[insomniac]

so if you were downtown near library square yesterday there was a rally to support wikileaks yesterday..

http://www.straight.com/article-368682/vancouver/photos-rally-support-wikileaks-vancouver


http://www.straight.com/files/imagecache/imagelist_preview/gallery/WikiLeaksRallySH20110115/WikiLeaksRallySH20110115-2660_0.jpg
http://www.straight.com/files/imagecache/imagelist_preview/gallery/WikiLeaksRallySH20110115/WikiLeaksRallySH20110115-2671_0.jpg

best yet, wait for it
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
http://www.straight.com/files/imagecache/imagelist_preview/gallery/WikiLeaksRallySH20110115/WikiLeaksRallySH20110115-2692_0.jpg


do you guys support it? discusss

[The_AK]

http://www.straight.com/files/imagecache/imagelist_preview/gallery/WikiLeaksRallySH20110115/WikiLeaksRallySH20110115-2671_0.jpg

"Jolly good ol' chap"


Do I support wikileaks?
Well, I don't condemn it.

Do I support these guys in particular?
No.

[El Bastardo]

Do I support wikileaks?
Well, I don't condemn it.

Do I support these guys in particular?
No.


Agreed

[Nightwalker]

I support wikileaks.

Not many people there, but at least half look like total lifelosers.

[TheKingdom2000]

I do not support leaking information that will jeopardize our allies in any way.
I support the release of information that violates human rights like if the US army is blatantly abusing POW for no reason. But, I do support torturing enemies for vital information that will save allied lives. (Am I contradicting myself? Maybe.)

If the information that wikileaks releases in any way will hurt our allied troops i'm against it. Everything else is fair game.

I know a few people in the reserves and one person that is actually in Israel so to keep these people safe is the utmost concern.

[Wongtouski]

"V" mask sales must've skyrocketed since Wikileaks

[woob]

The Guy Fawkes masks have been a staple of Anon protests since even the Scientology protests (maybe before? I don't know my internet history too well). Wikileaks had nothing to do with it.

[bloodmack]

The thing here is that the truth hurts, you cant just have the good truth. And if people are going to complain about info jeapordizing our allies, suck it up if you want the truth you get the whole truth or nothing at all.

[RRxtar]

The thing here is that the truth hurts, you cant just have the good truth. And if people are going to complain about info jeapordizing our allies, suck it up if you want the truth you get the whole truth or nothing at all.
goes both ways

[drunkrussian]

damn annoying bike lane using cunt hair harvesting wild organic vegan eating lesbo hipster vancouver protesters - get jobs!
Posted via RS Mobile (http://www.revscene.net/forums/announcement.php?a=228)

[nack]

http://www.straight.com/files/imagecache/imagelist_preview/gallery/WikiLeaksRallySH20110115/WikiLeaksRallySH20110115-2660_0.jpg


how DARE she step outside :troll:

[TheKingdom2000]

The thing here is that the truth hurts, you cant just have the good truth. And if people are going to complain about info jeapordizing our allies, suck it up if you want the truth you get the whole truth or nothing at all.

then no information at all.

[Bouncing Bettys]

I fully support wikileaks

Would our troops and the troops of our allies be put in harms way if our governments were more inclined to operate on the level? Wikileaks is just a scapegoat for governments trying to shift the blame from themselves.

[BNR32_Coupe]

http://www.straight.com/files/imagecache/imagelist_preview/gallery/WikiLeaksRallySH20110115/WikiLeaksRallySH20110115-2660_0.jpg

Yea, I'd tap it. Her rack's gotta be at least E's. Would I tap it with the mask on? Can't say for sure, probably be a bit of a turn off, but might be necessary to keep it on. I'd probably give her a good time then drop her off at the nearest bus stop.

[Wongtouski]

^ Them tits + zipped up hoodie = brings me back to my UBC days when there was this one girl who always walked around with bulging tittaes in her zipped hoodie, and the zips always looked like they were in PAIN. LOL.

I live in HK now and I now stare at my own tits. FML

[The_AK]

^ Them tits + zipped up hoodie = brings me back to my UBC days when there was this one girl who always walked around with bulging tittaes in her zipped hoodie, and the zips always looked like they were in PAIN. LOL.

