Slashdot Mirror

They are not pointing out specific wrong doings

They are, in fact, pointing out wrong doings.

(1) the U.S. military formally adopted a policy of turning a blind eye to systematic, pervasive torture and other abuses by Iraqi forces;

(2)theState Department threatened Germany not to criminally investigate the CIA's kidnapping of one of its citizens who turned out to be completely innocent;

(3) the StateDepartment under Bush andObama applied continuous pressure on the Spanish Government to suppress investigations of the CIA's torture of its citizens and the 2003 killing of a Spanish photojournalist when the U.S. military fired on the Palestine Hotel in Baghdad (see ThePhiladelphia Inquirer's WillBunch today about this:"The day BarackObama Lied to me");

(4) the British Government privately promised to shield Bush officials from embarrassment as part of its Iraq War "investigation";

(5) there were at least 15,000 people killed in Iraq that were previously uncounted;

(6) "American leaders lied, knowingly, to the American public, to American troops, and to the world" about the Iraq war as it was prosecuted, a conclusion the Post's own former Baghdad Bureau Chief wrote was proven by theWikiLeaks documents;

(7)the U.S.'s own Ambassador concluded that the July, 2009 removal of the Honduran President was illegal -- a coup -- but the StateDepartment did not want to conclude that and thus ignored it until it was too late to matter;

(8) U.S. and British officials colluded to allow theU.S. to keep cluster bombs on British soil even though Britain had signed the treaty banning such weapons, and,

(9)Hillary Clinton's State Department ordered diplomats to collect passwords, emails, and biometric data on U.N. and other foreign officials, almost certainly in violation of the Vienna Treaty of 1961.

(TotH to GG, as usual.) I appreciate why you believe what you wrote. You might want to reconsider your position given your primary source of news is from organizations whose allegiance is to parent corporations that, like Amazon, absolutely cannot afford to get on the wrong side of the government that regulates them.

They are not pointing out specific wrong doings

They are, in fact, pointing out wrong doings.

(1) the U.S. military formally adopted a policy of turning a blind eye to systematic, pervasive torture and other abuses by Iraqi forces;

(2)theState Department threatened Germany not to criminally investigate the CIA's kidnapping of one of its citizens who turned out to be completely innocent;

(3) the StateDepartment under Bush andObama applied continuous pressure on the Spanish Government to suppress investigations of the CIA's torture of its citizens and the 2003 killing of a Spanish photojournalist when the U.S. military fired on the Palestine Hotel in Baghdad (see ThePhiladelphia Inquirer's WillBunch today about this:"The day BarackObama Lied to me");

(4) the British Government privately promised to shield Bush officials from embarrassment as part of its Iraq War "investigation";

(5) there were at least 15,000 people killed in Iraq that were previously uncounted;

(6) "American leaders lied, knowingly, to the American public, to American troops, and to the world" about the Iraq war as it was prosecuted, a conclusion the Post's own former Baghdad Bureau Chief wrote was proven by theWikiLeaks documents;

(7)the U.S.'s own Ambassador concluded that the July, 2009 removal of the Honduran President was illegal -- a coup -- but the StateDepartment did not want to conclude that and thus ignored it until it was too late to matter;

(8) U.S. and British officials colluded to allow theU.S. to keep cluster bombs on British soil even though Britain had signed the treaty banning such weapons, and,

(9)Hillary Clinton's State Department ordered diplomats to collect passwords, emails, and biometric data on U.N. and other foreign officials, almost certainly in violation of the Vienna Treaty of 1961.

(TotH to GG, as usual.) I appreciate why you believe what you wrote. You might want to reconsider your position given your primary source of news is from organizations whose allegiance is to parent corporations that, like Amazon, absolutely cannot afford to get on the wrong side of the government that regulates them.

They are not pointing out specific wrong doings

They are, in fact, pointing out wrong doings.

