Compiling the WikiLeaks Fallout

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.

Comments

Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers

[Anonymous Coward]

But they sure do hate Wikileaks. What's the difference?

Re:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers

[Shining Celebi]

Release of private communications among humans proves to be embarrassing and damaging. News at 11!

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:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers

[stoolpigeon]

Whatever made the missile shield in Europe a good idea now?
Whatever made it o.k. for Portland police to work with the FBI acceptable now?
Whatever made keeping Guantanamo open acceptable?

I don't know, it's hard to figure out the trends or common thread.

Re:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers

[snl2587]

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.

Re:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers

[Scareduck]

This reading utterly misses the fact that the Pentagon Papers were commissioned and released during the Johnson Administration. I very much doubt that LBJ or many Congressional Democrats at the time favored the release of those papers.

Re:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers

[mcgrew]

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

[DanTheStone]

Their agenda seems to be government transparency.

Re:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers

[flaming error]

Since your fantasy world appears to be binary, I'd say the answer is either 0 or 1.

Re:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers

[BadAnalogyGuy]

The implication of your post is that a government should not be open and transparent. That its dealings can entail shady backroom secret agreements so long as the public is well-served.

Should the government's feet be held to the fire?

Re:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers

[unity100]

there can be responsible disclosure, in matters in which people HAVE responsibility. a group in an administration that grabs people worldwide, kidnaps them, tortures them, and says that they are doing this 'for freedom', deserves NO responsibility regarding disclosure of their matters.

Re:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers

[nschubach]

On one hand you state the problem (someone who will read meaning into six lines of text,) and on the other you point back to the information being the problem.

Unless you think that people reading malice in those six lines of text is not the "wrong" aspect of the equation here... Do you really think that people should be able to read what they want into it?

Re:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers

[MyLongNickName]

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:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers

[nschubach]

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:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers

[Shining Celebi]

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.

I agree. It also seems to clear to me that the vast majority of these cables were legitimate secrets. 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. The government in a representative democracy is there to represent our interests. We have a right to know whether it is doing so or not. A government whose every daily operation is exposed to the public spotlight will be completely ineffective in representing anyone's interests.

Re:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers

[Nadaka]

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.

Re:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers

[Nadaka]

I was also for it when they released the collateral murder video, that was a serious war crime and coverup that needed to be exposed. For the other big releases? The last one was rather meh, and this one doesn't doesn't seem to have any purpose except to harm the US based on what I have heard about it so far.

Re:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers

[mcgrew]

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

[krazytekn0]

uh... is that supposed to be a joke?
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:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers

[gknoy]

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

[Shining Celebi]

We hire politicians to be upfront and honest. We don't hire them to be two faced.

Not everyone in government is a politician. And not everyone in these cables is American. A substantial portion of them are reporting on what other countries have to say.

And do you honestly think progress with say, Iran can be made if we all denounce Iran in public and private? Or does it make more sense for say, Saudi Arabia to say "Look guys, Iran is really dangerous and we want this problem to go away" in private to the US and to Iran at the same time? Or does it make more sense for them to downplay antagonism toward Iran in public and to Iran (since they are perceived to be a threat and it could lead to war) and speak very urgently to other nations at the same time privately about the problem? (This is a paraphrased example from the leaks - the king of Saudi Arabia actually said he wanted us to "cut off the head of the snake" with regard to Iran. Other Arabian countries were equally urgent about ending the Iranian threat. But they're not going to say so in public.)

Being two-faced is how diplomacy gets anywhere.

Re:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers

[jfengel]

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:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers

[MyLongNickName]

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

[MachDelta]

I see your point, but I also wonder if the public has a right to see through the false smiles and disingenuous handshaking that is the norm in global relations. This facade of politeness obfuscates what is really happening in the world, and we then expect the democratic masses to form their opinions and choices... based upon a series of charades?
I have to say, that is a concept I am equally uncomfortable with.

Re:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers

[Monkeedude1212]

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

[catbertscousin]

We hire politicians to be upfront and honest. We don't hire them to be two faced.

Where do you find these "honest politicians"? And can we order some from there?

Re:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers

[nschubach]

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:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers

[Shining Celebi]

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.

I think there's a pretty massive benefit to the governmenthaving a store of honest, reliable, and thorough information they can pick through and analyze, which was what these cables were for. If diplomats are more careful about what they say, the information that the US government is able to collect is limited.

Re:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers

[MyLongNickName]

No, Mcgrew, it is not his job to severely censor his message back to superiors.

I will agree, 100% though, that the US is at fault for not protecting sensitive documents better. Our 60-person shop does a better job of that, apparently, than the U.S.

