
Don't shoot the messenger for telling the truth - ra
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/in-depth/wikileaks/dont-shoot-messenger-for-revealing-uncomfortable-truths/story-fn775xjq-1225967241332
======
JacobAldridge
Ah, so he's a Queenslander. That adds context - we're a special breed north of
the Tweed.

To add some other context to non-Australian readers:

* Gallipoli, remembered as Australia's 'coming of age', was a disasterous battle in the First World War. While hardly more pointless than most of that War's assaults, it was more or less the first time we had fought as a sovereign nation and Murdoch's efforts helped shock our young country to that war in general, and the results of our troops still being commanded by our former colonial masters. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gallipoli_Campaign>

* The Fitzgerald Inquiry in the state of Queensland revealed corruption that ran through the police force and (via the Police Commissioner) into Cabinet and the Premier. Joh Bjelke-Petersen had been running Queensland for 19 years, supported by the gerrymander in state politics. We Queenslanders have a chip on our shoulder about being overlooked by the officials 'down south' - Joh worked this masterfully (in one election campaign he called Queensland the greatest 'Country' on earth) and while he is still remembered fondly for 'sticking it up them', the corruption of that era is a blight on the nation. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joh_Bjelke-Petersen> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitzgerald_Inquiry> Incidentally, Chris Masters' famous piece of journalism 'The Moonlight State' was seen as instrumental in propelling public support towards an Inquiry and a change of government.

Assange seems to be positioning himself as another in the long line of
Australian journalists (and Australians generally) who believe the 'powers'
want to hide the truth. His belief can be neither true nor false; I'm not yet
convinced his methodology is supporting the outcomes he seeks BUT, if nothing
else, he has certainly revealed by provoking the actions of our PM and other
political leaders around the world that there remain powers whose opposition
to truth is far stronger than their respect of law and principles like a fair
trial.

~~~
davidmathers
Apropos Gallipoli: And the Band Played Waltzing Matilda. The best anti-war
song ever.

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZqN1glz4JY>

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/And_The_Band_Played_Waltzing_Ma...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/And_The_Band_Played_Waltzing_Matilda)

------
ErrantX
I'm not Assange's biggest fan (r.e. how he controls Wikileaks) but some of the
nonsense coming from the US establishment (and elsehwere) is appalling.

It probably even vindicates what Wikileaks stands for.

This is one of those cases where damage limitation is the sane and sensible
response; they've lost those cables, we are going to see them. Deal with it.
They need perspective; in the grand scheme of things it is highly unlikely to
be "the end of the world". And if it uncovers corruption and naughtiness then
all the better.

Hounding Assange and Wikileaks only ends up making them look guilty. Which is
stupid, especially as there is nothing (so far) hugely corrupt or terrible in
the leaks!

~~~
jacquesm
Which makes me wonder what is in the leaks that we haven't seen yet. After all
if highly placed officials are getting their panties in a twist based on what
we've seen so far then they are over-reacting to put it mildly.

Time will tell. Some of the responses from politicians are beyond the pale and
what bugs me more is that nobody even thinks of calling them to account over
this, or so much as distancing themselves from these remarks.

~~~
TheAmazingIdiot
It honestly wouldn't shock me that the restarted attacks on North and South
Korea weren't because of Wikileaks. Or for that matter, I'd be surprised that
the US isn't having setbacks on many diplomatic processes.

~~~
lkjhgfvhjk
You think Kim Jong-Il was shocked to discover that he wasn't a towering
international statesman and decided to attack S Korea because of it?

~~~
rhizome
No, but he may have been surprised to find out that China supports
unification.

------
ra
Quote - "In its landmark ruling in the Pentagon Papers case, the US Supreme
Court said "only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose
deception in government". The swirling storm around WikiLeaks today reinforces
the need to defend the right of all media to reveal the truth."

~~~
jdp23
And no coincidence that Daniel Ellsberg of the Pentagon Papers case is a huge
supporter both of Bradley Manning and Julian Assange.