I live in HK now and I now stare at my own tits. FML

/checks profile
Gender: M

http://i56.tinypic.com/10zda47.jpg

[Wongtouski]

^ LOL

Not really, just saying if you're gonna look for tits, for efficiency's sake you MIGHT want to stare at your own =P

[smk]

/checks profile
Gender: M

http://i56.tinypic.com/10zda47.jpg

LOL
Posted via RS Mobile (http://www.revscene.net/forums/announcement.php?a=228)

[Gt-R R34]

I do not support leaking information that will jeopardize our allies in any way.
I support the release of information that violates human rights like if the US army is blatantly abusing POW for no reason. But, I do support torturing enemies for vital information that will save allied lives. (Am I contradicting myself? Maybe.)

If the information that wikileaks releases in any way will hurt our allied troops i'm against it. Everything else is fair game.

I know a few people in the reserves and one person that is actually in Israel so to keep these people safe is the utmost concern.

this here is the truth.

If the info doesn't end up hurting the way we live, and the Canadians abroad, go ahead. If wikileaks is doing things right now that are hurting our fellow canadians troops out in Afgan.

I wish EVERY single leakers be burned in hell, cuz what's the difference between this and murder? You leak info and it kills our troops. Go burn.

[Gh0stRider]

lol at guy wearing troll mask.
Posted via RS Mobile (http://www.revscene.net/forums/announcement.php?a=228)

[Soundy]

I get and somewhat appreciate the CONCEPT of Wikileaks... but really, Assange sounds like little more than an attention-craving idiot. Who here believes he had "freedom of information" as his motivation, and who thinks he's just looking to stir the pot and gain a bunch of notoriety?

If he really thinks there should be no secrets, then he should publish his bank records and personal ID information on the internet. He should put his bank accounts and PINs out there for the world to see. If he keeps even one hidden Swiss account, then he's a fucking hypocrite.

This is like the idea I had for a new tabloid magazine, where I don't cover any celebrities or weird stories... every issue would be about the people involved with all the other tabloids - their editors, publishers, paparazzi, writers... all the dirt on their lives, all the skeletons in their closets... "the people have a right to know" takes on a whole new meaning when you're the target.

[StylinRed]

if you can support troops in what they do completely right/wrong then how can you say you only support wikileaks partially?



and Soundy i think you're totally missing the point... Assanges personal banking info being compared to what elected govts are doing/allowing in the name of the citizenry who voted for them??? :speechless:




I wish EVERY single leakers be burned in hell, cuz what's the difference between this and murder? You leak info and it kills our troops. Go burn.

wouldn't you want troops to go to hell too then? for murdering civilians? torturing them? pimping out children? etc etc

[Soundy]

and Soundy i think you're totally missing the point... Assanges personal banking info being compared to what elected govts are doing/allowing in the name of the citizenry who voted for them??? :speechless:

No, you miss the point: Assange is releasing everything indiscriminately, with no regard for the consequences, because it's not directly affecting him. What if information he releases leads to a declaration of war? How does that benefit any citizenry? And let's not forget, some people AGREE with what their governments do in their name.

Like I said, I get the idea. I appreciate the need to uncover SOME secrets.

I just don't believe that Assange's motives are anything but :troll:

[Gnomes]

The government does not exactly play fair too, with the harassment of wikileak supporters and the accusation of sexual harassment.

[RevYouUp]

the guy with troll mask must be on RS!

[TheKingdom2000]

I fully support wikileaks

Would our troops and the troops of our allies be put in harms way if our governments were more inclined to operate on the level? Wikileaks is just a scapegoat for governments trying to shift the blame from themselves.

if you can support troops in what they do completely right/wrong then how can you say you only support wikileaks partially?



and Soundy i think you're totally missing the point... Assanges personal banking info being compared to what elected govts are doing/allowing in the name of the citizenry who voted for them??? :speechless:





wouldn't you want troops to go to hell too then? for murdering civilians? torturing them? pimping out children? etc etc

The government does not exactly play fair too, with the harassment of wikileak supporters and the accusation of sexual harassment.

