16-04-2010, 10:11 PM
cryptome.org said:
A3 writes of the Wikileaks gunship video:
Having looked at all the evidence I can find on this incident it seems clear that the men killed in the video were armed insurgents with the Mahdi Army and that the photographers were embedded with them. The subsequent firing on the van is questionable. However, that one can identify an RPG in the video indicates that Wikileaks misrepresented the video or missed the obvious. Both scenarios are worrying and make this "leak" look like a charity drive for a website who's operating budget seems incredibly high for what they deliver.
So, my question to you is this. Should Wikileaks simply publish or should they publish and editorialize? I fear they do themselves no favors through misrepresentation or omission, I believe their purpose is best served by presenting material with no additional commentary. I also fear that entering into the political fray will discredit them as an organization eventually and undermine their purpose. One of the best things about cryptome is that items are generally posted with commentary that doesn't exceed the title of the link. I've never seen you post a document with a preface you added, your warnings to not trust you are refreshing.
Anyways, keep keeping on, "loony John Young, of Cryptome.org."
Cryptome: Wikileaks should continue to do what it believes best, as should others, ignore critics who envy its ingenuity and fear its reverse criticism of lazy-minded, spoiled critics -- and comics. There is no single best means to gather and distribute information to the public -- nor to tell the truth about it. Variation and diversity and multiplicity is essential to avoid the deadly chokehold of dominant authorities, their complicit authoritatives and the grammar, rhetoric, graphics and technology they use for heirarchical control. To mimic the information strangulation of dominaters is to lie, deceive, misrepresent, bloviate, exaggerate, op- and pop-advert-editorialize, to manage the flow of information for a particular agenda always wedded to a grab for and protection of greater power and the lucrative revenue and fancy accoutrements it provides.
There is a plaque in the rotunda of a courthouse at 60 Center Street, New York City, which commemorates the 300th anniversary of the trial of John Peter Zenger for seditious libel. He won the trial and laid the foundation for freedom of the press in the US Constitution. There is always a first of a venerable tradition taken for granted. Wikileaks may not be the first but it is certainly a standard bearer for those less known who are challenging conventional wisdom of freedom of the press, now grown into self-satisfied authoritativeness and embedded with authorities. The press (forget the trivializing, gossipy "media") must be goaded into overcoming its fear of being seditiously libelous, of "going too far." Thanks to Wikileaks for demonstrating that the information royalty is cravenly bare-assed, terrified of losing protection against the treaty-mongering avaricious FINCEN (forget trivializing, gossipy toothless NSA, ignore nuclear security theater).
Excuse the bowel moving. Another lying sack of shit (LSOS).
A3 writes of the Wikileaks gunship video:
Having looked at all the evidence I can find on this incident it seems clear that the men killed in the video were armed insurgents with the Mahdi Army and that the photographers were embedded with them. The subsequent firing on the van is questionable. However, that one can identify an RPG in the video indicates that Wikileaks misrepresented the video or missed the obvious. Both scenarios are worrying and make this "leak" look like a charity drive for a website who's operating budget seems incredibly high for what they deliver.
So, my question to you is this. Should Wikileaks simply publish or should they publish and editorialize? I fear they do themselves no favors through misrepresentation or omission, I believe their purpose is best served by presenting material with no additional commentary. I also fear that entering into the political fray will discredit them as an organization eventually and undermine their purpose. One of the best things about cryptome is that items are generally posted with commentary that doesn't exceed the title of the link. I've never seen you post a document with a preface you added, your warnings to not trust you are refreshing.
Anyways, keep keeping on, "loony John Young, of Cryptome.org."
Cryptome: Wikileaks should continue to do what it believes best, as should others, ignore critics who envy its ingenuity and fear its reverse criticism of lazy-minded, spoiled critics -- and comics. There is no single best means to gather and distribute information to the public -- nor to tell the truth about it. Variation and diversity and multiplicity is essential to avoid the deadly chokehold of dominant authorities, their complicit authoritatives and the grammar, rhetoric, graphics and technology they use for heirarchical control. To mimic the information strangulation of dominaters is to lie, deceive, misrepresent, bloviate, exaggerate, op- and pop-advert-editorialize, to manage the flow of information for a particular agenda always wedded to a grab for and protection of greater power and the lucrative revenue and fancy accoutrements it provides.
There is a plaque in the rotunda of a courthouse at 60 Center Street, New York City, which commemorates the 300th anniversary of the trial of John Peter Zenger for seditious libel. He won the trial and laid the foundation for freedom of the press in the US Constitution. There is always a first of a venerable tradition taken for granted. Wikileaks may not be the first but it is certainly a standard bearer for those less known who are challenging conventional wisdom of freedom of the press, now grown into self-satisfied authoritativeness and embedded with authorities. The press (forget the trivializing, gossipy "media") must be goaded into overcoming its fear of being seditiously libelous, of "going too far." Thanks to Wikileaks for demonstrating that the information royalty is cravenly bare-assed, terrified of losing protection against the treaty-mongering avaricious FINCEN (forget trivializing, gossipy toothless NSA, ignore nuclear security theater).
Excuse the bowel moving. Another lying sack of shit (LSOS).