Wikileaks under dos attack

[andygardener]

Why do you think it's "high minded" to want to know what our elected representatives are doing in our name? Why is it "high minded" to want to know why our sons and daughters are dying in unwinnable "wars."

 

My private correspondence does not involve killing, kidnapping, false imprisonment without trial, political skullduggery, and lying to the electorate.

Neither does it involve the suppression of information that should be in the public domain.

 

Are you seriously suggesting that you actually trust the people you elect to tell you the truth? :hihi:

 

Where there is evidence of genuine wrongdoing by politicians or officials we have a pretty robust system in place to ensure that whistleblowers are protected. For example Major Wick was quite rightly never prosecuted for his role in exposing the mp's who'd been fiddling their expenses. So no I don't have a blind trust in MP's to tell the truth, nor that officials are never breaking the rules and I support a free press as a last resort for those with information of wrongdoing who have no be able to have the matter dealt with by official channels.

 

This is not the case in the wikileaks diplomatic cables situation. It's mass publication of confidential cables which have had the effect of damaging diplomatic relations between the US and both it's allies and adverseries. The entire rationale behind the publication was not to highlight an illegal act it was simply because they had got their grubby mitts on them. It should be clear to everyone that diplomacy cannot opperate without discretion and foreign governments need the confidence that when they enter negotiaions with the American or indeed any other government that those discussions will be kept confidential unless both parties agree otherwise. Given your concern about avoiding unwinnable conflicts they key to avoiding future conflicts is diplomacy and in some cases compromises which are unpaletable but the alternatives are worse. Wikileaks have seriously compromised US and by default NATO in the diplomatic field and the knock on effects may be very serious indeed in years to come.

 

I agree with those who have made the point the the US authorities must take their share of the blame for their shoddy IT security. However the lions share of the blame has to rest with wikileaks who have been incredibly reckless in releasing the material en-masse with no valid reason for doing so.

[Harleyman]

Well, it was either that or allow the second appeal to go ahead and for the gross miscarriage of justice to be thrown out and for al Megrahi to walk free from the court an innocent man.

 

As the US ambassador acknowledged, Britain was "between a rock and a hard place".

 

 

Glad you found the leak useful, and in the public interest Harleyman.

 

 

What makes you think that Megrahi walking free after the second appeal was a done deal?

 

Politicians also lied feeding us a story about how Mehagri was on his last legs

 

Like the old theory that Bush invaded Iraq for oil setting Mehagri free was all for oil drilling rights off the coast of Libya

[Lotusflower]

Bit of embassament for Blair and the Scottish parliament coming to surface.

 

Seems that the clown Khadaffi issued some sort of threats if the bomber was not released and Blair knuckled under. Also, suspicions about a visit by Blair to Libya in 2007. Some sort of deal on oil drilling rights in exchange for the bomber's release? Didn't matter much anyway did it? Nearly all those on the Pan Am were Americans anyway. Sad

 

When politicians whore around they really do so in a big way.

 

And of course being an American citizen you are perfectly qualified to make such a statement.

[Lotusflower]

Where there is evidence of genuine wrongdoing by politicians or officials we have a pretty robust system in place to ensure that whistleblowers are protected. For example Major Wick was quite rightly never prosecuted for his role in exposing the mp's who'd been fiddling their expenses. So no I don't have a blind trust in MP's to tell the truth, nor that officials are never breaking the rules and I support a free press as a last resort for those with information of wrongdoing who have no be able to have the matter dealt with by official channels.

 

This is not the case in the wikileaks diplomatic cables situation. It's mass publication of confidential cables which have had the effect of damaging diplomatic relations between the US and both it's allies and adverseries. The entire rationale behind the publication was not to highlight an illegal act it was simply because they had got their grubby mitts on them. It should be clear to everyone that diplomacy cannot opperate without discretion and foreign governments need the confidence that when they enter negotiaions with the American or indeed any other government that those discussions will be kept confidential unless both parties agree otherwise. Given your concern about avoiding unwinnable conflicts they key to avoiding future conflicts is diplomacy and in some cases compromises which are unpaletable but the alternatives are worse. Wikileaks have seriously compromised US and by default NATO in the diplomatic field and the knock on effects may be very serious indeed in years to come.

 

I agree with those who have made the point the the US authorities must take their share of the blame for their shoddy IT security. However the lions share of the blame has to rest with wikileaks who have been incredibly reckless in releasing the material en-masse with no valid reason for doing so.