Our government is a piece of shit. I know this, you know this, most people know this. But, just because the government is a POS doesn't mean you disregard the people that serve the government.
What do the honest troops that are fighting for our country have to do with our shitty government? They take orders and they must follow those orders. If they don't, they're out of a job or worst case, thrown in jail.

This is the same as the German army. They WERE NOT the same as nazi's. A lot of people do not realize this. They were not the SS. They were just regular German soldiers caught up in a shit storm. And sure, some of the German soldiers and some of our allied soldiers are not the most ethical or moral humans, but I would like to think the majority of them are honest people just trying to protect our freedom.

Publish the stuff that leaks Obama (ie. government) going to a strip club or lying on his taxes or bribing this person or taking bribes.. that's fine. But, don't tell those effing terrorists where our safe houses are or how we conduct military warfare or our communications protocols.

Just think if your father was serving right now. Why the hell would you want to jeopardize his life?

This topic is a double edged sword. At the end of the day, I don't want my *insert family member or friend here* to die. So obviously i'm not going to support wikileaks. Just sensor the information that might kill our troops and leak everything else. I mean, why does anyone need to know the US communications protocols?

[The_AK]

^lol "terrorists"
Posted via RS Mobile (http://www.revscene.net/forums/announcement.php?a=228)

[marc0lishuz]

I do not support leaking information that will jeopardize our allies in any way.
I support the release of information that violates human rights like if the US army is blatantly abusing POW for no reason. But, I do support torturing enemies for vital information that will save allied lives. (Am I contradicting myself? Maybe.)

If the information that wikileaks releases in any way will hurt our allied troops i'm against it. Everything else is fair game.

I know a few people in the reserves and one person that is actually in Israel so to keep these people safe is the utmost concern.
While I agree with what you said, I totally do NOT think Assange or his staff are qualified to make these decisions.

[ToyotaPowah]

While I agree with what you said, I totally do NOT think Assange or his staff are qualified to make these decisions.

Who do you think IS qualified?

[stylez2k4]

I get and somewhat appreciate the CONCEPT of Wikileaks... but really, Assange sounds like little more than an attention-craving idiot. Who here believes he had "freedom of information" as his motivation, and who thinks he's just looking to stir the pot and gain a bunch of notoriety?

If he really thinks there should be no secrets, then he should publish his bank records and personal ID information on the internet. He should put his bank accounts and PINs out there for the world to see. If he keeps even one hidden Swiss account, then he's a fucking hypocrite.


There is a difference between government transparency and personal privacy you idiot.

[stylez2k4]

I do not support leaking information that will jeopardize our allies in any way.
I support the release of information that violates human rights like if the US army is blatantly abusing POW for no reason. But, I do support torturing enemies for vital information that will save allied lives. (Am I contradicting myself? Maybe.)

If you support torture you have no moral high ground over those individuals that commit human rights violation.

[moomooCow]

Our government is a piece of shit. I know this, you know this, most people know this. But, just because the government is a POS doesn't mean you disregard the people that serve the government.
What do the honest troops that are fighting for our country have to do with our shitty government? They take orders and they must follow those orders. If they don't, they're out of a job or worst case, thrown in jail.

This is the same as the German army. They WERE NOT the same as nazi's. A lot of people do not realize this. They were not the SS. They were just regular German soldiers caught up in a shit storm. And sure, some of the German soldiers and some of our allied soldiers are not the most ethical or moral humans, but I would like to think the majority of them are honest people just trying to protect our freedom.

Publish the stuff that leaks Obama (ie. government) going to a strip club or lying on his taxes or bribing this person or taking bribes.. that's fine. But, don't tell those effing terrorists where our safe houses are or how we conduct military warfare or our communications protocols.

Just think if your father was serving right now. Why the hell would you want to jeopardize his life?

This topic is a double edged sword. At the end of the day, I don't want my *insert family member or friend here* to die. So obviously i'm not going to support wikileaks. Just sensor the information that might kill our troops and leak everything else. I mean, why does anyone need to know the US communications protocols?

It sounds as if you believe that Wikileaks has been dumping classified documents without redaction putting lives at risk. If that were true and they have put lives at risk then I'd agree that Wikileaks should be punished for that but as far as I know nothing has surfaced.

