- Joined
- Apr 13, 2011
- Messages
- 34,951
- Reaction score
- 16,311
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Socialist
On Monday, WikiLeaks co-founder Julian Assange released a series of 1.7 million files showcasing the communications of the US Department of State between 1973 and 1976. According to Assange, the documents will give journalists insight into the US' political goal at that time and highlights Henry Kissinger's communications with foreign governments. So what does this new leak mean and why are they so important? WikiLeaks spokesperson Kristinn Hrafnsson explains why they went public on WikiLeaks.
This is a travesty. Assange has no business doing any such thing.A great release of cables for history, for the press, and freedom of information! This is why we need wikileaks and a open government. They are declassified however you need experts to help you find them Wikileaks made them easier to find and released them to the general public.
I'm confused, these are declassified documents but you are claiming a victory for open information?
Yes, they are declassified documents, but Wikileaks has arranged them all very nicely so that anybody can read them. A modern version of Cliff Notes, if you remember them, designed to show how petty and manipulative, and how criminal at times, the federal government is.
This is real journalism at work, like it or not, and real journalism is a very rare thing is one habitually reads or watches the mainstream media.
He has no business organizing already declassified documents?This is a travesty. Assange has no business doing any such thing.
Sounds like a marketing problem. If the information isn't leaked, then it doesn't seem to be Wikileaks m.o.
Seems like an executive summary following by links to supporting relevant documents would be of greater help. I remember "Cliff Notes[sic]" well enough to remember that they were called Cliffs Notes.
1.) According to what you quoted.He has no business organizing already declassified documents?
So what does this new leak mean ...
1.) According to what you quoted.
A leak would indicate it was not legal.
On that premiss, what I said was correct.
2.) Assange says in the video this includes the previous leaked cables from "cablegate".
On that premiss, what I said was correct.
Whether you would like to read about it or not, is not the issue.It's nice to have one site to go to for the information I would like to read about.
Whether you would like to read about it or not, is not the issue.
It is whether what he has made available was leaked information or not.
The information that was officially released is fine. The information that was not released, is not fine.
And they could have, and should have, left out any information that was not officially released.Well, the information provided by wikileaks was posted by them in an orderly one stop shop place before anyone else so I guess technically they did "leak the story" first.
And they could have, and should have, left out any information that was not officially released.
Whether you would like to read about it or not, is not the issue.
It is whether what he has made available was leaked information or not.
The information that was officially released is fine. The information that was not released, is not fine.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?