------
ffffruit
"In a time of universal deceit — telling the truth is a revolutionary act" G.
Orwell

I find the calls to get him assassinated or kidnap his son simply appalling.

~~~
resdirector
Who's been calling to kidnap his son? I did a quick (1 minute) google search,
but couldn't find a source.

~~~
swombat
According to TFA:

* Sarah Palin says I should be "hunted down like Osama bin Laden", a Republican bill sits before the US Senate seeking to have me declared a "transnational threat" and disposed of accordingly. An adviser to the Canadian Prime Minister's office has called on national television for me to be assassinated. An American blogger has called for my 20-year-old son, here in Australia, to be kidnapped and harmed for no other reason than to get at me. _

~~~
crocowhile
This doesn't really answer your parent's question, does it?

If you use TFA or RTFA make sure you do it properly, it's rude.

~~~
michael_dorfman
Yes, it does. Explicitly and clearly. With a direct quotation.

What more could you ask for?

~~~
crocowhile
For instance jacquesm answer? It's way more informative, it contains the
actual answer to the question, is not arrogantly witty. Enough?

------
known
"If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill
you." --Oscar Wilde

~~~
thailandstartup
They killed him anyway.

------
necolas
2.07pm: More financial problems for WikiLeaks: Visa says it has suspended all
payments to WikiLeaks "pending further investigation".

Earlier MasterCard said: "MasterCard is taking action to ensure that WikiLeaks
can no longer accept MasterCard-branded products."

[http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/blog/2010/dec/07/wikileaks-
us...](http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/blog/2010/dec/07/wikileaks-us-embassy-
cables-live-updates)

~~~
jacquesm
Visa has since followed suit. :

[http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5jzXb7...](http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5jzXb7MZek0YvS8v58dKHhPw_E8NA?docId=N0013301291732122501A)

The only corporate entity so far that does not have egg all over its face on
this one is the French OVH which went to a judge to establish whether or not
wikileaks was illegal according to French law, the judge rejected the first
request and asked for more info on the second, pending a ruling OVH says
they've done what they should do and will continue to have wikileaks as a
customer until the court tells them otherwise.

~~~
kabuks
And twitter. They haven't shut down the wikileaks account, and my wild guess
is that it's not because nobody is pressuring them too.

~~~
jacquesm
Good point, sorry, I'd forgotten about them.

------
newt
"Truth comes as conqueror only to those who have lost the art of receiving it
as friend." \- Rabindranath Tagore

------
Jd
If there is treason, it is with the person leaking the documents -- not the
media vehicle which publishes them.

~~~
tptacek
Apart from crazy people like Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich --- who claimed
that Assange is an "active enemy of the American people", thus implying that
everyone who donated money to Wikileaks has given material support to our
enemies --- who is seriously claiming that Assange is a "traitor"? From my
perspective, the theme that unites all the "formal" claims against Wikileaks
is that they are all ludicrous. What crime could he have commited?

Manning is a different story. Someone upthread compared him to Ellsberg (it
doesn't help that Ellsberg did, too). But Ellsburg's act was deliberate and
carefully planned. Manning, on the other hand, is accused of scooping up vast
buckets of documents off SIPRnet servers and then handing them off to complete
strangers. Amnesty, the Soros Open Society Institute (to which WL applied for
a grant), and the ICG all criticized _Wikileaks_ \--- the whole organization
--- for not being careful enough in redacting documents. Yet we're to believe
that a single private in the military could possibly have judged the impact of
what he was handing to Wikileaks?

Adrian Lamo --- who I don't know from Adam, and whose story I've never
followed --- took a vast helping of shit for exposing Manning. I don't know
what his motives were and I don't care. But I will say that if Manning was
even modestly competent with technology, Lamo may have saved his life by
stopping him.

~~~
Jd
"Apart from crazy people like..."

Hmm, I didn't realize Newt Gingrich was crazy. I wonder if your list of crazy
people includes virtually everyone not in your preferred political party.

"Yet we're to believe that a single private in the military could possibly
have judged the impact of what he was handing to Wikileaks"

Err, you take thousands of documents labeled "private" or "secret" and release
them to the media and think what? That it is no big deal?

