Compiling the WikiLeaks Fallout 833
Now that the world has had some time to process the quarter million diplomatic documents published by WikiLeaks on Sunday, the media landscape is rife with reactions, threats, and warnings. Some US lawmakers have complained loudly and at length, saying that "WikiLeaks is putting at risk the lives and the freedom of countless Americans and non-Americans around the world." Secretary of State Hillary Clinton called the leak "not just an attack on America's foreign policy interests, it is an attack on the international community." The Guardian points out that it's not the media's job to protect diplomats from embarrassment, and other US officials seem to agree, focusing their wrath instead on the security practices surrounding sensitive information. The Pentagon and other agencies are looking at ways to tighten security, promising increased internal auditing and banning the ability of systems containing classified information to connect to thumb drives or other removable media. Meanwhile, few officials seem to be commenting publicly on the contents of the leak, which are sure to cause diplomatic problems around the globe.
Had time? (Score:5, Insightful)
Surprising in its unsurprisingness (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm certain more details will come out as people have more time to go through these documents. But so far what I've found most surprising is how unsurprising these documents are. So the US is spying. Big fucking deal, everybody spies. This isn't news. There's no smoking gun, no festering sore of corruption that this was presented to be.
Is this really a case of 'holding the US to account for its crimes' or just malice, someone's personal agenda to get back at the big bad Americans? So far, it's looking more like the latter. I'm starting to question my former support for wikileaks.
Re:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers (Score:2, Insightful)
It doesn't matter what you're talking about, if you just mass released all the private documents and communications of any group of individuals, any organization, you're going to cause a lot of trouble, hurt, embarrassment, and potentially serious problems limiting their effectiveness when "scandal" breaks out. Everyone can find scandal in something, because most people hold higher standards to others than themselves. It's like the old If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him.
There's a such thing as responsible disclosure, and Wikileaks blew it. They're irresponsible. We do need to know about wrongdoing, yes. But there's a huge difference between reporting and disclosing serious wrongdoing and just throwing hundreds of thousands of documents at the world and saying here, read this! I don't know what agenda Wikileaks really has, but it's not a good one.
Re:Had time? (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm all for the "information wants to be free" mantra, but when it can come to a considerable cost to others, the disclosure can't wipe their hands completely of responsibility. Airing a politician's dirty laundry is one thing, but releasing documents that may have names of people that may be endangered unawares should be handled with some discretion.
I really don't like being on this side of the argument..
But really... (Score:5, Insightful)
FTA "promising increased internal auditing and banning the ability of systems containing classified information to connect to thumb drives or other removable media"
Are the people running this network lost in the eighties, um, I mean sometime before Multix (say the early sixties)?
Wouldn't you think that internal auditing and limiting the ability to copy classified files to removable media should have been addressed decades before this leak occured?
They shouldn't (Score:1, Insightful)
Hear that bullshit (Score:5, Insightful)
"WikiLeaks is putting at risk the lives and the freedom of countless Americans and non-Americans around the world."
COUNTLESS they say. countless as in, a few hundred, tops. compared to 66.000+ (official no, unofficial probably higher) dead in iraq, unknown number dead in afghanistan, unknown number lost in the hands of cia, nsa and ice. (even inside usa - http://www.thenation.com/article/americas-secret-ice-castles [thenation.com] )
.....
and they come up with long-repeated, surefire bullshit 'putting countless lives at risk' -> vague enough too, you can never calculate how many lives lost and compare it to those who got killed while chasing a wild goose under false pretenses in afghan mountains or iraq plains.
but that's all fancy talk. what they are basically saying, bluntly and in streetspeak is :
"Let us continue doing our filth behind the veil of secrecy by biting the bait of 'risk of freedom and lives'"
Re:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers (Score:4, Insightful)
If you were talking about communications between private citizens I would agree, but these leaks are about our own government. This is supposed to be a representative democracy, and our government should have as few secrets as possible.
Re:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers (Score:4, Insightful)
if Wikileaks can get this... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Surprising in its unsurprisingness (Score:1, Insightful)
It doesn't have to be about getting "back" at the "big bad Americans".
It can be about how US foreign policy actions are often against both their own laws, and treaties they've signed. Demonstrating how incompetently they're handing out palettes of US dollars is also interesting. Brilliant -- here's millions and millions of dollars we will hand out without any form of oversight, and hope it solves the problems.
You could be a patriot, and still be trying to show how the US is conducting itself in an illegal manner. Just because the intelligence community is behaving like a bunch of entitled, spoiled children who feel the rules don't apply to them doesn't mean they should be allowed to do it.
Democracy is not well served by lying to the public about what you're doing and how you're doing it. If your main reason for blustering about is the spread of "truth and democracy", don't go around subverting it every chance you get.
Re:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers (Score:5, Insightful)
It's called "being political" for a reason.
We hire politicians to be upfront and honest. We don't hire them to be two faced.
Re:Surprising in its unsurprisingness (Score:5, Insightful)
Is this really a case of 'holding the US to account for its crimes' or just malice, someone's personal agenda to get back at the big bad Americans? So far, it's looking more like the latter. I'm starting to question my former support for wikileaks.
You've been drinking the kool aid a bit heavily. Wikileaks has been careful not to release data that could pose an immediate threat to life or safety. They've been posting things that embarrass the government and affect its public image. And you want to stop supporting them because of this? Wikileaks didn't kill a bunch of brown people in an some country with an unpronounceable name and then pretend it didn't happen. Wikileaks didn't blow away several journalists who were in the wrong place at the wrong time. They weren't making comments into the mic, laughing and acting excited that they were gunning down unarmed civilians.
They just told you it happened. Which is something your government (and mine) wouldn't do, and would never do if it had the choice. And all of this has been hidden behind the cloak of "national security". National security only goes so far -- when it is used as an excuse to violate the basic social contract and principles which the government is supposed to be supporting, it is the duty of those who know about this to spread the word far and wide and bring the democratic process into play to fix such systemic problems.