(1) the U.S. military formally adopted a policy of turning a blind eye to systematic, pervasive torture and other abuses by Iraqi forces;

(2)theState Department threatened Germany not to criminally investigate the CIA's kidnapping of one of its citizens who turned out to be completely innocent;

(3) the StateDepartment under Bush andObama applied continuous pressure on the Spanish Government to suppress investigations of the CIA's torture of its citizens and the 2003 killing of a Spanish photojournalist when the U.S. military fired on the Palestine Hotel in Baghdad (see ThePhiladelphia Inquirer's WillBunch today about this:"The day BarackObama Lied to me");

(4) the British Government privately promised to shield Bush officials from embarrassment as part of its Iraq War "investigation";

(5) there were at least 15,000 people killed in Iraq that were previously uncounted;

(6) "American leaders lied, knowingly, to the American public, to American troops, and to the world" about the Iraq war as it was prosecuted, a conclusion the Post's own former Baghdad Bureau Chief wrote was proven by theWikiLeaks documents;

(7)the U.S.'s own Ambassador concluded that the July, 2009 removal of the Honduran President was illegal -- a coup -- but the StateDepartment did not want to conclude that and thus ignored it until it was too late to matter;

(8) U.S. and British officials colluded to allow theU.S. to keep cluster bombs on British soil even though Britain had signed the treaty banning such weapons, and,

(9)Hillary Clinton's State Department ordered diplomats to collect passwords, emails, and biometric data on U.N. and other foreign officials, almost certainly in violation of the Vienna Treaty of 1961.

(TotH to GG, as usual.) I appreciate why you believe what you wrote. You might want to reconsider your position given your primary source of news is from organizations whose allegiance is to parent corporations that, like Amazon, absolutely cannot afford to get on the wrong side of the government that regulates them.

Your best source is The Guardian in the UK. They have stuff that US papers don't.

Soon, people who wish to work in the diplomatic corps will be advised not to read foreign newspapers.

Take a look at some twitter trends which shows that with the exception of the FIFA world cup announcement, these leaks dwarf sport. Even in the FIFA case, WikiLeaks has come into play with some commenters in the UK calling Russia a "mafia" state (two British papers Guardian daily sun, Google has plenty more). The NFL was beat out by WikiLeaks last Sunday and at the rate things are going it will be beat out again this week. Even the generic term football gets beat out except for the FIFA case.

Take this all with a grain of salt, but I believe this shows that WikiLeaks news is getting out despite all efforts against it.

Something else to note, I'm not sure how often this happens on twitter trends, but take a look at how constantly WikiLeaks is being mentioned. Its regularly around 0.5% up through 2.1% of all tweets, averaging roughly at 1%. This is over the course of close to 6 days and counting! Has a topic been this popular on twitter before?

Just to make the point:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/interactive/2010/nov/28/us-embassy-cables-wikileaks

That's an interactive database of all the leaks released so far, and that's hosted by a respected national British newspaper, not Wikileaks.

Whatever you may feel about the leaks, it's simply too late to stop access or discussion about them.

Your best source is The Guardian in the UK. They have stuff that US papers don't.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/blog/2010/dec/03/julian-assange-wikileaks

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/blog/2010/dec/03/wikileaks-julian-assange-online

Wikileaks kicked out by EveryDNS. Do not resolv for me. http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/blog/2010/dec/03/wikileaks-knocked-off-net-dns-everydns they can be found here: http://46.59.1.2/ or go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WikiLeaks (right box) for last known IP. or new doman: wikileaks.ch

Until then, allow me to point that none of the links show that persons with the identity disclosed by the leaks were killed because of that. They do show concern (and the concerns are legitimate) and (possibly, maybe, if data is found) an assassination rate growing at the same moment as the leak.

(While the above would allow me, from outside, to say: it is likely the leak may contribute to the death of the Afghans working with US troops, there is a distance to saying for sure/categorically, many Afghans died because of the leaks. Thus, I'll reserve the right to form my opinion once enough data would be available. Of course, everybody is free to do as they wish).

In fact, these leaks serve as such a ringing vindication of American policies, that some people have suspected that the leaks were intentional.

Except, you know, for the part about illegal spying on U.N. officials. And the hints about how our policy toward Iran is being crafted to keep our "friends" in Saudi Arabia happy. And the stuff about the U.S. leaning on Spain to quash the criminal investigation of torture, "extraordinary rendition", and the killing of journalists. And the monkey business with money sent by Germany and other allies intended to build up the Afghani army.

"Ringing vindication of American policies"? In a pig's eye.

In fact, these leaks serve as such a ringing vindication of American policies, that some people have suspected that the leaks were intentional.

