When Wikileaks leaks leaks, leaks get leaky.

[Paingod]

Man. I feel sorry for anyone on this list. Someone published a massive list of sources for Wikileaks' leaks, along with the actual leaks as far as I can tell.

I'm imagining lots of lost jobs, lawsuits, and personal problems are about to hit the fan in a magnitiude not seen yet on the interwebs. This might even be all the nails in the coffin of Wikileaks at once. Who in their right mind would leak to them now?

[Sectoid]

If anyone is harmed by this they should have Assange's head in a basket.

[LawBeefaroni]

WikiLeaks denies it is responsible for the security breach. In an earlier Twitter posting, WikiLeaks said: "There has been no 'leak at WikiLeaks'. The issue relates to a mainstream media partner and a malicious individual."

That was a thinly veiled referenced to the Guardian newspaper and Domscheit-Berg, the former WikiLeaks insider who now runs Openleaks, another whistle-blowing site, and who is currently embroiled in a war of words with Assange.

Domscheit-Berg told CNN that he discovered the security breach "by chance" and alerted his media partner, the German newspaper Die Freitag.

WikiLeaks blames Domscheit-Berg for directing attention to the breach and the Guardian for leaking the password.

Such pettiness.

[Grifman]

Someone published a massive list of sources for Wikileaks' leaks

I think you've misread the article. Wikileak sources were not exposed as far as I can tell.

[Paingod]

The article is really difficult to follow as far as what was actually leaked. Re-reading it - yeah - it looks like they simply didn't clean up people that needed to be protected. My first readthrough made it sound like the data contained everyone.

[LawBeefaroni]

The article is really difficult to follow as far as what was actually leaked. Re-reading it - yeah - it looks like they simply didn't clean up people that needed to be protected. My first readthrough made it sound like the data contained everyone.

It was raw data so they were unredacted. However, the documents don't state who leaked them so even in raw form they generally didn't compromise Wikileaks' sources. Not directly anyway. They compromised government sources and informants.

[Paingod]

They compromised government sources and informants.

Which is totally awesome, rite? High five!

I wonder how hard our government will pursue them after this?

[Shinjin]

The real classy action was to give a 2 weeks notice to various governments and lawyer types before the 140k document info dump, so that they couldn't be scooped.

[Grifman]

They compromised government sources and informants.

Which is totally awesome, rite? High five!

Not really. The issue from the beginning is that wikileaks endangered many people overseas who assisted the US (as in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, etc.). I don't think getting people killed who helped the US is very "awesome" myself.

[Rip]

Assange was a dumbass for giving a reporter the password. Everyone knows reporters are only interested in secrecy when they are their secrets. I wonder if he gave them the password to his voicemail as well, not that they would need it.

Rip

[hepcat]

They compromised government sources and informants.

Which is totally awesome, rite? High five!

Not really. The issue from the beginning is that wikileaks endangered many people overseas who assisted the US (as in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, etc.). I don't think getting people killed who helped the US is very "awesome" myself.

I think he's being facetious.

wait...are you?

God, I can't tell who's being facetious these days. I'm facetioused out. I need a break from facetiousness.

[Paingod]

They compromised government sources and informants.

Which is totally awesome, rite? High five!

Not really. The issue from the beginning is that wikileaks endangered many people overseas who assisted the US (as in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, etc.). I don't think getting people killed who helped the US is very "awesome" myself.

I think he's being facetious.

Winrar.

The quoted line is to be read in a jock/jerk voice. The second line is to be read in a flat monotone pissed voice.

I find it very unimpressive that this got out. I was originally all for the open-airing of dirty laundry, but am completely against getting informants lined up for execution.

[silverjon]

So... Cablegate, huh?

[Rip]

How can you not love getting to hear stuff like this?

Likened to a shadow CIA by Turkish and international media, an email by the Stratfor Chief Executive George Friedman talks about a meeting between former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger and Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan.

According to that email, Erdoğan told Kissinger that at some point he will eventually burn bridges with Israel and opt for a closer relationship with the Islamic world. Kissinger’s response was indicated in Friedman’s mail as “Erdoğan intends to be the leader of the Islamic world.”

http://english.alarabiya.net/articles/2 ... 97680.html

A leaked email from George Friedman, the head of US-based global security analysis company Stratfor, reveals that Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan told former US secretary of state Henry Kissinger that at some point he would burn bridges with Israel in favor of a closer relationship with the Islamic world.

