Please just stop. Have we really become so blindly partisan as a nation that we complain about uneven distribution of evidence of corruption rather than the corruption itself? Ponder that for a moment, please.

While I am certain there are some troubling revelations in there, I fail to see how Neera Tanden shit-talking about Lawrence Lessig is in any way relevant to the public interest. It's simply an unethical violation of privacy. Had he filtered it to just the important stuff and released it right away, journalists and the public could be having real conversations about said material right now instead.

Of course, being fair, they didn't do that great a job with the release of cables in the past either. Being fair, my political bias probably swayed me into overlooking that back then more than I should have.

Transparency should be where it matters. People should have a right to privacy for personal comments such as this.

I think Julian being trapped in a room for the past several years has not been kind to his health. It's been a shame to see him reduced to a shill for one political party.

I'll go ahead and defend wikileaks on this count (despite my statements about Julian in the parent comment).

The entire point of wikileaks is that they publish information as is under the belief that the public is smart enough to reach their own conclusions without editorializing. This means publishing everything they got with its full mundane nature on display (if for no other reason than as proof that they are not hiding things).

The policy of wikileaks is that they will black out only information which could put people's lives at risk. Merely being embarrassing is not sufficient criteria to get blacked out. Agree or disagree with their philosophy, at least they have been consistent about it. Releasing the Tanden-Lessig e-mail is totally in line with what I'd expect from them.

I understand that, I just don't agree with it.

How many of us would want to have everything we've ever said or done in private aired out in public, under the guise that "the public is smart enough to not editorialize anything"?

I'm quite certain that would have disastrous consequences on my life, as well as just about anyone else's. How about yours?

That said, when it comes to something affecting the public interest (eg government corruption), then yes, I am all for airing such matters. Transparent government is good. Transparent "what kind of porn does Joe Public watch at home?" is not.

The standard for world leaders should be different than for ordinary folks

>I'm quite certain that would have disastrous consequences on my life, as well as just about anyone else's. How about yours?

What did you do that you are so concerned about? I have done plenty of things embarrassing, as has everyone; however I'm not so sure I have done anything that would be life-ruining if it made it to the public. I don't understand why you would feel so differently unless you were engaging in things that people would strongly disapprove of - in which case you probably shouldn't be doing them don't you think? Well, even if you are I think you have a right to your privacy. A generation ago homosexuality could be life ruining, and I think what you choose to do with your personal life is up to you, not your government or other people's personal belief system. That is why unless you decide to become a world leader you should be entitled to your own privacy. As a world leader, though, your personal character has consequences for everyone else.

If you disagree, what do you disagree with here?

I agree in principal but in practice how do you decide what to include and what not to include. I respect that wikileaks has a rigorous criteria despite having the flaws you point out. If you can think of a well defined way to incorporate the common sense concept of respecting Joe Public's personal space I'd be all for it.

Journalists do this all the time.

This pattern seems to come up a lot; I just had the same discussion around the Citizens United ruling here.

There is always going to be an uncomfortable point where you draw a line that isn't quite fair, where up to that line is fine and doesn't really do much harm, but crossing that line would be a detriment to the public interest, and so the liberties of the one end up curtailed in the best interest of the whole.

Legally defining that line will always be a challenge. And there will always be people that question exactly where the line is drawn and want it moved further. And in some cases, some people won't want any line whatsoever.

Let's take free speech. I support this 100%. Even if it means defending the KKK's hate rallies, the WBC's protesting of military funerals, etc. I even take it further and don't support obscenity laws. It's not free speech if you can't say something just because someone else thinks it's 'obscene'. I go as far as supporting eg Handley in US v Handley on the importation of loli material. Yet even I will draw the line at real pictures of victims (I believe your freedoms end at the point they harm someone else's freedoms), so some might even say I'm not a true supporter of free speech.

