo grief. - One word "Accountability".
On the flip side it tells the terrorists which sites are being watched and might act as a deterrent. Your guess as to what the terrorists are up to is as valid/invalid as Nexxo's.
I'm sorry, but are you saying I have missed the point, and that Wikileaks thought the US government should be held accountable for the strategic installations in place? Accountable for what?
Never tried claiming otherwise. On the other hand, did you really think that any strategic installation does not have some security in place, and that terrorists are not aware of this fact? It didn't stop them with 9/11, and still they managed to pull off one of the most audacious terrorist acts we have ever witnessed. We still haven't answered the question why Wikileaks thought it right to leak this data.
I think you're missing the point behind wikileaks here, the idea is that a journalist gets passed information and then they don't censor it, or decide what is and is not in the "public interest" (Which public, whose interest?) - they just publish it. That's what journallists do, they inform the public with the data they can get their hands on.
No sorry, the entire leak as a whole I believe was about accountability against the US government. I think everyone is quite sick of never being able to get person x sorted. As for the defence side, whats the better these cells already know it's US supplied/uses US stuff? It doesn't matter... if they are that intent on destroying something, they'll find out and do it.
I think your summary shows some serious flaws. First, a jounalist is supposed to remain impartial to the story at hand, so as to provide an unbiased viewpoint to the intended audience. Second, Wikileaks clearly have a cause, which is to embarass the US government, amongst other things. This makes Wikileaks activists, and not pacifist observers (which journalists are supposed to be after all). As for journalists deciding to publish or not, that job usually falls on the head of the editor, and you would be surprised at the amount of valid and newsworthy stories that are overlooked by journalists, so again you are wrong. So let's give them a helping hand then? Confirm their suspicions, and release the data? Because that's what has happened. As for terrorists, they can be quite sophisticated, both in terms of planning and execution. Who remembers the killing of Lord Mountbatten by the IRA? More recent events, such as 9/11 and 7/7 show that they are least capable of some careful planning. To underestimate them would be much more dangerous than to take the threat they pose seriously.
You'll have to take me with a pinch of salt... I'm severely sleep deprived due to rum at the weekend I very much doubt they would have "suspicions" about a building say, in Afghan, Iraq, Russia, China, wherever it is... Terrorists will confirm things regardless mate. Plus I dont see how anti-venom plants are going to be a major factor ...unless we gotta get those snakes out of this mo'fu'in thread! Sorry... I'll just go back to sleep, it's far easier today man.
I agree that it is a journalistic goal to attain impartiality and objectivity to the highest degree, but your statement that wikileaks clearly have the cause of embarrassing the US seems flawed. Wikileaks have covered topics other than the US, but they are a website which released leaked information which is handed to them. I'm sure they would love to release diplomatic cables from every country, but as it is they were only passed US diplomatic cables by their source and as such that's all they can publish. To derive prejudice from them only publishing the data they have is premature at best. And yes editors do decide what stories to publish or not publish - in this case wikileaks are publishing everything, and not leaving anything out because it might be dull or uninteresting to read. The idea that an editors job is to censor the news stories he receives for political reasons (or similar) strikes me as hopefully only being applicable in countries which aren't very free, like China. On the flip side of that, should everything written down a state employee be instantly classified because it might give "the terrorists" a hint at what to blow up next? As a tax payer I have the right to know what my representatives and employees (That is, the people the state employs) are doing on the clock. Whether that's good or bad for me, it's my money, it's my country, so it's my right. As for worrying that terrorists are somehow going to utilise such pieces of vital data as there being a cobalt mine in Australia that the US feels is important, seriously, come on. In the last 20 years or so islamic terrorists have attacked buildings, airplanes, airports, trains, buses, and other completely mundane things - and generally pretty poorly too. The idea that a terrorist organisation could seriously politically, militarily, or economically disrupt a superpower is fairly laughable. If these unspecified terrorists we're worrying about are as smart as you fear, then they'll realise that and keep on trying to make your average joe scared of getting on the bus in the morning and not on how they can shut down an insulin factory for a few weeks. If they are as dumb as I think they've shown themselves to be, then to be honest I'll be quite happy if they waste their time trying to blow up cobalt mines or insulin factories, they'll probably kill even fewer people doing that then their fairly piss poor attacks on the west have managed since 9/11
Seems quite smart to me. They've shown the US that they can do something the US doesn't want to happen, and the US has obviously fought back along various avenues. Given that wikileaks will want to continue existing, it will need to minimise the level at which it is being persecuted. Having some ammo left over acts as a threat against those who would wish them shut down. As a somewhat interesting aside, it seems the US state department is now warning US university students that they shouldn't publicly participate in commentary about any of the leaks if they wish to find work with the state department in the future.
You quoted me before I changed my mind on this thread! Haha. But shouldn't a site like Wikileaks be taking the high road? Now they seem to be playing at the same games as the Governments involved now. I could be wrong. If they truly have a database of such sensitive data do they honestly want to even release that if it is as damaging as claimed? Does Julian really want to go down that road?
I wonder what legal justification they have for doing that given that he is charged with no crime and the funds are charitable donations. It's depressing to see how the western governmental systems have responded to the release of information showing that people in government have been committing criminal acts. Instead of apologising and some people losing their jobs, they're trying to destroy the man who showed the world how badly they've been behaving.
