[QUOTE=xilman;239068]At least some leaks have been released, according to the Beeb: [URL]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11858895[/URL]

Is it a genuine DoS or is it just an instance of the SlashDot effect?

The mirrors will pop up soon enough.


Paul[/QUOTE]More links: [URL]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11858990[/URL]

[URL]http://www.guardian.co.uk/[/URL]
[URL]http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/interactive/2010/nov/28/us-embassy-cables-wikileaks[/URL]

[url]http://www.nytimes.com/[/url]


Paul

One thing about secrets as classified by the US Government is that they are still considered to be classified secret even when published somewhere unless they are declassified. Even though persons in the US Government outed Valerie Plame, it technically would still be a violation to talk about it by anyone who had [I]ever [/I]signed the paperwork involved in getting a security clearance -- regardless of how many other people were talking about it. Compartmentalization terms themselves are also classified. It looks like a major headache is on the way.

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;239067]There is nothing wrong with taking a dump or having sex, but I am sure
that you would not want pictures released to the world of your doing
either.[/QUOTE]Yes, I fully agree with you. And that shows why the "nothing wrong --> nothing to hide" argument the gov's use against the public is nonsense.

The cables related to Iran's nuclear program offer some fascinating insights into how the Arab world views that situation, and how the Obama administration has been working on mutliple fronts behind the scenes in that regard:

[url=http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/29/world/middleeast/29iran.html?_r=1&src=me&ref=world]Around the World, Distress Over Iran[/url]
[quote]The cables also contain a fresh American intelligence assessment of Iran’s missile program. They reveal for the first time that the United States believes that Iran has obtained advanced missiles from North Korea that could let it strike at Western European capitals and Moscow and help it develop more formidable long-range ballistic missiles.

In day-by-day detail, the cables, obtained by WikiLeaks and made available to a number of news organizations, tell the disparate diplomatic back stories of two administrations pressed from all sides to confront Tehran. They show how President George W. Bush, hamstrung by the complexities of Iraq and suspicions that he might attack Iran, struggled to put together even modest sanctions.

They also offer new insights into how President Obama, determined to merge his promise of “engagement” with his vow to raise the pressure on the Iranians, assembled a coalition that agreed to impose an array of sanctions considerably harsher than any before attempted.
...
At the same time, the cables reveal how Iran’s ascent has unified Israel and many longtime Arab adversaries — notably the Saudis — in a common cause. Publicly, these Arab states held their tongues, for fear of a domestic uproar and the retributions of a powerful neighbor. Privately, they clamored for strong action — by someone else.

If they seemed obsessed with Iran, though, they also seemed deeply conflicted about how to deal with it — with diplomacy, covert action or force. In one typical cable, a senior Omani military officer is described as unable to decide what is worse: “a strike against Iran’s nuclear capability and the resulting turmoil it would cause in the Gulf, or inaction and having to live with a nuclear-capable Iran.”

Still, running beneath the cables is a belief among many leaders that unless the current government in Tehran falls, Iran will have a bomb sooner or later. And the Obama administration appears doubtful that a military strike would change that. [/quote]
The NYT also explains their decision to publish the redacted diplomatic cables [url=http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/29/world/29editornote.html?src=me&ref=world]here[/url]:
[quote]The Times believes that the documents serve an important public interest, illuminating the goals, successes, compromises and frustrations of American diplomacy in a way that other accounts cannot match.
...
The Times has taken care to exclude, in its articles and in supplementary material, in print and online, information that would endanger confidential informants or compromise national security. The Times’s redactions were shared with other news organizations and communicated to WikiLeaks, in the hope that they would similarly edit the documents they planned to post online.

After its own redactions, The Times sent Obama administration officials the cables it planned to post and invited them to challenge publication of any information that, in the official view, would harm the national interest. After reviewing the cables, the officials — while making clear they condemn the publication of secret material — suggested additional redactions. The Times agreed to some, but not all. The Times is forwarding the administration’s concerns to other news organizations and, at the suggestion of the State Department, to WikiLeaks itself. In all, The Times plans to post on its Web site the text of about 100 cables — some edited, some in full — that illuminate aspects of American foreign policy.

The question of dealing with classified information is rarely easy, and never to be taken lightly. Editors try to balance the value of the material to public understanding against potential dangers to the national interest. As a general rule we withhold secret information that would expose confidential sources to reprisals or that would reveal operational intelligence that might be useful to adversaries in war. We excise material that might lead terrorists to unsecured weapons material, compromise intelligence-gathering programs aimed at hostile countries, or disclose information about the capabilities of American weapons that could be helpful to an enemy.
...
Of course, most of these documents will be made public regardless of what The Times decides ... But the more important reason to publish these articles is that the cables tell the unvarnished story of how the government makes its biggest decisions, the decisions that cost the country most heavily in lives and money. They shed light on the motivations — and, in some cases, duplicity — of allies on the receiving end of American courtship and foreign aid. They illuminate the diplomacy surrounding two current wars and several countries, like Pakistan and Yemen, where American military involvement is growing. As daunting as it is to publish such material over official objections, it would be presumptuous to conclude that Americans have no right to know what is being done in their name. [/quote]

[url=http://www.zerohedge.com/article/interpol-issues-international-arrest-warrant-julian-assange-sex-crimes]Interpol Issues International Arrest Warrant For Julian Assange For "Sex Crimes"[/url]

[Confirmatory article in The Guardian [url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/nov/30/interpol-wanted-notice-julian-assange]here[/url].]