Except, you know, for the part about illegal spying on U.N. officials. And the hints about how our policy toward Iran is being crafted to keep our "friends" in Saudi Arabia happy. And the stuff about the U.S. leaning on Spain to quash the criminal investigation of torture, "extraordinary rendition", and the killing of journalists. And the monkey business with money sent by Germany and other allies intended to build up the Afghani army.

"Ringing vindication of American policies"? In a pig's eye.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2009/apr/21/study-finds-pirates-buy-more-music

Something tells me the reason the FSB are interested is because of the potential that Wikileaks have documented evidence of Putin's alleged $40 billion personal fortune and how it may have been gathered:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/dec/21/russia.topstories3

Why is the focus on Wikileaks and it's leader? This is a great case of shooting the messenger. Bradley Manning was the solider who stole the information. How he disseminated it is not the point. Granted: Wikileaks posted the information, but if Wikileaks didn't exist they would have just posted it elsewhere. Do you think that if a dozen newspapers suddenly got this information in the mail, they wouldn't have posted it? I doubt it. And are the owners of the newspapers who posted the information being targeted by the federal government? I haven't heard anything about that.

Stopping Julian Assange isn't going to solve the problem. Better idea: infiltrate Wikileaks and corrupt the information before it arrives. Let them post garbage. Ruin their reputation.

from U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton directing U.S. diplomats to hack foreign diplomats frequent flier and credit cards?

Yours In Electrogorsk,
K. Trout

Do we have a right to know this stuff? No. It is nothing more than titillating information like what you would find in tabloids concerning celebrities. It is not our right to know private information about either celebrities or diplomats. What is said behind closed doors off the record is supposed to stay private.

Yeah except when a country like Saudi Arabia with close ties to US elites, like the bush family for example, urge the US to attack Iran then the population has a right to know that. They have a right to know that the reasons they are being given by their politicians might not be the whole story, for better or worse. Remember that $60 billion US-Saudi arms deal, the larget ever ? How's that looking in light of this information ?

anything's possible.

The Wikileaks twitter account is reporting/complaining that Amazon booted them from using their servers. Others are saying it was due to pressure from the US.

I wonder what impact that has on services like their EC2 cloud. I mean if your company does something the US government doesn't like and they can put pressure on Amazon to just cut off your services then all the supposed benefits of 'cloud computing' are bullshit.

The Wikileaks twitter account is reporting/complaining that Amazon booted them from using their servers. Others are saying it was due to pressure from the US.

Thanks to Wikileaks, we now know that the Saudis (some of them) are sponsoring terrorists. http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/11/shocker-admits-saudi-donors-chief-financiers-al-qaeda-leaked-cable/ The US government has given rise to just about every original terrorist out there: Taliban-Al Qaeda, Bin Laden, Saddam... http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/ http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/dec/31/iraq.politics More recently, the FBI created a "terrorist" (Christmas Tree) almost from whole cloth. http://wonkette.com/431185/u-s-government-now-creating-terrorists-so-it-can-arrest-them Since we're kinda making terrorists ourselves, but ignorant policy and a more ignorant populace will keep the terror dream alive. I welcome the Wikileaks dumps. Our government has done more "harm" where terrorists are concerned than any other country on the planet. It's our own fault we keep doing this to ourselves, then ignoring it. Every administration since Regan has lead us to where we are.

The one women in question also said she said to stop when a condom broke. If a woman (or guy) says stop and you don't, thats where it becomes rape.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/sep/01/sweden-julian-assange-rape-investigation

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1307137/Supporters-dismissed-rape-accusations-WikiLeaks-founder-Julian-Assange--women-involved-tell-different-story.html

Let him go to Ecuador, shorter flight for the CIA when they go to kidnap or kill him.

Good question. The whole situation is very unusual. Even if you assume that Assange did suddenly decide, during consensual sex, to carry out a non-consensual act, the issue of prosecution is on shaky ground. The vast majority of rape accusations never make it to court, and the vast majority of those are found "not guilty" (the figure is something like 95% of accused either do not get to court, or walk away free). For a successful prosecution there has to be more evidence than "she says she didn't consent, he says she did". The whole legal issue of being able to predicate consent and retroactively withdraw consent (e.g. consent based on unstated predicate of shared ethnicity) is fraught with difficulties for a successful prosecution. For a prosecutor to pursue a case, based only on the allegation, is unusual enough. For a prosecutor to issue a request for Interpol intervention, with a view to extraditing a foreigner from a 3rd party country, is highly unusual. For a prosecutor to do this, after the Chief Prosecutor has already stated that the alleged suspect is "no longer wanted" and "is not suspected of rape" and is free to leave the country, is very odd indeed.