According to the Turkish newspaper Sunday Zaman, Friedman also wrote in the same email that Turkey does not get along with Israel and the United States. An attack by Israel on Iran would provide a good opportunity for Erdogan to finally cut Turkey’s ties with Israel and the US and to expand Turkey’s power, he further wrote.

The flotilla to Gaza — in which nine Turkish citizens aboard a ship heading to Gaza were killed after attacking the IDF commandos who intercepted it – was not the cause of Turkey’s new strategy but rather the opportunity Erdogan had been waiting for, Army Radio said.

http://www.timesofisrael.com/wikileaks- ... th-israel/

These are things that I should know and I don't care for them being hidden from us.

[LawBeefaroni]

These are things that I should know and I don't care for them being hidden from us.

But then poor Stratfor wouldn't have a competitive edge!

[AWS260]

These are things that I should know and I don't care for them being hidden from us.

Henry Kissinger doesn't regularly brief you on his conversations with world leaders? I'll remind him to add you to his email list the next time he's over for dinner.

[Carpet_pissr]

I thought it was strange that in Stratfor's whining PR piece the other day, after they got hacked, they kept using the word "friends" along with clients. Just strikes a strange cord with me, for some reason, that a business would use that particular term for clients. To quote the term "customers and friends" seemed to be used over and over.

[LawBeefaroni]

I thought it was strange that in Stratfor's whining PR piece the other day, after they got hacked, they kept using the word "friends" along with clients. Just strikes a strange cord with me, for some reason, that a business would use that particular term for clients. To quote the term "customers and friends" seemed to be used over and over.

I think "friends" are non-paying subscribers and/or sources. Some probably get information from Stratfor on a quid-pro-quo basis so he doesn't exactly call them clients or subscribers.

Just a guess.

[hepcat]

These are things that I should know and I don't care for them being hidden from us.

Henry Kissinger doesn't regularly brief you on his conversations with world leaders? I'll remind him to add you to his email list the next time he's over for dinner.

Bastard only calls me when he needs cash...

[Rip]

I would expect that if a former Secretary of State was told by the Prime Minister of a NATO partner that he intended to burn bridges with Israel that The State Department would be aware and when said Prime Minister came out claiming this crap about the flotilla incident they would have released that they had credible information that the flotilla incident was an excuse and the break was planned prior to.

Or maybe The State Department was behind on their dues and were being told?

It is information hoarding like this that lends credence to whacko theories like we knew Pearl harbor was coming, faked the moon landing, or blew the Trade Center up ourselves.

[tjg_marantz]

I would expect that if a former Secretary of State was told by the Prime Minister of a NATO partner that he intended to burn bridges with Israel that The State Department would be aware and when said Prime Minister came out claiming this crap about the flotilla incident they would have released that they had credible information that the flotilla incident was an excuse and the break was planned prior to.

Or maybe The State Department was behind on their dues and were being told?

It is information hoarding like this that lends credence to whacko theories like we knew Pearl harbor was coming, faked the moon landing, or blew the Trade Center up ourselves.

I would disagree with the last part of your statement. That's a whole other level of crazy.

[Rip]

I would expect that if a former Secretary of State was told by the Prime Minister of a NATO partner that he intended to burn bridges with Israel that The State Department would be aware and when said Prime Minister came out claiming this crap about the flotilla incident they would have released that they had credible information that the flotilla incident was an excuse and the break was planned prior to.

Or maybe The State Department was behind on their dues and were being told?

It is information hoarding like this that lends credence to whacko theories like we knew Pearl harbor was coming, faked the moon landing, or blew the Trade Center up ourselves.

I would disagree with the last part of your statement. That's a whole other level of crazy.

Perhaps, I keep hoping that we don't get a wikileaks on something at that level.

If there is anything at that level I think it will certainly come out some day. Just keep hoping there isn't.

[Grifman]

I would expect that if a former Secretary of State was told by the Prime Minister of a NATO partner that he intended to burn bridges with Israel that The State Department would be aware and when said Prime Minister came out claiming this crap about the flotilla incident they would have released that they had credible information that the flotilla incident was an excuse and the break was planned prior to.