Let's take capital punishment. If you are for executing terrorists or serial killers, then why be against murder in general? I mean, where do you draw the line? What about self-defense in the case of home invasion? That's okay too? What about self-defense against a brutal assault (that wouldn't kill you)? Is that okay? What about to stop someone from stealing your car? You can keep whittling this back and eventually say, "well we shouldn't make any laws against murder, because it's too hard to draw the line!", which is silly.

If you're against the death penalty, then how about drugs? Why do we allow alcohol when it causes more harm than weed? Okay, let's legalize weed (which I support.) Now what about LSD and mushrooms? Let's legalize those too (I also support that.) How about crack cocaine, heroin, crystal meth and krokodil? (I don't support that.) But wait! How do we draw a line here? We should just legalize everything, right? Well ... no. When a heroin addict can't get their fix, they'll start breaking into cars and houses to get money for their habit. They'll end up in the ERs and racking up bills that you and I end up paying in the form of increased insurance fees to pay for them. Whereas someone eating mushrooms is just going to feel great for six hours, throw up, then feel bad for two hours, then go back to their everyday lives.

There are cases where no matter what we decide, there will be consequences. You can be pro-choice, and that's to the detriment of all the children that won't ever be born as a result. You can be pro-life, and that's to the detriment of women who are forced to act as breeders against their will and be saddled with huge amounts of child rearing pain, a child, possible medical complications, huge amounts of debt, and very little to no real support for it.

Real progress in society requires us to say, "damn, yes, this is a really hard problem! How do we improve things?", not throw our hands up in defeat and effectively embrace full-on anarchy.

If the general public was smart enough to draw their own conclusions about, well, anything, Trump wouldn't be a viable candidate

It's hard to draw the line though: "needy Latinos", that environmentalists should "get a life", the sneering comments about Catholics, the constant chummy relations with the media and a reporter leaking info "because I have become a hack"? The insults towards various specific activists and groups, a D-list "journalist" like Budowsky openly saying he'd trojan horse the Bernie supporters?

Could this have been done better? Perhaps. We don't know the details of when Assange got this information, what opportunities he might have had to filter it through MSM outlets with the resources to handle it and release it before voting (which has already begun).

The fact is, quite a lot in there is in the public interest to know, and especially for someone like Tanden I have little sympathy for her shit-talking being made public, after she's attacked others for less.

That's not what I'm doing at all. I wouldn't mind if Assanage had simply gotten a leak and released it in a timely manner like he usually does. My opinion changed when he blatantly started timing his leaks to meddle in the election (AKA October surprise). He's not even meddling in favor of someone who is pro-civil liberties. His "October surprise" stunt isn't advancing the mission statement of wikileaks in any way. If his stunt does change the course of the election it will do absolutely nothing to help accountability or journalistic freedom. If anything a Trump presidency may actively hurt these freedoms. So let me beg the question. WTF is Assanage trying to accomplish here?

Awfully weird how many green usernames keep showing up in these threads to make this kind of point.

Did Palmer Luckey go on another spending spree?

> Please just stop.

That reminded me of John Stewart on Crossfire.. you're as correct now as he was then.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0410/15/cf.01.html

    STEWART: No, no, no, please.
    CARLSON: No, no, hold on. We've got commercials.
    (CROSSTALK)
    STEWART: Please. Please stop.
    CARLSON: Next, Jon Stewart in the "Rapid Fire."
    STEWART: Please stop.

Wow, that was really hard on the Crossfire guys! They couldn't engage with him at all due to, I suspect, either a lack of self-reflection or because doing so would be admitting that they are harmful to public discourse.

Thanks for the link!

But Trump bad! Clinton good. Get us some leaks too.

It appears the popular perception of the two candidates is that one of them is a "tin pot" dictator who will silence all his critics and act outside the law

Sources: NYTimes: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/11/us/politics/donald-trump-h...

Comment above mine: >Donald-lets-silence-my-critics-Trump

What is even more disturbing is that a presidential candidate has asked, in what appears to be an off-the-cuff suggestion, about murdering one of her critics through the use of drone strikes:

Source: https://www.rt.com/usa/361459-secretary-clinton-drone-assang...

