2600 Magazine_ The Hacker Quarterly - Digital Edition - Summer 2011 - 2600 Magazine [49]
At the time, I had all of five minutes to examine some other leads. Try this: one of the public figures to maintain his call for the death penalty for Bradley Manning is a guy named “James P. Cain.” Cain was a lawyer at KS for 20 years, then U.S. Ambassador to Denmark (right next to Sweden). Another lead had KS working on al-Qaeda detainee matters. KS also hired some ex-CIA people.
Am I making too much of this? Or should Assange’s prosecutor not be so heavily connected to the U.S.? (The blog Legal Schnauzer also claims a law firm for the Assange accusers has CIA ties!)
Terry
These are all interesting facts, but a quick poll finds that nobody is really all that surprised by them.
Dear 2600:
I am writing to express my concern at the media attention Julian Assange appears to have gleaned at the expense of Bradley Manning. I am 100 percent behind the disclosure of this information to the general public and, at the time, Wikileaks appeared to be the best platform to undertake such a high profile disclosure. However, I find it extremely distasteful to see one man appearing to be presenting himself as the "savior of free speech" while the person who actually did some good rots in a military prison.
Why on Earth is Julian involved in the equation when interaction with the press could be done anonymously or via proxies? I would also question if somehow he had something to gain from this method of disclosure, be it financial incentive, or fame, or whatever... after all, the "final decision" on document publication is still in his hands. Wouldn't editorial decisions be better made as a group without the power of veto?
Anyway, just my two cents from an alternative viewpoint and thank you for producing such a great magazine. Please also take a look at the OpenLeaks project as I really don't think it’s getting the attention it deserves - www.openleaks.org.
M3d1c473d
It’s all fine and good to act anonymously or through proxies when dealing with sensitive issues. But what we need at this point in time is someone to actually step forward and vigorously defend what this organization stands for. That involves being in the limelight to a degree, but the flipside of that is the fact that it’s a potentially dangerous position to be in. This is why other people aren’t exactly clamoring for the attention.
We don’t see this as being at the expense of Bradley Manning in any sense. Wikileaks has never revealed the name of their source(s) and we believe they never will. This fact needs to be recognized because it’s the basic premise under which the Wikileaks concept is based.
We’re not going to explore the personality issues and conflicts that exist within any organization. We do know that it’s detrimental for them to eclipse the actual story and major accomplishments that have been achieved over the past couple of years. It’s even more damaging when multiple organizations that allegedly stand for the same thing spend most of their time trashing each other and trying to cast aspersions. It makes little sense, points attention away from the real issues that need to be confronted, and risks putting everyone involved in a dangerously weakened position. If it continues, those opposed to Wikileaks and its ilk won’t have to lift a finger to get their way.
Dear 2600:
All aspiring hackers believe, and rightly so, that electronic freedom is one of the fundamental liberties we should protect. However, we should keep in mind the relative place our activities occupy in the big scheme of things, and resist self-aggrandizement.
That's also true for high-profile revelations such as WikiLeaks. Are Assange and Manning the source of the Tunisian uprising, which itself was the detonator for the wave of rebellions that shook North Africa and the Middle East? It's questionable. WikiLeaks "revealed" that Tunisia's leader,