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.
Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers (Score:2, Interesting)
I may have had an unusual reaction to the leaks... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Where Is The Trust Metric (Score:3, Interesting)
that guarantees the leaks from Wikileaks are legitimate and not some delusional writing from Sarah Palin?
That is my thought as well. The best way to silence WikiLeaks is to leak tons of false data that seems right, let it make a lot of noise, then prove that it is all fake. No one will trust them again - so hearing another major leak right after the pentagon one - makes me wonder just how real is this...
-Em
Data portability (Score:5, Interesting)
Having worked for several businesses that have attempted to ban the use of portable media -- it's a pointless endeavor. Anything that connects to a USB port can emulate anything else that can connect to a USB port. I have seen USB flash drives that emulate rewritable CDROMs, etc. And with just a little bit of work, you can use standard HUD devices like mice and keyboards to stream data out at very high speeds to other devices. And nevermind Firewire and it's built-in ability to directly manipulate system memory -- if the port has power, all your memory are belong to us. -_-
There is only one security measure that works in this situation: Air gap. Everything else is window dressing.
Re:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers (Score:2, Interesting)
The Pentagon Papers were published to expose wrong-doing, which is the entire point of whistle-blowing and what's supposed to be the reason Wikileaks exists in the first place. 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.
Doh (Score:3, Interesting)
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."
somehow it suddenly became an attack on 'international community'.
says the secretary of the country that grabbed german citizens in germany and tortured them abroad.
Clashes with Europe over human rights: American officials sharply warned Germany in 2007 not to enforce arrest warrants for Central Intelligence Agency officers involved in a bungled operation in which an innocent German citizen with the same name as a suspected militant was mistakenly kidnapped and held for months in Afghanistan. A senior American diplomat told a German official "that our intention was not to threaten Germany, but rather to urge that the German government weigh carefully at every step of the way the implications for relations with the U.S."
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/29/world/29cables.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&hp [nytimes.com]
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 ?
filth. nothing but filth. and if ANYone listens to their bullshit about 'risking countless lives and freedom', they will be able to perpetuate that shit. notice - freedom. freedom of grabbing people abroad and torturing, she means, probably.
Re:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers (Score:2, Interesting)
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.
Re:Surprising in its unsurprisingness (Score:1, Interesting)
I'm upset that the americans are spying on us Canadians, so much for our brotherhood. Spying on allies? Sounds like a deal breaker for me. Furthermore, the isolation, polarizing view of those in power, for example Hillary Clinton, is evident. American and Non-American? Why word it like that? I interpet that as "with us, or against us."
Re:Can't wait for wikileaks next target (Score:1, Interesting)
Wikileaks is only a news outlet. They only publishes whatever information is passed to them.
Of course America isn't the only country commiting war crimes and diplomatic blunders, but it seems to be the most incompetent at hiding it (not that a country, represented by its government should have anything to hide from the people in the first place).
I hope Wikileaks will receive some information about other countries (in fact I hope they will get the chance to report every single crime and error commited by every single country in the world). Maybe that will teach politicians to a) do their job properly b) not everything you think should be spoken or written down and c) if something happens, admit it and not hide it from the very people you're supposed to represent.
Re:if Wikileaks can get this... (Score:3, Interesting)
What makes you think that another country wasn't behind leaking the info to wikileaks? Do you think wikileaks has a staff that actively acquires the documents?
Re:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers (Score:3, Interesting)
That its dealings can entail shady backroom secret agreements so long as the public is well-served.
Is it possible for it to be otherwise?
These cables are the government equivalent of a little white lie. That is, you do much the same with your own internal monologue. You self-censor to be polite, and that politeness is (as Miss Manners says) the grease that keeps the gears of society turning. Nobody expects you to be "transparent" in your dealings with everybody; if you actually called every asshole an asshole, you'd be pretty busy.
Governments aren't individuals, so the analogy is not entirely apt (sorry if I'm stealing your schtick there, BadAnalogyGuy) but I think it's still illuminating. Internal decision-making processes should not be completely beyond the reach of oversight, but having complete uncensored access to every impolite or ill-phrased thought is going to make everybody cranky most of the time.
