Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 8th Jan 2011 22:23 UTC
Legal When it comes to the Wikileaks saga, we've been trying to only report on it if it crosses into the realm of technology. It was revealed yesterday and today that the US Justice Department has sent subpoenas to Twitter, demanding the personal information of several Wikileaks supporters who use Twitter. One of them is a member of the Icelandic parliament.
Order by: Score:
v politics again
by smitty on Sat 8th Jan 2011 23:28 UTC
RE: politics again
by brynet on Sat 8th Jan 2011 23:36 UTC in reply to "politics again"
brynet Member since:
2010-03-02

If your political views are "US rulez", then create a blog and don't give anybody the link.

Reply Score: 9

RE[2]: politics again
by smitty on Sat 8th Jan 2011 23:52 UTC in reply to "RE: politics again"
smitty Member since:
2005-10-13

If your political views are "US rulez", then create a blog and don't give anybody the link.

It's not. Neither is it "everything the US does is evil".

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: politics again
by Thom_Holwerda on Sat 8th Jan 2011 23:56 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: politics again"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Neither is it "everything the US does is evil".


And this article somehow was?

Reply Score: 6

RE[4]: politics again
by smitty on Sun 9th Jan 2011 00:09 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: politics again"
smitty Member since:
2005-10-13

"Neither is it "everything the US does is evil".


And this article somehow was?
"
Nope, like i said much better than the last one. That was a reply to the other commenter.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: politics again
by lemur2 on Sun 9th Jan 2011 07:06 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: politics again"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

"If your political views are "US rulez", then create a blog and don't give anybody the link.

It's not. Neither is it "everything the US does is evil".
"

Actually, as far as persecution of everything even remotely related to Wikileaks goes, where the US has absolutely no jurisdiction, and in the US sponsoring of obvious smear campaigns, it seems to outside observers more to be a case of: "everything the US does makes the US look more and more evil".

Edited 2011-01-09 07:06 UTC

Reply Score: 10

RE[4]: politics again
by umccullough on Sun 9th Jan 2011 07:49 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: politics again"
umccullough Member since:
2006-01-26

it seems to outside observers more to be a case of: "everything the US does makes the US look more and more evil".


Well, at least the U.S. Federal Government...

As a resident of the U.S. - it looks more and more evil to me just the same... so it isn't restricted to outside observers :/

Reply Score: 12

RE: politics again
by UltraZelda64 on Sun 9th Jan 2011 06:58 UTC in reply to "politics again"
UltraZelda64 Member since:
2006-12-05

Thom, if you are going to continue publishing your personal views on political matters here, will you allow someone to publish a rebuttal? This article was at least much better than the last one.

Didn't even Thom himself say over and over in the past that if you don't like an article, write one yourself criticizing/rebutting it and send it in, and they would be happy to post it? I'm pretty sure he has. So why not just do it?

Reply Score: 4

RE: politics again
by Kroc on Sun 9th Jan 2011 11:36 UTC in reply to "politics again"
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

will you allow someone to publish a rebuttal?


Yes, absolutely. On the only condition that it’s coherent and cogent. If people want to plain rant, there’s personal blogs for that.

Reply Score: 1

RE: politics again
by Laurence on Mon 10th Jan 2011 15:32 UTC in reply to "politics again"
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

Thom, if you are going to continue publishing your personal views on political matters here, will you allow someone to publish a rebuttal? This article was at least much better than the last one.

He does and there have been rebuttals on here in the past.

So can I suggest that if you're going to moan about the lack of rebuttals, then you write and submit one yourself.

Reply Score: 2

RE: politics again
by dylansmrjones on Tue 11th Jan 2011 06:25 UTC in reply to "politics again"
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

When our self-anointed leaders
fuck up the days of our lives
it's time to rise up
and do what's our job
from which our freedom derives


Thumbs up to Thom for doing his part...

