Let's say I'm one of those people; maybe I'm an outlier in that even though I'm so enthused, I don't hunt down every article about Assange. Maybe it's because I listen to NPR; there's probably some cross-over between NPR listeners and Assange supporters.In the MeFi threads in question, it's worth noting that posters who believe Assange is A Bad Guy based on his role in WikiLeaks have already posted his five year old dating site profiles, google caches of his blog posts, email accounts of his awkward attempts at picking up a woman several years ago, and so on.
cortex, the more that I think about it, the more I think it's not just the problems associated with stating the names, but it was a number of comments that dismissed the allegations on the basis of nothing but speculation.Angrycat, I saw a lot of the opposite on the MeFi threads in question. In the first several days before any information got out, and it was just a vague "Guy who pissed off several nation states charged with two counts of rape and wanted by police -- WTF?" many people found it very easy to jump to conspiracy theories and dismissal of the faceless accusers. There was lots of speculation that there weren't any REAL accusers, that they would turn out to be some people Assange had barely met, etc. When more information came out, I saw a lot of that tone down. There were real people with real lives involved in this, not just some vague charge floating around in a foreign nation's legal system.
Thus, the women become bad people who have done a very bad thing. And here are their names.
The Pentagon said Tuesday it would be "hard to quantify" the danger posed by the WikiLeaks release of secret documents but insisted the information would be used by US adversaries.There have been thousands of classified documents released regarding the wars we are waging in Iraq and Afghanistan. They describe a wide range of secret activities that took place from 2003 to 2010, including tips from and meetings between informants and US representatives. The informants are apparently named, which could theoretically put them at risk for targeted retribution from insurgent forces. They could also put American forces (civilian and military) at risk. The docs include assessments by US intelligence that Pakistan's intelligence service has planned and executed attacks in Afghanistan, and revealed further details about the delicate dance we have been engaged in with regard to Pakistan -- two revelations which could conceivably destabilize an already precarious region, or worse, destabilize relations between three nuclear powers: India, Pakistan, the US as well as all three countries' relations with Afghanistan.
"If someone has been killed as a result, it's very tangible and very quantifiable," Pentagon spokesman Colonel Dave Lapan told reporters.
"But how do you quantify information that our adversaries have got about how we operate? How do you quantify some other damaging elements like learning how we gather information and intelligence, altering their behavior because of things that they've learned?" he said.
"We do know from various means that our adversaries are out there actively mining this for information."
In the latest bombshell release from WikiLeaks is a massive list of infrastructure deemed ‘critical’ by the U.S. State Department. The list, which was compiled in 2009, outlines infrastructure “whose loss could critically impact the public health, economic security, and/or national and homeland security of the United States.” Critics of WikiLeaks has said the release could help terrorists by giving them a list of targets for future attacks.This is all ground that has been covered thoroughly in other threads.
posted by Gator at 8:50 AM on December 20, 2010 [5 favorites]