Wikileaks now going after a Bank

[Saint in Paradise]

"It will give a true and representative insight into how banks behave at the executive level in

a way that will stimulate investigations and reforms, I presume."

 

http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKTRE6AT01G20101130

 

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/18/20101130/tb ... c5291.html

 

.

[Draino76]

That will be Goldman Sachs I reckon.

[Saint in Paradise]

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/18/20101130/tbs-bank-of-america-stocks-drop-on-wikil-8cc5291.html

 

Bank of America

[CB Saint]

At what point does this bloke have to start looking over his shoulder. Eventually he is going to stitch up someone who makes use of unconventional methods for dealing with irritants.

[Verbal]

At what point does this bloke have to start looking over his shoulder. Eventually he is going to stitch up someone who makes use of unconventional methods for dealing with irritants.

 

He already is. The Swedish authorities are pursuing him on a rape charge. Of course, it MIGHT be true...but all a sounds a bit Girl With a Dragon Tattoo.

[Verbal]

As I was saying...

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/nov/30/interpol-wanted-notice-julian-assange

[Special K]

I can't make up my mind whether he's a cyber hero for making all ths information available and causing governments/individuals to squirm or a dangerous, egocentric **** risking world stability and diplomacy?

[angelman]

The thing is, he has pi**ed off so many people in power that who ever knocks him off will no doubt get away scot free as it wouldn't be in the interests of any government to investigate it. Even if they did, I am sure that they could rustle up some "evidence" that pointed to some foreign government and then I am sure that that foregin government could rustle up some evidence that pointed to someone else. etc etc

[Viking Warrior]

If Assange is innocent of these rape charges he has nothing to fear about going back to sweeden to clear his name

instead he has gone into hiding by finding a safe haven in ecudor. no smoke with out fire. Hes able to dish the dirt but will not face up to his own misdoings

[buctootim]

Actually he's in the UK and has not been charged by the Swedish authorities. Apart from that - all factually correct. As for 'no smoke without fire' - thats a joke right?

[Verbal]

I can't make up my mind whether he's a cyber hero for making all ths information available and causing governments/individuals to squirm or a dangerous, egocentric **** risking world stability and diplomacy?

 

You don't have to make up your mind; it's irrelevant. He's a hero, whatever his motivation. Hillary Clinton's warning that the release of these cables would 'endanger lives' should be the soundtrack to the other wikileaks release of trigger-happy, murderously contemptuous US Apache pilots using armour-piercing rounds to kill innocent Iraqi citizens and journalists.

[Verbal]

If Assange is innocent of these rape charges he has nothing to fear about going back to sweeden to clear his name

instead he has gone into hiding by finding a safe haven in ecudor. no smoke with out fire. Hes able to dish the dirt but will not face up to his own misdoings

 

Aside from being obnoxious, this is just plain weird. On the one hand, completely ignoring the context that governments around the world are freakin' DESPERATE to shut him up, you claim that if he's innocent. he has, in that deathly Orwellian phrase, 'nothing to fear'. On the other, you moan about his 'misdoings'. Guilty until proved innocent, right? And pure contradiction, of course - but worse than that, you equate his embarrassing almightily powerful states with their oppressive and venal behaviour, with the actions of an individual. Don't you think you're lacking just a little sense of proportion?

 

Have you simply discounted the remote possibility that the allegations - not 'charges' - are trumped up? As I said earlier, there may be something to them, but it is somehow an 'interesting' time to question Assange's character in this way.

[Special K]

You don't have to make up your mind; it's irrelevant. He's a hero, whatever his motivation. Hillary Clinton's warning that the release of these cables would 'endanger lives' should be the soundtrack to the other wikileaks release of trigger-happy, murderously contemptuous US Apache pilots using armour-piercing rounds to kill innocent Iraqi citizens and journalists.

 

I'll make up my mind, thanks, if it's all the same to you. It seems you have after all.

[Verbal]

I'll make up my mind, thanks, if it's all the same to you. It seems you have after all.