Reply Score: 2

Comment by jaxx
by jaxx on Sun 9th Jan 2011 00:09 UTC
jaxx
Member since:
2006-10-18

Instead of initiating a sort of introspection, the US is simply throwing themselves extra flamebait... Worse, they're gonna throw more money into trying to get all this to silence than the disclosed cost of the war itself.

Thom is right, I expected more from Obama, starting from Guantanamo btw... He certainly isn't worse than a republican counterpart, but he gave too much positive things to expect on.

Reply Score: 7

RE: Comment by jaxx
by smitty on Sun 9th Jan 2011 00:19 UTC in reply to "Comment by jaxx"
smitty Member since:
2005-10-13

Worse, they're gonna throw more money into trying to get all this to silence than the disclosed cost of the war itself.

Believe me, there's no way anyone can waste more money than that.
Thom is right, I expected more from Obama, starting from Guantanamo btw... He certainly isn't worse than a republican counterpart, but he gave too much positive things to expect on.

Obama did a great job of being everything to everyone before his election. I don't think anyone who seriously looked into his views should be surprised by what's happened under him the last couple of years, but a lot of people just seem shocked that he isn't doing things like they thought. Both liberals and conservatives think he's gone too far in the other direction, after they were sure he was one of them. I think he clearly benefited a lot from the whole "not being George Bush" factor. People focused more on that than what Obama actually believed. Plus the whole symbolism thing of being the 1st black president.

Edited 2011-01-09 00:21 UTC

Reply Score: 6

They can get my name
by aliquis on Sun 9th Jan 2011 00:27 UTC
aliquis
Member since:
2005-07-23

It's Johan Krüger-Haglert.

There, done =p

And if there was a server setup I could run which let them post anonymously into a encrypted P2P network which spread the files from whatever location a la FreeNet I would most likely run the software.

Similar if they gave away equipment similar to that free open VPN thingys back in the past.

Guess the later could possibly have consequences. But if it's used at large and for everything I don't really see how or why. I would just be hosting content I personally wouldn't be aware of myself and for free for anyone else to use.

Reply Score: 2

Interesting stuff.
by runjorel on Sun 9th Jan 2011 00:32 UTC
runjorel
Member since:
2009-02-09

Wow, a 'former' supporter is a member of Iceland's Parliment!

and then

The [subpoena] request covers addresses, screen names, telephone numbers and credit card and bank account numbers, but does not ask for the content of private messages sent using Twitter.


So correct me if I am wrong but I dont believe Twitter stores addresses, credit cards, and bank account numbers. I don't use twitter on my phone but does Twitter store phone numbers? I'm just trying to figure out if the US does not want the Twitter messages, then why the big headline with Twitter.

I understand the subpoena is not just for Twitter, but still, aside from possibly phone numbers, why Twitter?

Reply Score: 3

RE: Interesting stuff.
by Bobthearch on Sun 9th Jan 2011 05:29 UTC in reply to "Interesting stuff."
Bobthearch Member since:
2006-01-27

Could be the prosecutors already have the messages, they just need to prove the identity of the person who sent them.

Just speculating, of course.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Interesting stuff. - twitter metadata
by jabbotts on Mon 10th Jan 2011 16:58 UTC in reply to "Interesting stuff."
jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

I'm not sure what all is included but each twitter message has something like 30 attributes not seen in the basic "time, poster, message" display.

The library of congress is archiving twitter streams, among others.

(all sorts of fun to be learned from the "privacy is dead, get over it" HOPE talk)

Reply Score: 2

some minor points
by smitty on Sun 9th Jan 2011 00:46 UTC
smitty
Member since:
2005-10-13

Minor points I'd like to make:

Ok, so although the story makes it seem like the US is going after Assange/Wikileaks, that doesn't seem to me like what is going on at all. As briefly mentioned, this seems to be about the leaking of the Collater Murder video. It appears to be a targeted investigation looking into proving that Pvt. Manning was the one who leaked it, and beyond that really doesn't have much of anything to do with Wikileaks. While some of the people involved are non-US citizens, Manning is and he is the one who's on trial. He's also the leaker, not a journalist, and further more is a member of the military, a group that has always been held to a different standard than civilians.

