How is Wikileaks accountable? How is Wikileaks transparent?

[pnwmom]

What do we know about Assange's motives? Wikileaks finances? Employees? Connections? How does Wikileaks decide what information to release, and when -- and what to suppress?
How do we know that money isn't changing hands for nefarious purposes? (I read today that the NYTimes initially wasn't part of the latest leak because they refused to pay for the documents.)

When does someone pull the veil off Assange and Wikileaks?

[jaxx]

1. Good questions.

I'd like to know the answers too.

K&R

[Vinnie From Indy]

50. "What do we know about Assange's motives? "

LOL! That is a very good question for the OP to answer as well.

[sudopod]

94. Joseph McCarthy called, he'd like his paranoia back. nt

[MineralMan]

2. Excellent questions. Google can provide some answers

but there's a lot that's not at all clear.

[PeaceNikki]

3. I will watch for answers.

[PBS Poll-435]

4. How do we authenticate the documents? nt

[joeybee12]

8. The fact that people in power are really pissed off and not denying their authenticity...nt

[WinkyDink]

101. You aren't serious?

[Drale]

5. Thank you for asking the question

I've been wondering the same question.

[AndrewP]

6. Good questions indeed

[Pholus]

7. I don't know. Substitute "Government" or "Corporations" for "Wikileaks" and I still don't know.

So I guess it's all the same.

[joeybee12]

9. Nice bait and switch...happy to unrec...this should not be about

Wikileaks...obviously the docs are real...they are the issue and no marching orders from Obama (or is it Hilary this time?) is gonna change that.

[pnwmom]

13. I'm not disputing the docs. Wikileaks claims to be about

transparency and accountability and yet we know virtually nothing about the motives of its founder or the money behind him.

[joeybee12]

22. If you don't dispute the docs, then there is no other issue...

it doesn't matter what his motives are, and by asking what his motives are, you sound like someone trying to smear him...ie.,e we don't klnow his motives so you are implying they could be nefarious. Would you be questioning them if he had released the docs about BofA instead of stae department cables?

[pnwmom]

25. Of course his motives matter. Just because some document

existed does NOT mean that it should be released.

If Valerie Plames' name was on a real document, does that mean it should have been released? Should the names of her connections in Afghanistan have been released?

Or do we only care about these issues when the leaker is named Dick Cheney?

[jberryhill]

81. Motives do matter

What we see is being picked and chosen by media corporations, to whom Assange preferred over the unwashed public.

Is there cherry picking going on? I don't know.

You don't know either, but you don't care.

[Fool Count]

96. Well, for one, we know that Wikileaks don't start wars and kill civilians

in foreign lands. They also don't securitize mortgages and don't cause any
global financial crises. They, most likely, don't spy on any foreign diplomats
either. They don't support military coups against constitutionally elected
governments, I am pretty sure. What more transparency do you need? Are you
saying that Wikileaks is somehow morally equivalent to and should be held to
the same standard as US government and Goldman Sachs?

[ProudDad]

108. Then do some research

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x9657585

[Bluerthanblue]

18. "consider the source" and their integrity and motivation-

the enemy of my enemy may very well not be a friend at all, but simply another enemy hiding behind the mantle of "helper".

I'm happy to cancel out your unrec. I'm interested in hearing ALL the facts. Something Mr. Assange likes to require from others, but seems reluctant to produce himself.

[marybourg]

10. Wikileaks is not our government and does not have to meet

the standards we want our government to meet. Pretty obvious to me.

[northernlights]

11. Assange's motives are published

And his actions, and the outcomes of those actions, are clearly tied to his motives.

In a nutshell:

His goal is to bring down the "shadow government." (Not the US government. The worldwide *shadow* goverment.)

If the "shadow government's" goals were public, they would attract opposition. So the "shadow government" operates in secrecy, hides its real goals behind fake ones (the propoganda we're fed daily by the MSM) and depends on secret communications for its real goals.

By leaking the secret information, Assange intends to catalyze the "shadow government" into attempting to close its leaks. In closing its leaks, it will start choking off its own communications channels. In choking off its own communications channels, its ability to communicate in secret will be broken. And the conspiracy along with it.

You may or may not agree with it. But the fact is, the first response by our government -- and many others -- has been to start cutting down their internal communications and looking for ways to increase their security. In other words, Assange has won round one. They are doing *exactly* as he predicted and wanted.