Re:Surprising in its unsurprisingness (Score:2, Interesting)
You're obviously not a lawyer, then. Hell, you obviously haven't even read the Wikipedia articles on war crimes and crimes against humanity.
Has the US government committed acts of genocide, ie. the killing of an entire ethnic group? No.
Has the US government, as a policy, condoned or ordered any of the following on a large scale?
So, that eliminates "crimes against humanity". Now, on to war crimes. While I will agree that several individual actions could qualify as war crimes, you are talking about high-command stuff. So, then, has the command of the US armed forces systematically condoned or ordered any of the following:
So, then, there is no justification for bandying about charges of "crimes against humanity" or "war crimes" for GWB et al. The most serious crime you could reasonably accuse them of is "crime against peace", as the invasion of Iraq was not, strictly speaking, a defensive military action. However, since such charges are reviewed by the UN Security Council, and the US is on said council (along with two significant allies), good luck trying to convict them.
Lesson: If you're going to accuse an entire government of something, at least check Wikipedia first to see if you're using the terms properly.
I, for one, am glad these cables were leaked. (Score:5, Interesting)
I have been saying for a long time, that Israel is far less worried about the Iranian enrichment program, than the Arab countries - and this diplomatic cable leak has proven me right. Arab states have urged the US to destroy the Iranian nuclear enrichment program. Yes, the Muslim brothers. Turns out, there's more animosity between Sunni (Arab countries) and Shia (Iran) than they like to admit. Not surprising, violence between Sunni and Shia kills orders of magnitude more Muslims than West-East conflict.
I find it particularly telling that Saudi Arabia, which has itself a formidable weapon hardware, would be begging the US to do the dirty deed for them. I find it telling, not surprising: Muslim countries would not want to be seen in disagreement, and an air raid on another country's research facilities could definitely be interpreted as a "disagreement".
None of the things I have learned from these leaks surprised me at all. The candid opinion of US diplomats and politicians about some "allies" such as Turkey, is refreshing. Oh, I would love that kind of candor from politicians in every day life!
Re:Surprising in its unsurprisingness (Score:3, Interesting)
The unsurprising facts that the Saudi's were funding most terrorism was as unsurprising as the fact that they fear Iran, and that China hacked Google.
We all knew this, or suspected it. That our diplomats talk frankly among themselves is nothing more than I would suspect.
That there are idiots here on /. that believe this should not be the case is the only surprise I've seen about this whole episode.
What I want to know is how a buck private managed to get his hands on diplomatic traffic. If heads must roll surely the chain of command that allowed THAT should be first to feel the knife.
Why is the military privy to diplomatic traffic at all? Why would it be on a computer entrusted to a private?
Unbelievable.
Re:Surprising in its unsurprisingness (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm upset that the americans are spying on us Canadians, so much for our brotherhood. Spying on allies? Sounds like a deal breaker for me.
I don't know what impression you had that really put us in the state of "Brotherhood" - but honestly I can't see why you are surprised to see this - especially after 9/11 where Canada got a lot of flack for its super-lax (or rather, encouraging) refugee/immigrant policies. Let me put it this say:
If you come from the Middle East, you can move to Canada, claim refugee status, and get your living expenses subsidized plus extra for any children/dependants you might have. If you seem to be part of a visible minority, you might get your education covered. It's easier for an immigrant to live in Canada than a Canadian born citizen - and that is especially scary to the US who has made a lot of enemies - unlike Canada which has managed to remain in this friendly kind of spotlight to the rest of the world.
I would be far more concerned if the US wasn't spying on us. Honestly, while I don't agree with a lot of America's political stances, 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.
That may sound Racist - I don't actually have anything against immigrants or people coming over here, though it does irk me a bit that they get by on our tax dollars. And I don't mean to single out Pakistan but I have a feeling thats one of the countries the US keeps an eye on, and also has a lot of immigrants to Canada.
