I think out of all the "news" media so far Wikileaks is probably the most trustworthy.
I've seen people claim they altered the emails or Russians wrote the emails, I think they'd have to point to specific instances for me to see it. I don't remember a single instance of them altering an email. I don't remember anyone credible refuting and saying they didn't write it.
How do we know these emails are interesting and useful -- we listen to the CNN of course, remember folks "...it is illegal to possess these stolen documents. It is different from the media. So everything you learn about this, you are learning from us." that was my first hint documents should be read very closely.
When mass media lies about something it overcompensates, and one heuristic I use is I just reverse the meaning of it. "don't read the documents" and I interpret it as "that's a place to take a look", or "we are exporting democracy to the Middle East" that means "we are installing puppet regimes there" and so on. It is a funny exercise.
> “We do have some information about the Republican campaign,” Assange said. “I mean, it’s from a point of view of an investigative journalist organization like WikiLeaks, the problem with the Trump campaign is it’s actually hard for us to publish much more controversial material than what comes out of Donald Trump’s mouth every second day ..."
I don't know about you, but I feel like it would have been helpful for the people to know what they had on Trump. Seems oddly opaque and politically motivated.
It really doesn't help that they were selling explicitly anti-Clinton merchandise in their store: http://i.imgur.com/AjsWfqg.jpg
This is one example. In other cases, such as the Syria files, known-to-have-existed emails that involved Russia mysteriously weren't leaked and many people have speculated that stemmed from a pro-Russia bias.
If they were releasing everything they had, it would be hard to criticize. But when you see the pattern of leaks and omissions, it's hard not to make the argument that they are playing politics.
The e-mails don't have to be altered. Russians just have to make sure they get the data, filter out stuff they don't like leaving neutral and desired content and the publish the data in the right time accompanied by a specific media coverage so it gets noticed. This is information warfare. A statement that a body specifically not subject to any self-regulation mechanisms and unknown data sources (that has hurt people before, remember the Turkish leaks) is somehow more trustworthy than media, that has ages of ethical and regulatory history? Of course you have to think of what you were told, of course you need to balance your sources with al jazeera, bbc etc. But Wikileaks fits too snugly into both russian agenda and ideology (everybody is lying and our blatant fabrications ate therefore as much truth as anything) to ignore.
> I've seen people claim they altered the emails or Russians wrote the emails, I think they'd have to point to specific instances for me to see it. I don't remember a single instance of them altering an email. I don't remember anyone credible refuting and saying they didn't write it.
Yes, once Wikileaks showed cryptographic proof that the emails were authentic, those criticisms stopped.
It's easy to trust Wikileaks. The only standard they have to adhere to is to not invent, adulterate, or filter material. That's a pretty low standard. By contrast, professional journalists seek out and independently confirm leaks with other insiders. They associate, summarize, and contextualize. Wikileaks doesn't do this--they can't do this--because their sources are anonymous, and because Wikileaks has foresworn taking upon itself the responsibility and concomitant risk (of error, of bias) of doing those other things.
That means Wikileaks is in no better position than anyone else. Their value add, beyond serving as an initial depot for leaks, is thin. And that's fine. Similarly, there's little to criticize. (I've seen claims on HN that Assange rejected some purported Trump leaks, but I didn't check on that myself.)
I absolutely think Wikileaks is useful and essential. But if the outlet you trust the most is Wikileaks, you'll never really know or understanding anything. It's like saying the only source of information you can trust is the Internet. What does that even mean? How can you possibly think you can consume all of that data unassisted?
While you claim Wikileaks is the most trustworthy, I suspect that most of your opinions (whatever they are) were principally informed by other journalists reviewing, criticizing, and editorializing on what Wikileaks publishes. You're flying blind if you don't realize that.
For example, you claim that CNN is lying about the legality of possessing classified documents. How did you form that opinion? All on your own? Are you a lawyer specializing in the confluence of national security and free speech law?
The person spreading falsehood here is Sarah Hannon. She said,
CNN has even suggested, wrongly, that readers may have legal
troubles if they download documents from our site.
The reality--which you can confirm with a few moments of Googling--is that the government interprets the relevant statues such that if you hold a security clearance, then reading classified material without authorization, no matter where it came from, is considered illegal. You have an affirmative duty not to read it under their interpretation. That rule makes more sense than you'd think because you don't want people claiming that they "stumbled" onto classified information. Criminal law in the U.S. requires intention, and without the law requiring that you affirmatively avoid classified information, it's much easier to get out of a charge on a technicality. It also incentivizes people who do stumble onto classified information to notify authorities.