Wikileaks isn't on some quest to destroy the government: It is serving the purpose of saving it from itself, before it becomes completely unaccountable to its citizens and eventually becomes destructive of its own ends.
Re:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers (Score:4, Insightful)
It's called "being political" for a reason.
We hire politicians to be upfront and honest. We don't hire them to be two faced.
Those last two sentences do not seem to fit actual politics at all.
Something to hide? (Score:5, Insightful)
Isn't that line we always hear from these government agencies when it comes to privacy invasions? I can only assume from the outcry that they must have something to hide.
Re:Hear that bullshit (Score:1, Insightful)
Every government in the world has secrets and, believe it or not, the welfare and security of their populations depend on these secrets. In this specific case, some of the documents reveals secrets which are not directly related to Iraq, Afghanistan or the war on Terror at wall, but instead related to internal views that the US government has towards the World. Such documents out in the open will certainly cause discomfort and bring uneasiness to diplomatic countries with whom the US has had a good diplomacy so far.
I am not American but I do see the value of keeping certain opinions and point of views undisclosed. Take, for example, what the documents say about the Brazilian president-to-be, or regarding the neglectful lack of will from South American countries to demonstrate effort on pursuing terrorists in areas of South America where there has been evidences pointing towards a possible hideout for terrorists. Such opinions will most certainly shatter the already unstable relation between the USA and South American countries, not to mention the danger it will bring to American tourists visiting South America, on a personal level.
My point is, internal affairs should be, as the name says, internal. I am all in favour of publishing documents which reveal crimes of war, killing of civilians, evidences of misconduct and so forth, but such content doesn't seem to be the only one revealed in this case.
Re:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers (Score:3, Insightful)
If everything he says become public knowledge, then the diplomat has to severely censor what he is going to say.
Severely censoring what he says is a diplomat's JOB. It's said "a diplomat is a man who always remembers a woman's birthday, but never her age." It's also said that "a diplomat is someone who can tell you to go to hell and make you look forward to taking the trip." These diplomats should be more careful; it is, after all, their jobs to be careful.
If wikileaks can get this information, what makes you think foreign spies can't? The public benefits from this info by making the diplomats more careful about what they say and who they say it to.
Re:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers (Score:3, Insightful)
Sorry but.... you may want to think you vote for the upfront and honest politician but it is the two-faced one who is best at appearing upfront and honest because he has enough money from as many sides of the same coin as possible.
We hire politicians based on thinly veiled marketing campaigns, and then they go and hire their buddies from law school. It has nothing to do with honesty.
Re:Can't wait for wikileaks next target (Score:3, Insightful)
its lying, and hypocrisy at it best. if it came out that china was killing people on the spot, noone would give much credence. because, they arent actually hiding that they are doing it.
but america was not only hiding, but also LYING about it. this is what people dont like.
Re:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers (Score:5, Insightful)
I would imagine remaining on good terms with allies would be served well by speaking civilly and nicely about them in all communications. If you call the Prime Minister of Elbonia a power-mad idiot behind his back, you clearly don't respect him ... and diplomacy without respect sounds challenging. Similarly, if Country X's feelings are hurt because it became public that they asked us to do Mean Things to Country Y (or Z), perhaps they should have thought more heavily on that before making the request/suggestion.
I guess the overall lesson is that we (and governments) should endeavour treat others (in our actions writings, speakings, and perhaps even thoughts) in a manner which would not embarass us if done publically. If you don't want to read it on the front page of the New York Times, you are better off not saying it. Expecting mean things said secretly to stay secret is always unwise, but the lesson is even more poignant now when it's easier to publish than ever before.
Re:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers (Score:5, Insightful)
We hire politicians to be upfront and honest. We don't hire them to be two faced.
Huh? Whut? Diplomats have to be two faced to a certain extent. Should a diplomat tell Mugabe that he is a festering idiot who is destroying his country? Or should he be polite while keeping superiors up to date on what is going on in Zimbabwe? Should a diplomat chide Russia for how it is backing organized crime, or should he keep his ear to the ground and let superiors know what is going on.
Your "upfront and honest" policy might work in your makebelieve land, but not in reality.
Re:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers (Score:4, Insightful)
Why should a diplomat's views on the quality of leadership of another country become public info?
Isn't that kind of their job?
Randomly speaking... I'm a Canadian...
Isn't the Canadian Ambassador in.. oh lets say France...
Isn't it his job to inform me on his views on the quality of leadership in France?
Witholding that information from me shows that some arm of the Canadian Government isn't acting on my behalf.
Now, whether the citizens of France should have access to it or not - thats a whole different story - but the debate comes down to whether you think its better that none of the public knows, or everyone knows. Me, given the way governments have operated in the past, I could use a little transparency, even if it destabilizes the global community a smidge.
If Relations with France and Canada go sour, it's not going to trigger a War.
Re:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers (Score:5, Insightful)
It's really a shame, isn't it? I'm agreeing with you, but without leaking "secret" under-doings that politicians and those working with the government is doing... how do we really know that the marketing they did for their election/hire was honest?
Re:Doh (Score:5, Insightful)
if, exposing the above filth was an 'attack on international community' what the fuck was going and grabbing german citizens in germany and torturing them abroad ?
Nowhere in the page you linked to is torture mentioned. Not even once.
That you somehow jumped to this conclusion is evidence that you currently are not thinking straight and need to self-evaluate. Something is wrong with your thinking process and you need to figure out why you completely imagined pretty much the most damning information possible within the link, and how long you have been doing this to your perspective.
Re:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers (Score:1, Insightful)
Why should a diplomat's views on the quality of leadership of another country become public info? If everything he says become public knowledge, then the diplomat has to severely censor what he is going to say. For the life of me, I cannot figure out how the public benefits from this release of information
I supported wikileaks up until now... the information they shared this time makes me think they really jumped the shark.