Oh yeah, this sounds very legit ... let me guess, "An unnamed female informant indicated to the authorities that she had sighted Mr. Assange on several occasions being too sexy for his shirt."

I guess the PTBs attempts to sneak kiddie porn onto his laptop computer failed, so they've gone with the heavy-handed "International man of perversity" smear-campaign approach.

The timing on all of this is just a wee bit ... suspicious. Especially interesting in light of Assange's comment to [i]Forbes[/i] magazine yesterday that he has major dirt on on the biggest US banks. Add to that the curious coincidence that the current Interpol secretary general, [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Noble]Ronald Noble[/url], was formerly Undersecretary for Enforcement of the U.S. Treasury. Noble's more recent accomplishments actually fit well with the "kiddie porn on his laptop computer" theme in my above comment:
[quote]Under Secretary General Noble's leadership, Interpol developed the world's first global database of stolen or lost travel documents (i.e., passports) from more than 120 countries and the first global police communications system, called I-24/7 as part of its international screening process for terrorists and dangerous criminals.

He created the world's first international automated DNA database and another automated database aimed at fighting the sexual exploitation of children on the Internet. During his 2000-2007 tenure, nearly 22,000 wanted international criminals were arrested, he directed the opening of a new Interpol office at the United Nations in 2004 and another office at the European Union in Brussels, increased the nationalities of their staff from 52 to 80; created a bioterrorism prevention unit at the General Secretariat in Lyon and planned the formation of the first International Anti-Corruption Academy in Vienna, Austria.[/quote]
...And he suddenly decided to go after "suspected international sex criminal Julian Assange" today. I'm sure that was mere fortuitous coincidence.

Who was it, not long ago, that did something else spectacular (non-sex-related) to upset various authorities, then suddenly faced some sex crime charge?

[QUOTE=cheesehead;239433]Who was it, not long ago, that did something else spectacular (non-sex-related) to upset various authorities, then suddenly faced some sex crime charge?[/QUOTE]Might you actually be thinking about this case? The allegations spring from August. I faintly recall hearing about the allegations while his name was still in the air from the last round of Wikileaks and remember thinking that his remarks about it being a set-up would not be a long stretch considering the tricky stuff that sometimes happens (I don't have a strong opinion on this either way). Looking back in this thread, one can see that August was just after the last batch of Wikileaks

[QUOTE=only_human;239436]Might you actually be thinking about this case? The allegations spring from August. I faintly recall hearing about the allegations while his name was still in the air from the last round of Wikileaks and remember thinking that his remarks about it being a set-up would not be a long stretch considering the tricky stuff that sometimes happens (I don't have a strong opinion on this either way). Looking back in this thread, one can see that August was just after the last batch of Wikileaks[/QUOTE]No, not this case. In the instance I'm recalling, it wasn't just allegations -- it was a sudden serious formal charge. Assange wasn't charged last August.

As e.g. the Guardian piece describes, the latest warrants stem from the same allegations which the Swedish authorities declines to prosecute at the time ... apparently they suddenly felt a resurgence of keen interest in questioning Assange.

Anyway, speaking strictly hypothetically, let's say there were some actual evidence of non-consensual sex in the Swedish case. Any underaged women or household pets involved? No ... so since when does a mere allegation of nonconsensual adult sex get one on Interpol's most-wanted-for-sex-crimes list? Gimme a break ... don't you have any number of international child-traffickers much more deserving of such an honor?

And now I see Tom Flanagan, the former chief of staff to Canadian PM Stephen Harper, has actually called for [url=http://news.lalate.com/2010/12/01/tom-flanagan-calls-for-assassination-of-julian-assange/]Assange's assassination[/url]. (Note to the trigger-happy Professor F.: Since Assange is a private citizen, the more-apt word for it is "murder").

Makes you wonder who the real terrorists and international criminals are here...

[QUOTE=ewmayer;239487]Makes you wonder who the real terrorists and international criminals are here...[/QUOTE]Too much of the rule of law has been set aside lately. The real terrorism is how quickly multi-generationally hard earned rights and freedoms have been eroded. Now jackanapes everywhere are casting off the veneer of civilization and they like the taste of blood in their mouths.

So today was apparently another furious day of whack-a-mole by the "land of the free" powers that be ... Senator Joe Lieberman (perhaps because he owns a lot of stock in the bank whose dirty laundry Wikileaks is preparing to air out?) gets Amazon.com to pull the plug on Wikileaks from their cloud-hosting service. (Readers may want to keep this in mind next time they do any online shopping).

A couple hours later the site [url=http://www.zerohedge.com/article/wikileaks-reopens-sweden]is back up[/url], hosted by servers in Sweden (yes, the irony of that is not lost on me) and France. Bloody socialists - how dare they enjoy more free speech rights than we in the self-anointed greatest @!%!&%$@$ nation on God's green earth do.

As one ZH readers pithily put it (by paraphrasing one of the NRA gun nuts` favorite bumper-sticker logos):

"When free speech is outlawed, only outlaws will have free speech."