Furthermore, acquiring a security clearance is something you choose to do, not something forced upon you, which means typical Free Speech defenses are far less likely to help you. And that presumes that it is legal for everyone else to possess _any_ classified information that has been published via Wikileaks. (Which is, at best, highly debatable. And I definitely cannot see SCOTUS creating a blanket, bright-line rule like that without leaving a caveat for unforeseen circumstances.)
And on top of that, Hannon even acknowledges that CNN hedged with "may have legal troubles". Clearly they're less comfortable making such absolute claims than Hannon.
Now, we can agree or disagree with the law or the government's interpretation. I'm not about to defend any aspect of how the U.S. government classifies and manages information. (Which is to say, I think much of the system is ethically indefensible.) But facts are far tricker things than you'd think. Not acknowledging that is very dangerous.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wikileaks released information the timing of which was clearly meant to influence the US elections in a very particular way. Secondly, Assange issued statements clearly indicating his intentions to harm Clinton, not promote transparency. Why would the NYT publish this obvious garbage without counterpoint?
We're living in strange days, and it's only gonna get weirder. NPR aired a pull your punches interview with a white supremacist today, the New York Times is publishing doublespeak missives from what increasingly appears to be either the useful idiots or willing collaborators of Russian intelligence services. It's like Trump malware has turned the mainstream media into a spam-serving botnet for a league of fascists.
Have you even read the leaks? Wikileaks' sole purpose is government transparency, and Assange wanted to harm Clinton because she was withholding large amounts of collusion, corruption, and private policies from the public. This has nothing to do with Wikileaks' political orientation, just as this article states. It has everything to do with transparency to the people, to keep them well-informed.
Half the country thinks it is a in good way, half in a bad way. There is nothing to worry thought, Clinton had about 3 or 4 world class new agencies with 24/7 support for her. What's a few emails here and there...
> Why would the NYT publish this obvious garbage without counterpoint?
So it doesn't agree with your view point so it is garbage and needs a counterpoint.
Wikileaks has released some important things, but they should be embarrassed that they thought the personal emails of Hillary's campaign staff saying sometimes silly things to each other was at all newsworthy. It was sensational, sure, but it revealed nothing important or even interesting. Anyone who spends a moment considering the question would expect campaign operatives to gripe about their opponents in over the top terms, to use unthoughtful language and spitball dumb ideas to their boss. Turns out the Clinton campaign did these things. The DNC emails showing that they preferred a solid Member of the Democratic Party win the nomination over someone who has not spent decades supporting the party should surprise and upset no one. And without the context of seeing Trump's campaign staff's emails or the RNC's emails in a similar perspective, the release of so much pointless but unflattering material related to Hillary and the Democrats does a major disservice to the public.
I disagree with you about the DNC emails, they go above and beyond preference into outright campaign strategy coordination and undermine the whole idea of the primary process. I think if they could have had and released the emails sooner the behavior could have been addressed and that would have been a service to Democrats and the public. It's awful medicine sure, but something has to wake the patient up.
I have not read the subsequent email leaks so I don't have an opinion on whether they were worth releasing or not. For what it is worth, I think their effect on the election was overblown and people who distrusted Hillary would have continued to do so in the absence of such weak evidence.
I think the people who wrote some of those horrible and immature emails should be embarrassed.
Why must we respect authority figures when they (clearly) have not earned it. There were so many minor things in those emails that reveal just what kind of people seek power. Disgusting.
It's really bizarre how your comment has made it to the top of this thread, considering that it seems that the prevailing opinion here on HN is supportive of wikileaks.
Your claim that the leaks are not newsworthy is absurd in the extreme, and your judgement is in question. There are hundreds of items of greater interest and importance in those mails than in a good portion of news stories published by most major news outlets. You are either grossly misinformed or purposefully misleading readers.
Those emails were quite a bit more serious than just political sausage-making. For one thing, they contained evidence of blatantly illegal behavior, i.e. the coordination of the campaign and "independent" groups.
This is particularly noteworthy because of the hypocrisy involved. Clinton has put a lot of effort into vilifying Citizens United - she was calling for more restrictive campaign laws while at the same time breaking the ones that pass constitutional muster.