Note also that the Interpol notice is apparently not an international arrest warrant - it is just a request for information: "The Interpol notice is not an international arrest warrant but the public is asked to contact police with any information about Mr Assange's whereabouts.". Putting out such a notice is bizarre, given that the Prosecutor is in contact with Assange's legal counsel in London, and that Assange has agreed to meet at either the Swedish Embassy or Scotland Yard. The prosecutor wants "more information" about him, but is already in contact, and can arrange a meeting in person or via video conference at the headquarters of the Metropolitan Police in London, but instead chooses the Interpol route? This is not normal for a sex crimes case with only alleged victim testimony and no other evidence. If you or I had unprotected sex with a girl, and she subsequently said her consent had been predicated on use of a condom, the case would never go to court. Certainly it would never become an international police issue. There is the issue of there maybe being two alleged victims, but apparently only one actually complained to the police? I guess we will find out what really happened - if the case ever makes it to court.

The most significant disclosure so far is that China's leadership is fed up with North Korea acting like a "spoiled child". Previously, China was considered to be a supporter of North Korea. Now, confirming the info from Wikileaks, Chinese officials are admitting that China's leadership is fed up with the drama. This leak was a win for both the US and China. It gets the word out that China isn't going to back any stupid actions by Kim Jong-il. without China's leadership having to say so publicly. This helps calm the situation down. That one item outweighs any harm Wikileaks may possibly have done.)

(Here's the best analysis of the Korean situation I've seen in print.)

Of course, it generally only applies to women, since most men would be laughed out of the court room for saying they were raped by a woman.

That was in the past. Now, you may retroactively withdraw consent based on the ethnicity of the person that you had sex with. I'm looking forward to the first case where a man cries rape in a similar situation. White supremacist has sex with mixed-race woman, cries rape, woman is jailed? It could happen.

And this today:

    China wants Korean reunification, officials confirm

And this is just one story. The fact that Saudi Arabia was pushing the US to bomb Iran puts a new twist on the narrative there as well.

So Apple would destroy the hope that "The Apple iPad will same the news industry (1)"? I don't think they will do that... but apparently Android doesn't count.

1: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/pda/2010/jan/28/can-apple-ipad-save-newspapers

Australia can simply filter dns responses as they reach the mainland, since theres only one or two lines entering the country.

You must be using out-of-date info from someone like telegeography. Even The Guardian shows six internet cables coming into Australia and Greg's Cable Map shows seven (plus two to Papua New Guinea and Vanuatu).

today they are not able to do that anymore
 
Oh well, moving on to Plan B

Their PM accidentally admitted, back in 2006, that they did have nuclear weapons.

I cannot figure out how the public benefits from this release of information

I don't know off hand either, but reading stuff like this is fascinating:

    Wikileaks cables reveal China 'ready to abandon North Korea'

And I don't just mean that the leaks provide me with entertainment -- that kind of transparency into international shenanigans might have serious impact on where things go. Was North Korea aware of how China was presenting the situation to the US? Is China being honest with us? Will this bring the issue to a head? Is a war for reunification inevitable? Is it the best path? Is that more or less likely now? What will US public perception be of China after this?

I think this is a worthwhile experiment. I would not be all that surprised if such brutal transparency had fewer negative effects than the ridiculous hand-waving, double-talking, all-too-clever international politics that we are so accustomed to, so defensive of, but which have thus far failed us miserably. I'll reserve judgement on this for a few years, but I'll be glued to my front row seat.

Cheers.

I have glanced at the documents on the WikiLeaks cable release pages, and I can categorically say that these documents should not have been released.

I've been following the excellent coverage at The Guardian, and I can categorically say that they should have.

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 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.

Wikileaks should be exposing corruption, wrongdoing, and illegality.

And these cable do that. They show that U.S. diplomats were directed to engage in illegal espionage against United Nations officials.

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.

However, deciding to release all classified information you can get your hands on is not whistle-blowing.

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".

I have glanced at the documents on the WikiLeaks cable release pages, and I can categorically say that these documents should not have been released.