 

Do as you wish. You seem to be making a habit of missing the point. I didn't say you couldn't make your own mind up about Assange as a person - I said it was completely irrelevant. The effect of Wikileaks' releases has been galvanising, and brought unaccountable actions of governments into the daylight. THAT is what is important, not some posters' snide views on his motivation.

[SuperMikey]

I really admire what JA is doing, it's a very selfless act on his part to expose the seedy underbelly of world politics and economics. I think he knows he's going to be targeted very soon, hence the sudden splurging of information on WikiLeaks. I'd only heard of WikiLeaks in passing, but I was sent a link to the Apache helicopter video (awful, awful video) and after seeing that i'm fully behind him.

[Wilko]

Man exposes the corruption and shortcomings of the establishment.

Establishment brings rape charges against man.

Man exposes behind-closed-doors deals, dishonesty and duplicitous nature of those in the establishment.

Establishment says man should be executed for treason.

 

There's a pattern emerging here. A pattern that does not bode well for the future of Julian Assange. The last thing governments and big business want is for their true colours to be shown, which is exactly what his website is doing.

[CB Saint]

Exposing incidents like the apache helicopter is one thing. Releasing details about the private fears and concerns of nation states is entirely another.

 

What if iran takes exception that the Saudis were encouraging the us to intervene, and decide to toss a misslie or two in their direction. Or North Korea get truely desperate because their only ally China wouldn't say no to reunification.

 

The other thing that crossed my mind isthat I wonder if Assange spares a thought for the young US soldier who they suspect passed the information over. He, thanks largely to the publishing of the info, is looking at 50 years. It's easy to be a revolutionary and martyr when you don't have to serve the time.

[Seaford Saint]

Fairs fair.....I do believe that you should see through all this. He is not going after a bank. A whistleblower fom a large bank contacted Wikileaks with information that Wikileaks intends to publish. I see a media campaign that keeps Assange in the news and being discussed but not the information itself.

 

The guy who leaked the information in the US is the same one who sent the info to Wikileaks hoping that it would be published.

 

I am not sure whether what has been released shoild have been by the way. I do object to the subtle controlling of information by the media over Assange

 

I do not believe the man is guilty of rape or treason.

[Verbal]

Exposing incidents like the apache helicopter is one thing. Releasing details about the private fears and concerns of nation states is entirely another.

 

What if iran takes exception that the Saudis were encouraging the us to intervene, and decide to toss a misslie or two in their direction. Or North Korea get truely desperate because their only ally China wouldn't say no to reunification.

 

The other thing that crossed my mind isthat I wonder if Assange spares a thought for the young US soldier who they suspect passed the information over. He, thanks largely to the publishing of the info, is looking at 50 years. It's easy to be a revolutionary and martyr when you don't have to serve the time.

 

Manning gave the files to Wikileaks himself. He didn't do it in the hope that they WOULDN'T release the information. The fact that he faces the punitive action of his government merely reinforces the point he himself has made - that the information SHOULD be in the public domain. As for the fatuous and self-serving claim made by Hillary Clinton and others about 'endangering lives', the balance sheet is hardly in their favour is it, since so many of Wikileaks' leaks expose a ruthless murderousness directed at civilians that breaches as many war conventions as you can find. Incidentally, each time Wikileaks releases a bundle of secret documents, the cry from the great and good goes up that lives will be lost. Can you give me just ONE example of that actually happening?

 

And as for the possibility of countries starting to lob missiles at each other as a result of the latest leaks - why put up something so highly, pie-in-the-sky unlikely and set that against the huge actual benefit of the release of the information? We already know what Iran's reaction is - they are saying that the leaks are a Western 'conspiracy'. They and Saudi Arabia will carry on undermining their respective regimes as before. Nothing, in that sense, has changed. What the revelations about SA's secret briefings do achieve is to inform about the true nature of the Saudi regime - which, among other things, has already been exposed by Wikileaks as the greatest single source of funds for al Qaeda.