I'm not sure if this is the same group of emails you talked about, but at the very least they admitted to a conspiracy to try to incite a "revolution" within the Catholic Church using pseudo-Catholic lay organizations with morally progressive agendas. That doesn't seem like a small thing.
Donna Brazile was booted from CNN for rigging the national debate. Multiple people had to resign from the DNC for sending political agitators to Trump rallies to provoke violent confrontations. Journalists across all of the mainstream media outlets were coordinating stories with the DNC and gave editorial control to the John Podesta.
Those are some seriously disturbing and undemocratic acts that We should all be appalled by. Do not let your partisanship distort your vision. The things that were exposed by Wikileaks are what destroys democracy.
At times it feels that they should be called american-govmnt-leaks.org. Where are all the juicy leaks from Russian, Chinease, French, Mexican, Brazilian, Egyptian, or other nation states. Where are the leaks from mafia, drug cartels, or other criminal organizations. Records from financial institutions, law firms, drug companies. Records from catholic church and other religious organizations. There is so much corruption in the world, that it seems incredible that Wikileaks so much focuses on the US. Maybe leak some information on people that stole $18B from republic of Moldova. Or how tobacco, big oil, pharma or others are using their profits to gain even more profits. Where is all that?
I remember the WikiLeaks of Turkish emails that built and led up to the near successful coup of the Erdogan regime.
In any case, I definitely welcome leaks from other countries.
But I don't want those exclusively. As an American it's been repeatedly proven throughout my adult life that the US media does not perform due diligence in its role as the "fourth estate". The most important leaks for me are the ones providing transparency into my government. If there were leak sites for every government I would check the American leaks by far the most often.
They did release stuff from other countries. I hope they release more.
I'd imagine counter-balancing a billion dollar new conglomerate coverage of CNN, NBC, CBS and others wasn't that bad with just some emails. So wish they'd do more Eastern Europe (I am from there originally). If they had Trump material, I wish they'd release that as well.
I think I might donate to them, maybe they are understaffed and need more resources. So far I did find information there rather useful and helpful. Surprisingly more so than what I found form the traditional mass media.
And really, dnc-hacks.org. These aren't leaks from inside the organization and its whistleblowers. Wikileaks has been posting political voyeurism at the behest of a hacking organization. It's about as reputable as The Fappening celebrity nude photos being posted to 4chan "for transparency".
Trump has been a public figure for far, far too long for there not to be 'EMAILS' equivalents. The fact that a large fraction of the time when wikileaks is discussed there is no visible questioning about why they haven't released about Trump tells me that something fucked up is going on. See this for an excellent summary [0].
Apparently, the op of the summary will only be satisfied if an equal and opposite leak happens to the trump campaign.
Not everyone falls for obvious phishing attempts.
Shouldn't we consider your susceptibility to phishing as evidence of judgement? Shouldn't it be evidence of your qualification as a Leader? Shouldn't it reflect on you if your trusted advisors get owned by bit.ly links for gmail password resets?
Trump has said himself that he does not use email. Wikileaks has released lots of negative information on various Republican candidates, as well (see their Iraq collection involving Bush), and have no bias toward any political entity. That's the entire point of their existence.
That's a pretty embarrassing, angry rant. Do you really doubt that Wikileaks would have released information about Trump if any had been leaked that was significant?
I recently bought a few Wikileaks T shirts. The US has lost its adversarial, investigative press. Wikileaks keeps that spirit alive and offers hope that one day our press will do a far better job at holding our officials accountable.
While overall I agree that an organization like Wikileaks is necessary to hold institutions accountable, I find their actions during the last Presidential election questionable. They simply guy played by Russia. My biggest problem with their approach during the election is that they provided assymetric information to the public that heavily biased people's opinion. So DNC was working with Clinton campaign against Sanders, and I am pretty sure RNC was working against Trump as well. If there were some media collaboration on one side, I am confident this is a campaign norm and happened plenty on the other side. Especially when you got the Breitbart executive running the campaign. But by publishing one side of the story Wikileaks did a disservice to the Democracy that it longs to protect. Ideally, they should have hold on those emails until after the election or until there was comparable material available from the other side
The world may or may not need something that serves the same function as WikiLeaks, but it certainly does not need WikiLeaks specifically, not anymore.
I'm sick of Julian Assange. I don't think he's a rapist, but based on what I've read, he certainly is a self-aggrandizing opportunistic asshole.
As they say in The Matrix: "you might be just another -- more advanced -- form of control".