Re:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers

[Kagura]

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 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

[poetmatt]

the damage doesn't exist. that's just the alarmist nature of things.

they said the last wikileaks release was embarrassing and damaging, damned the whole thing, and looked what happened?

no damage.

The reality is, the only damage is going to be to the US, for having done fraudulent things and/or basically violated and ignored massive amounts of laws that we legislated to get approved in the first place.

So that leaves us with embarrassing. Is it? yup.

Re:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers

[nschubach]

Please read my reply to the above poster... http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1888274&cid=34379114

Re:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

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

[medcalf]

If that were so, then where are the leaks from China, from Germany, from Russia, etc? Or is it only US government transparency? That would be an odd agenda for a group of Europeans led by a South African Boer.

Re:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers

[snl2587]

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

[captainpanic]

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:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers

[flaming error]

> the government's efforts to legitimately help it's people remain on good terms with allies

As the diplomatic cables show, "remaining on good terms with allies" may take a back seat to badgering our allies, harvesting their diplomats biometric information, and generally being pricks to ally and enemy alike.

The US Government operates in a complicated world where decisions are not always driven by benevolence and virtue.

Re:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers

[nschubach]

Progress cannot happen if you tell each other secrets. This is no more true in politics as it is in any relationship. Little "white lies" about birthdays and non-confrontational matters are easily wiped away... but knowing that the leader of a country wants the "world superpower" to attack their neighbor is pretty important information... don't you think? Shouldn't said leader be discussing this with the person to whom their conflict resides?

Re:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers

[Nikker]

As anyone can see from any of my previous posts on the matter, it is not about Wikileaks it is though about the desire for someone with the information to have it released. No one but the person who had access to the information is responsible. The only thing this is going to solidify is that web sites "like" Wikileaks will be a target and suspected of terrorism merely by its existence. Who is to say if any other method of bringing this data to the public was available it would not have been used if Wikileaks was not available? The person/people who leaked the information from the government sure aren't living the good life right now but they must have had a reason to select this particular set of data. So would the data be leaked to the public if Wikileaks did not exist? If so, would it really matter if it was Wikileaks that did it?

Re:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers

[leftie]

Obama and Clinton are wrong.

Obama has gone way too far right on most issues.

Re:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers

[medcalf]

In international affairs, I'd certainly say that the government's dealings can — indeed, must — entail shady backroom secret agreements. As President Polk said, "The experience of every nation on earth has demonstrated that emergencies may arise in which it becomes absolutely necessary for the public safety or the public good to make expenditures, the very subject of which would be defeated by publicity. In no nation is the application of such funds to be made public. In time of war or impending danger, the situation of the country will make it necessary to employ individuals for the purpose of obtaining information or rendering other important services who could never be prevailed upon to act if they entertained the least apprehension that their names or their agency would in any contingency be revealed." He also talked about things that are at the heart of the current release, including the giving of gifts to secure treaties and private negotiations with other powers. It is frankly the case that, in order for a government to be effective in international relations (not to mention espionage and military issues), it must keep secrets.

It's arguable (and I would certainly contend) that we keep too much secret. That is a different question from whether a government should keep anything at all secret. These releases are most certainly in the nature of things that a government should keep secret until they are of interest only to historians. In the wake of this release, it will be nearly impossible to get frank opinions and discussion of options with any of our allies or semi-friendly nations: they have too much to lose by being candid.

Re:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers

[wienerschnizzel]

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.

This is not the case. Wikileaks is not doing an interpretation of the documents (unlike the man in your quote) and they are not trying to measure up the documents to some arbitrary standards. They are giving all a chance to look at the documents and see how they measure up to the proclaimed standards of the people who made them.

Re:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers

[OldeTimeGeek]

We don't "hire" politicians for anything. We elect them to represent us - which doesn't mean the same thing to all people. I'm pretty much certain that the folks that elected representatives in, say, Colorado, feel that they have little to nothing in common with the California electorate.

And the absolute last thing that people would want in a politician (or anybody else, for that matter) is unfaltering honesty. Telling nothing but the truth on the floor of the Congress may be a good movie plot but may make it a bit difficult to find a co-sponsor for your bills...

Re:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers

[TheKidWho]

What else is going on in Bizzarro world?

Re:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers

[ThePhilips]

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:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers

[nschubach]

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

[Surt]

Actually, i'd have to believe that the situation with Iran could only be better if we were all denouncing them in public and private. The existing plan has done nothing but embolden the regime by making them think they have more friends than they really do. Forcing more countries into a hard line public stance would be much more likely to foment a war or revolt that would end the iranian regime.