I've been following the excellent coverage at The Guardian, and I can categorically say that they should have.

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 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.

Wikileaks should be exposing corruption, wrongdoing, and illegality.

And these cable do that. They show that U.S. diplomats were directed to engage in illegal espionage against United Nations officials.

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.

However, deciding to release all classified information you can get your hands on is not whistle-blowing.

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".

Let's say he thought the French president had BO and was lazy....There is no reason to ever mention it in public though. It doesn't really help you at all, and it's one of those polite things everyone publicly pretends hasn't happened.

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, or that our "friends" in Saudi Arabia are pushing the U.S. to attack Iran -- Americans need to know that. If the price is an awkward moment in the receiving line at some diplomatic function, it's cheaply got.

Why should a diplomat's views on the quality of leadership of another country become public info?

Because that diplomat is working for the American public.

At least, in theory. In reality, it seems from these documents that American diplomats are working for the military-intelligence-industrial complex.

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.

Are these not examples of wrongdoing?

* Wrongly kidnapping German citizens, and then threatening Germany over it - http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=53702
* Collecting credit card data at the UN - http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/nov/29/un-reacts-us-embassy-cables

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.

Why is the military privy to diplomatic traffic at all? Why would it be on a computer entrusted to a private?

Unbelievable.

I think you may not be getting the full idea when the media keeps calling him "an Army private".

One of the earlier articles on Manning mentions that he has top-secret security clearance and an article from this summer on CNN reveals that he had both top-secret and "sensitive compartmentalized information" clearance. The CNN article also mentions that he graduated training in August 2008 as an intelligence analyst and that he was demoted from specialist to private 1st class after a fight.

Over 100k people throughout the federal and state governments had access to these documents. You can't keep things secret when that many people know about them. I agree that any intelligence agency worth there salt had access to all of these documents a long time ago.

if by 100,000, you mean 3+ million, then yes, you're spot on. Here's what the Guardian says about SIPRNET:

The US general accounting office identified 3,067,000 people cleared to "secret" and above in a 1993 study. Since then, the size of the security establishment has grown appreciably.

Apparently disclosing the following counts as an act of terrorism according to a certain republican:

* US diplomats spying on UN

* Canadian diplomats asking ExxonMobil and BP to help "kill" U.S. global-warming policies to ensure that "the oil keeps a-flowing" into the U.S.

* Yemen goverment lying to its people on US bombings

* US pressing Germany to not pursue arrest warrants for 13 agents CIA agents. (arrest warrents that the cables describe as "From a judicial standpoint, the facts are clear, and the Munich prosecutor has acted correctly.")

This is stuff that people need to know.

But the reality is that the main stream media is by now utterly incapable of performing such a feat. Paying someone competent to sift through these files, pick out juicy pieces that will makes news, while still catching eyeballs and not pissing off friends in the military-industrial-political complex? And all while trying to keep up with their twitter and web 2.0 feeds?

Wikileaks releases ahead of time to, among other papers (including the New York Times) The Guardian, who can and do pay competent people to sift through the files. It's currently the number 1 thing on their website. Linky.

The Sun and the Daily Mail probably won't say a thing, mind.

The stand-up comedian Emo Philips had a nice joke about the church and it was voted The Best God Joke Ever

Once I saw this guy on a bridge about to jump. I said, "Don't do it!" He said, "Nobody loves me." I said, "God loves you. Do you believe in God?"

He said, "Yes." I said, "Are you a Christian or a Jew?" He said, "A Christian." I said, "Me, too! Protestant or Catholic?" He said, "Protestant." I said, "Me, too! What franchise?" He said, "Baptist." I said, "Me, too! Northern Baptist or Southern Baptist?" He said, "Northern Baptist." I said, "Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist or Northern Liberal Baptist?"

He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist." I said, "Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region, or Northern Conservative Baptist Eastern Region?" He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region." I said, "Me, too!"

Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1879, or Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912?" He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912." I said, "Die, heretic!" And I pushed him over.

Arghhggh. It's the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act, or RIPA. It's not the RIPA Act but the RIP Act. It makes it sound like a bad slasher film. "Coming to a cinema near you - the most talked about horror film of a decade.... It's the Ripper Act."