I have glanced at the documents on the WikiLeaks cable release [wikileaks.org] pages, and I can categorically say that these documents should not have been released. This should a huge level of irresponsibility on the part of WikiLeaks for releasing the entire database rather than incriminating files. The files are all SECRET rather than TOP SECRET, but there are very sensitive official files in here that have no business seeing the light of day within their classification timeframe, such as HUMINT documents.
Several years ago I supported WikiLeaks and what they stood for, even donating, but after this latest continuation of their anti-American campaign I cannot support them any longer. These documents are far too strategically damaging to the U.S. and its public/not-so-public allies to have been revealed in bulk.
The Iraq and Afghan dumps were only "a little harmful" and barely worthy of classification. These cables, on the other hand, are strategically damaging the U.S., its interests, and its allies. Wikileaks should be exposing corruption, wrongdoing, and illegality. It shouldn't take what appears to all outside observers as a vendetta against the U.S.
Bradley Manning, the disgruntled private who was demoted from the rank of Sergeant prior to leaking this information, should be given the harshest penalty possible (excessive prison sentence) for the sole purpose of discouraging this type of behavior in the future. An honest whistle-blower who reveals true wrongdoing will lose their job when found out, but they won't be prosecuted for releasing the information. However, deciding to release all classified information you can get your hands on is not whistle-blowing. It is nothing short of a display of reckless disregard for any consequences.
Re:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers (Score:5, Insightful)
These leaks have nothing to do with whistle-blowing to protect the people from the government, but instead hurt the government's efforts to legitimately help it's people remain on good terms with allies.
Wikileaks is not an American organization. It is international. It doesn't have a duty to help the US government do anything.
One of the big disclosures in this set has been middle-eastern war-mongering against Iran. Almost all of the countries in the region have been secretly lobbying the US to attack Iran while publicly grandstanding on the opposite. Anyone in a free country that has been paying attention already knew that this was happening to some degree, but it wasn't publicly documented. Now it is and consequently the citizens of those middle-eastern countries are much better informed about what their leaders have been doing -- look at the state-controlled media there and coverage of this wikileaks disclosure has been extremely sparse - even al-jazeera which has built its reputation on being independent of government control has made little comment on the leak, presumable to protect their host government of Qatar. But the info is spreading via facebook and other social media because unlike the typical rumors and conspiracy theories that dominate middle-eastern discussion, this stuff is nearly indisputable.
So part of it may suck for the US government, but that's not the case for the rest of the human race.
Re:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers (Score:3, Insightful)
Look, I'm in favor of government transparency as much as the next guy. Transparency in where tax dollars are spent. Transparency in record-keeping. Transparency in lawmaking. Basically, transparency in anything that remains domestic.
But despite my desire for a transparent government domestically, diplomacy is different.
In a perfect world, everyone could get together, talk about their differences, and get along. But in the real world, countries often hate one another, and even factions within them. Diplomacy, in all its subtlety and secrecy, is often the only thing keeping away the hounds. The back-room scheming just sort of comes with the territory but, ultimately, it's done with the intent of keeping the people the government represents safe within the global community. I see it as a necessary evil.
In order for the government to do its job, some things must remain secret. Diplomats must be able to communicate in private in order to adequately and frankly assess situations so that the government can form its global policies. I don't see you screaming on the forums for the release of troop movements for the next month, do I? Yet diplomatic action can easily be worth a thousand days' worth of troop movements.
Re:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers (Score:5, Insightful)
If you were talking about communications between private citizens I would agree, but these leaks are about our own government. This is supposed to be a representative democracy, and our government should have as few secrets as possible.
Completely agree.
The government represents the people they govern. Transparency shouldn't be a problem.
I'm not talking about the little issues where it's being disclosed that some people cheat on their wives... that indeed wasn't necessary to disclose (and it'll be forgotten soon).
But I am talking about the way deals are being made behind all our backs. The reasons why governments don't keep their promises.
We either accept websites and media that try to disclose the tricks of the governments... or we just accept that we all get screwed by big institutions such as a government.
The main reason why governments are so displeased now is because they misbehaved all those years, and we can now find out about it. And I'm sorry if a few lives are at risk now. Millions die in wars which are going to be discussed because of these leaks. A few lives are a small price in the big scheme of things.
Re:Had time? (Score:2, Insightful)
One example? There seem to be many, but what about this one?
"Toby Harnden of the Telegraph notes that one of the released documents names a U.S. informant in the region. The document identifies him as a U.K.-educated engineer from a prominent pre-revolution Isfahan family who once owned a large factory in Iran and is a former national fencing champion of Iran, a former president of the Iran Fencing Association and a former vice president of an Azerbaijan sports association. Harnden aptly asks: How many such persons do you think are out there?"
People don't have to be referenced by their actual name in order to be put in danger. Only enough bits of entropy to plausibly identify them personally.
Re:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers (Score:3, Insightful)
It depends on what your goal is... if it's about furthering peace, you should damn well be upfront.
"Hey there Billy... throwing that down the well might not be the best thing to be doing considering that the owner has an itchy trigger finger."
Re:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers (Score:5, Insightful)
with the lack of honesty even within our country, people are understandably pissed about the lack of honesty outside of our country too.
The issue here is: if people were honest, we wouldn't have this kind of shit to deal with.
If Mugabe's government policy is a fucking joke, say it. Get it out there. Negotiations fall from it? Well, the problem isn't our diplomatics then, the problem is his country by and large. Think other countries wouldn't support us for bold-faced honesty? Think again.
It's a lot harder to spin things against someone when they're being brutally honest.
after all, we're building up Dubai as the next superpower. It's not like they're going to kiss our asses once they get there. Whose fault is it for the shit we've already stepped in? Twofacing isn't going to fix that. When people talk about the world as sunshine and rainbows while it's fire and brimstone, there is a bit of an issue with two facing.
Re:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe your bill isn't the best thing to be selling if you have to lie to get it in the box.