Re:more is coming from wikileaks... and it good. (Score:4, Interesting)
A strong Russia is good for the world in the long run?
A strong Russia has never been good for anyone or anything other than killing a lot of Nazis.
Oh sure its always good for the noble class in Russia, the Party leadership in the USSR and the oligarchs in the Russian Federation, but for the Poles, Georgians, or Chechens, a strong Russia isn't a good thing.
And how is a stronger China good for anyone other than the People's Republic of China? A strong China is what is keeping the North Korean leadership in power and millions of people in prison camps.
Russia and China have been terrible to the environment, far worse than anything capitalistic industry in the US or Europe ever did.
A resugent Russia with massive industry and natural resources whose population is falling being next to a even stronger China with a booming population is not going to be better for anyone in the long run, eventually they will clash, as they did in 1929, 1934, 1937 and 1969.
Re:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers (Score:4, Interesting)
I supported wikileaks up until now... the information they shared this time makes me think they really jumped the shark.
Why? The move tells me that the WikiLeaks is truly independent and doesn't withhold information because they judge it to be interesting or not.
I want to judge myself whether the information is interesting or not.
I sincerely hope that WikLeaks heralds the return of the good ol' mass media which is reporting news as they come, not providing interpretations (or exaggerations to make it looks like news).
Re:Quartermillion? How about just 243... (Score:2, Interesting)
Right. I've read every cable so far, and have been communicating the important cables that are being overlooked to the media.
This story is being reported wrong over and over again. They keep saying all the cables are released, and not only are they not all released, there are several in the 243 that the media isn't reporting on that are very interesting.
Like the Honduras Cable concerning the coup that contradicts most of what the US Official response was!
Re:Surprising in its unsurprisingness (Score:3, Interesting)
I interpet that as "with us, or against us."
That's almost exactly George Bush's words: "If you're not with us, you're against us." Oh, and Anakin Skywalker's words, too, in EP3, shortly before becoming Darth Vader.
Bush claimed to be a Christian, but the bible says "he who is not against us is with us." Why would a Christian take a biblical quote and turn it around exactly backwards?
How do you know the Canadian government isn't spying on the US? Maybe your spies are simply less incompetent than ours.
Re:if Wikileaks can get this... (Score:4, Interesting)
Other countries like Germany have (afaik) relatively small, logically separated intelligence and information networks/databases. Having the right security clearance level is not enough to go around and view all documents of that level, because every request for information is tracked and access has to be confirmed/granted by another person. This is very slow but relatively secure.
IMHO it is a matter of choice. The US system isn't really better or worse than other systems, it just has other priorities. The really important stuff (>= "top secret") isn't available in their network anyway.
Net Loss to Public (Score:5, Interesting)
I wrote some of the classified documents on Wikilieaks during my time with the military. I am a civilian now. Much of what I have written is already available to researchers and journalists from the Marine Corps Historical archive in Quantico, Virginia. The Iraq dump contained many significant events from my battalion, but lacked the commanders' comments or the command chronology narrative to tie the events together and put them into perspective. This information is actually available through official sources. What is on Wikileaks has is actually quite limited.
I have two concerns about the fallout to the leak. The first concern is the U.S. may retroactively classify documents currently available to the public, or be less likely to release documents in the future. This will result in a net loss of access to information to the general public. My second concern is the military may become more compartmentalized and soldiers at the small-unit level may no longer have access to the same amount of intelligence information as they previously had. This would be unfortunate because a lot of the young Marines or Soldiers bring a fresh perspective to looking at the raw information and can often connect the dots and find things missed by back-office analysts.
The public has a right to know what the government is doing as long as it doesn't compromise operational security. Within the government there are people pushing to declassify information and make it available. There are others who would like to make everything a secret until the end of time. This latest leak will push the pendulum towards the secret squirrels. I doubt too many service members will want to follow in Pvt. Manning's footsteps, so Mr. Assange probably won't be getting too much new information. Without people sending him leaks, Mr. Assange wouldn't have much of a web site. If the U.S. were smart, they would put up an alternate web site to Wikileaks which would provide declassified versions of government documents and explain why it is important to balance the public's right to know with the need for operational security.