 

Now we also know, for example, that China is close to abandoning N Korea. Good! More locally, we know that Mervyn King has taken it upon himself to brief foreign governments against our own politicians. Should such duplicitous and damaging behaviour really be allowed to go on behind closed doors?

 

These are all questions that need to be asked - but they can only be asked with releases like this.

[jjsaint]

The other thing that crossed my mind isthat I wonder if Assange spares a thought for the young US soldier who they suspect passed the information over. He, thanks largely to the publishing of the info, is looking at 50 years. It's easy to be a revolutionary and martyr when you don't have to serve the time.

 

Assange has p*ssed off quite a few important people, not only in the US. I think his life will become increasingly more difficult.

[Viking Warrior]

You are very defensive of Mr Assange verbal. You have used a colourful array of words.

 

Im not being obnoxious at all on the contrary I have not discounted the fact that these rape allegations maybe trumped up charges.

and I stand by my comments if he is innocent of the allegations then he should go back to Sweeden and prove his innocence.

He has chosen not to do so hence my comment of no smoke.

 

On a similar vein has any sweedisn leader been exposed by these leaks.

Im sure you would be too happy Verbal if it was you or your family had private information exposed to the world now would you?

[Seaford Saint]

You are very defensive of Mr Assange verbal. You have used a colourful array of words.

 

Im not being obnoxious at all on the contrary I have not discounted the fact that these rape allegations maybe trumped up charges.

and I stand by my comments if he is innocent of the allegations then he should go back to Sweeden and prove his innocence.

He has chosen not to do so hence my comment of no smoke.

 

On a similar vein has any sweedisn leader been exposed by these leaks.

Im sure you would be too happy Verbal if it was you or your family had private information exposed to the world now would you?

 

Sorry and all that but I dont agree......I suspect he knows his life is in danger....no one on here knows the facts, the best we can do is to fill in the gaps. No doubt in my mind that the US or others want him dead.

[badgerx16]

I assume that the charges against him are a resurrection of the ones the Swedish authorities dropped in August as having no foundation ? And personally, if the US does decide to attack Iran, I would prefer to know the real reason for it, rather than whatever trumped up 'dodgy dossier' fairy story gets released to the western media and swallowed hook, line, and sinker by the Daily Heil & Torygraph.

[Thedelldays]

I assume that the charges against him are a resurrection of the ones the Swedish authorities dropped in August as having no foundation ? And personally, if the US does decide to attack Iran, I would prefer to know the real reason for it, rather than whatever trumped up 'dodgy dossier' fairy story gets released to the western media and swallowed hook, line, and sinker by the Daily Heil & Torygraph.

 

ok...let say these leaks never came out...and the US (with us I guess)...went ahead and blew up iranian facilities that WE claimed were there to build nuclear weapons....we did this before they could build and potentially fire these things..and before isreal attacked them themselves (which would mean a world of shyt)..

 

would you have taken those reason as the "reason"..or would you have defaulted to the "oil and control" train of though...

 

I would bet the latter

[Verbal]

You are very defensive of Mr Assange verbal. You have used a colourful array of words.

 

Im not being obnoxious at all on the contrary I have not discounted the fact that these rape allegations maybe trumped up charges.

and I stand by my comments if he is innocent of the allegations then he should go back to Sweeden and prove his innocence.

He has chosen not to do so hence my comment of no smoke.

 

On a similar vein has any sweedisn leader been exposed by these leaks.

Im sure you would be too happy Verbal if it was you or your family had private information exposed to the world now would you?

 

I'm not being defensive especially - more offended by what I see as the lack of principle and consistency in your earlier post. And once again, you say he's 'innocent' but that there's 'no smoke without fire'. So he's both innocent AND guilty! But behind this lurks what seems to me a pretty abject position vis-a-vis authority. Governments aren't always right (!), and the best way to call them to account in a democratic society is through the free dissemination of information. (Blair recalls that the worst decision he ever made was the FOI Act - not invading Iraq or committing British troops to the hopeless killing fields of Afghanistan, but letting the public in on what his government was doing.)