Unless perhaps they have other diplomatic reasons for not doing so? And of course, the State Department would have no proof either of what was said in a private conversation. And what purpose would it serve? Turkey was going to do what it was going to do.

[El Guapo]

I would expect that if a former Secretary of State was told by the Prime Minister of a NATO partner that he intended to burn bridges with Israel that The State Department would be aware and when said Prime Minister came out claiming this crap about the flotilla incident they would have released that they had credible information that the flotilla incident was an excuse and the break was planned prior to.

Or maybe The State Department was behind on their dues and were being told?

It is information hoarding like this that lends credence to whacko theories like we knew Pearl harbor was coming, faked the moon landing, or blew the Trade Center up ourselves.

Yeah, the latter's a whole different level of crazy.

As it is there are plenty of reasons that come to mind as to why they would not do that. For one, there's the reason they are upset about Wikileaks to begin with - if they go public with the contents of private communications, they are going to cease getting useful information on intentions from foreign governments when they talk to them. It wouldn't really have achieved anything anyways - most likely Erdogan just says, "That's not true, I am responding to Israel's provocations" or whatever. Then what?

State Department does not contradict a foreign government's rationale based on private conversations --> maybe we were behind 9/11 is possibly the craziest leap in judgment I could imagine.

[Defiant]

http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-an ... -chutzpah/" target="_blank

Hours before the publication of the first article in the series, after reading a preview on our website, Assange called Avi Zilberberg, the deputy editor of Haaretz, and demanded that we stop publication. He had the chutzpah to claim that the documents belonged to him and that if we published them, we would be infringing his “intellectual property.”

[GreenGoo]

I really don't understand that guy (Assange).

[ezmate]

Hours before the publication of the first article in the series, after reading a preview on our website, Assange called Avi Zilberberg, the deputy editor of Haaretz, and demanded that we stop publication. He had the chutzpah to claim that the documents belonged to him and that if we published them, we would be infringing his “intellectual property.”

[Victoria Raverna]

Hours before the publication of the first article in the series, after reading a preview on our website, Assange called Avi Zilberberg, the deputy editor of Haaretz, and demanded that we stop publication. He had the chutzpah to claim that the documents belonged to him and that if we published them, we would be infringing his “intellectual property.”

That quote is the claim of the writer which is a suspected mossad agent/informant. It is not surprising to me if he made up stuff to smear Assange.

[El Guapo]

Hours before the publication of the first article in the series, after reading a preview on our website, Assange called Avi Zilberberg, the deputy editor of Haaretz, and demanded that we stop publication. He had the chutzpah to claim that the documents belonged to him and that if we published them, we would be infringing his “intellectual property.”

That quote is the claim of the writer which is a suspected mossad agent/informant. It is not surprising to me if he made up stuff to smear Assange.

This is exactly what I would expect a suspected mossad agent to post to throw people off the trail of the real mossad agent. I'm on to you!

[Grifman]

Hours before the publication of the first article in the series, after reading a preview on our website, Assange called Avi Zilberberg, the deputy editor of Haaretz, and demanded that we stop publication. He had the chutzpah to claim that the documents belonged to him and that if we published them, we would be infringing his “intellectual property.”

That quote is the claim of the writer which is a suspected mossad agent/informant. It is not surprising to me if he made up stuff to smear Assange.

1) Why would Mossad care about smearing Assange?

2) Except that he mentions other people (such as the deputy editor named above) who could deny his story if it were not true. Or are they also Mossad agents/informants also?

[El Guapo]

Hours before the publication of the first article in the series, after reading a preview on our website, Assange called Avi Zilberberg, the deputy editor of Haaretz, and demanded that we stop publication. He had the chutzpah to claim that the documents belonged to him and that if we published them, we would be infringing his “intellectual property.”

That quote is the claim of the writer which is a suspected mossad agent/informant. It is not surprising to me if he made up stuff to smear Assange.

1) Why would Mossad care about smearing Assange?

2) Except that he mentions other people (such as the deputy editor named above) who could deny his story if it were not true. Or are they also Mossad agents/informants also?

And that's what I would expect another Mossad agent to post in order to create a mock argument to make it look like the first agent was crazy, and that he himself was not an agent!

You're all in on it!