(not unlike W giving bin Laden a nice Ramadan present by first dragging us into the quagmire called Afghanistan, and then lying us into the quagmire called Iraq. Except Assange is doing it nonviolently and going after the criminals who suckered us into the current mess.)

[pnwmom]

14. Governments rely on diplomacy to work out differences.

And diplomacy, to a greater or lesser degree, must sometimes rely on secrets.

So he's not trying to bring down shadow government (assuming that's his goal -- I read in an interview that he didn't know why he did what he did) -- if anything, he's trying to bring down all governments.

[EFerrari]

26. Your reasoning is still faulty.

Diplomacy is not the issue here. Corruption in secrecy is.

[pnwmom]

37. Diplomacy is ONE of the issues. Many of the emails released

were diplomatic cables. By releasing them, Assange puts delicate diplomatic negotiations in jeopardy.

[EFerrari]

53. No, no one is arguing that diplomacy is unnecessary. n/t

[pnwmom]

63. In supporting what Assange did, you're supporting someone

who is willingly, if haphazardly, putting diplomatic negotiations in jeopardy.

[EFerrari]

84. Well, no, I'm not. Either you have no idea how Wikileaks has proceeded

or you are willfully misrepresenting again.

[pnwmom]

15. delete (dupe)

[Bluerthanblue]

12. K&R and looking forward to hearing any genuine answers-

motives are important.

[abelenkpe]

16. You can donate to wikileaks just as you can to wikipedia

I gotta admit your questions and the way they are put forth sound an awful lot like FOX news talking points.

[pnwmom]

27. I don't listen to Faux news, but apparently you do.

I'd like to know why DUers were up in arms when Valerie Plames' identity was exposed -- but many of the same DUers aren't worried in the slightest about the many other Valerie Plames Wikileaks might be exposing.

[abelenkpe]

34. No I don't but good try.

If you actually read some articles about what has exposed you wouldn't be worried about that. Again the internet has your answers if you would stop being so lazy and research.

[pnwmom]

41. Only a fraction of the 250,000 documents have been released.

And even fewer written about.

[Canuckistanian]

17. They really should release their policy statement (if they have one)

Do they REALLY validate and vet every document? Do a security check to make sure nobody gets a surprise "outing"? Or do they just release whatever they come across?

Assange has stated that all docs WILL be checked. Is that a strict rule or merely a guideline? And what assurances do we have that it's followed?

On the other hand, they DO release the documents to major news operations who CAN and DO check these things. They're not just dumping everything on a server somewhere and saying "Come and get it!"

It would give them more credibility if they'd tell us why and how they release the documents.

[abelenkpe]

20. google can help you locate their site you know.

[abelenkpe]

31. Here

http://wikileaks.org/media/about.html


Media is owned by multinational corporations, that have done more to suppress real reporting than it has to inform the public. Wilileaks looks to change that.

[pnwmom]

35. And if they weren't trying to sell the documents to news organizations. n/t

[Canuckistanian]

51. Are they selling?

That wasn't my understanding.

[jberryhill]

56. Based on what?

[Canuckistanian]

57. YOU made the assumption

YOU prove it.

[jberryhill]

72. I have no assumption or opinion either way

That may be a hard concept for you to swallow, but I have no idea.

Hence, I'm curious how one reaches a conclusion about it

[Canuckistanian]

74. I replied hastily

My apologies.

[jberryhill]

78. No prob

But I can see why some folks find DU off putting.

Any "thinking out loud" and trying to look at things from different angles is immediately thrown in to the "us v them" machine.

I'm fascinated by the stuff coming out, but I have reservations over who is selecting what we see and do not see.

[Canuckistanian]

83. I agree

Sometimes being the "devil's advocate" is useful.

[jberryhill]

87. He is a frequent client of mine /nt

[Canuckistanian]

59. (revised) Their own statement

1.1 About WikiLeaks

WikiLeaks is a not-for-profit media organisation. Our goal is to bring important news and information to the public. We provide an innovative, secure and anonymous way for sources to leak information to our journalists (our electronic drop box). One of our most important activities is to publish original source material alongside our news stories so readers and historians alike can see evidence of the truth. We are a young organisation that has grown very quickly, relying on a network of dedicated volunteers around the globe. Since 2007, when the organisation was officially launched, WikiLeaks has worked to report on and publish important information. We also develop and adapt technologies to support these activities.

http://wikileaks.org/media/about.html

(bolding mine)

[jberryhill]

75. "not for profit" organizations can make a lot of money

The UN is a not for profit organization. It has a budget of billions.