 

Be very careful when you retail the aspersions of those who want Assange rubbed out.

[Verbal]

A case in point: now a Republican presidential hopeful is calling for Assange to be executed.

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/01/us-embassy-cables-executed-mike-huckabee

[badgerx16]

ok...let say these leaks never came out...and the US (with us I guess)...went ahead and blew up iranian facilities that WE claimed were there to build nuclear weapons....we did this before they could build and potentially fire these things..and before isreal attacked them themselves (which would mean a world of shyt)..

 

would you have taken those reason as the "reason"..or would you have defaulted to the "oil and control" train of though...

 

I would bet the latter

 

Given the situation regarding Iraqi WMD's, I would tend to the latter with some justification. I just don't trust US foreign policy.

[Thedelldays]

Given the situation regarding Iraqi WMD's, I would tend to the latter with some justification. I just don't trust US foreign policy.

 

so there you go....you ask for the reasons why (if we go to war with iran) but you wont believe them...

[franny]

I assume that the charges against him are a resurrection of the ones the Swedish authorities dropped in August as having no foundation ? And personally, if the US does decide to attack Iran, I would prefer to know the real reason for it, rather than whatever trumped up 'dodgy dossier' fairy story gets released to the western media and swallowed hook, line, and sinker by the Daily Heil & Torygraph.

 

I don't disagree with your principle and whislt you may like to bash those papers it was rather more than just those publications that took Bliar, Browns & Campbell's lies. What about the bulk of the parliamentary Labour party (and indeed the Tories mistakenly believing him) and most of his disciples or are you suggesting they are followers of the Mail & Telegraph as well?. It is convenient to blame those papers but I think you will find most people trusted the Prime Minister at his word (as indeed we should be able to). The fact that he and the Labour party lied to the country is not the fault of those papers.

The war was the fault of Blair and his cronies in government (inc those now in the shadow posts) not any newspaper.

[Special K]

A case in point: now a Republican presidential hopeful is calling for Assange to be executed.

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/01/us-embassy-cables-executed-mike-huckabee

 

No, it's not Assange, it's the person who leaked the information he's referring to, if you read the link correctly. But then again you're no stranger to not reading things fully and subsequently misinterpreting them aren't you Verbal.

Edited 1 December, 2010 by Special K

[Viking Warrior]

Special K is spot on the person to blame for all this is the disenfranchised private if thats who it was leaked the information. All wikeleaks did was to publish the stuff

 

I don't think assange would be killed , if he was someone else at wikileaks would continue to publish the documents

 

Now I do agree with you on the FOI act. so many extra hours are spent find out alsorts of information and stats. I get sick of the ones I have to deal with.

[Special K]

I don't think anyone should lose their life over this, be it the person who leaked the info or the person who published it!! It seems to me that the security systems currently in place to deal with secretive information are not tight enough, but that doesn't mean to say it shouldn't be published. If anything this whole episode will serve to make Governments and large corporates more secretive.

[aintforever]

I fail to see how a website which exposes corruption can be a bad thing.

[Verbal]

No, it's not Assange, it's the person who leaked the information he's referring to, if you read the link correctly. But then again you're no stranger to not reading things fully and subsequently misinterpreting them aren't you Verbal.

 

Ah, you're right, my little munchkin - it refers to Manning, not Assange. Huckabee merely wants Assange 'hunted down' and he loves the idea of seeing Manning fry in the electric chair, 'nothing less"!

 

But just think about that for a second. Espionage is by definition on behalf of a state. Who was Manning 'spying' for? Wikileaks and, ultimately, us, the public. So WE are the enemy. Interesting concept don't you think? On that argument, Huckabee et al should also hunt down and murder Daniel Ellsberg for leaking the Pentagon Papers, secret documents which revealed that the US government had deliberately expanded the Vietnam war into Laos and Cambodia, with horrific consequences; and Deep Throat, a deputy FBI director, for helping bring down Richard Nixon. The world would be so much better for not knowing that Watergate was ever more than a rumour, right?