I find it somewhat amusing how WikiLeaks releases things widely only when a certain topic becomes relevant and gets public attention. And then it chooses to keep silent on other topics but still vocally declares they have info on them. Fishy as hell for me.
It seems they are aiming for popularity and relevance at this point; and not to make any real change in the world.
I refuse to accept there is a "nuclear-level-of-unstable-and-dangerous" information. Just release it all on several big torrent trackers and move on. What'll happen exactly? A world war? We're past that point, several times now, ever since the 1960s up until today. It didn't happen even in the Cuba crisis, I don't think it'll happen over the racist slurs of a popular politician (one random example).
I fear WikiLeaks have been compromised long ago. Did we all forget that Julian Assange was questioned in private for a long time?
Everybody can be either bought or threatened to submission. Everybody.
Brigaded threads are the norm for the internet now. Governments around the world including the US and UK hire military contractors to brigade, trolls brigade, and motivated communities brigade.
I'm totally done with Wikileaks. Just look at their Twitter feed for five minutes and it's not hard to see that they've been heavily biased against one side of the political spectrum in the United States. Not only this, their tweets have at times been erratic, peddling things ranging from outrageous conspiracy theories:
I'm all for anti-secrecy organizations that hold powerful figures accountable, but Wikileaks appears to have lost their way. My own little conspiracy theory is that they've been coerced somehow into doing the bidding of the Russian government.
"Some have accused us of being pawns of the Russian government, but this misrepresents our principles and basic operations. ...We prefer not to know who our sources are; we do not want to.."
So they prefer to be unwitting pawns?
Transparency is great, freedom of information is great, but is there some point at which you have to step back and acknowledge that you're being used by a foreign power? Doesn't that undermine the good work that Wikileaks claims to be doing?
Again from the article: "The world is connected by largely unaccountable networks of power that span industries and countries, political parties, corporations and institutions; WikiLeaks shines a light on these by revealing not just individual incidents, but information about entire structures of power."
How does Wikileaks rationalize away the fact that one part of that 'unaccountable network' seems to be using them to exploit some other part?
I'm not really sure what high and mighty role wikileaks can claim. Most major journalism outlets have ways for submitting information online anonymously. With their editorial standards they can avoid many of the (in some cases deadly) mistakes wikileaks has done by publishing blindly.
[+] [-] rdtsc|9 years ago|reply
I've seen people claim they altered the emails or Russians wrote the emails, I think they'd have to point to specific instances for me to see it. I don't remember a single instance of them altering an email. I don't remember anyone credible refuting and saying they didn't write it.
How do we know these emails are interesting and useful -- we listen to the CNN of course, remember folks "...it is illegal to possess these stolen documents. It is different from the media. So everything you learn about this, you are learning from us." that was my first hint documents should be read very closely.
When mass media lies about something it overcompensates, and one heuristic I use is I just reverse the meaning of it. "don't read the documents" and I interpret it as "that's a place to take a look", or "we are exporting democracy to the Middle East" that means "we are installing puppet regimes there" and so on. It is a funny exercise.
[+] [-] TAForObvReasons|9 years ago|reply
The criticisms were generally of a different sort: editorializing in their selection of leaks. "selective omission", if you will.
They have information about Trump but chose not to release it. According to Breitbart (so you know it's not from a "liberal media" source): http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/08/27/wikileaks-info-dona...
> “We do have some information about the Republican campaign,” Assange said. “I mean, it’s from a point of view of an investigative journalist organization like WikiLeaks, the problem with the Trump campaign is it’s actually hard for us to publish much more controversial material than what comes out of Donald Trump’s mouth every second day ..."
I don't know about you, but I feel like it would have been helpful for the people to know what they had on Trump. Seems oddly opaque and politically motivated.
It really doesn't help that they were selling explicitly anti-Clinton merchandise in their store: http://i.imgur.com/AjsWfqg.jpg
This is one example. In other cases, such as the Syria files, known-to-have-existed emails that involved Russia mysteriously weren't leaked and many people have speculated that stemmed from a pro-Russia bias.
If they were releasing everything they had, it would be hard to criticize. But when you see the pattern of leaks and omissions, it's hard not to make the argument that they are playing politics.
[+] [-] akytt|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] grandalf|9 years ago|reply
Yes, once Wikileaks showed cryptographic proof that the emails were authentic, those criticisms stopped.
