WikiLeaks cable leak 'irresponsible', says Australia

[alp227]

Source: The Guardian

Australia's attorney general has described WikiLeaks as "incredibly irresponsible" for publishing the names of 23 Australians accused by security services of having links to al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula.

The cable, emanating from the US embassy in Canberra in January 2010, recommended that 11 Australians be placed on a no-fly list and a further 12 on a terrorism watch list.

"The publication of any information that could compromise Australia's national security – or inhibit the ability of intelligence agencies to monitor potential threats – is incredibly irresponsible," said the attorney general, Robert McClelland, breaking the government's longstanding position not to comment on WikiLeaks' material.

"On occasions in the past, WikiLeaks has decided to redact identifying features where security operations or safety could be put at risk," he said. "This has not occurred in this case."

Read more: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/aug/31/wikileaks-cable-leak-australia

[stockholmer]

1. Australia get caught with hands in the cookie jar, then cries foul

If their argument is that these leaks compromised their national security, then they are a priori ADMITTING that they are breaking the law to provide their so-called national security.

Laws?, what laws? We don't need no stinking laws.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
From another leak that embarrassed Aussie official:

What the WikiLeaks cables reveal about Australia’s corrupt political and business leaders:

http://inside.org.au/what-the-wikileaks-cables-reveal-about-australias-leaders/

and

WikiLeaks cables: Shell's grip on Nigerian state revealed (Australian Shell executive)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/dec/08/wikileaks-cables-shell-nigeria-spying


and this article on the newest leaks:

Diplomatic cables claim Australia has failed to stabilise 'fragile' Solomons

http://www.smh.com.au/world/diplomatic-cables-claim-australia-has-failed-to-stabilise-fragile-solomons-20110829-1jih7.html#ixzz1Wcu2iIdI

[JDPriestly]

2. Assange is presumably under house arrest.

So who is releasing the Wikileaks? How does that work?

How long have these people been on the list?

How many other people who don't know it are on such lists?

What are the criteria for identifying a person to be on such a list?

How many individuals have been placed on such lists?

In other words, is this really a serious matter or is the "list" so long as to be meaningless anyway?

Was the evidence indicating a link between these individuals and Al Qaeda really well enough established to warrant this secrecy?

I should think that anyone who knowingly has links to Al Qaeda would figure out that they are probably on some sort of security watch list. Seems elementary to me. So why is there so much secrecy about these names in the first place?

I can understand not publishing the names, but from whom is this secret being kept?

If the links between the people and Al Qaeda are not that clear, then why not give innocent people a chance to come forward and clear their names? If the links are that clear, wouldn't the Al Qaeda associates themselves know they are most likely being watched? And if the links are that clear, wouldn't the Al Qaeda associates themselves avoid getting caught whether their suspected ties to Al Qaeda are broadly published or not?

I don't understand why the list of Al Qaeda suspects is kept so secret.

Seems to me that if I, as a private citizen, knew that a particular was on the list, and saw that a person with that name was acting suspiciously, I would be more likely to offer information to authorities, whereas when I as a member of the public, do not know whose name is on the list, I cannot be of service in preventing terrorism. (This is, of course, in my case, unrealistic, as I am about as likely to know someone with links to Al Qaeda as to know someone with links to the Tsar of Russia.)

Also, why not give innocent people the chance to come forward and clear their names?

I do not understand the authorities' motivations and systems in this. As I recall, with one of the terrorists -- the underpants bomber -- the father alerted authorities. Keep the names of suspects a secret makes this kind of information harder to obtain.

Any law enforcement people who can explain the reasoning behind this?

[Poll_Blind]

3. 8 months ago, they were trying to preserve files which Daniel Domscheit-Berg was going to delete...

...and accidentally uploaded a file which could be used to decrypt the real identities that they'd gone through the trouble do redact.

Just like with Lamo and Wired, this has much more to do with Daniel Domscheit-Berg than it does WikiLeaks.

It was not intentional.

BTW, how many innocent people did WikiLeaks' drones kill by errant Hellfire missile this month?

PB

[russspeakeasy]

4. Great point...and the answer is .....none....

:bounce:

[joeglow3]

5. I didn't have any drones that killed people with errant Hellfire missiles

Thus, please ignore the old lady I mugged last night.

Sorry, but that logic doesn't work.

[liberation]

7. How many ladies has wikileaks mugged then?

Just following your logic instead...

[joeglow3]

8. Ummm, no you are not

Wikipedia did something that could be morally wrong (I have not looked at enough), but it was justified because they did not do something worse. Can you now see the analogy????

[JDPriestly]

6. Who is Daniel Domscheit-Berg?

Please explain more about your post. I apologize, but I don't have the background to know what you are talking about. I know about Lamo and Wired, and the drones and errant Hellfire missiles, but I (and probably a lot of other DUers have no idea what Domscheit-Berg has to do with anything.

The whole point is that if you take it upon yourself to release secrets, you have to be very careful about releasing secrets that could hurt someone regardless of what errant Hellfire missiles do. We are each responsible for our own conduct and the effects of our conduct.