Re:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers (Score:4, Insightful)
One might argue that the Canadian diplomat to France's job is to secure the best relations between your two countries, for example, perhaps promoting trade that results in more/better paying Canadian jobs.
What if that requires ass-kissing the French leadership?
Re:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers (Score:3, Insightful)
It's funny: WikiLeaks was originally a place for whistle-blowers to leak only what was necessary to expose wrong-doing. That was when the organization wasn't controlling the release of information.
Suddenly, it's become a RapidShare for U.S. government database dumps, one which they make a conscious decision to enable.
Re:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers (Score:4, Insightful)
If that were so, then where are the leaks from China, from Germany, from Russia, etc?
Ask the Chinese, the Germans, the Russians, etc. who presumably haven't sent anything too interesting to Wikileaks.
All secrets should be released. (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm not a big fan of the "OK government secrets" thing.
I'm pretty convinced that just about every thing that the government tries to keep secret is because it is a morally bad thing that they would be ashamed of if it was made public.
Sure, there are technological secrets, but most of the secrets that they are up in arms about are behavioral secrets.
Personally, think that every government secret that can be outed should be outed, and the people doing the outing should be held harmless. Allow the government to keep its secrets as best it may, but there should be no retribution when they drop the ball and the secret gets out.
For years we have heard "If you have nothing to hide, you should have nothing to worry about" aimed at private citizens. Well what's good for the goose is good for the gander.
Re:Had time? (Score:4, Insightful)
Right. Because we can determine all the negative consequences of releasing diplomatic information in just the one or two days after it was released. As if common sense didn't apply to this matter at all.
As far as I can tell most of the leaks have been pretty tame,
I think finding out that the king of one of your neighbors has asked the Big Devil, Source of All Evil, to assist them by removing your blossoming nuclear capability just MIGHT cause one to hold a grudge, don't you? Especially when one is already publicly calling for the elimination of an "enemy" country and building a capacity to accomplish this, isn't it reasonable to think that maybe the list of targets might have changed a bit since the release?
I'm not saying it is not possible, but thus far I haven't heard of any example that comes even close.
Right. Because, of course, you have access to all diplomatic information and it has been, after all, two days since the release of this information. That proves that nothing bad will happen.
Or are you relying on Wikileaks to provide the information of all the bad things that happen because of their actions, and not try to push the responsibility off on someone else?
The conduct of diplomacy DEMANDS an ability to have frank and candid evaluations of the other parties, so that diplomats can judge and plan. Knowing what the other party's values are allows one to work with them, instead of simply taking pot-shots at trying to come up with a solution. There is no public value in knowing that one diplomat thinks another one is a "stuffed shirt" or that his motives are to avoid certain things, and those evaluations are worthless once the evaluee knows about them. In fact, they are harmful, because there is now an animosity between parties that has to be overcome before any further advances can be made.
Wikileaks went across the line this time. There will be reppercussions, but Wikileaks will not admit that anything they did caused harm. They'll point the finger at others while pretending to carry the high moral ground.
Re:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers (Score:5, Insightful)
People who are abusing their powers will suffer. People who do dirty deeds and want clean hands will suffer. People who believe that their position protects them from personal responsibility will suffer.
Re:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers (Score:5, Insightful)
Diplomats are not politicians, they are not elected. They are supposed to give uncut views about their foreign circumstances. If every view is going to be made public, they won't bother telling Washington anything but what Washington wants to here and is neutered to the point of being useless.
Re:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers (Score:4, Insightful)
If you can't speak frankly and candidly in your private, secret, and classified communications with the government you represent, how are you supposed to do your job? How do you give your government good information and an accurate assessment of the situation on the ground? If your impression of the President of Afghanistan is that he's corrupt and paranoid, your country needs to know.
Suggesting that we extend political correctness into classified communications is completely absurd. The expectation is that these documents will never see the light of day until they're only relevant in an historical context.
Re:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers (Score:5, Insightful)
You're not hearing about those because you don't speak the languages spoken in any of those countries.
Wikileaks is a primarily English website. It's no surprise that you'll hear more about the US leaks on English news networks.
Not to mention that in China, your family would be incarcerated if you pulled a stunt like this. Not so much in the US.
Re:Surprising in its unsurprisingness (Score:4, Insightful)
So far, Wikileaks has only released the same things with the same redactions as the New York Times has released with the informed consent of the State Department.
Re:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers (Score:5, Insightful)
Politics is the opposite of honesty. And it's the easiest thing in the world to spin things against soemone who's being brutally honest.
Most of international politics is about leaders looking for ways to appear strong to appear strong and uncompromising to their own people (so that they remain as leaders) while in fact making good and useful compromises for the betterment of those same people. Pride matters a lot, and so much of politics is finding a way for someone to give in while saving face. Honesty can destroy peace - in fact it usually does.
Transparency (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers (Score:5, Insightful)
If you think the entire populace should be aware of all the non-critical-military/intelligence-ops of the government, then you want a direct democracy.
Yes, what's your point?
The government in a representative democracy is ostensibly there to represent our interests.
FTFY.
We have a right to know whether it is doing so or not.
Agreed!
A government whose every daily operation is exposed to the public spotlight will be completely ineffective in representing anyone's interests.
First, this assertion is offered without any support whatsoever. I don't buy it.
Second, a government that is completely ineffective in representing anyone's interests is preferable to a government that is effective at representing the interests of a small powerful elite at the expense of everyone else, which is what we have today.
Re:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers (Score:4, Insightful)
I agree. If you don't want to be called on doing or saying evil shit, guess what? Stop doing or saying evil shit.
I will go one further. All this wah wah wah about the stuff being released. Well who's fault is that? If this is so HIGHLY sensitive and secret information, how the HELL did 250,000 documents get leaked then? Perhaps rather than crying like a baby, they should take a hard look (and I am sure they are now) about their own internal security and how these communications are sent/stored. I mean if some asshole sitting in Sweden with a bad hair cut can get a hold of this information, just imagine what your enemies have access to!