Here's the main bit Thom wrote that i disagree with.

depicting the murder of several civilians and journalists by US soldiers. This means that the US DoJ is putting more effort into finding those that uncovered the potential war crime than into prosecuting the soldiers that did the killing (or their superiors). This way, in my opinion, the US seems to find the uncovering of potential war crimes more of a problem than war crimes themselves.

It would be different if the video actually showed a murder or war crime, but i watched that video with an open mind and saw nothing of the sort. To be clear, I don't actually have a problem with Wikileaks posting that video. I merely disagreed with their interpretation (but that's fine, people can think whatever they want after viewing the video for themselves).

Reply Score: 3

RE: some minor points
by bannor99 on Sun 9th Jan 2011 03:46 UTC in reply to "some minor points"
bannor99 Member since:
2005-09-15

Were we watching the same video? I'd seen it when it was first reported as leaked some time ago but I decided to watch it again.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rXPrfnU3G0&has_verified=1

Those soldiers woke up with a wish to kill and were looking for any excuse to spend some rounds. And any soldier who can't distinguish a camera from an AK-47 or a bazooka or RPG at that range should be put on desk duty or cashiered.
Any why open fire on a van picking up a wounded man? None of them were armed.
Also,they chose to fire on a group of about a dozen of which only 2 were purportedly armed - is that how the insurgents run around? And America still can't win that war? Unbelievable.

Reply Score: 12

RE: some minor points
by somebody on Sun 9th Jan 2011 05:39 UTC in reply to "some minor points"
somebody Member since:
2005-07-07

lol, soldier on radio laughing and saying something in the sense "hahaha, look at them falling down" (don't remember exactly) seems sane and righteous to you? he surely has mental issues and i wouldn't give him permit to walk alone, let alone carry a gun.

insane people like that should be persecuted and removed from society, but as Thom said... only actions were taken to "who the fck leaked this out?"

Edited 2011-01-09 05:41 UTC

Reply Score: 7

RE[2]: some minor points
by smitty on Sun 9th Jan 2011 23:12 UTC in reply to "RE: some minor points"
smitty Member since:
2005-10-13

lol, soldier on radio laughing and saying something in the sense "hahaha, look at them falling down" (don't remember exactly) seems sane and righteous to you? he surely has mental issues and i wouldn't give him permit to walk alone, let alone carry a gun.


Everything i saw on that video made me think the soldiers legitimately thought they were shooting the enemy. Now, if they were taking potshots at random people that would be a war crime. But shooting people you think are the enemy and then it turns out you made a mistake? That's a tragedy, not a war crime or murder.

I felt the video was a poignant reminder of the reality of war. I'm quite certain that kind of stuff happens all the time, and it's the reason you should only go to war when absolutely necessary (and i was against the iraq war). It's not a crime, though, unless war itself is a crime.

"Sane and rightous" - no.
Reality of war - yes.

Edited 2011-01-09 23:15 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE: some minor points
by anda_skoa on Sun 9th Jan 2011 18:24 UTC in reply to "some minor points"
anda_skoa Member since:
2005-07-07

It would be different if the video actually showed a murder or war crime, but i watched that video with an open mind and saw nothing of the sort.


Good thing we don't have videos of the bombing of Hieroshima or Nagasaki.
Would love to see how anyone would interpret the use of weapons of mass destruction against a purely civilian target as anything than terrorism of the worst sort.

But then we would not only have to put the USA onto the axis of evil but at its very center. Can't have that, can we?

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: some minor points
by smitty on Sun 9th Jan 2011 23:07 UTC in reply to "RE: some minor points"
smitty Member since:
2005-10-13

Good thing we don't have videos of the bombing of Hieroshima or Nagasaki.
Would love to see how anyone would interpret the use of weapons of mass destruction against a purely civilian target as anything than terrorism of the worst sort.

But then we would not only have to put the USA onto the axis of evil but at its very center. Can't have that, can we?