Back on topic; the Minister said:

"We are focusing on those parties directly affected by the changes to the extent that those parties would be subject to civil sanction or directly concerned with it, or are directly responsible, where lawful interception is taking place, for ensuring consent has been obtained for the interception"

So basically, they're talking to companies like BT, and Phorm, who broke the law in trialling deep packet inspection and altering (and recording) their web traffic without asking their customers permission. Companies they want to give the green light to, to use DPI to change how the internet works in the UK, throwing out network neutrality entirely, and relying on 'competition' in the UK to keep companies honest and not screw with customers traffic too badly for their own profit. The same competition that is now pushing 12, 18 or even 24 month minimum term contracts for broadband such that it's damn rare to find a 30-day rolling contract ISP any more.

Of course they don't want to talk to people affected by these changes, or about their right to privacy. There's money to made in the private sector, and that's who they want to talk to, to eliminate the parts of the RIP act that actually protect individual privacy, and stop their personal data being sold off to the highest bidder. Can't be having that, now can we!

"How about sharing it quietly with a number of the most reputable meia organisations in the Western world."

That's not exactly what they did. They withheld information from all sources so they would have a "bombshell" to deliver.

I don't know where you're getting that. In the last three dumps, Wikileaks has followed the same pattern: Share the data with a limited number of news agencies, one each in multiple countries. Here's how the Guardian described this round:

The electronic archive of embassy dispatches from around the world was allegedly downloaded by a US soldier earlier this year and passed to WikiLeaks. Assange made it available to the Guardian and four other news organisations: the New York Times, Der Spiegel in Germany, Le Monde in France and El País in Spain. All five plan to publish extracts from the most significant cables, but have decided neither to "dump" the entire dataset into the public domain, nor to publish names that would endanger innocent individuals. WikiLeaks says that, contrary to the state department's fears, it also initially intends to post only limited cable extracts, and to redact identities.

So yes, they did exactly what you accused them of failing to do: They quietly distributed the data to a few discreet (and discrete) sources prior to the initial launch.

The only difference this time is that they haven't dumped the whole dataset. I was wrong to say they always do.

Some may consider this newfound discretion to be a good thing....

The UAE leadership sees Iran as its primary external threat, and one that is existential in nature. Like much of the international community, the UAE finds the idea of an Iran with nuclear weapons unacceptable and thinks this eventuality would lead to a nuclear arms race in the Middle East. At least as worrying to MbZ are Iran's aspirations for regional hegemony by support for terrorist proxies (Hizballah, HAMAS, possibly underground organizations in the Arab Gulf countries). MbZ is skeptical that Iran can be convinced to end its nuclear weapons program, and is not convinced that the international community will adopt tough sanctions. In other words, he sees the logic of war dominating the region, and this thinking explains his near obsessive efforts to build up the UAE's armed forces.

[...]

MbZ's main message to us during his September visit was that we needed to be better coordinated for Iran contingencies. High level engagement by CENTCOM planners have helped to address this concern, but he believes we have made less progress in addressing what he sees as the slow pace of deliveries of US security assistance and he is still worried that he does not have enough equipment in place to defend his people when war with Iran breaks out. (And for MbZ it is a matter of when, not if.) We have repeatedly presented to his staff the various explanations for what he perceives as delays, but he remains unconvinced that we are addressing his concerns as a matter of priority.

UAE fret over Iranian meddling (February 22, 2010):

The UAE views Iran as a huge problem that goes far beyond nuclear capabilities. Iranian support for terrorism is broader than just Hamas and Hizballah. Iran has influence in Afghanistan, Yemen, Kuwait, Bahrain, the Eastern Province of KSA, and Africa (AbZ mentioned Nigeria specifically). Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez have close, cooperative ties. If Iran acquires nuclear weapons, the expeditionary aspect of its foreign policy will become ever more challenging for neighboring states.

[...]

Lowey asked what AbZ thought about tougher sanctions against Iran and how the UAE can help with China. AbZ said the US and its allies "have to decide how to stop Iran" and that the UAE was surprised at the Chinese attitude. AbZ noted the Emiratis and the Saudis have spoken to the Chinese, and the UAE expressed a willingness to expand its energy ties (Note: AbZ seemed to be indicating that this was intended as a carrot, but he acknowledged the difficulty of supplanting an Iran-China trade relationship that reached $50 billion last year. End Note.)

[...]