That said, while some of the information is embarrassing (more so for the actual leak than content I think) and somewhat interesting, most is pretty common knowlege so far as I have seen. Just the the fact than an official said it out loud somehow makes it more offensive I guess. I mean is anyone surprised that the US thinks there are ties in the Russian government to the Mob? Really? Gasp! That royals sometimes behave inappropriately? No!
I mean it was interesting to hear about some other mid-east countries urging the US to attack Iran, but then again Iran hasn't exactly the "play nice" attitude, so not all that surprising. Also it was interesting to see that US has talked to China regarding a plan should North Korea implode, but again considering the unstable state of that country over the years, as well as China and US relations, it is also not all that surprising.
All the gaffs? Well people say stupid things, particularly when they think it is in confidence, politicians probably more than most. I say bring it on. Get some of this stuff into the open and stop passing mean notes in class calling your neighbor a poo head, as sooner or later the teacher might just grab it and read your ill though words to the rest of the class and they might not think it so witty.
Re:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers (Score:4, Insightful)
Welcome back, agent Kagura [slashdot.org]. I guess operatives such as yourself don't have time to rewrite previous comments [slashdot.org]. We understand.
Re:Had time? (Score:3, Insightful)
excuse me, but any country, anyone, engaging in shit like the above, already pre-deserved any cost they are going to pay. people reap, what they saw. the only thing preventing the people in administration from reaping what they sow was that these were being hidden behind secrecy with 'national security' excuses.
Yep - so they should have published that incident. And incidents like it. What about the other 99% of the documents?
The country deserves what it gets? Even when "what it gets" may be setbacks in international relations that damage not only US and its citizens, but can also serve as the spark that sets of far worse than a diplomatic crisis between other nations? The people who supposedly "pre-deserve" are only one party among the many who will pay.
Dumping this data on the world is like that phrase, "Kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out." Elsewhere you said that "responsible reporting" can't be a concern when dealing with the evil juggernaut that is the US (paraphrased). I say that you've a very narrow view of "responsible reporting"; and an interesting set of double-standards in that it seems to be OK with you that the fallout from this may be far worse among other nations than anything the US did in the last few years.
Had wikileaks provided only information such as what you saw above, that would go a long way towards justifying their actions. What they did, though, only further shows how their lack of accountability also ensures that they have no sense of responsibility.
Re:Had time? (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't really think one day is really enough time to process these documents.
Indeed. Say what you like about wikileaks, but there is probably not a single researcher in International Relations, History or Political Science without a cum-stain in his pants today. Never in modern history has so much information been made available in such a readily accessible format about one point in history. This is, for researchers, a gift that will keep on giving for decades to come.
The thing that impressed me most from my brief perusal of the 200-odd documents released on the first day was the quality of the analysis. The 'scene setter' papers were well-written and obviously well-researched. I suspect that there's more than one junior foreign officer out there with a quiet smile on their face today, because finally the world will see just how good they are.
Yes, I'm ignoring completely the ethics and morality of the situation. That horse is out of the barn, but what a barn it is....
These cables will provide more insight and understanding into American diplomacy than anything else ever has. Just as access to hitherto proprietary source code sometimes unearths dirty secrets, there is a lot of unpleasantness to be found in the cables. I think the longer term result, however, will be that much of what's good about the US diplomatic corps (and there's a lot of that) will assist countless others to improve their own work and that of others.
Re:Had time? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yep - so they should have published that incident. And incidents like it. What about the other 99% of the documents?
99% of the other documents that are out, show varying levels of filth. there is filth still. and heaven knows how much filth there is going to be yet.
The country deserves what it gets? Even when "what it gets" may be setbacks in international relations that damage not only US and its citizens, but can also serve as the spark that sets of far worse than a diplomatic crisis between other nations? The people who supposedly "pre-deserve" are only one party among the many who will pay.
excuse me, but judging from the amount of filth perpetrated, us is currently the biggest creator of all incidents, causes and issues worldwide. strictest regimes pale in comparison.
Dumping this data on the world is like that phrase, "Kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out."
there is no easy way to do this. if, you engage in any kind of filtering, eventually mechanisms that will filter out most of the information will be created by the countries or private interests. shit, should get out, as it is.
it was a long time coming already. there should be no secrets. the time of 'secrets' in regard to military or national security matters, is long gone. now every country knows at precisely what our the sentries of an important watchtower is rotating, thanks to the military satellites. all countries know, who is cabling what to whom, secretly and diplomatically, thanks to the monitoring technologies developed since the electronics age.
so, basically, your enemy knows you, you know your enemy and everyone knows what everyone else is doing.
the ONLY party not knowing what's happening has been the citizens. us. the people.
it was high time that we learned.
Re:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, I'd like to see the Constitution amended to where after the President signs a bill, it doesn't become law until voted on by referendum, say, in an annual election.
Re: Don't Ask Don't Tell Should Have Kicked In (Score:4, Insightful)
Dont ask dont tell is sound?
Really?
Idiot.
Re:Had time? (Score:5, Insightful)
with your mindset, i wouldnt what to know what constitutes 'illegal' for you.
Re:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers (Score:5, Insightful)
I agree. That's the irony on all of this. These "secrets" of "national security" aren't secrets to any other government. They know all about the supposed secrets of all other governments, pretty much. They all have spies, most of them have spy satellites, they know what's going on. None of this will be news to them.
Things that are State secrets, things of "National Security" are generally just things that governments don't want their own citizens, or the citizens of other countries, knowing about.
If any government truly believed in democracy they'd be a lot more transparent than they are. With the technology currently available it would be relatively simple to have openness and transparency, as well as democratic accountability, in any Government that was truly representative of its people.
Of course, I do not expect to ever see that in my lifetime. If anything, it's far more likely that all Governments will use that technology to spy on, and restrict, its citizens more and more.