~~~
tptacek
Yes, when you imply that thousands of Americans are guilty of giving material
aid to an active enemy of the United States (a federal crime) because they've
donated money to someone who posted documents that were handed to him --- when
you, in effect, suggest that the New York Times is an accessory to an act of
war on the United States ("act of war", by the way, being Newt's own words)
--- yeah, I get to call you a crazy person. You are of course free to
disagree.

No, suggesting that Julian Assange might not in fact be an active enemy of the
United States and that his supporters might not be stepping close to the line
of committing treason _does not_ mean that I think Wikileaks is no big deal.

My favorite part about WL --- a subject I would happily support banning from
Hacker News --- is how aggressively it tries to co-opt people into one of two
factions. On this side, you have people who believe consent-based sexual
assault legal frameworks are an tool of US hegemony, and on the other side you
have people who believe that patriotism requires supporting the notion of guy
with a bunch of leaked documents being assassinated. It's just a catalyst for
drama.

The irony to this subthread? I was agreeing with you.

~~~
Jd
I also agree with your rejoinder and upvoted it :)

------
jacquesm
Bail was refused:

"Let down by the UK justice system's bizarre decision to refuse bail to Julian
Assange. But #cablegate releases continue as planned."

<http://twitter.com/wikileaks>

~~~
moxiemk1
Is it bizarre to refuse bail to someone who has been constantly on the move
and _clearly_ knows how to evade detection to a fair degree?

He seems to be a _perfect_ example of a fleeing risk.

~~~
jacquesm
That must be why he turned himself in.

~~~
moxiemk1
Just because he turned himself in doesn't mean that he wouldn't flee
afterwards.

Wikileaks is in a very large part about influencing perception. Everything has
a purpose. Again, someone who has been trekking around the globe because many
government are after him is _hardly_ not an escape risk.

~~~
jacquesm
The 'risk' would be that he would flee abroad, and last I checked England was
an island.

Also, fleeing would make him look pretty bad in the eyes of many and I
personally don't think he would be stupid enough to do so (that's not much of
a guarantee, I'll give you that), since capture (see 'island') is almost
inevitable.

I wonder if anybody has access to what those maximum penalties of the charges
brought are (under Swedish law), and how they relate to being jailed pending
an extradition hearing. That would be interesting because I read in one
uncorroborated source that the punishment for the circumstances described is
actually a fine, rather than jail time and it would seem that if that is
really the case that any jail time at all (such as pending this hearing) would
be excessive. If Assange fights extradition do they plan to hold him in
custody during the whole time ? And if so how is that different from using
this as a ploy to simply lock him up because he's a 'risk' ?

~~~
Semiapies
An island with boats, international airports, and a Chunnel.

I wouldn't be willing to bet much money that he couldn't get out of the
country if he were free and of a mind to flee.

~~~
jacquesm
As European countries come England is the hardest to get in and out of and
it's not like Julian Assange is not going to be recognized on sight by half a
million people at least by now.

The boats all leave from ports where there are customs inspections, crew and
captains who would all not be too happy giving shelter to a fugitive,
international airports need a pass by immigration and the chunnel does too.

Lots of illegals make it in and out of Britain but they don't start off as
high profile fugitives.

I think you're giving him too much credit. The best he could probably do is go
to ground inside England but even that is not that simple.

~~~
MoreMoschops
You can quite literally get into a yacht anywhere on the coast and sail away.
Nobody will stop you. I've done it many times.

~~~
Semiapies
Or a fishing boat. Or Hell, a small motorboat or even a rowboat.

------
pigbucket
"For freedom of speech, there's Wikileaks. For everything else, there's
Mastercard. And Visa. And, um, Paypal. And Amazon." -- James Ball, on twitter.

------
viggity
If all wikileaks was doing was publishing information about illegal or highly
suspect acts by the government it'd be one thing. But that isn't all they're
doing, and it is these other releases that has really pissed me off. For
instance, what legitimate purpose does it serve to release a list of
infrastructure that are critical to national security?
([http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jWvPaI6hI...](http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jWvPaI6hITHo0rNy-
iYGp5jV0RLQ?docId=CNG.8549d9b93537814e90de0a33a00a6b06.151))

If diplomacy is so important to the people of the world, why are so many
people cheering on the fact that wikileaks has made it almost impossible for
diplomats to give frank and honest assessments of the countries in which they
work? When wikileaks makes everything "transparent", everything becomes
opaque, because no diplomat will write any memos or share information with one
another. Wikileaks is a tremendous blow to anyone who wants to see
international problems come to a peaceful and diplomatic resolution.