In response to questions from members of Congress, AbZ said that if Iran goes nuclear others in the region will move forward on the same track and the nuclear nonproliferation treaty will completely break down. He said a crisis or confrontation in the region would create oil supply problems worldwide. 14 million barrels a day pass through the Strait of Hormuz. That said, he noted that the US and UAE militaries have plans to keep Hormuz clear.

US steps up pressure on Turkey over Iran (February 25, 2010):

Burns strongly urged Sinirlioglu to support action to convince the Iranian government it is on the wrong course. Sinirliolgu reaffirmed the GoT's opposition to a nuclear Iran; however, he registered fear about the collateral impact military action might have on Turkey and contended sanctions would unite Iranians behind the regime and harm the opposition. Burns acknowledged Turkey's exposur

The UAE leadership sees Iran as its primary external threat, and one that is existential in nature. Like much of the international community, the UAE finds the idea of an Iran with nuclear weapons unacceptable and thinks this eventuality would lead to a nuclear arms race in the Middle East. At least as worrying to MbZ are Iran's aspirations for regional hegemony by support for terrorist proxies (Hizballah, HAMAS, possibly underground organizations in the Arab Gulf countries). MbZ is skeptical that Iran can be convinced to end its nuclear weapons program, and is not convinced that the international community will adopt tough sanctions. In other words, he sees the logic of war dominating the region, and this thinking explains his near obsessive efforts to build up the UAE's armed forces.

[...]

MbZ's main message to us during his September visit was that we needed to be better coordinated for Iran contingencies. High level engagement by CENTCOM planners have helped to address this concern, but he believes we have made less progress in addressing what he sees as the slow pace of deliveries of US security assistance and he is still worried that he does not have enough equipment in place to defend his people when war with Iran breaks out. (And for MbZ it is a matter of when, not if.) We have repeatedly presented to his staff the various explanations for what he perceives as delays, but he remains unconvinced that we are addressing his concerns as a matter of priority.

UAE fret over Iranian meddling (February 22, 2010):

The UAE views Iran as a huge problem that goes far beyond nuclear capabilities. Iranian support for terrorism is broader than just Hamas and Hizballah. Iran has influence in Afghanistan, Yemen, Kuwait, Bahrain, the Eastern Province of KSA, and Africa (AbZ mentioned Nigeria specifically). Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez have close, cooperative ties. If Iran acquires nuclear weapons, the expeditionary aspect of its foreign policy will become ever more challenging for neighboring states.

[...]

Lowey asked what AbZ thought about tougher sanctions against Iran and how the UAE can help with China. AbZ said the US and its allies "have to decide how to stop Iran" and that the UAE was surprised at the Chinese attitude. AbZ noted the Emiratis and the Saudis have spoken to the Chinese, and the UAE expressed a willingness to expand its energy ties (Note: AbZ seemed to be indicating that this was intended as a carrot, but he acknowledged the difficulty of supplanting an Iran-China trade relationship that reached $50 billion last year. End Note.)

[...]

In response to questions from members of Congress, AbZ said that if Iran goes nuclear others in the region will move forward on the same track and the nuclear nonproliferation treaty will completely break down. He said a crisis or confrontation in the region would create oil supply problems worldwide. 14 million barrels a day pass through the Strait of Hormuz. That said, he noted that the US and UAE militaries have plans to keep Hormuz clear.

US steps up pressure on Turkey over Iran (February 25, 2010):

Burns strongly urged Sinirlioglu to support action to convince the Iranian government it is on the wrong course. Sinirliolgu reaffirmed the GoT's opposition to a nuclear Iran; however, he registered fear about the collateral impact military action might have on Turkey and contended sanctions would unite Iranians behind the regime and harm the opposition. Burns acknowledged Turkey's exposur

The UAE leadership sees Iran as its primary external threat, and one that is existential in nature. Like much of the international community, the UAE finds the idea of an Iran with nuclear weapons unacceptable and thinks this eventuality would lead to a nuclear arms race in the Middle East. At least as worrying to MbZ are Iran's aspirations for regional hegemony by support for terrorist proxies (Hizballah, HAMAS, possibly underground organizations in the Arab Gulf countries). MbZ is skeptical that Iran can be convinced to end its nuclear weapons program, and is not convinced that the international community will adopt tough sanctions. In other words, he sees the logic of war dominating the region, and this thinking explains his near obsessive efforts to build up the UAE's armed forces.