Firebombing civilian areas was done by all sides during that war, which operated by very different rules than anyone would do today. That's why you've never seen nukes used since then, people wouldn't stand for it today. And yes, i would definitely call it terrorism. That kind of tactic was widely accepted back then.

Reply Score: 2

RE: some minor points
by dylansmrjones on Sun 9th Jan 2011 22:10 UTC in reply to "some minor points"
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

I hear you.

Reply Score: 2

I'm glad not to be in Twitter âº
by pmarin on Sun 9th Jan 2011 00:47 UTC
pmarin
Member since:
2006-12-30

This happens when you not use open internet protocols. There isn't any choice to mount your own encripted server.

Reply Score: 2

Comment by pmarin
by pmarin on Sun 9th Jan 2011 00:52 UTC
pmarin
Member since:
2006-12-30



Edited 2011-01-09 00:59 UTC

Reply Score: 1

No Comment
by Kroc on Sun 9th Jan 2011 10:25 UTC
Kroc
Member since:
2005-11-10

I just want to say that this is one of the best written articles I've seen from you Thom and I enjoyed reading it.

Reply Score: 7

RE: No Comment
by raid996 on Sun 9th Jan 2011 11:40 UTC in reply to "No Comment"
raid996 Member since:
2010-03-02

+1

Reply Score: 1

RE: No Comment
by vodoomoth on Wed 12th Jan 2011 09:14 UTC in reply to "No Comment"
vodoomoth Member since:
2010-03-30

True. There's also been a really outstanding article by Thom in the past months but I can't remember what it was about.

Reply Score: 2

Comment by iphitus
by iphitus on Sun 9th Jan 2011 14:38 UTC
iphitus
Member since:
2006-03-27

I don't think you'll see any diplomatic quarrel from the Australian Government. They haven't shown any interest in supporting Assange at any stage. I wouldn't be surprised if the US government is leaning on them - those are some diplomatic cables I'd like to see.

Edited 2011-01-09 14:38 UTC

Reply Score: 3

A little trivia
by MyNameIsNot4Letter on Sun 9th Jan 2011 15:56 UTC
MyNameIsNot4Letter
Member since:
2011-01-09

[...] is the oldest still functioning parliament in the world

I have an older one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%C3%B8gting

"Respecting the fact, that the Faroes were explored earlier than Iceland and had the same Norse rules, there is not much doubt, that the Faroese ting is older than that of Iceland, which was founded in 930."

/Uni

P.s. Why does OSNews "lock out" people with names shorter then 4 letters? I know several people with names of 2 and 3 letter names :/

Reply Score: 1

Just more radical political dribble.
by jefro on Sun 9th Jan 2011 20:10 UTC
jefro
Member since:
2007-04-13

These articles have nothing at all to do with any Operating System. I agree that is a continuation of a political rant and unsuited to waste the pages of OSnews.

If one were to believe that a small amount of editorial posts then why not see other well deserved posts. Anything from orphans to widows to helping the down trodden would be much better use.

I have been a reader of OSnews for a very long time when it helped me with BeOS. One more article about radical political views would be my last visit.

Reply Score: 0

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

One more article about radical political views would be my last visit.


Let me spare you the wait, then: there WILL be another article on this eventually. You're free to read another website - we can't please everyone ;) .

Reply Score: 2

apoclypse Member since:
2007-02-17

Well for a tech blog its a little much. However in this case I'm right there with you. The US has gone too far. However who knows how many times this has happened before and there weren't any sites like wikileaks to divulge this information. We NEED wikileaks, fuck that, we need good journalism instead of ass kissing pundits, pure and simple. We need a journalistic group that will call everyone on their bullshit.

Reply Score: 2

Here you go. One more
by jefro on Sun 9th Jan 2011 21:01 UTC
jefro
Member since:
2007-04-13
Sate Terrorism
by Getulio Brasil on Sun 9th Jan 2011 21:25 UTC
Getulio Brasil
Member since:
2006-04-19

The entire behavior of the US government in this issue (and collaboratos like the sweedish gov.) is ugly as hell. It's so similar to a movie that I doubt it wil not be appearing in ome of the next. Perhaps it is the "Enemy of the State 2", the real sequel. Scary...