That candidate is Hillary Clinton.

I find it even more disturbing western media has nearly successfully buried this story.

I don't support Trump, but Clinton should not be immune to the laws of this country, or of criticism, as Glenn Greenwald and other respectable journalists are saying.

That is because the Western media is in the habit of actually trying to verify sources and not making things up.

The only "citation" offered by True Pundit, the original source of this claim (and a website I have never heard of) is "according to State Department sources" (http://truepundit.com/under-intense-pressure-to-silence-wiki...).

You read that on Snopes - that's what Snopes wrote on their site.

CNN just broadcasted this on national television, in what appears more appropriate of taking place in a movie version of Orwell's 1984 than in reality: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/201...

The major media outlets generally have not been figures worthy of ethical praise this election cycle. Meanwhile respectable journalists fighting for civil rights are being arrested and charged with felony crimes for reporting, so I don't buy into that argument in which corporate media, which a small number of corporations own over 95% of what people see and hear, is over- and under-reporting stories entirely out of ethical and professional consideration: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/oct/17/amy-goodman-...

You and I both are incredibly lucky to live in a country where those charges against Amy Goodman have been thrown out, but would that have happened to a journalist who was not famous? Or what if there was no video evidence, and it was the police and the DA against a citizen?

This story on Hillary is unproven, but so are the allegations against Trump as a sexual assault perpetrator and look at how much media attention that has garnered. I hate Trump but that disparity in and of itself bothers me and in fact lends even more credence to the claim of growing corruption in government. Just also keep in mind, that if this particular claim against Hillary is forged, which is still entirely possible, remember that yet no one has been able to point to any inconsistencies or untruths which would prove that is true.

And your comment of "making things up" is a bit inflammatory.

Unfortunately, we don't live in a world where we can say, "you got live in a world with that government, I'll go live in this one," we all have to live with each other's choices.

Allow me to save anyone reading this thread some time: the assertion about Clinton wanting to drone strike Assange remains unsubstantiated, as the parent comment acknowledges.

I didn't assert anything about any of the other random stuff you're mentioning.

Instead of being incredibly rude and insulting, next time if you don't follow somebody's argument, try to read it again and try to make sense of it. It does make sense in this case.

I did write that out quickly though, and it is a bit disjointed and quickly-written. Still, I think you should be able to follow along and grasp the points. I think you're being disingenuous that you can't, maybe because you don't want to continue a civil discussion for whatever reason you have.

If you don't address my point, and instead go on long non sequitur tangents, there is no discussion to be had.

Well I did respond to what you said, and that is apparent. Thanks for continuing to insult my intelligence though, good on ya mate.

Nowhere did I insult your intelligence. I insulted your argument.

No, you didn't even take the time to criticize my argument, you dismissed it entirely. If you had actually read it you would understand what I was trying to say.

> Donald-lets-silence-my-critics-Trump

As opposed to Hillary-lets-coopt-the-media-and-bribe-my-potential-critics-Clinton? I hate Donald Trump, but dismissing evidence because of the source is clearly misguided.

How you are downvoted for stating that is a sign of partisanship or ignorance on this message board.

I didn't expect it either. First I got a couple upvotes, then downvoted heavily, and now back up again :)

I didn't say anything about dismissing evidence. I simply said I've lost respect for Julian Assanage. The entire point of wikileaks is to inform the public without any filter because we are smart enough to judge things for ourselves. But now clearly Assanage is acting as a filter with the explicit goal of stopping a Clinton presidency. His support of Trump doesn't even promote the goals of his organization vis-a-vis journalistic freedoms. At some point one has to question why is Julian doing these things?

If Julian has lost track of the original goals of his organization then why should I care about his de facto incarceration? Why would I or anybody else donate to wikileaks? Why should the Ecuadorians keep him?