[LawBeefaroni]

I really don't understand that guy (Assange).

Ange

Etymology: Old French ange, angle, from Latin angelus.

Noun
ange m. (plural anges)

1.angel

So...Ass Angel?

[Pyperkub]

We watched the last 2/3 of the CNBC wikileaks special last night. It was pretty interesting, and illustrated a little of how sloppy Assange was with the data (it was all about the Manning leak). It went into the negotiations withe the papers (Guardian, NYT, Der Spiegel) on redacting sources names as well as exclusivity, but also Assange's desire to get TV exposure. As part of the negotiations he reportedly said that the names of Afghan informants should be made public because they worked with the Americans, though he later agreed to the redaction.

So after all this, when the first story had just come out he both went and published the unredacted documents (reportedly accidentally) as well as doing a TV scoop with the British media (this is all regarding the Afghanistan leak - phase 1 of the Manning doc dump, afaik).

[Isgrimnur]

The Ecuadorans will save me!

Wikileaks founder Julian Assange, who is battling extradition to Sweden to face sexual misconduct charges, is seeking asylum at the Ecuador Embassy in London.

Update at 3:07 p.m. ET: Ecuador's foreign minister, Ricardo Patino, confirms that Assange has taken refuge in the South American nation's embassy in London and is seeking political asylum, the Associated Press reports from Quito. He says Ecuador is weighing the request.

I didn't realize sexual assault charges made you a political asylum candidate.

[LawBeefaroni]

I didn't realize sexual assault charges made you a political asylum candidate.

He's probably going to argue that the charges are the result of political persecution.

[AWS260]

Rookie move. Everyone knows that if you're going to seek shelter from persecutors in the U.S. government, the Venezuelan embassy is the place to be.

[GreenGoo]

I didn't realize sexual assault charges made you a political asylum candidate.

He's probably going to argue that the charges are the result of political persecution.

Unless new information has come out, they pretty obviously are.

[Isgrimnur]

I didn't realize sexual assault charges made you a political asylum candidate.

He's probably going to argue that the charges are the result of political persecution.

Unless new information has come out, they pretty obviously are.

Make your case. Because it's not obvious to me.

[GreenGoo]

Make your case. Because it's not obvious to me.

I'm not going back over the history of the reporting of this, but the basic gist that I recall, was that the original complaints were dropped, the complaints themselves were of a strange nature of which neither Canadian nor US law covers (something like trying to pick up a woman is a crime if she says it is), and that the charges were only raised a year (or two? I don't recall details) after the original complaints were made, at the behest of the US government (this could be conspiracy theory, again, I'm not tracking down the sources, I'm only reporting what I remember from the time). The woman (women) involved were not a part of the newly issued charges and were told originally that they they didn't have a case.

As I said, if new information has become available I'll be happy to read it. At the time the charges were filed, the facts were being reported as I paraphrased them above.

Assange, as much as I think he's a bit of a low life, was very clearly the subject of a smear campaign during the wiki leaks events. This was incredibly obvious when watching the events unfold, as the US government (and those cooperating with them) changed its story and approach to Assange as each attempt failed to slience him/wiki leaks.

It sounds very conspiracy theory-ish, but as I sat back and read everything I could get my hands on, it was pretty clear that people with a lot of power were doing their best to discredit him as a person, rather than going after the documents themselves. The first time the public heard of the sexual assault charges, they were being reported as RAPE. In capital letters just like that. Assange was being referred to as a RAPIST in headlines. First, his crimes (as I recall them) could not be considered rape in any court of law in North America, as no penetration or even genital contact occurred. Second, he had not been convicted of those charges, yet we were hearing about the rapist Assange, not even just the accused rapist Assange.

Listen, I think the guy's a bit of a twat, but he's not the super villian I keep reading about.

[LawBeefaroni]

I didn't realize sexual assault charges made you a political asylum candidate.

He's probably going to argue that the charges are the result of political persecution.

Unless new information has come out, they pretty obviously are.

Make your case. Because it's not obvious to me.

Government doesn't like him, they drum up sexual assault charges. That's what he'll argue, anyway. I am by no means agreeing with him.

Do the nature of the charges really matter when seeking political asylum? If so, every government is going to start charging political dissidents with sexual assault so they can't seek political asylum.