The CEO of Goodwill Industries makes millions.

Big deal. Of course, Goodwill, the UN, the Red Cross, etc. publish their finances.

The Wikileaks documents haven't been released to the unwashed public. They are being filtered and spoonfed by selected media corporations. That strikes me as a little odd, given the fanfare about disclosure and right to know.

Of the documents claimed, the people preventing their disclosure right now are Assange and the media gatekeepers.

That doesn't strike you as something of a divergence between fact and hype?

[ProudDad]

109. Utterly Irrelevant

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x9657585

[abelenkpe]

19. http://wikileaks.org/

http://wikileaks.org/



Go check out the site yourself.

[pnwmom]

29. That site doesn't begin to answer the questions. n/t

[abelenkpe]

36. Given that you answered me so quickly you clearly did not

actually read it or look through the internet for more information. Lazy much?

[pnwmom]

43. I did read the site. Where on it does it detail its financials? n/t

[Canuckistanian]

54. Their "About" page gives a lot of information and assurances

But they give NO proof of their expertise, specialities or even a general Code of Ethics.

I suppose this might be an oversight in a relatively new organization, but they'd better develop some FAST.

[Cleita]

21. Randi Rhodes answered all your questions this

afternoon on her show, but I guess you weren't listening. She pulled off the veil already. You really should use Google as someone else suggested.

[pnwmom]

30. No, she didn't. And she couldn't. She doesn't have any access

to financial records of Wikileaks or its associations.

[Cleita]

92. I really wish you would make some sense some day.

It's all out there if you Google.

[SPKrazy]

58. Wouldn't That Be A Good Job For A Journalist?

I mean it is a journalistic challenge to sort out the truth of a "leak" of documents from an agency whose funding is hidden and purpose is muddied in some way.

Any journalists left in America that aren't on the corporate payroll of the mainstream media?

There are some still out there. They will find the answers. Then they will be castigated by those who want to protect some truth and keep them off balance. The tough ones will go onward!

:beer:

[mmonk]

23. Is that really the question?

Wikileaks is not a government responsible for the welfare of its people.

[WillyT]

24. I Don't Know... Are Leakers Accountable ???

I always thought the whole issue of whistle-blowing was fairly cloak-and-dagger.

You guys would have been a hoot in the 1970's...

:shrug:

[scarletwoman]

28. Accountable for what? "By their fruits ye shall know them."

Wikileaks is Toto pulling back the curtain. The Great and Powerful Oz is a humbug.

I fail to see what the problem is, unless someone is really invested in believing that the Great and Powerful Oz is reality.

[pnwmom]

33. Assange is behind his own curtain. n/t

[abelenkpe]

38. YOu really have a bug up your butt about this

why not research it rather than waste time here?

[pnwmom]

39. No one's forcing you to waste your precious time. n/t

[jberryhill]

88. Because a "discussion forum" is a place where people can share knowledge and ideas /nt

[scarletwoman]

47. Right. He's actually Dr. Evil and he wants to RULE THE WORLD!!!!1!1!11

If I say anything more Julian Assange will have me killed! :scared:

[Fumesucker]

32. I didn't realize that Wikileaks was a government agency..

I'm constantly amazed at the things I learn on DU.

[Violet_Crumble]

42. Yeah, that's news to me as well..

I'm finding some of these 'questions' just a bit on the silly side. Somoene demanding to see the financial records of a private group because they're pissed off that the US govt's dirty laundry got hung out in public is so many different shades of silly, imo...

[abelenkpe]

40. Yawn.

[JVS]

44. Wiki-leaks is just another news company, like CBS.

[pnwmom]

66. CBS is a publicly traded company. We know much more about CBS

than we know about Wikileaks. For all we know, Wikileaks is funded by Murdoch or one of his ilk.

[HEyHEY]

67. Watch for them to start charging papers for subscriptions soons

[JVS]

82. Watch them copyright the linked material and then use the court system to sue...

newspapers for talking about the material leaked.

[jberryhill]

89. US government works are excluded from copyright

Interesting thought, but US government works are statutorily excluded from the copyright act.