It's almost as though the UK, the US, Australia and China have been experimenting collaboratively to see how best to use the Internet for citizen-control -- using the excuse of pedophilia, terrorism and copyright theft as the mechanism.
Branding wikileaks as a "terrorist organization" is just another convenient little Reichstag's Fire to use against the freedom of citizens.
Re:Surprising in its unsurprisingness (Score:3, Insightful)
They've been posting things that embarrass the government and affect its public image.
Specifically, I think you mean the US government. One thing (not the only thing though) that bothers me about Wikileaks is that it seems to be exclusively, or at least principally, dedicated to embarrassing the US government.
I have no problem with calling out lies told by world leaders - for example, George W. Bush was lying when he claimed that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and was working with terrorists.
But I don't think that every diplomatic cable ought to necessarily be public and transparent. Nor do I think that the releases of lots of documents that consisted of basically known facts about the war in Afghanistan combined with details that served no overwhelming public interest need were particularly valuable to the world. Basically, I've yet to be convinced that Wikileaks does more good than harm.
And after the debacle where they foolishly released video under the title "Collateral Murder" they gave up any claim to being an unbiased party dedicated to transparency.
So while I like the idea of accountability and agree that journalists don't always do a perfect job at it, I don't particularly think that Wikileaks is doing a better job.
If somebody can provide evidence to the contrary, I'd love to hear it.
Re:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers (Score:4, Insightful)
Look up the word "Diplomacy" please.
You may have noticed that "Diplomacy" and "Diplomat" are extremely similar.
It turns out, a "Diplomat" is a person who engages in diplomacy.
A diplomat's job is diplomacy. The purpose of diplomacy is to improve the relationship between two parties.
In other words, you're an idiot.
Re: Don't Ask Don't Tell Should Have Kicked In (Score:1, Insightful)
a + 4 interesting? Really mods? For a homophobic attack on gays thinly veiled as "facts"?
You're fucked. (Score:5, Insightful)
If this was any country on our shit list, NYT and the rest of the fawning idiots would be praising WikiLeaks for being defenders of Western civilization. Everyone up in arms is not upset that secrets were revealed; they are upset that the truth makes America look bad.
Well, sorry it takes a leak and a douchy sort of guy to make America rethink it's position as the totally incapable, laughable, and incompetent unilateral policeman of the world. If we had stuck to American jobs and trade, we wouldn't have just blown three trillion dollars on two bullshit wars that accomplished nothing except for putting Iran in prime position to run the region when we are economically incapable of projecting our influence there. We wouldn't be in deep shit because we no longer have a middle class and our living standards are dropping for the first time in our history.
The sort of hubris that led us to kill hundreds of thousands of muslims and spend trillions in response to an attack that cost us 3,000 lives and a few billion dollars (besides pussy fair weather patriots abandoning the stock market) is exactly the sort you can find in these cables. If they went back further, you'd find us saying "Hey, Saddam is better than Khomeini! Nuclear Pakistan is better than Marxist Afghanistan! The Shah is better than a sovereign Iran! Millions of dead Vietnamese are better than Marxist Vietnam! Pinochet is better than Socialist Allende!"
Our allies and the electorate need to know: there are no principles at work here. Just some people who have confused the word democracy with American Corporate Interests.
Re:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers (Score:4, Insightful)
The Economist summed it up well, I thought:
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2010/11/wikileaks [economist.com]
"At this point, what WikiLeaks is doing seems like tattling: telling Sally what Billy said to Jane. It's sometimes possible that Sally really ought to know what Billy said to Jane, if Billy were engaged in some morally culpable deception. But in general, we frown on gossips. If there's something particularly damning in the diplomatic cables WikiLeaks has gotten a hold of, the organisation should bring together a board of experienced people with different perspectives to review the merits of releasing that particular cable. But simply grabbing as many diplomatic cables as you can get your hands on and making them public is not a socially worthy activity."
I think that releasing Secret material can be in the public interest, but if it is not revealing wrongdoing of some sort not all workings need to be fully public. The problem of course is how do we know if we can't look at everything...
Re:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers (Score:3, Insightful)
How do you intend to elect a politician if they lie to you? Shouldn't you know how your elected representative feels about certain issues so you can vote for the person who will represent you properly? If politicians can just lie to get elected, not do anything beneficial to you while in office, and then cover up everything they do or so or vote on in the name of protecting security or some other bs, won't you just vote for them the next time when they lie to you? Politicians need to be accountable for EVERYTHING they do while representing you. If they communicate in any way in an official capacity, you as their electorate have a right to know what they are doing and saying for YOU.
Re:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers (Score:4, Insightful)
Because you're mistaking Diplomats for Politicians. They aren't the same. Diplomats are supposed to provide a "public face" to that country's government while being brutally honest with their own. Diplomats have more in common with company spokesmen than politicians. Basically what Wikileaks did is damage all of our "brand spokesmen" at once. There will probably be a huge diplomat shuffle as a result of this to restore the "brand image".
Let's discuss the CRIMES instead (Score:4, Insightful)
Don't be rude to people you don't know, even if you aren't face-to-face with them.
Maybe best to tell that to diplomats before they are bad mouthing other people behind their backs?
Anyways, I think that is beside the whole issue. The real issues are those instances where diplomats are ordered to get biometric data on leaders, crack their passwords and encryption mechanisms, search briefcases and offices. Stuff like that.
Btw, I tried fixing the moderators giving you -1 Troll all over the place yesterday. No mod points today, and don't have patience for metamod, but I respect your opinion, for the sake of discussion. I just think it's like selling your soul to a soulless entity. Call it a corporation, call it a country, doesn't matter, it makes you blind to the REAL issues here.
Of course, you have to do a little journalism, some work, to get to the bottom of these papers, some real investigation.
There is nothing anti-American going on here. It was just another poor security decision after 9/11, just like Afghanistan, just like Iraq, just like Patriot Act, just like etc, etc., OR these papers were deliberately opened for access to 3 million workers, and are not that important anyways.