 

Re my bold.

 

With the greatest of respect to you I cannot take you seriously after a comment like that...and the last line of your post just confirms it.

[Harleyman]

And of course being an American citizen you are perfectly qualified to make such a statement.

 

Actually dual citizen Swami

[Lotusflower]

Actually dual citizen Swami

 

That's just showing off.

[Harleyman]

Looks like Wikileaks just may have dug it's own grave as Mastercard, Paypal and American Express have shut down their operations with Wiki. On the CNN news this afternoon a Wiki spokesman was howling the blues over it. Judging by his emotional rhetoric this was causing him some grave concerns.

As one blogger posted "The US did not start the whole mess Wikileaks did" Fair enough appraisal of the situation.

 

Meanwhile Assange awaits extradition to Sweden, possibly a lengthy prison sentence and the loving ministrations of some big Swedish queen if he ends up a guest of the Swedish government.

There's also talk of a charge of espionage being prepared by the US but if that happens he may not end up in the US anyway due to the complicated laws dealing with these kinds of situations

[Lotusflower]

Looks like Wikileaks just may have dug it's own grave as Mastercard, Paypal and American Express have shut down their operations with Wiki. On the CNN news this afternoon a Wiki spokesman was howling the blues over it. Judging by his emotional rhetoric this was causing him some grave concerns.

As one blogger posted "The US did not start the whole mess Wikileaks did" Fair enough appraisal of the situation.

 

Meanwhile Assange awaits extradition to Sweden, possibly a lengthy prison sentence and the loving ministrations of some big Swedish queen if he ends up a guest of the Swedish government.

There's also talk of a charge of espionage being prepared by the US but if that happens he may not end up in the US anyway due to the complicated laws dealing with these kinds of situations

 

How do you come to that conclusion? Have you been following the story?

[Fartown]

Haha, yeah! The thread was originally about the denial of service attack but has grown to incorporate everything wikileaks!

 

Perhaps just as well it did. When I read the bit about 'DOS attacks' my first reaction was: "didn't they scrap DOS some time ago?" I'm not a computer expert. If the thread was confined to computer technicalities, then perhaps it should have been moved to the computer part of the forum.

 

Bit of embassament for Blair and the Scottish parliament coming to surface.

 

Seems that the clown Khadaffi issued some sort of threats if the bomber was not released and Blair knuckled under. Also, suspicions about a visit by Blair to Libya in 2007. Some sort of deal on oil drilling rights in exchange for the bomber's release? Didn't matter much anyway did it? Nearly all those on the Pan Am were Americans anyway. Sad

 

When politicians whore around they really do so in a big way.

 

Wikileaks seems to be about causing embarrassment. Nothing more. It's not mischievous, it's malicious.

 

Where there is evidence of genuine wrongdoing by politicians or officials we have a pretty robust system in place to ensure that whistleblowers are protected. For example Major Wick was quite rightly never prosecuted for his role in exposing the mp's who'd been fiddling their expenses. So no I don't have a blind trust in MP's to tell the truth, nor that officials are never breaking the rules and I support a free press as a last resort for those with information of wrongdoing who have no be able to have the matter dealt with by official channels.

 

This is not the case in the wikileaks diplomatic cables situation. It's mass publication of confidential cables which have had the effect of damaging diplomatic relations between the US and both it's allies and adverseries. The entire rationale behind the publication was not to highlight an illegal act it was simply because they had got their grubby mitts on them. It should be clear to everyone that diplomacy cannot opperate without discretion and foreign governments need the confidence that when they enter negotiaions with the American or indeed any other government that those discussions will be kept confidential unless both parties agree otherwise. Given your concern about avoiding unwinnable conflicts they key to avoiding future conflicts is diplomacy and in some cases compromises which are unpaletable but the alternatives are worse. Wikileaks have seriously compromised US and by default NATO in the diplomatic field and the knock on effects may be very serious indeed in years to come.

 

I agree with those who have made the point the the US authorities must take their share of the blame for their shoddy IT security. However the lions share of the blame has to rest with wikileaks who have been incredibly reckless in releasing the material en-masse with no valid reason for doing so.

 

I agree. As a private individual I have a right to privacy (human rights act?)

 

Individuals have a right to privacy.

Companies have a right to privacy (Industrial Espionage is punishable in most countries.)