Interview with Julian Assange after he was released on bail.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZCPmTJM0Hc&feature=player_detailpage#t=430s

[Gridlock]

I don't think they are releasing indiscriminately. If that were the case, there would be a drop of 20k documents at a time.

They are also providing the gov'ts the chance to redact what they feel is too sensitive for release-while at gun point that they ARE going to be released if they don't.

I think the main thing to consider is there has not been a bombshell announcement. There have been revelations about inner workings on events already covered, but no "new" info is out.

I'll tell you what...show me a document that says that the Stuxnet virus was an Israeli-American project-conclusively. Then we can actually put some lives at risk and then wikileaks will actually be in some hot water. Show me who is banking in Sweden. Show me that Bank of America caused the recession-conclusively. Shit, wow me a little bit with just telling me how BoA shuffles profits through offshore accounts to lower their tax rate.

All of this is stuff we know happens, but don't have proof.

Until then, its hype.

[stylez2k4]

I don't think they are releasing indiscriminately. If that were the case, there would be a drop of 20k documents at a time.

They are also providing the gov'ts the chance to redact what they feel is too sensitive for release-while at gun point that they ARE going to be released if they don't.

I think the main thing to consider is there has not been a bombshell announcement. There have been revelations about inner workings on events already covered, but no "new" info is out.


I would consider the clip that showed the US military indiscriminately shooting civilians from a helicopter a bombshell. It is just that no one cares.

[StylinRed]

and that they're prostituting children to make alliances with some scum
plus how troops are getting killed through training exercises or friendly fire but the taliban/etc get blamed for it
all the hidden civilian deaths etc etc etc


are quite the bombshell but the media has turned from reporting the news (covering these atrocities) to just pulling a smear campaign on the messenger

[Sid Vicious]

Our government is a piece of shit. I know this, you know this, most people know this. But, just because the government is a POS doesn't mean you disregard the people that serve the government.
What do the honest troops that are fighting for our country have to do with our shitty government? They take orders and they must follow those orders. If they don't, they're out of a job or worst case, thrown in jail.

This is the same as the German army. They WERE NOT the same as nazi's. A lot of people do not realize this. They were not the SS. They were just regular German soldiers caught up in a shit storm. And sure, some of the German soldiers and some of our allied soldiers are not the most ethical or moral humans, but I would like to think the majority of them are honest people just trying to protect our freedom.

Publish the stuff that leaks Obama (ie. government) going to a strip club or lying on his taxes or bribing this person or taking bribes.. that's fine. But, don't tell those effing terrorists where our safe houses are or how we conduct military warfare or our communications protocols.

Just think if your father was serving right now. Why the hell would you want to jeopardize his life?

This topic is a double edged sword. At the end of the day, I don't want my *insert family member or friend here* to die. So obviously i'm not going to support wikileaks. Just sensor the information that might kill our troops and leak everything else. I mean, why does anyone need to know the US communications protocols?


our gov't is a piece of shit...?

name one place with a better government than canada, GO!

[StylinRed]

our gov't is a piece of shit...?

name one place with a better government than canada, GO!

i think a lot of RS'rs are confusing the American govt. with Canada i've noticed that lately its a bit disturbing

[TheKingdom2000]

i think a lot of RS'rs are confusing the American govt. with Canada i've noticed that lately its a bit disturbing

my bad, i didn't mean our govt. was a pos. it definitely is not.
i just meant that all governments are not perfect. obvs. i got a little carried away.

[The_AK]

What I'm curious about is how many terrorists or "enemies" have been captured or killed. It seems like the only casualties in this "war on terror" are either allied troops or innocent civilians. I'd be glad if someone could point me to some information or statistics stating otherwise.

edit: figured i'd get failed for this, lol

[dangonay]

Rally organized by the Pirate Party. Bunch of commies over there...

[RRxtar]

What I'm curious about is how many terrorists or "enemies" have been captured or killed. It seems like the only casualties in this "war on terror" are either allied troops or innocent civilians. I'd be glad if someone could point me to some information or statistics stating otherwise.
thats because the only place you get information is media like GlobalTV and CNN and the only stories they report are bad ones. the ones that say "another allied soldier died from a roadside IED."

you've gotta be fucking retarded to think 'the bad guys' arent dying. for fuck sakes, Saddam Hussein is dead.

watch something beyond mainstream media.