Reply Score: 1

Great Article
by ivanzinho on Mon 10th Jan 2011 10:20 UTC
ivanzinho
Member since:
2009-04-05

Great article, Thom.

Even though it's not much technology related, it's certainly interesting and, hell, why not?

People who complain must have missed the fact that they are not obligated to read every single post on OSnews.

Keep those coming, they surely are appreciated.

Reply Score: 1

Fight Iceland
by Karitku on Mon 10th Jan 2011 12:59 UTC
Karitku
Member since:
2006-01-12

Fabolous story Thom or who ever wrote it, I didn't remember it after reading because article was so Fantasic. Iceland is truly great country, they showed how people mean more after leaving bankers that blowed billions of money in air free. Iceland is showing what you can do by not never give up on USA or take any protection from USA or any money from USA. Iceland has solved many crisis around globe and provided Aid to trillions that's how Awesome they are.

Wikileaks have already showed how politics truly work and I can see the world peace is getting closer. All bad blood between countries are done by USA and now Wikileaks is revealing it all. I think it's crime that USA is trying to cencorship those papers by removing names. I think all names should be public because that way people would truly know who they talk. I mean if you have said something to someone and you are in high place that's public, always.

Edited 2011-01-10 13:00 UTC

Reply Score: 2

Honest
by RodneyLee on Mon 10th Jan 2011 15:12 UTC
RodneyLee
Member since:
2011-01-10

I would be very Happy to Support and honest Government, ... It's just That I have never found one.

''During times of universal deciet, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act''

Edited 2011-01-10 15:15 UTC

Reply Score: 2

A historic perspective
by skyzic on Mon 10th Jan 2011 15:53 UTC
skyzic
Member since:
2011-01-10

With all the talk about wiki-leaks I thought a little historic prospective was in order. This is not the first time that the U.S. has dealt with a leak of this type.
Linked is the transcript and youtube vid of a US congressman contrasting the 2 events
http://www.ronpaul.com/2010-12-10/ron-paul-defends-wikileaks-dont-k...
No one likes to have their dirty laundry aired in front of the world. Unfortunately that's what's taking place for the US at this time.
Now speaking on the friendly fire incident that seems to be the main topic of this post. I personally refuse to arm chair referee it. I can gratefully say that I have never been in the military and have never been in a war zone so I do not think of myself as one of their peers and as such will keep my opinion to myself. I do believe that the persons involved should have to explain their actions before a board of their peers. Those peers being other man and woman that have been under the same stress and had the same training and could better make a judgment if this incident, as bad as it was, is justifiable. I did not say right but justifiable.
In response to sombody about
"soldier on radio laughing and saying something in the sense "hahaha, look at them falling down" (don't remember exactly) seems sane and righteous to you? he surely has mental issues"
I have family and friends that have served in both law enforcement and the military. I have seen these friends and family get to drinking and talking about incidents that have happened to them and the only way they deal with their actions even the actions that were a clear case of "them vs the other guy" is by dehumanizing that other guy. The persons with the real potential for mental problems are the ones that still see the other guy as human and pulls the trigger anyway.

Edited 2011-01-10 15:59 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE: A historic perspective
by Getulio Brasil on Tue 11th Jan 2011 02:59 UTC in reply to "A historic perspective"
Getulio Brasil Member since:
2006-04-19

"Those peers being other man and woman that have been under the same stress and had the same training and could better make a judgment if this incident, as bad as it was, is justifiable. I did not say right but justifiable..."
Sorry, but that's certainly part of the origin of the problem.
I'm not worried about the men who were using those machine gun, particularly, but the training and chain of command that made them believe that shooting people like that could be acceptable.
If you remember the picture and recordings of pisioners being tortured, don't you feel that's related?
I can't believe going to war in a foreign country means necessarily feeling superior to the extent that people on the street are disposable. Any training system and miltary that allows its men to feel like that is rotten and not as far to nazi as necessary to be considered civilized. Not acceptable.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: A historic perspective
by smitty on Tue 11th Jan 2011 03:37 UTC in reply to "RE: A historic perspective"
smitty Member since:
2005-10-13

If you remember the picture and recordings of pisioners being tortured, don't you feel that's related?