Re:Quartermillion? How about just 243... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: Don't Ask Don't Tell Should Have Kicked In (Score:5, Interesting)
Golly, if only Manning had been treated like Alan Turing and driven to suicide... right? I bet you would have been right there with the needle for the hormone therapy, trying to force one of the most brilliant minds of his--and possibly any--generation into a neat little cubbyhole that doesn't make you feel all icky inside.
You realize that homophobic douchbags like yourself very nearly made us lose WWII, don't you? Do you have any idea how close things were? What would have happened if we hadn't broken ULTRA? ...And that a significant number of Arabic-language analysts were drummed out of the DoD in compliance with DADT, significantly weakening our ability to process and understand the vast quantity of SIGINT and HUMINT gathered on a daily basis?
Manning is a criminal, but leave his fucking sexual preference out of it, troll.
Re:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers (Score:4, Interesting)
As a non-american, I will continue to financially support Wikileaks (to a modest $20 a year, they're part of my christmas charity allotment), because while you may see this as damaging to american interests, I see it as furthering the interests of the entire world. I too, have looked through a good chunk of the released documents, so far. What I found allotted to "The stuff we already knew, but here's the details" of america's dirty laundry. Meh.
Long live wikileaks. I *do*, however, hope their next big releases focus on other countries, not just the USA. The current amero-centrism of wikileaks major releases is rather disappointing, but is probably more the result of opportunity than it is country-specific targeting.
Re:Had time? (Score:5, Interesting)
There's a lot of may be in the above condemnation of wikileaks, but no specifics, yet somehow that turns into a many who will pay. Show us specific documents which put someone in danger please, then we'll talk. The worst I've seen is embarrassing truths aired in public.
Actually I think this release has done the US good, in that it mainly highlights US diplomats doing a competent job dealing with sometimes crazy situations and reporting back truthfully on the situation as they see it. There are some problematic releases, but then, it'll probably do the US good in the long term to be called out on unacceptable behaviour (trying to get the credit card details of UN officials for example, or trying to bully countries into accepting kidnap/assassinations as SOP). Those particular files are *exactly* the sort of releases the government least wants and would give spurious 'security' excuses for hiding, and yet they are the ones that most need to be brought to light, and the practices stopped, which would be in the long-term interests of the USA.
Re:Surprising in its unsurprisingness (Score:1, Interesting)
I don't know what part of Canada you are from but I've lived in a lot of places in BC I can tell you it what I see isn't the immigrants getting by on tax payer dollars. It's the fat racist white people who bitch and moan about immigrants stealing all the good jobs and being poor while refusing to take minimum wage jobs. Immigrants live 3 generations to a house while the white welfare bums spend all their money on booze, smokes and weed. Mean while immigrants start their own businesses and work 14 hours a day, 7 days a week to keep their business going and creating new jobs for others.
Most of the people that come into my company looking for work copping an entitlement attitude are white. Most immigrants don't come here to mooch of the system, they come here to work hard, they take the minimum wage jobs that no one else wants and frankly they are grateful for it. Some immigrants come here to mooch of the system but no more so than the people who are born here and think they are entitled to more than what they make for themselves.
And if you're wondering I'm white as the driven snow and my ancestors came to Upper Canada after fleeing the American Revolution.
Re:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers (Score:3, Interesting)
The roll call, minutes and activity on the floors of Congress are only the public expression of what goes on in Washington. Saying that this tells you what your representatives are doing is a major leap. Openness would be served better if politicians put their calendars online as well as details about who is funding their travel schedule, which is not open.
In regards to WikiLeaks, I agree with the point that wholesale document releases like this do little to create openness. I always pictured a leak as a bit of information that is released to correct something that is going wrong behind closed doors, this is more like a flood. The thing about having open information is that people need to be able to understand it, and the sheer volume of documents coming out means only a researcher is really going to be able to deal with all this.