Do you have any evidence at all for this claim: "Assanage is acting as a filter with the explicit goal of stopping a Clinton presidency"

"trying to get Donald-lets-silence-my-critics-Trump into office" is a massive assumption and one without much evidence. But yeah anything embarrassing to one's own team tends to get that kind of response.

Why wouldn't you suppress evidence of corruption in the next US president, one who evidently hates him. "Why can't we just drone him? hahaha" Or whatever that quote is. He should subvert is principles to support her? Really?

Trump is likely (imho) more dangerous than Hilary, that doesn't make Hilary good. Exposing her corruption is a good thing. Making her sweat as much as possible about her corruption is a good thing, as it is for any corrupt and powerful person.

And yeah, "publish whatever he gets whenever he gets leaked it immediately" Without vetting it to see if it will get anyone killed. Interesting idea and one that Assange, while having rejected it, may well be more sympathetic to than I am. You're something of a radical there.

He gets the leaks and he publishes. Nobody seems to have faulted him on doing that which is exactly what he says he does and always has. His opinions about other stuff don't really affect what he does, which is publish. But I do have sympathy especially for him hating Hilary - if indeed he does. I can imagine not caring for someone who (were they joking?) wants to kill me. I wonder if your support of Trump's opposition would make that different for you in his shoes? Maybe it would.

Do you know about something that Wikileaks did not publish even if they got it? They cannot leak what they do not get.

It is clear that their sources use Wikileaks to influence politics. Wikileaks could perhaps withold the information until after the elections - but then they would be accused by the other side.

Assange said himself that they have material on Trump, but he wouldn't release it, because it is supposedly no worse than the stuff Trump openly says.

Fine, I can understand that. Sounds like a lot of noise, no signal.

But it's not "releasing everything". It's "deciding what is newsworthy" and "trust me".

So it's laughable that in all other regards (mails of regular Turkish citizens, DNC stuff) he and his supporters claim that Wikileaks simply releases everything without any internal motivation or thematic selection.

Are you sure it's not just the fact that you didn't like the groups he was dumping information on in the past, but now you do like the group he is dumping information on?

> But recently its clear his actions aren't some noble crusade to speak truth to power and promote freedom of speech and otherwise promote civil liberties.

How could WikiLeaks be interpreted as anything other than promoting civil liberties? Its sole purpose is to expose the corrupt behind-the-curtain dealings of leaders and political elite---to give power to the people and remove it from the corrupt.

> Why can't other people be rational like me.

You really need to get out of your own head.

> How could WikiLeaks be interpreted as anything other than promoting civil liberties? Its sole purpose ...

Perhaps taken at face value that's true, but I judge them by their actions:

* They consistently advocate for one political point of view, an anti-US government one. Where are leaks about Putin? Bernie Sanders? Jill Stein? For comparison, the NY Times is hard on both candidates: For example, they both broke the Clinton email server story and Trump's tax return.

* They are cooperating in what appears to be a Russian intelligence disinformation campaign to disrupt U.S. democracy. Assange seems too smart to be an unwitting participant.

* There are reports it's due to a vendetta Assange has against Clinton.

Based on the above and other actions, I question whether their mission really is to promote civil liberties.

Wikileaks can only publish what they are given. If nobody gives them leaks on Putin, Sanders etc. they can't publish any.

A good point, but how do we know it's true? Does Wikileaks solicit material? Are they selective about what they publish?

I see what they claim to do, but it's too important to take at face value.

What possible corruption is revealed by the quoted email?

Context for the remainder so you can know they aren't cherry-picked and your reading of whatever you get out of any of them is through your own bias alone and not Assange's, the NYT editorial team's or whoever else. You only need to trust that Assange will publish you don't have to care what he thinks about anything else.

This would be more convincing if Assange wasn't always talking up the next batch, the contingency files, etc. Not only is he withholding publication, but he's bragging about it, which really does make it hard to believe he's just passing everything along.

ok so your problem is as a publisher he shouldn't promote his publication. And he by doing so he's withholding publication of something unspecified that we can't know about.

I'll disagree with that and get on with life.