[TexasObserver]

45. OMG! How do we know Wikileaks isn't the Dark Side?!

What if they're from another planet?

What if they're not even human, and they're here to take over world with intel leaks?



If you really don't know who they are, why don't you spend some time educating yourself by researching online, instead of starting one alarmed thread after another?

[pnwmom]

68. Wikileaks isn't publishing information about its finances online.

But if you know something, please, share it.

[TexasObserver]

73. Have you tried informing yourself, as I suggested?

Your concern for Wikileaks and their bona fides is interesting.

You can reasonably evaluate the record of Wikileaks versus that of the war party forces out to stop Wikileaks, with a little reading.

[provis99]

46. governments can confirm whether the leaks are true or not.

They can show us the government cables.

[scarletwoman]

48. The fact that the S.o.S. is flying around the world apologizing would tend to confirm

that the leaked material is genuine.

[larkrake]

49. He fills the need for honest details in media

that the public is desperate for, he pulls the pants down of our criminals and exposes the vein of humor secretive politicians enjoy. He has not exposed important info that puts troops at risk, but exposes the lawless no matter what country they represent. Too many countries fan wars and tell lies to get the US to perform crimes for them-such as Saudia Arabia.The US is the bully on the block and not one exposed personage has denied these facts. I for one am happy to learn the truths, and am not surprised. I wish he would release more evil doing docs to silence the ignorant of the world- like who actually killed Kennedy or Cheneys personal history. Dig deeper Assange, and create an army of apprentices so we can have dumps several times per year after your assassination.Lets hear about the underground government

[mike_c]

52. unrec for being a fatuous attack utterly without merit....

I suppose the real answer to your questions is that you are utterly free to bury your head and avoid consideration of leaked documents. Secrecy is good. Perhaps you should go shopping now?

[PeaceNikki]

55. Oh come on.

Are you really that "US or THEM" on this topic? Can't people question motives in a monumental issue like this? SHOULDN'T we be questioning motive, ffs? One can consider the content, take it all in or with grains of salt and ask why.

[HEyHEY]

69. I find it fucking hilarious how people will willingly bury their heads in the sand...

And not even dare to question their new hero cause he is saying something they like. Those types are so easy to lead and manipulate. But hey, why question a reclusive accused rapist currently on the lamb about his motives and integrity in releasing supposedly legit government documents? I like that he made people I don't like uncomfortable, and that's all that counts!

[DisgustipatedinCA]

91. by the same token, I find it odd (not hilarious)

...I find it odd that some are casting about here and there trying to find something to pin on Assange. Several here and in other threads have been going nuts over the "payment" aspect of this, which as we discussed in another thread, is baseless. The OP of this thread is repeatedly making statements he/she knows not to be true. So I won't attempt a perfect-but-opposite mirror of what you're saying (although it would be exceedingly easy). I'll just say that, if your point is valid, the opposite point is just as valid and just as easily made. I know you can see the truth in that. Thanks.

[cbdo2007]

60. I'm surprised more DUers aren't interested in these questions.

Well, really I'm not as most people here are sensationalists and will jump on whatever the latest bandwagon is, but I digest.

There are a few questions I'm interested in relating to this - like with the "insurance file". Supposedly this has the "best info" on it, so if this info is so important, if they really believed in helping right the wrongs that have been committed, shouldn't they release this info rather than hold it hostage and just release it when it is beneficial ($$$) to them??

What if Wikileaks is mostly funded by the Tea Party or SarahPAC or Al Queda or North Korea or China and is just meant to destroy us?? Yet everyone here is falling for it hook line and sinker.

Something definitely *stinks* here with Wikileaks. I'm all for transparency and righting the wrongs especially brought on by the Iraq War, but something with Wikileaks and their funding and their systematic release of not-that-important information is really not sitting right with me.

[Bluerthanblue]

104. +1 n/t

[ProudDad]

107. Amazing...

Wacko "conspiracy theory" anyone? :tinfoilhat:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x9657585

[sendero]

61. Who cares?

It's just information. If they created this stuff themselves and claimed it was real that would be wrong. But I don't think that is what is happening, given the reaction from the usual suspects.

If you don't like it, don't read it. And your judgment of it is irrelevant.