 

I've heard people talking about an inviolable right to freedom of information. Where is that right defined?

 

If individuals and companies and other organisations have a right to expect a degree of privacy, why shouldn't governments enjoy the same rights?

 

Some of the stuff on Wikileaks is embarrassing. Why was it leaked? was the reason for the leak:

 

(a) "To provide valuable information to people who need this information to allow them to live without being subjected to repression?"

 

Or was it:

 

(b) "To cause embarrassment to so-and-so because I don't like them and I think I can get away with it?"

 

If I managed to get hold of details of your bank account (not a secret, but private) or your medical records, or details of some sort of smutty extra-marital affair you were having, or details of your (albeit legal) sexual predilections and if I was to publish them, would you consider that to fall under the protection of some sort of 'inviolable right to freedom of information' or would you think I was behaving maliciously?

 

Mr <REMOVED> hasn't attempted to provide any real justification for his leaks. It appears he is publishing the information because he thinks he can.

 

The Americans seem to be annoyed. Perhaps they're not the only country to be annoyed.

 

As far as I'm aware, the US does not authorise assassination of people who irritate it; indeed, such acts are forbidden by US law. If the Americans got their hands on him, Mr <REMOVED> might end up in a Supermax for the next 3000 years, but they wouldn't kill him.

 

Other countries aren't always as mindful of human rights.

 

Does anybody remember Georgi Markov? (Ricin from a spring-loaded hypodermic in an umbrella?)

 

How about Alexandr Litvinenko? (Polonium-flavoured coffee, anybody?)

 

I wonder how many governments are upset with the founder of Wikileaks?

 

The Americans are annoyed, the UK government can't be too happy, The Saudis are embarrassed, the Afghanistanis are probably concerned that the leak might reduce the amount of money the UK is prepared to spend on them and the Russians may well be somewhat upset.

 

There are probably many more. After all; you can't release a quarter of a milllion secret documents and only upset 3 or 4 people.

 

Perhaps it would be a good idea to send him to Sweden. Let them be responsible for him. (Markov and Litvinenko were both killed in the UK; If I was <REMOVED>, I think I would rather be somewhere a little safer.

[Phanerothyme]

What makes you think that Megrahi walking free after the second appeal was a done deal?

 

Principally reading about the circumstances of the trial, the first appeal (indefinitely postponed), the application for review (accepted and took four years) and the second appeal (in progress at the time of his release, and then dropped despite no requirement to do so); and also reading what official observers, legal experts, relatives of the victims, and common or garden legal opinion makers have to say on the matter.

 

Politicians also lied feeding us a story about how Mehagri was on his last legs

What has not yet been touched upon is why al Megrahi was set free. Compassionate grounds? The correct thing to do, at the very least would be to release him to serve out his sentence in a Libyan jail. But that plan was driopped in favour of compassionate grounds: He walks free, but a guilty man. No second appeal, no awkward questions, no risk of an acquittal.

 

I've read from much less reputable sources that Megrahi's illness was deliberately "sexed up", and a deal was struck to free Megrahi and seal off any possibility that the second appeal would succeed in quashing his conviction on the grounds (reputably attributed above) that the trial itself was a miscarriage of justice of the highest order.

 

Megrahi was certainly a Libyan Security Agent and Security chief for the national airline, and (in my own personal opinion) is almost certainly guilty of plenty of things. Just not guilty of the crime he was tried for.

 

So Megrahi's release was engineered in order to avoid two things. The "revelation" that the trial was not much more than realpolitik puppetry to draw Libya in from the cold, get it to set down it's rather hopeless nuclear program, and sink some western interests and assets back into North Africa.

 

And to avoid the utter, utter catastrophe of raking the whole thing up again, announcing Megrahi's innocence to a world convinced of his guilt (You don't end up on trial at a disused US airbase, on Dutch soil, under Scottish law as a result of being innocent) and basically look stupendously foolish and incompetent as a government and judiciary, given the unanimous guilty verdict originally handed out, and subsequently trotted out right up to today.

 

Like the old theory that Bush invaded Iraq for oil setting Mehagri free was all for oil drilling rights off the coast of Libya

 

Nothing is ever that simple or cut and dried, ever.

 

There's tons more detail about Malta, the people who actually did it and so-on, but you'll have to decide for yourself whether you're actually interested enough to bother having a look.