[Wongtouski]

thats because the only place you get information is media like GlobalTV and CNN and the only stories they report are bad ones. the ones that say "another allied soldier died from a roadside IED."

you've gotta be fucking retarded to think 'the bad guys' arent dying. for fuck sakes, Saddam Hussein is dead.

watch something beyond mainstream media.

Agreed. Plenty of Al Qaeda guys for example are captured/killed regularly.

[The_AK]

thats because the only place you get information is media like GlobalTV and CNN and the only stories they report are bad ones. the ones that say "another allied soldier died from a roadside IED."

you've gotta be fucking retarded to think 'the bad guys' arent dying. for fuck sakes, Saddam Hussein is dead.

watch something beyond mainstream media.

I'm just saying statistics would be nice.

[marc0lishuz]

Who do you think IS qualified?

I wasn't suggesting that I knew who should make those decisions, because I don't.

I don't know who is qualified. I definitely feel that one man or one organization that is unaffiliated with government is either.

[drunkrussian]

thats because the only place you get information is media like GlobalTV and CNN and the only stories they report are bad ones. the ones that say "another allied soldier died from a roadside IED."

you've gotta be fucking retarded to think 'the bad guys' arent dying. for fuck sakes, Saddam Hussein is dead.

watch something beyond mainstream media.

regardless, if the numbers of "good guys" isn't bigger than the bad, the ratios are fucked. There was a report detailing the number of american soldiers who died simply from friendly fire and it's in the thousands - totally pathetic. The actual rates, i think are about 40% higher than they were in World War 2 - it makes no sense!

[moomooCow]

I wasn't suggesting that I knew who should make those decisions, because I don't.

I don't know who is qualified. I definitely feel that one man or one organization that is unaffiliated with government is either.

:whistle: That is what has been going on, government regulating itself.

[RRxtar]

What I'm curious about is how many terrorists or "enemies" have been captured or killed. It seems like the only casualties in this "war on terror" are either allied troops or innocent civilians. I'd be glad if someone could point me to some information or statistics stating otherwise.

edit: figured i'd get failed for this, lol

regardless, if the numbers of "good guys" isn't bigger than the bad, the ratios are fucked. There was a report detailing the number of american soldiers who died simply from friendly fire and it's in the thousands - totally pathetic. The actual rates, i think are about 40% higher than they were in World War 2 - it makes no sense!

ok since i guess its easier to just post on revscene instead of actually clicking google and typing "afghanistan enemy casualties", i guess you have to let someone else do it for you.

so i did. and one of the first links i came up with was this one

http://www.slate.com/id/2261911/

and in it it stats wikileaks as a source and claims up to december 09

"figures total to 3,994 civilians killed and 9,044 wounded, while 15,219 enemies were killed and 1,824 wounded."


while this site here

http://icasualties.org/oef/

claims, in the same time period as the enemy numpers i posted, coalition casualties were 1570


yep, way more good guys are dying than bad guys.



disclaimer: i am only going by the numbers posted on the first link i clicked on for each search.

[RRxtar]

and incase anyone starts thinking they are just numbers, heres the names of all 154 canadians killed in afghanistan.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/afghanistan/casualties/list.html


if any of you want wikileaks to give out more sensitive information that could endanger more canadian soldiers and add more names of real people to that list, you should be sent over there too.

[stylez2k4]

and incase anyone starts thinking they are just numbers, heres the names of all 154 canadians killed in afghanistan.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/afghanistan/casualties/list.html


if any of you want wikileaks to give out more sensitive information that could endanger more canadian soldiers and add more names of real people to that list, you should be sent over there too.

Except they haven't released any sensitive information that could endanger Canadian soldiers.

"The initial assessment in no way discounts the risk to national security," Gates wrote. "However, the review to date has not revealed any sensitive intelligence sources and methods compromised by the disclosure."