Just don't say you were never warned. These cowboys (republicans) had lots of warnings, and ample time, before shooting themselves in the foot.
Re:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers (Score:4, Insightful)
Our leaders can't respond appropriately to international issues if they don't know the background, opinions and likely responses of their global counterparts. As the GP said this isn't about unearthing a wrong doing, it's about trying to castrate the US in international relations.
And as the GGGP by Shining Celebi said. This isn't what whistle blowing is for, revealing wrongs. It's about Assange's vendetta against the US's international policies, and his inappropriate attacks on the ability of the US to operate in the international realm.
grudgonomics (Score:3, Insightful)
I think finding out that the king of one of your neighbors has asked the Big Devil, Source of All Evil, to assist them by removing your blossoming nuclear capability just MIGHT cause one to hold a grudge, don't you?
The Iranians are under no illusions about how their nuclear capability is perceived by neighbouring states, whether they read the telegrams in flagrante delicto or not. That being said, of course it's a useful propaganda tool to stir up the average Iranian citizen.
I don't think grudges are amenable to causality calculus. I think your point treads on institutional infantilism. Dang, the insecure table-pounding Iranian leadership is going to bite their soother in half over these harsh and unexpected words. If the leadership holds a grudge over this, they were shopping for grudges in the first place. For cripes sake, 48% of Quebec is seething to escape from totalitarian bondage.
Do we really need to tip toe around the obvious because the spin department of some aggrieved party is going to pull an infantile hissy fit, playing strictly for optics? Interesting how teenagers think of their parents as The Big Devil and how quickly the grudges are set aside at the first sign of trouble (unless mom is Livia Soprano and dad is worse).
On the Iranian front, we're in serious danger of the Peter principle here. Nuclear states will proliferate until some state bites off more than it can chew and warheads start to go missing. Like teenagers, every budding superpower thinks it can handle hard alcohol. America is not going to admit that these states can handle the responsibility, even if they could.
A perfect recipe for bravado and ambulances at midnight, as everyone in the Middle East justifiably fears.
Re:more is coming from wikileaks... and it good. (Score:2, Insightful)
> And how is a stronger China good for anyone other than the People's Republic of China?
How is a stronger USA good for anyone other than the USA?
Answer: it's not, but it's better for power to be spread around among several state actors than to be concentrated in the hands of a single one. That's why transferring power away from the USA to Russia, Brazil, China, and so on is a good thing. It isn't because China is "good", it's because no one should have too much all to themselves, like the USA has had recently.
Re:Surprising in its unsurprisingness (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm not trying to shield anyone from justice. I'm just trying to put things in perspective. By all means, accuse the Bush administration of concealing facts, starting a war of aggression, and human rights violations. But "war crimes" and "crimes against humanity", no.
Re:Transparency (Score:5, Insightful)
Please tell why a diplomat's private communication to superiors about his assessment of Russia's leadership should be public knowledge?
My government's assessment and true opinion of Russia's leadership should be public knowledge. I can not be certain that I'm being represented fairly if I don't know what my representatives are thinking.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Surprising in its unsurprisingness (Score:2, Insightful)
You're drinking kool-aid too, just a different brand. So far, the majority of the leaked documents simply complicate and frustrate the international community's diplomatic efforts. Some of these efforts are laudable, such as dealing with and containing unsavory characters (like Mugabe) or unsavory governments (Iran and North Korea). How does throwing a monkey wrench in these delicate, but necessary, machinations benefit the citizens of the world?
One positive note is the exposure of the pressure applied to the German government to not prosecute CIA agents in a kidnapping case. Perhaps there will be other documents in the same vein. But the scarcity of this kind of exposure highlights my fear: long gone are the days when WikiLeaks was the refuge of the whistle-blower, giving a voice to the powerless in the pursuit of truth, and hopefully, justice. If this were *still* WikiLeaks' core mission, then the latest dump would have separated the chaff (Merkle is a teflon politician, Putin is an alpha dog) and highlighted the documents that detail morally dubious and corrupt government action.
More and more, WikiLeaks is conflating 'secret' with 'malfeasance'. Also, it's raison d'etre now seems to be to bloody the nose of the American government more than anything else. And we're all the poorer for it.
Yeah, we don't need to know the truth (Score:5, Insightful)
Gosh yeah, no need for the public to know that US ally Saudia Arabia is STILL financially supporting Al Queda while at the SAME time urging the US to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities. No need to know. No, let the Saudi's play both sides while keeping the masses uninformed.
But we all "knew" this? Yes, but "we" "knew" so many things. Rumors are one thing, facts are another. NOW it is PROVEN and can therefor no longer be denied. Perhaps THIS time when shady deals with Arab nations are made again, this little bit of FACT will force US senators to be a bit more critical.
The US has a VERY long history of a two or even three-faced foreign policy. Claiming to be pro-democracy yet propping up dictarorships of the worsed kind around the globe. Speaking nice about allies like Holland yet having senate approved invasion plans for allied nations. These documents show what America truly thinks. But we don't need to know. No. We need to be kept in the dark, our masters know best and we should obey blindly.
Re:Had time? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: Don't Ask Don't Tell Should Have Kicked In (Score:2, Insightful)
Dear God.
Is... is this a joke? A Gay leaked the files, therefore Gays should be banned from the military? Seriously? This is modded +5?
What is wrong with people. I am fucking sickened.
Re:Had time? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers (Score:3, Insightful)
You look at their record. It may surprise people to know that the entire legislative agenda for the US Government is online, and has been for years [loc.gov]. You want to see what your elected officials are doing? Look it up. Be informed.
This release from Wikileaks does nothing to create more openness in government. Nobody benefits from hearing about some diplomat's opinion about another country; all this does is annoy people. There's no deeper truth to be gained here, like there was from the release of the Pentagon's papers (which revealed some disturbing problems with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan); it's all just gossip.