Our government, from the top down, and our corporations, from the top down, ARE CORRUPT. ANYTHING THAT MAKES THEM UNCOMFORTABLE MAKES ME HAPPY. If it doesn't make you happy, too fucking bad.

[pnwmom]

64. Suppose Wikileaks is funded by right-wingers out to embarrass Obama.

You wouldn't want to know that?

[sendero]

71. That's a patently ridiculous assertion..

... and you know it. Assange is the real deal. If you can't see that then I'm surprised you are not a BushBot.

[pnwmom]

80. For all I know, he could be funded by Rupert Murdoch. n/t

[Name removed]

86. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Forkboy]

110. For all we know, so are you.

:shrug:

[HEyHEY]

70. On what basis do you "not think that is what's happening"

If you don't question this stuff at least a little bit then how can you be so sure?

[sendero]

98. Look...

.. even the Kabuki theater that is our government couldn't pull off this well-orchestrated an angst fest.

They are WORRIED. And you think that TPTB are going to let a big bank's internal memos come out?

They are worried because the closet door looks like it might burst open any minute and there are any number of odious skeletons that could come flying out. The fact Assange dribbles this stuff out like water torture is just an added bonus and more proof that he knows what he is doing. LET THE BASTARDS SQUIRM.

They would LOVE to stop Assange but they haven't figured out how to do it yet. And his "insurance" file scares them shitless. It might be the only reason he is still alive.

I'm enjoying this more than anything that has happened in politics for YEARS. Finally, the tables are turned if only for a while.

[sendero]

62. Wikileaks..

... is not killing people in a pointless "war". They are not robbing people with a ZIRP that rips off grandma to pay banksters. They are not fucking up the planet.

Our government, on the other hand, is doing all of these things. And so when people find an effective way to shine some sunlight on their activities, I applaud it.

[Motown_Johnny]

65. pull the veil off when he/they kill civilians with hell fire missiles

[jberryhill]

76. Assange and the gatekeepers are above criticism

Do not question anything.

[asdjrocky]

77. A better question is, how is our government held accountable.

Wikileaks is going what journalist used to do.

[Better Believe It]

79. WikiLeaks is not a government.

"When does someone pull the veil off Assange and Wikileaks?"

The CIA and many others are working very hard on organizing an effective character assassination campaign against Assange.

Give them time.

They'll nail the sex crazed terrorist maniac!

[ProudDad]

85. WHO THE FUCK CARES!!!

The organization is on the side of the angels...

Nobody gives a fuck!

[treestar]

90. Talk about drinking the cool-aid

You've got a new hero now. He'll disappoint you.

[sudopod]

95. Your post is the most ironic post in the known universe.

"God is an iron," I said. "Did you know that?"
I turned to look at her and she was staring. She laughed experimentally, stopped when I failed to join in. "And I'm a pair of pants with a hole scorched through the ass?"
"If a person who indulges in gluttony is a glutton, and a person who commits a felony is a felon, then God is an iron."


--Spider Robinson, God Is An Iron (1977)

[Forkboy]

111. LOL

:rofl:

[WinkyDink]

103. It's "Kool-Aid." And who are your heroes, the liars and swearers?

Son
46 What is a traitor?

LADY MACDUFF
47 Why, one that swears and lies.

Son
48 And be all traitors that do so?

LADY MACDUFF
49 Every one that does so is a traitor, and
50 must be hanged.

Son
51 And must they all be hanged that swear
52 and lie?

LADY MACDUFF
53 Every one.

Son
54 Who must hang them?

LADY MACDUFF
55 Why, the honest men.

Son
56 Then the liars and swearers are fools, for
57 there are liars and swearers enow to beat
58 the honest men and hang up them.

[ProudDad]

105. Not my hero

I don't buy into the leaderprinzip...

You need to edumacate yourself...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x9657585

[SidDithers]

97. "on the side of the angels..."

:rofl:

Sid

[ProudDad]

106. Ok, I knew it was a little hyperbolic but I was in a hurry...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x9657585

[sudopod]

93. derp

derp

[StarsInHerHair]

99. nasty, unrecc'd

nt

[WinkyDink]

100. Who cares, if the documents are real?

[laughingliberal]

102. Yeah. Nice try. Still the funniest show in town. Authoritarian heads exploding.

:rofl:

[Forkboy]

112. Some of really freaking out, which of course amuses me a great deal.