[drunkrussian]

ok since i guess its easier to just post on revscene instead of actually clicking google and typing "afghanistan enemy casualties", i guess you have to let someone else do it for you.


since it's also easier to assume rather than read what i wrote before quoting me for some reason, i will paste again exactly what i wrote:

regardless, if the numbers of "good guys" isn't bigger than the bad, the ratios are fucked.

so let's look at your link:
"bad guys" to "good guys" killed: 15219 : 3994 --> roughly 4:1
"bad guys" to "good guys" injured: 1824: 9044 --> roughly 1:5

therefore, for every 4 enemies killed, 1 innocent person is as well. For every 1 enemy injured, 5 innocents are injured.

But what I was really saying was that the amount of friendly fire u.s deaths right now is staggering, and way higher than in previous wars, despite better training and equipment - your numbers don't show this. Moreover, many of these deaths are covered up and denied - often miscategorized as an "enemy death" to improve the stats. this is a fact. Do one of your google searches for "US friendly fire casualties" and you'll see a stack of articles and blogs from various media outlets regarding the issue. For a concrete example, google the Pat Tillman story.

[RRxtar]

so let's look at your link:
"bad guys" to "good guys" killed: 15219 : 3994 --> roughly 4:1
"bad guys" to "good guys" injured: 1824: 9044 --> roughly 1:5

therefore, for every 4 enemies killed, 1 innocent person is as well. For every 1 enemy injured, 5 innocents are injured.
of course more civilians will be injured but not killed than bad guys. when a good guy shoots at a bad guy, they intend to kill them, which happens 8 out of every 10 times. if the coalition was going around shooting everyone, you would think the number of civilian deaths would be alot more than 1.5 out of every 10 times, no?

and its been well reported that the bad guys like to hide amongst civilian women and children. so for the ratio of badguys killed to civilians killed to be 10:1, i think its not so bad. but im not a war expert.

[StylinRed]

they kill civilians indiscriminately when the bombing campaign is going on they'll bomb anything (as documented) hence the hundreds of thousands of civilians dead after the initial bombing. its kind of like the KMT when they believed even if they killed 1000 ppl its okay because 1 of them might/will be an enemy

[drunkrussian]

they kill civilians indiscriminately when the bombing campaign is going on they'll bomb anything (as documented) hence the hundreds of thousands of civilians dead after the initial bombing. its kind of like the KMT when they believed even if they killed 1000 ppl its okay because 1 of them might/will be an enemy

funniest part is, they bomb anythint like u said not giving a fuck to win the war. then when its done they spemd billions rebuilding the shit theu destroyed thus debting themselves. in the end everyone loses haha
Posted via RS Mobile (http://www.revscene.net/forums/announcement.php?a=228)

[Nightwalker]

funniest part is, they bomb anythint like u said not giving a fuck to win the war. then when its done they spemd billions rebuilding the shit theu destroyed thus debting themselves. in the end everyone loses haha
Posted via RS Mobile (http://www.revscene.net/forums/announcement.php?a=228)

Unfortunately, there's lots of winners. Banks, weapon manufacturers, defense contractors, etc etc.

Not even considering all the money that just up and disappeared over there to people who are definitely not losing.

[Brianrietta]

But what I was really saying was that the amount of friendly fire u.s deaths right now is staggering, and way higher than in previous wars, despite better training and equipment - your numbers don't show this. Moreover, many of these deaths are covered up and denied - often miscategorized as an "enemy death" to improve the stats. this is a fact. Do one of your google searches for "US friendly fire casualties" and you'll see a stack of articles and blogs from various media outlets regarding the issue. For a concrete example, google the Pat Tillman story.


Keep in mind as well that there is no defined battle lines in this war, no "the enemy is on the other side of that river, and friendlies everywhere behind you". Occupation of a large area with enemies who don't fit the classic profile of an enemy soldier is obviously going to create for far more opportunities for friendly fire incidents than large scale trench combat for example. I would imagine that the initial invasion of Iraq and Afganistan suffered far less casualties from friendly fire as the ensuing occupation and counterinsurgency.

[moomooCow]

Interesting read: http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/01/19/wikileaks/index.html


Better to read it at the site so you can check references in the hyperlinks.