[Thedelldays]

where does it say wiki leaks represents "us"..?

[badgerx16]

so there you go....you ask for the reasons why (if we go to war with iran) but you wont believe them...

The point is that you state that the reasons you quote would be the 'claimed' justification. What is necessary is independently verified evidence, as was so abjectly missing from the Iraq cassus belli. Without this, the probability is that such a war would be started purely at the prompting of the Saudis, and a fig leaf cover story constructed to hide this.

[CB Saint]

I fail to see how a website which exposes corruption can be a bad thing.

 

You are right, however a lot of what is being exposed at the moment has nothing to do with corruption, but is the warts and all thoughts and musings diplomats. This will not benefit anyone in the long run, except, assuming he avoids getting whacked, Assange whose personal capital will increase. At what point does worthwhile exercise of exposing corruption and attrocities get superceded by a desire to stay in the headlines. This is what I think will eventually happen with wikileaks, if it hasn't already.

[aintforever]

ok...let say these leaks never came out...and the US (with us I guess)...went ahead and blew up iranian facilities that WE claimed were there to build nuclear weapons....we did this before they could build and potentially fire these things..and before isreal attacked them themselves (which would mean a world of shyt)..

 

would you have taken those reason as the "reason"..or would you have defaulted to the "oil and control" train of though...

 

I would bet the latter

 

What park of the leaks justify going to war with Iran?

[aintforever]

You are right, however a lot of what is being exposed at the moment has nothing to do with corruption, but is the warts and all thoughts and musings diplomats. This will not benefit anyone in the long run, except, assuming he avoids getting whacked, Assange whose personal capital will increase. At what point does worthwhile exercise of exposing corruption and attrocities get superceded by a desire to stay in the headlines. This is what I think will eventually happen with wikileaks, if it hasn't already.

 

Nothing wrong with the truth coming out, even if it annoys a few Yanks.

[Verbal]

where does it say wiki leaks represents "us"..?

 

Well not you obviously.

[Thedelldays]

Well not you obviously.

 

seriously...why is it in our name..?

[Verbal]

seriously...why is it in our name..?

 

Why isn't it? I don't understand your question. Healthy democracy is not premised on state secrecy and manipulation. Are you suggesting that breaking down layers of secrecy is some kind of suspicious political stance?

[Thedelldays]

Why isn't it? I don't understand your question. Healthy democracy is not premised on state secrecy and manipulation. Are you suggesting that breaking down layers of secrecy is some kind of suspicious political stance?

 

how is it in our interest that the yanks think the italian PM is useless...or that sarkozy is a little runt...or that prince andrew behave poorly..

some of this (probably quite alot) will serve no purpose for the general public..apart from put people at risk in certain parts of the world..

[Verbal]

how is it in our interest that the yanks think the italian PM is useless...or that sarkozy is a little runt...or that prince andrew behave poorly..

some of this (probably quite alot) will serve no purpose for the general public..apart from put people at risk in certain parts of the world..

 

Some of it is interesting, revealing, shocking - some isn't. Again, the point is, we decide, not some smug git who's signed the Official Secrets Act. Surely you're not suggesting that it ALL is meaningless gossip - and in any case, how can it be so trivial AND 'put certain people at risk in certain parts of the world.'

 

Name ONE person who's died as a result of these leaks.

[Thedelldays]

Some of it is interesting, revealing, shocking - some isn't. Again, the point is, we decide, not some smug git who's signed the Official Secrets Act. Surely you're not suggesting that it ALL is meaningless gossip - and in any case, how can it be so trivial AND 'put certain people at risk in certain parts of the world.'

 

Name ONE person who's died as a result of these leaks.

 

I cant...but can you be certain not one person will..? maybe even the guy assange..?