~~~
nhangen
I agree. I don't get it. Are we this desperate for a hero that we'll
romanticize the average in order to have one?

~~~
nhangen
And so it seems that the surest way to get downvoted on Hacker News is to say
something bad about Julian Assange. Boringly predictable.

~~~
lincolnq
And so it seems that trolls get their just deserts.

~~~
nhangen
How is representing an opinion being a troll? Fact is, I don't like the guy, I
don't trust his intentions, and I think Wikileaks is a worldwide disaster.

I just don't understand why reasonable objections are so quickly criticized
here.

~~~
mquander
OK, look at the comment you originally replied to. It's a "reasonable
objection" about Wikileaks. It also has actual content and a point that it
makes, as opposed to, say, being a one-line opinion with no support. Now look
at your comment.

~~~
nhangen
I replied to a comment in the thread, re-enforcing that commenters opinion.
I'm sure people don't like it, and that's fine, but to consistently be
downvoted every time I post a negative reaction to Assange is absurd. I wish
we, as a community, could elevate ourselves above the infighting reminiscent
of an MSNBC or FOXNews.

~~~
lincolnq
Please consider the possibility that you haven't learned to post your negative
reactions in a thoughtful way, rather than that the community is simply
downvoting opinions they don't like.

~~~
nhangen
It's thoughtful to me. I believe in being clear and concise. We're dealing in
subjectivity here, it's as simple as that.

------
jacquesm
Guardian coverage with the actual charges:
[http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/07/assange-bail-
req...](http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/07/assange-bail-request-
refused-wikileaks)

------
rorymarinich
He talks about Murdoch's actions in "1958" but then says that his actions are
happening nearly a century later. Was that date inaccurate? Because 52 years
doesn't strike me as a full nearly-a-century.

~~~
bambax
No.

He's talking about Rupert Murdoch's writings, in 1958, reflecting on Keith
Murdoch's revelations about Gallipoli.

Keith Murdoch was Rupert's father. The Gallipoli campaign happened during WWI,
in 1915-1916, _nearly a century_ ago.

~~~
rorymarinich
Aha! That makes a lot of sense. Thank you for clearing up!

------
bfung
Actions speak louder than words:

<http://readersupportednews.org/julian-assange-petition>

~~~
memetichazard
When was the last time a petition actually achieved anything?

------
sigzero
I was with him in releasing information about war crimes. He lost me in this
one though.

------
joshuaheard
The "truth" has limits on publication: privacy, confidentiality, privilege,
security, etc. Just because something is the truth, does not mean it is right
to publish it. Assange is not a whistle blower. He is not exposing any
misrepresentations or cover-up. He is simply exposing America's secrets in
order to hurt America. That is criminal.

~~~
jacquesm
Oversimplification does not benefit anybody.

> He is simply exposing America's secrets in order to hurt America. That is
> criminal.

Assuming he is - which I really think misses the point - by what law is this
criminal ?

He's not an American citizen, nor is he in America. Why do you feel this is
criminal ?

Do you think it would it be criminal if an American did it ?

~~~
nhangen
In doing business with criminals, you become one IMO. Sure, technically he's
not violating any laws, but I think that points to flaws in the justice system
(worldwide, not just the US) more than it does to his nobility.

