How Integral is Wikileaks?

[Christophe]

that's right.

What do you Post Integral guys think of WIkileaks and the current scandal about frontman Julian Assange? Any comments? I'd love to hear some.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Assange

Are they terrorists? or Techno-Saints? Or terrible, terrible sinners? Or what else.

Is it even safe to talk about this issue? omg

duck and cover:

chris

[Hertzschuch]

We had a discussion about wikileaks in an integral group meeting in Switzerland. My point of view was at the time that I didn't know what to do with all this. But I said that I was really happy that this thing is happening.

 

Now, with some distance, I'm full of anger! I went from distance to engagement.

 

The main point for me is the following: in a time where we're all witnessing states asking us to be totally transparent for our own security, when transparency is imposed on them, they shout out "war crime! Kill the guy" 

 

This is serious matter for me, and the outcome is of major importance.

 

Patrick

 

[andrew]

if i had to vote between assange and zuckerberg my vote would be for assange although you would figure the guy should have enough intelligence to know that if your going to pick these types of fights there are going to be some hefty counter-punches...

[e]

I am all for greater government transparency and whistle blowing. But if he and his leakers jeopardized the lives of military personnel, operatives and their informants, then that is highly irresponsible. That is the people he wants to "crush" won't be crushed but some folks on the "front lines" may be.

[andrew]

this issue does seem to come down to military and how it's used in the world. so, hopefully without taking this thread off topic how would an integral military work and what would it do differently compared to what is happening now? i'll start with some ideas: 1- somehow 'democratizing' the military so that service people would not have to fight wars that go against their conscience. which brings me to 2: how to stop the abuse of power in the executive branch of the military-i.e.- making sure war decisions are not made on outright fabrications and lies. 3- not using the military as meme police as it's beyond a doubt that we can't enforce green/integral values by might and force. 

Iow's , military used as legitimate self defense and honest police/peacekeeping of conflicts where developing memes are still prone to violence......

 

2 more points: i doubt that this can be done  as long as the military remains in the orange for profit state....to me, a higher calling would hold that those who call for war be forced by law to fight in combat in said wars:)

and as an aside: repel the law that gives president obama the right to assassinate who ever he wants.........

[Edward theurj Berge]

Here's an interesting perspective at this link. And please spare me the kennilingus stereotyping of this author because of his appropriate and righteous anger. On the specious pretense, and ironically moral relativism, of claiming the loss of innocent lives, for example:

"One of the most ludicrous propaganda devices the government uses in its attempt to discredit WikiLeaks is the assertion that the leaks 'endanger innocent lives' – brought to us by none other than the very people who do not think twice about rubbing out the lives of thousands, even hundreds of thousands, of innocent civilians in the name of said 'national security'."

 

And this: "There is no evidence --zero -- that WikiLeaks disclosures have harmed a single person."

But it is no surprise that kennilinguists buys into conservative spin to fits their own hegemonic agenda. This has been demonstrated time and again and is always brushed off by the same conservative rationalization: Evidence is coming from the liberal (or green or socialist) agenda and can therefore be ignored.

If you buy that nonsense I have this property in Shangri La I'd like to sell you. Yes, Shangri La is "real" on the physical plane if you take the right injunction with the right view, and it can be bought for the right price. Welcome to integral capitalistic enlightenment (aka religion) in league with the State, the usual bedfellows.

[Edward theurj Berge]

Come to think of it, perhaps the right question is "how integral is trademarked integral?" But that's another thread for another day.

[e]

Edward, I am not arguing for or against any government. I am talking about the lives of real people. If what is leaked contains the names of informants or contains info on current military operations etc. then that puts peoples lives in danger. Please notice the IF in that statement. So yes, many things should be on the net from budget spending, voting, campaign contributions, etc. etc. But to feel that everything should be on the net... as if that "transparency" (what if the leaks contain made up BS from Right wing conservatives within the military LOL) will magically make the world a better place is rather naive and idealistic.

PS And speaking from personal experience, acting out of anger has never been right. Your results may differ.

[Edward theurj Berge]

If I had condoned the irresponsible release of information that could lead to endangering lives you would have a point, but I did not and you do not. According to the linked McClatchy Report above WikiLeaks did in fact release unredacted info containing informant names in their first reports about Afghanistan. While I support the overall release I do not support that. Since then Wikileaks has begun to censure that type of information from its releases.

The issue though is those making this charge, the very people that hypocritically do it daily for their own political gain and who could give a damn about endangering lives. These are the same people that leaked Valerie Plame's identity because she and her husband dared to speak truth to the lie created to invade Iraq. Exposing her most certainly led to the death of many of her informants (see the movie Fair Game), while to date there is no evidence that Wikileaks info has done so (according to our own governmental sources). So I ask why do we so easily believe known liars when making this charge against those who expose them, which liars we know are responsible for literally hundreds of thousands of lost lives and the charge is a smokescreen? What is about one's ideology that will allow him/her to buy this obvious obfuscation?

As far as acting out of anger never being right, now who is being naive and idealistic here? This type of statement is why I posted Epstein's comment in the "states" thread, as it is akin to the mistaken notion that Buddhism is about the elimination of desire. Desire and anger can be quite liberating, depending.

[Christophe]

Here's an update on WIkileaks and Assange: Apparently there is a new court hearing this week, in which Assange risks to be delivered to the US, where the Electric Chair, the Forced Psychiatric Treatment and/or Guantanamo await.

 

Nonetheless, this infamous and mysterious website does not stop leaking secret documents, spilling on and on like that god-damned Oil Spill in the Gulf of Mexico. GoDdamnit! Those bloody Englishmen!

 

Here's a first glimpse at the secrets that will be uncovered this time:

Al Jazeera: Wikileak's next move

 

xo

[Christophe]

I heard that Rudolf Elmer, the Swiss Banker who handed the data over to Assange, was arrested by the Police and now awaits his conviction. Whistleblowing is a dangerous thing to do, it seems.

 

On a more humurous note, The popular Website Boingboing posted the results of an online contest to decide the next haircut of Wikileaks Spokesperson Julian Assange. Hilarious! ahaha.

 

cheers,

 

 

[Edward theurj Berge]

AP review finds no threatened Wikileaks sources.