[Verbal]

I cant...but can you be certain not one person will..? maybe even the guy assange..?

 

Well yes, Assange is the most at risk, certainly. Too many people in powerful positions, who feel threatened by his organisation, want him rubbed out or silenced for a very long time, and have openly, and probably less openly, said so. As for others, who knows. I do know that the loud chorus of military and political figures yelling 'people will die as a result' is self-serving PR drivel. But can I be certain that Assange helped reveal grotesque illegal acts under the watch of these and other political and military figures, that led to murder? Yes - and I do believe it alters behaviour among those who otherwise think they can get away with it.

[franny]

Some of it is interesting, revealing, shocking - some isn't. Again, the point is, we decide, not some smug git who's signed the Official Secrets Act. Surely you're not suggesting that it ALL is meaningless gossip - and in any case, how can it be so trivial AND 'put certain people at risk in certain parts of the world.'

 

Name ONE person who's died as a result of these leaks.

 

Would you advocate all details of the data and information received by MI5/6 be made public? Would you advocate valuable information from somebody that perhaps has helped avoid say anpther 7/7 be made public? Surely within any state there needs to be some secrecy and confidential discussions in the interests of that state and its people. I think the issue here that everything from simple tittle tattle and gossip which does not really matter to potentially dangerous views and utterances are being made public. Which is which I do not know but I think it is arrogance by others and theor supporters to simply publish and say "all of it should be in the public domain" and then walk away, they will not have to live or die by any consequences.

Also to pick up on your disregard for the Offical Secrets Act and those that sign and respect it is insulting to all those that do and then respect it, they are not smug but simply honest people who have integrity. If there is wrongdoing not exposed it is those that perpetrated that wrongdoing (e.g. Blair, Brown, Campbell) not the operative who does not expose it that is wrong.To sign it is a solemn commitment and in my opinion should not be broken, if one has an issue signing it do not sign it but do not do the job.

[badgerx16]

If the US intelligence information is so damned important and secret, how come two and a half MILLION people could access the system, and why was it so easy to extract it ?

[Thedelldays]

If the US intelligence information is so damned important and secret, how come two and a half MILLION people could access the system, and why was it so easy to extract it ?

you think ours is any different..?

 

it is called sharing with your partners...also, it was one person (apparently) that got this info...not leaked through 2 million people

[Verbal]

Would you advocate all details of the data and information received by MI5/6 be made public? Would you advocate valuable information from somebody that perhaps has helped avoid say anpther 7/7 be made public? Surely within any state there needs to be some secrecy and confidential discussions in the interests of that state and its people. I think the issue here that everything from simple tittle tattle and gossip which does not really matter to potentially dangerous views and utterances are being made public. Which is which I do not know but I think it is arrogance by others and theor supporters to simply publish and say "all of it should be in the public domain" and then walk away, they will not have to live or die by any consequences.

Also to pick up on your disregard for the Offical Secrets Act and those that sign and respect it is insulting to all those that do and then respect it, they are not smug but simply honest people who have integrity. If there is wrongdoing not exposed it is those that perpetrated that wrongdoing (e.g. Blair, Brown, Campbell) not the operative who does not expose it that is wrong.To sign it is a solemn commitment and in my opinion should not be broken, if one has an issue signing it do not sign it but do not do the job.

 

Ah the 'people will die' clarion call again. Look at the leaks themselves. Names of informants were redacted. And you miss the point I was making about the OSA. The smug are those who hide behind it to conceal wrongdoing; and whistleblowers should be applauded. Blair fought tooth and nail to prevent Attorney General's findings being made public on the legality - or not, as it turned out - of British participation in the invasion of Iraq. Thankfully he lost - and has ever since borne an almighty grudge against the FOI Act. On your argument, Blair should have been able to get away with the downright lies he peddled to the public while the truth remained an 'official secret'.

 

A presumption of openness, whatever the cost, is far healthier than a presumption of secrecy - unless you'd be happier living somewhere like N Korea.