Obama officials caught deceiving about WikiLeaks

(updated below)
Whenever the U.S. Government wants to demonize a person or group in order to justify attacks on them, it follows the same playbook: it manufactures falsehoods about them, baselessly warns that they pose Grave Dangers and are severely harming our National Security, peppers all that with personality smears to render the targeted individuals repellent on a personal level, and feeds it all to the establishment American media, which then dutifully amplifies and mindlessly disseminates it all. That, of course, was the precise scheme that so easily led the U.S. into attacking Iraq; it's what continues to ensure support for the whole litany of War on Terror abuses and the bonanza of power and profit which accompanies them; and it's long been obvious that this is the primary means for generating contempt for WikiLeaks to enable its prosecution and ultimate destruction (an outcome the Pentagon has been plotting since at least 2008).

When WikiLeaks in mid-2010 published documents detailing the brutality and corruption at the heart of the war in Afghanistan, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Michael Mullen, held a Press Conference and said of WikiLeaks (and then re-affirmed it on his Twitter account) that they "might already have on their hands the blood of some young soldier or that of an Afghan family." This denunciation predictably caused the phrase "blood on their hands" to be attached to WikiLeaks and its founder, Julian Assange, in thousands of media accounts around the world. But two weeks later, the Pentagon's spokesman, when pressed, was forced to admit that there was no evidence whatsoever for that accusation: "we have yet to see any harm come to anyone in Afghanistan that we can directly tie to exposure in the WikiLeaks documents," he admitted. Several months later, after more flamboyant government condemnations of WikiLeaks' release of thousands of Iraq War documents, McClatchy's Nancy Youssef -- in an article headlined: "Officials may be overstating the danger from WikiLeaks" -- reported that "U.S. officials concede that they have no evidence to date" that the disclosures resulted in the deaths of anyone, and she detailed the great care WikiLeaks took in that Iraq War release to protect innocent people.

The disclosure of American diplomatic cables triggered still more melodramatic claims from government officials (ones faithfully recited by its servants and followers across the spectrum in Washington), accusing WikiLeaks of everything from "attacking" the U.S. (Hillary Clinton) and "plac[ing] at risk the lives of countless innocent individuals" and "ongoing military operations" (Harold Koh) to being comparable to Terrorists (Joe Biden). But even Robert Gates was unwilling to lend his name to such absurdities, and when asked, mocked these accusations as "significantly overwrought" and said the WikiLeaks disclosures would be "embarrassing" and "awkward" but would have only "modest consequences."

Since then, it has become clear how scrupulously careful WikiLeaks has been in releasing these cables in order to avoid unnecessary harm to innocent people, as the Associated Press reported how closely WikiLeaks was collaborating with its newspaper partners in deciding which cables to release and what redactions were necessary. Indeed, one of the very few documents which anyone has been able to claim has produced any harm -- one revealing that the leader of Zimbabwe's opposition privately urged U.S. officials to continue imposing sanctions on his country -- was actually released by The Guardian, not by WikiLeaks.

To say that the Obama administration's campaign against WikiLeaks has been based on wildly exaggerated and even false claims is to understate the case. But now, there is evidence that Obama officials have been knowingly lying in public about these matters. The long-time Newsweek reporter Mark Hosenball -- now at Reuters -- reports that what Obama officials are saying in private about WikiLeaks directly contradicts their public claims:


Internal U.S. government reviews have determined that a mass leak of diplomatic cables caused only limited damage to U.S. interests abroad, despite the Obama administration's public statements to the contrary.

A congressional official briefed on the reviews said the administration felt compelled to say publicly that the revelations had seriously damaged American interests in order to bolster legal efforts to shut down the WikiLeaks website and bring charges against the leakers. . . .

"We were told (the impact of WikiLeaks revelations) was embarrassing but not damaging," said the official, who attended a briefing given in late 2010 by State Department officials. . .

But current and former intelligence officials note that while WikiLeaks has released a handful of inconsequential CIA analytical reports, the website has made public few if any real intelligence secrets, including reports from undercover agents or ultra-sensitive technical intelligence reports, such as spy satellite pictures or communications intercepts. . . .