If someone illegally sells/steals/shares confidential information, then where
does the chain of responsibility/legality stop?

~~~
jacquesm
Excellent question. Please google the Pentagon Papers and educate yourself
some more on the subject. If we followed your conclusion pretty much all the
newspapers in the world that actually did their jobs would be in the docket
tomorrow.

There has always been a tug-of-war between the press and the government about
what is and what is not permitted and it is universally recognized that a free
press is essential to the functioning of democracies.

The issue at stake here is a complicated one, whether or not wikileaks is part
of the press, and even if it isn't whether it should be counted as such.

Governments the world over, from the worst to the best have figured out a
loophole in the whole 'free press' business, which is to use 'access' as a
coin with which to control the press. In a world where eyeballs govern the
budgets of newspapers not having access directly affects a newspapers bottom
line. WikiLeaks circumvents the access trick by simply not being susceptible
to that kind of leverage and it is exactly because of that that I suspect that
they are seen as 'dangerous' by those in power.

~~~
nhangen
I don't see the issue as free press. I don't believe that our press has ever
been more free than it is today.

The issue I'm concerned with is that this turns people like Manning into
heroes.

Freedom of the press was not created to protect classified documents. They
didn't exist at the time. It was created to protect the press' right to
contradict and/or point out the flaw in the government system, and the people
that manage it.

It's meant to prevent government censorship.

And legal or not, I'm just not comfortable with this level of freedom with
national secrets. We'll see how it plays out over the long-term, but I don't
think it's a fear of Assange you see, but fear of what these documents will do
to strengthen our enemies.

~~~
nhangen
I'm referring to enemies of the West. If you live in the US, UK, or Eastern
Europe and don't believe we have common enemies, then you are sadly mistaken.

I've met them. They don't like us.

~~~
jacquesm
> I'm referring to enemies of the West.

Oh my!

> If you live in the US, UK, or Eastern Europe and don't believe we have
> common enemies, then you are sadly mistaken.

I guess I will have to take your word for it.

> I've met them.

In what capacity did you meet the enemies of the West ?

> They don't like us.

Did they specify any reasons ?

~~~
nhangen
When I was in Afghanistan in 2008. I could name countless reasons, but you
know them already.

~~~
nhangen
I was there as a US Army NCO. I'm not afraid, I'm simply pointing out that
there are people that despise the West, and it's bad enough that we have to
take it from them...we shouldn't have to take it from our own people too.

I didn't say Wikileaks is or should be illegal...I asked where we draw the
line. I don't think Wikileaks is a benefit, that's all. I think it has the
potential to do good, but the way he's released documents has been more
reckless than intentionally beneficial.

Can't we push for an open government without extremes? I'd say that our
electoral process still functions well, as does the legislative one.

~~~
OpieCunningham
_I'm simply pointing out that there are people that despise the West, and it's
bad enough that we have to take it from them...we shouldn't have to take it
from our own people too._

Despise is perhaps too strong a word, particularly in regards to "our own
people". But regardless, what if there are very good reasons to despise the
West? Everything the West does is not ok simply because you and I live in it.
A good portion of the enemies you're referring to have very valid grievances
with the West. That their tactics for dealing with those grievances are not my
tactics (or Wikileaks tactics) does not in any way deter from the validity of
their grievances (or mine).

~~~
nhangen
I disagree. I think this quote puts it in perspective:

“Hatred is self-punishment. Hatred it the coward's revenge for being
intimidated.”

I didn't say we were perfect, but let's not throw out the baby with the
bathwater. The truth is always somewhere in the middle.

~~~
OpieCunningham
_I disagree._

With what? That there can be valid grievances with Western policies? That
anyone could have a valid reason for hatred?

If you killed my brother, I'd have a significant feeling of hatred towards
you. You can call me a coward all you want, but my feeling would be 100%
valid. Now apply that principle to the tens and hundreds of thousands of
families that have had Western gov'ts kill their civilian family members (as
collateral damage). Those Western gov'ts may have reasons they consider good
for having killed those civilians (or causing the deaths, however you want to
think about it), but you cannot expect the surviving families are going to nod
their heads and say "OK, I guess it had to be that way".

 _I think this quote puts it in perspective: “Hatred is self-punishment.
Hatred it the coward's revenge for being intimidated.”_

It doesn't, really.

 _let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater. The truth is always
somewhere in the middle._

... and an apple a day keeps the doctor away? "Hatred does not cease by
hatred, but only by love." The truth is staring you in the face.