[+] [-] wahern|9 years ago|reply
That means Wikileaks is in no better position than anyone else. Their value add, beyond serving as an initial depot for leaks, is thin. And that's fine. Similarly, there's little to criticize. (I've seen claims on HN that Assange rejected some purported Trump leaks, but I didn't check on that myself.)
I absolutely think Wikileaks is useful and essential. But if the outlet you trust the most is Wikileaks, you'll never really know or understanding anything. It's like saying the only source of information you can trust is the Internet. What does that even mean? How can you possibly think you can consume all of that data unassisted?
While you claim Wikileaks is the most trustworthy, I suspect that most of your opinions (whatever they are) were principally informed by other journalists reviewing, criticizing, and editorializing on what Wikileaks publishes. You're flying blind if you don't realize that.
For example, you claim that CNN is lying about the legality of possessing classified documents. How did you form that opinion? All on your own? Are you a lawyer specializing in the confluence of national security and free speech law?
The person spreading falsehood here is Sarah Hannon. She said,
The reality--which you can confirm with a few moments of Googling--is that the government interprets the relevant statues such that if you hold a security clearance, then reading classified material without authorization, no matter where it came from, is considered illegal. You have an affirmative duty not to read it under their interpretation. That rule makes more sense than you'd think because you don't want people claiming that they "stumbled" onto classified information. Criminal law in the U.S. requires intention, and without the law requiring that you affirmatively avoid classified information, it's much easier to get out of a charge on a technicality. It also incentivizes people who do stumble onto classified information to notify authorities.Furthermore, acquiring a security clearance is something you choose to do, not something forced upon you, which means typical Free Speech defenses are far less likely to help you. And that presumes that it is legal for everyone else to possess _any_ classified information that has been published via Wikileaks. (Which is, at best, highly debatable. And I definitely cannot see SCOTUS creating a blanket, bright-line rule like that without leaving a caveat for unforeseen circumstances.)
And on top of that, Hannon even acknowledges that CNN hedged with "may have legal troubles". Clearly they're less comfortable making such absolute claims than Hannon.
Now, we can agree or disagree with the law or the government's interpretation. I'm not about to defend any aspect of how the U.S. government classifies and manages information. (Which is to say, I think much of the system is ethically indefensible.) But facts are far tricker things than you'd think. Not acknowledging that is very dangerous.
[+] [-] akytt|9 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] crystaln|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] alphonsegaston|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] benbenolson|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rdtsc|9 years ago|reply
Half the country thinks it is a in good way, half in a bad way. There is nothing to worry thought, Clinton had about 3 or 4 world class new agencies with 24/7 support for her. What's a few emails here and there...
> Why would the NYT publish this obvious garbage without counterpoint?
So it doesn't agree with your view point so it is garbage and needs a counterpoint.
[+] [-] thesimpsons1022|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] skywhopper|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mattnewton|9 years ago|reply
I have not read the subsequent email leaks so I don't have an opinion on whether they were worth releasing or not. For what it is worth, I think their effect on the election was overblown and people who distrusted Hillary would have continued to do so in the absence of such weak evidence.
[+] [-] feklar|9 years ago|reply
https://newrepublic.com/article/137798/important-wikileaks-r...
[+] [-] grandalf|9 years ago|reply
I think the people who wrote some of those horrible and immature emails should be embarrassed.
Why must we respect authority figures when they (clearly) have not earned it. There were so many minor things in those emails that reveal just what kind of people seek power. Disgusting.
[+] [-] ovibos|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] colordrops|9 years ago|reply
Your claim that the leaks are not newsworthy is absurd in the extreme, and your judgement is in question. There are hundreds of items of greater interest and importance in those mails than in a good portion of news stories published by most major news outlets. You are either grossly misinformed or purposefully misleading readers.
[+] [-] gozur88|9 years ago|reply
This is particularly noteworthy because of the hypocrisy involved. Clinton has put a lot of effort into vilifying Citizens United - she was calling for more restrictive campaign laws while at the same time breaking the ones that pass constitutional muster.
[+] [-] unknown|9 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] sdegutis|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] generic_user|9 years ago|reply
Those are some seriously disturbing and undemocratic acts that We should all be appalled by. Do not let your partisanship distort your vision. The things that were exposed by Wikileaks are what destroys democracy.
[+] [-] throwaway7876|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] xnull2guest|9 years ago|reply
In any case, I definitely welcome leaks from other countries.