National security officials familiar with the damage assessments being conducted by defense and intelligence agencies told Reuters the reviews so far have shown "pockets" of short-term damage, some of it potentially harmful. Long-term damage to U.S. intelligence and defense operations, however, is unlikely to be serious, they said. . . .

Shortly before WikiLeaks began its gradual release of State Department cables last year, department officials sent emails to contacts on Capitol Hill predicting dire consequences, said one of the two congressional aides briefed on the internal government reviews.

However, shortly after stories about the cables first began to appear in the media, State Department officials were already privately playing down the damage, the two congressional officials said.


In response to Hosenball's story, Obama officials naturally tried to salvage the integrity of their statements, insisting that "there has been substantial damage" and that there were unspecified "specific cases where damage caused by WikiLeaks' revelations have been assessed as serious to grave." But the only specific cases anyone could identify were ones where the U.S. was caught by these documents lying to its own citizens or, at best, concealing vital truths -- such as the far greater military role the U.S. is playing in Yemen and Pakistan than Obama officials have publicly acknowledged.

And this, of course, has been the point all along: the WikiLeaks disclosures are significant precisely because they expose government deceit, wrongdoing and brutality, but the damage to innocent people has been deliberately and wildly exaggerated -- fabricated -- by the very people whose misconduct has been revealed. There is harm from the WikiLeaks documents, but it's to wrongdoers in power, which is why they are so desperate to malign and then destroy the group.

Just as was true in 2003 -- when the joint, falsehood-based government/media demonization campaign led 69% of Americans to believe that Saddam Hussein participated in the planning of the 9/11 attacks (the Bush era's most revealing fact about American politics) -- this orgy of anti-WikiLeaks propaganda has succeeded, with polls reliably showing the American public largely against the group and even favoring its prosecution (citizens in countries not subjected to this propaganda barrage view the group far more favorably). As has been demonstrated over and over, when the U.S. Government and its media collaborate to propagandize, its efficacy is not in doubt. And as Marcy Wheeler notes, these lies were told not only to distort public opinion and justify prosecuting WikiLeaks for doing nothing more than engaging in journalism, but also to coerce private corporations (MasterCard, Amazon, Visa, Paypal) to cut all services to the group.

The case against WikiLeaks is absolutely this decade's version of the Saddam/WMD campaign. It's complete with frivolous invocations of Terrorism, grave public warnings about National Security negated by concealed information, endlessly repeated falsehoods, a competition among political and media elites to advocate the harshest measures possible, a cowardly Congress that (with a few noble exceptions) acquiesces to it all on a bipartisan basis and is eager to enable it, and a media that not only fails to subject these fictions to critical scrutiny, but does the opposite: it takes the lead in propagating them. One might express bewilderment that most American journalists never learn their lesson about placing their blind faith in government claims, but that assumes -- falsely -- that their objective is to report truthfully.



UPDATE: Kevin Drum, Dan Drezner and Daniel Larison all cite this report as evidence that the WikiLeaks disclosures have been insignificant. They seem to equate a finding of "no harm to national security" with "nothing of significance," but not only are those two concepts not the same, they're hardly related. Many revelations are very significant even though they do not harm national security.

When The New York Times revealed that the Bush administration was eavesdropping on Americans' communications without the warrants required by law, that revelation was extremely important even though it entailed no national security harm. The same is true of The Washington Post's exposure of the CIA "black site" program, or David Barstow's exposé on the Pentagon's propaganda program, and countless other investigative reports. The WikiLeaks disclosures -- like most good investigative journalism -- harm those in power who do bad things (by exposing their previously secret conduct), but do not harm the national security of the United States. I'd be interested in hearing anyone who wants to argue that the WikiLeaks disclosures contain "nothing new" dismiss the actual revelations (here and here).

As for the comparison of this deceit to Saddam/WMD: obviously, the magnitude of the consequences are not similar, but the misleading tactics themselves -- for the reasons I enumerated -- are. Moreover, prosecution of WikiLeaks would hardly be inconsequential; it would likely be the first time in history that a non-government employee is convicted of "espionage" for publishing government secrets and, as such, would constitute one of the greatest threats to press freedom in the United States in a long time.
More: Glenn Greenwald