I truly don't. That was truly despicable. I don't see the same thing in the video.

I can't believe going to war in a foreign country means necessarily feeling superior to the extent that people on the street are disposable.

On the contrary, i think that tends to be a pretty fundamental trait in a good army. Obviously there needs to be discipline, but if your men don't dehumanize the enemy they're going to get killed very quickly, and feel guilty whenever they manage to kill an enemy. That's a recipe for disaster. The key here is to be able to distinguish between the actual enemy and innocent civilians, something that these soldiers failed at.

Any training system and miltary that allows its men to feel like that is rotten and not as far to nazi as necessary to be considered civilized. Not acceptable.

I believe you just compared the US to Nazi Germany, which makes any further discussion with you pointless. It's clear you have no idea what you're talking about.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: A historic perspective
by dylansmrjones on Tue 11th Jan 2011 06:41 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: A historic perspective"
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

On the contrary, i think that tends to be a pretty fundamental trait in a good army. Obviously there needs to be discipline, but if your men don't dehumanize the enemy they're going to get killed very quickly, and feel guilty whenever they manage to kill an enemy. That's a recipe for disaster. The key here is to be able to distinguish between the actual enemy and innocent civilians, something that these soldiers failed at.


I strongly disagree. Not so much about the discipline part. That one is needed. But the dehumanization of your enemy is never a good trait. Nor is feeling guilty a recipe for disaster. On the contrary. I don't know how it's done in USA (obviously not so good) but in Denmark you'll be dragged through the laws of war and how to obey them, and what to do when receiving an illegal order (what you do is to refuse following the order; and if necessary arrest your superior). There is simply no room for war crimes. I've noticed U.S. soldiers have a tendency to say "I was just following orders". That defence was shut down in Nuremberg...

I wonder if some of the problems are due to the professional (e.g. non-drafted) character of the U.S. Army. During WWII the soldiers drafted were teachers, poets, priests and so on. Today they tend to be school drop-outs...

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: A historic perspective
by Bounty on Tue 11th Jan 2011 18:54 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: A historic perspective"
Bounty Member since:
2006-09-18


I wonder if some of the problems are due to the professional (e.g. non-drafted) character of the U.S. Army. During WWII the soldiers drafted were teachers, poets, priests and so on. Today they tend to be school drop-outs...


About 25% of recent year recruits are dropouts. It's grown from around 10% at the beginning of the Iraq war.

I hope the dropouts are cooks, supply people, mechanics or loading attack helicopters and not flying them.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: A historic perspective
by Getulio Brasil on Wed 12th Jan 2011 02:32 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: A historic perspective"
Getulio Brasil Member since:
2006-04-19

No, I didn't compare US to nazi Germany, but if dehumanizing the enemy is acceptable for your military leaders, than the US troops are bound to be too close to nazi troops in terms of their "achievements".
And if you believe that dehumanizing the enemy does not lead necessarily to those situations (both cited above), than, realy, this discussion is pointless.

Reply Score: 1

?
by Bounty on Mon 10th Jan 2011 18:32 UTC
Bounty
Member since:
2006-09-18

http://twitter.com/tos

It's a US held company, so I don't understand the outrage?

If she's so transparent, why doesn't she give the investigators the information they want?

Reply Score: 1

Feeling Left Out
by cwlh on Mon 10th Jan 2011 20:37 UTC
cwlh
Member since:
2010-09-03

I feel a bit left out here. I support WikiLeaks (and have done for many years). However, I don't have a Twitter account. I can't find the address in Washington to which I should send my personal information. Does anyone have it?

Reply Score: 1