But I don't want those exclusively. As an American it's been repeatedly proven throughout my adult life that the US media does not perform due diligence in its role as the "fourth estate". The most important leaks for me are the ones providing transparency into my government. If there were leak sites for every government I would check the American leaks by far the most often.
[+] [-] grandalf|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rdtsc|9 years ago|reply
I'd imagine counter-balancing a billion dollar new conglomerate coverage of CNN, NBC, CBS and others wasn't that bad with just some emails. So wish they'd do more Eastern Europe (I am from there originally). If they had Trump material, I wish they'd release that as well.
I think I might donate to them, maybe they are understaffed and need more resources. So far I did find information there rather useful and helpful. Surprisingly more so than what I found form the traditional mass media.
[+] [-] tiles|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hyperion2010|9 years ago|reply
0. https://np.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/5c8u9l/we_are_the_wiki...
[+] [-] droopybuns|9 years ago|reply
Apparently, the op of the summary will only be satisfied if an equal and opposite leak happens to the trump campaign.
Not everyone falls for obvious phishing attempts.
Shouldn't we consider your susceptibility to phishing as evidence of judgement? Shouldn't it be evidence of your qualification as a Leader? Shouldn't it reflect on you if your trusted advisors get owned by bit.ly links for gmail password resets?
[+] [-] benbenolson|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] grandalf|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] grandalf|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dmode|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dimino|9 years ago|reply
I'm sick of Julian Assange. I don't think he's a rapist, but based on what I've read, he certainly is a self-aggrandizing opportunistic asshole.
[+] [-] pdimitar|9 years ago|reply
I find it somewhat amusing how WikiLeaks releases things widely only when a certain topic becomes relevant and gets public attention. And then it chooses to keep silent on other topics but still vocally declares they have info on them. Fishy as hell for me.
It seems they are aiming for popularity and relevance at this point; and not to make any real change in the world.
I refuse to accept there is a "nuclear-level-of-unstable-and-dangerous" information. Just release it all on several big torrent trackers and move on. What'll happen exactly? A world war? We're past that point, several times now, ever since the 1960s up until today. It didn't happen even in the Cuba crisis, I don't think it'll happen over the racist slurs of a popular politician (one random example).
I fear WikiLeaks have been compromised long ago. Did we all forget that Julian Assange was questioned in private for a long time?
Everybody can be either bought or threatened to submission. Everybody.
[+] [-] kinghajj|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] xnull2guest|9 years ago|reply
It's sad, I agree.
[+] [-] davesque|9 years ago|reply
https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/794450623404113920?lang...
to anti-semitism:
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/07/25/what_wikil...
I'm all for anti-secrecy organizations that hold powerful figures accountable, but Wikileaks appears to have lost their way. My own little conspiracy theory is that they've been coerced somehow into doing the bidding of the Russian government.
[+] [-] fooker|9 years ago|reply
Also their 'insurance' file hashes no longer match the files.
And the latest messages are not digitally signed. Also there was a set of moderators added all over related subreddits to suppress this.
[+] [-] bigtones|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ritchiea|9 years ago|reply
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/prosecutor-arrives-to-...
[+] [-] shrewduser|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ygaels_armpit|9 years ago|reply
What indications are there you think he might have been murdered? Edit: Got trolled I think.
[+] [-] partycoder|9 years ago|reply
The true strategists convince the enemy they're getting what they want, and then profit from it.
If wikileaks was real they would be targeted by state sponsored hackers regularly. There's a strong possibility this is a facade.
[+] [-] grandalf|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] forrestbrazeal|9 years ago|reply
So they prefer to be unwitting pawns?
Transparency is great, freedom of information is great, but is there some point at which you have to step back and acknowledge that you're being used by a foreign power? Doesn't that undermine the good work that Wikileaks claims to be doing?
Again from the article: "The world is connected by largely unaccountable networks of power that span industries and countries, political parties, corporations and institutions; WikiLeaks shines a light on these by revealing not just individual incidents, but information about entire structures of power."
How does Wikileaks rationalize away the fact that one part of that 'unaccountable network' seems to be using them to exploit some other part?
[+] [-] ycp217|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] saboot|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] emersonrsantos|9 years ago|reply
[1] http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1sp2hsr
[+] [-] sfdf|9 years ago|reply
d
d d d d d d dd d d
dd d
dd
[+] [-] ccvannorman|9 years ago|reply
And more importantly, who/what will replace WikiLeaks?