[...]

MbZ's main message to us during his September visit was that we needed to be better coordinated for Iran contingencies. High level engagement by CENTCOM planners have helped to address this concern, but he believes we have made less progress in addressing what he sees as the slow pace of deliveries of US security assistance and he is still worried that he does not have enough equipment in place to defend his people when war with Iran breaks out. (And for MbZ it is a matter of when, not if.) We have repeatedly presented to his staff the various explanations for what he perceives as delays, but he remains unconvinced that we are addressing his concerns as a matter of priority.

UAE fret over Iranian meddling (February 22, 2010):

The UAE views Iran as a huge problem that goes far beyond nuclear capabilities. Iranian support for terrorism is broader than just Hamas and Hizballah. Iran has influence in Afghanistan, Yemen, Kuwait, Bahrain, the Eastern Province of KSA, and Africa (AbZ mentioned Nigeria specifically). Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez have close, cooperative ties. If Iran acquires nuclear weapons, the expeditionary aspect of its foreign policy will become ever more challenging for neighboring states.

[...]

Lowey asked what AbZ thought about tougher sanctions against Iran and how the UAE can help with China. AbZ said the US and its allies "have to decide how to stop Iran" and that the UAE was surprised at the Chinese attitude. AbZ noted the Emiratis and the Saudis have spoken to the Chinese, and the UAE expressed a willingness to expand its energy ties (Note: AbZ seemed to be indicating that this was intended as a carrot, but he acknowledged the difficulty of supplanting an Iran-China trade relationship that reached $50 billion last year. End Note.)

[...]

In response to questions from members of Congress, AbZ said that if Iran goes nuclear others in the region will move forward on the same track and the nuclear nonproliferation treaty will completely break down. He said a crisis or confrontation in the region would create oil supply problems worldwide. 14 million barrels a day pass through the Strait of Hormuz. That said, he noted that the US and UAE militaries have plans to keep Hormuz clear.

US steps up pressure on Turkey over Iran (February 25, 2010):

Burns strongly urged Sinirlioglu to support action to convince the Iranian government it is on the wrong course. Sinirliolgu reaffirmed the GoT's opposition to a nuclear Iran; however, he registered fear about the collateral impact military action might have on Turkey and contended sanctions would unite Iranians behind the regime and harm the opposition. Burns acknowledged Turkey's exposur

No, I mean, by lying. In fact the EU's Advertising Standards Authority banned IPhone ads because Apple was lying. They are infamous for their lies about PC vs. MAC that is before abandoning their hardware platform. Oh, don't confuse a Desktop PC with a workstation PC! I personally didn't know the distinction before Apple pointed it out!

And let us never forget the now immortalized Reality Distortion Field Which is basically lying personified.

At the bottom of the wiki article it says
See Also:
Apple Inc.
Propaganda
Steve Jobs
Suggestibility
Somebody Else's Problem


And I think that more than anything really drives home my point. Apple really loves people, like you, that will put their own reputation on the line to defend the indefensible. In fact their continued success depends on normally logically thinking people promoting their products for irrational reasons.

According a Guardian report:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/nov/28/us-embassy-cables-wikileaks
Over 3 MILLION people have access to this private network. The big story to me is that if this material is really significant, why is the US so incredibly bad at keeping it secret?

Wikileaks is not some kind of 'superspy' organization with resources and techniques beyond the imagining of say, a moderately competent nation state. If they could get full access to this 'damaging' information, then I find it hard to imagine that China, Russia, France and most of the western world couldn't either.

Either this is really sensitive material and this is a wake up call that giving 3 million people access to a sensitive database is a poor strategy, or it's not that damaging anyway and the US foresaw this possibility and thought the risk/damage was acceptable.

Just search for cables about Iran: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/interactive/2010/nov/28/us-embassy-cables-wikileaks It becomes clear pretty soon that most countries in the region are far most hostile to Iran that I ever knew before (including words like existential threat and direct urging by a number of countries for the US to strike, bunch of leaders call Iran evil and a fascist state) and that Israel will definitely not be willing to live with nuclear Iran and that apparently Iran is not negotiating in good faith and is only buying time until it has enough material for a bomb. Unless Iran backs down, I don't see how that does not lead to a war.