Unfortunately it's also dangerous gossip. Example: the biggest bombshell in this data is the fact that--surprise!--nobody likes Iran, even the other Arabs. We all pretty much knew that already; nobody said it because it would just hurt its ruling party's feelings, and that's probably not a good idea considering Iran already sponsors suicide bombers and militant extremists around the world. Iran's prime minister is already frothing at the mouth and calling for more violence against the West as a result of this release; how much more money will be going to the Taliban and Al Queda because of that?
Re:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers (Score:5, Insightful)
Consider North Korea.
Just about everyone considers NK to be a violent, unstable, despotic regime that cares nothing for its population and is run by a paranoid, incompetent and self aggrandizing blowhard that probably likes 12 year old girls (or boys) and is generally someone who would have a good time partying with Hitler.
Now, try to hold some kind of diplomatic talks with them after saying that to his face.
I would bet that if you thought your boss an ignorant jackass, you wouldn't go ahead and tell him that before you sat down for a quarterly performance review.
Your third grade sensibilities regarding truth, while quaint, if taken to heart by any administration are dangerous.
Re:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers (Score:4, Insightful)
Are these not examples of wrongdoing?
* Wrongly kidnapping German citizens, and then threatening Germany over it - http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=53702 [ipsnews.net]
* Collecting credit card data at the UN - http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/nov/29/un-reacts-us-embassy-cables [guardian.co.uk]
If so then by your definition I'd say this is definitely whistle-blowing, particularly so if you include the earlier leaks about the Iraq war.
The leak could also start a war. (Score:3, Insightful)
> People who are abusing their powers will suffer. People who do dirty deeds and want clean hands will suffer. People who believe that their position protects them from personal responsibility will suffer.
And war could start in Korea, as China's position to us (that they are ready to support reunification) could make the dictator over their upset in a way which undermines China's negotiating power with Korea at a time when that power could prevent a shooting war. For example.
I wonder if some of these touchier releases come from having Harold Koh as legal counsel to State, or whether he wrote his note refusing to identify specific areas that could cost lives under protest.
Re:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers (Score:2, Insightful)
And the release of these cables isn't really going to change that. It might make for an awkward social moment here and there, but nothing policy-changing, exactly because everyone will publicly pretend it hasn't happened.
On the other hand, learning that the U.S. is instructing diplomats to engage in espionage against U.N. officials [guardian.co.uk], or that our "friends" in Saudi Arabia are pushing the U.S. to attack Iran [reuters.com] -- Americans need to know that. If the price is an awkward moment in the receiving line at some diplomatic function, it's cheaply got.
Re:Yeah, we don't need to know the truth (Score:3, Insightful)
Speaking nice about allies like Holland yet having senate approved invasion plans for allied nations.
To be fair, WW2 military history - say, the Maginot Line - does show that if you want one country in Europe to be secure against invasion from any other, you have account for your allies themselves getting subverted or invaded. Just because they're your allies now doesn't mean they always will be. That's just sound military planning and one would expect all nations to have plans like that.
Re:Surprising in its unsurprisingness (Score:3, Insightful)
I can at least trust them to try and keep Canadians in power and keeping an eye out for a surge of Pakistanis moving in, taking up Law degrees, and taking over the judicial state of Canada.
Of course, because Pakistanis can never be Canadians, right?
That may sound Racist
Sounds right, except for the "may" portion.
Now give me figures: What percentage of Pakistanis who immigrated to Canada claimed refugee status, and/or got welfare benefits compared to the real Canadians? If you can't back what you say, then yeah, I'll call you a racist.
Re:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers (Score:2, Insightful)
Nonsense.
The character and proclivities of a person gives you valuable insight that can be useful during negotiations or deciding to even have them or not.
If the supreme leader was actually just a nice guy in a difficult spot, you would approach talks differently than you would if he is a blowhard pedophile.
And you are right about your boss. And what has happened is that someone who works for you has told the world what you really think. Not only about your boss, but what you think about your colleagues too.
Re:Surprising in its unsurprisingness (Score:3, Insightful)
Torture: No. Even Guantanamo isn't large enough to qualify as a crime against humanity
How many people can I torture before its a crime against humanity?
2? 4? 25? 1,000,000?
How many humans are there in a humanity, for that matter? I would say you need to torture EVERYONE before its actually a crime against humanity. By that reasoning genocide can't be a crime against humanity either, since by definition your only killing one group, and not the whole of humanity (as long as you don't commit suicide when your done, your still golden).
Sorry, torture, period, is a crime against humanity. It doesn't matter if you torture one person or a million.
Also; define murder. Killing civilians for no reason? Then we could consider all of Iraq, and much of Afghanistan, as murder. Even excepting some weak justification for there wars, we still are pretty wanton about our collateral damage.
And what the hell is does "justified by military or civilian necessity" mean? So if there is no real reason to be there, but we send the military anyway, then its fine and dandy.
Your using Bush logic, there are no war crimes unless someone else commits them, though WE can do the exact same things but are justified since we have a good reason, where they, the bad guys, don't, obviously. We aren't evil because we are America, and America isn't evil!
Ordering torture of enemy civilians is a war crime, as is kidnapping innocent people for no reason and holding them for protracted amounts of time without justification (see the German account in the leak, or read many accounts of Guantanamo or field prisons). Also NOT condemning torture, rape, or murder, and not acting to prevent it is pretty much the same thing as condoning it, especially when you know that the chance, opportunity, and environment for it exists.
Re:Yeah, we don't need to know the truth (Score:3, Insightful)
There are many sides although of course manipulative bastards like to attempt to link Al Queda and Iran in our minds. Some bastards in politics even tried to pretend that hunter gatherers in a remote part of Ecuador were linked to Al Queda to justify violent measures.
Looks Like A False Flag Operation... (Score:4, Insightful)
One of the strongest indicators that it's a false flag operation is that Assange and WikiLeaks are still alive and kicking. Had he crossed U.S. intelligence, he'd have disappeared by now.