Re: Don't Ask Don't Tell Should Have Kicked In (Score:3, Interesting)
Why is arguing against homosexuals being able to openly serve their country so important to you?
I mean, I know a lot of people who are kinda icked out by gay folks, but none of them go to any kind of effort to search out documentation to back up their being icked out or anything; it just isn't THAT important to them. In fact, most of the ones who I know who would preface things like "well, it kinda icks me out" or anything like that are actually in favor of same-sex marriages and repealing don't ask don't tell because they don't really think that would hurt them in any way.
So when I run across someone who seems to really be up in arms about it, I have to ask: why is it important to you?
Full disclosure for me: I work in a major university doing social psychology research and behavioral interventions aimed at reducing sexual risk-taking behavior amongst primarily LGBTQ youth; one of the key things we've found is that LGBTQ youth who are in environments that are less stigmatizing of their orientation and identity tend to behave in ways that are much less risky; I want the kids to play safe, so for me, actively trying to make the world more accepting will help accomplish this. What's your story?
Re:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers (Score:2, Interesting)
I've been following the excellent coverage at The Guardian [guardian.co.uk], and I can categorically say that they should have.
The strategic interests of the U.S. government, the ruling investment class, and the military-industrial complex, are not the interests of the people of the U.S. or of the world.
And these cable do that. They show that U.S. diplomats were directed to engage in illegal espionage against United Nations officials [guardian.co.uk].
More than that, this leak helps us Americans know what the hell our government is doing around the world. That's vital for any democratic nation. Wikileaks is giving power back to the people.
But that's not what happened. All of the Wikileaks releases have been redacted. You might think they should have redacted more thoroughly, fine; but the fact that they did some redaction makes it impossible to claim that they decided to "release all classified information you can get your hands on".
Re:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers (Score:2, Interesting)
What happened to Freedoms of Speach and Press? (Score:3, Interesting)
Does the public (A PERSON) have the right to know when: Stupidity rules decision making, Security (TS/SBI+) is used to hide wrong-doing and criminal activity, and/or death, destruction, and economic collapses have far more private-interest, than national security. Wikileaks tells US, EU, RU, CN, Arab and Persian citizens/people how totally fycked-up are their governments.
Wikileaks says that folks are good and gullible around the world, and leaders globally should be held accountable for their actions.
Wikileaks should be protected by The USA Constitution as a great source of truth, because the US and global press/news is totally pwned by dogmatic irrational plutocrats.
Save Wikileaks in the interest of all humanity and integrity in governments, religions, militaries....
Re:Net Loss to Public (Score:1, Interesting)
Much of what I have written is already available to researchers and journalists from the Marine Corps Historical archive in Quantico, Virginia. [....] The first concern is the U.S. may retroactively classify documents currently available to the public, or be less likely to release documents in the future. This will result in a net loss of access to information to the general public.
These 2 don't add up. For the Wikileaks materials were already in public, then why the outrage from US govt? For the materials that were NOT already in public, then what's the point for US govt to release fewer doc to public? Leaks are leaks, releasing fewer docs to public will not plug the leaks.
If fact, you own suggestion, that the best action for the US govt is to release MORE docs to public, contradicts your worry. If you are smart enough to figure this out, why wouldn't your own govt?
My second concern is the military may become more compartmentalized and soldiers at the small-unit level may no longer have access to the same amount of intelligence information as they previously had. This would be unfortunate because a lot of the young Marines or Soldiers bring a fresh perspective to looking at the raw information and can often connect the dots and find things missed by back-office analysts.
Yes, this is probably a net loss for the US military, but you need a leap of faith to equate that to net loss for the PUBLIC.
Sorry if I don't have the patriotism of a US veteran, but I think a net loss for the US military would be a net GAIN for the WORLD PUBLIC.
Re:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers (Score:3, Interesting)
"Honesty can destroy peace - in fact it usually does."
Who's to say that the peace was worth saving? This idea that conflict should always be avoided may in fact be counter intuitively harmful.