Re:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers

[gustgr]

I completely second you. I've posted a few comments with a similar point of view but I was not this eloquent. WikiLeaks has definitely disappointed me on this one. People will suffer for their recklessness. People, not governments.

Re:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers

[poetmatt]

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

[losfromla]

I always thought that "being political" was a synonym for "being dishonest"

Re:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers

[nschubach]

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

[Surt]

ob sig:
No doubt the leaks were because of terrible microsoft security.

Re:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers

[Surt]

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

[snl2587]

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

[bluefoxlucid]

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).

Probably teh only interesting thing in the lump, though Ih aven't looked.

Re:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers

[El_Muerte_TDS]

Not everybody is an USA citizen. WikiLeaks doesn't exist for just the USA citizens.

Re:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers

[gustgr]

Reason gets to pick, for Christ's sake. They should have released documents which reveal crimes, misconduct, torture, etc. They should have not disclosed documents which reveal internal reports and assessments of other governments, internal relations and legitimate negotiations between the US and other nations.

Having privileged information doesn't mean having to disclosed it. Unless one is using it as evidence to uncover, accuse and ultimately trial said crimes, disclosing it is pure sabotage and high treason.

Re:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers

[ShaunC]

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.

Re:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers

[losfromla]

I guess your 60 person shop doesn't use m$ software to help keep its secrets...
(I like your sig, I choose to honor it)

Re:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers

[The End Of Days]

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

[rbollinger]

This would be imposing your ideals on another sovreign leader. Its great that you think the U.S. Government should be as open and upfront as possible. But the King of another Country can be as secretive as he pleases.

Re:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers

[Monkeedude1212]

No - I'd think it's my governments job to do that. I think the diplomat is mostly there to relay information - and its the Prime Minister (and whoever leads their country) to ensure the relationship between the two countries is stable.

Now - if my Prime Minister is kissing ass - it's public and everyone knows it, much like how he does to the United States currently.

Re:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers

[snl2587]

The OP was asking why Democrats (U.S.) didn't like the Pentagon Papers (U.S.). So I responded in the context of the U.S.

Re:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers

[nschubach]

Unfortunately, it has... but being political means thinking and interacting before acting. It means telling someone where their faults are and working through it, not holding it all in for the when the shit hits the fan. You can tell someone they are wrong in a constructive way.

Re:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers

[jovius]

There really aren't allies or enemies.

The allies are the ones who support your cause and help to achieve your objectives. Everything else is collateral damage.

Re:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers

[gtall]

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

[snl2587]

Er..."loved", not "didn't like".

Re:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers

[TheRecklessWanderer]

Maybe they should get some of those pro's over at the TSA to manage security for them. At least we know that no 3 year olds will be sneaking any information out of the building.

Re:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers

[dafoomie]

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

[HungryHobo]

I like wikileaks and I like what it stands for but to an extent I have to agree.
Most of this leak seemed to be essentially gossip and bitching behind peoples backs.

Some of it was information that what somewhat in the interest of the public to know-
the bit about nuclear material lost in Pakistan springs to mind
The US spying on its allies and the UN thing was also an important one for non-americans(we count as people too).

but I got the impression wikileaks was somewhat anti-war and a lot of this leak is about as good for international stability as releasing tapes of every teenage girl in a school bitching about every other teenage girl in the school is for a happy and friendly school.
It's most likely simply going to lead to blood and chunks of scalp on the ground.

Re:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers

[julioody]

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.

And what exactly is the right way to do it? Forums such as Slashdot could do with sensible arguments as opposed to "oh this just feels wrong so it's not good".

Re:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers

[thehostiles]

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:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers

[rogerdugans]

"We hire politicians to be upfront and honest. We don't hire them to be two faced"

That is one of the funniest jokes I have heard or seen in a long time.

Re:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers

[lgw]

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.

Re:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers

[Hatta]

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

[DarthVain]

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

[gtall]

War mongering? Against a country in their region trying to build nuclear weapons so they can threaten the rest? Yep, they be war-mongering against those nice Iranians who only started the last Mid-East war with their dogs, Hezbollah, because of their universal love for all peoples including Jews, homosexuals...women.

Re:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers

[qmaqdk]

Welcome back, agent Kagura. I guess operatives such as yourself don't have time to rewrite previous comments. We understand.

Re:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers

[lgw]

Sure, that's true, but far more people who were doing their jobs properly will also suffer. Punishing 10 people because one of them is guilty is the opposite of justice.

Re:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers

[qmaqdk]

I think you mean "where are the leaks from China, from Germany, from Russia, etc, lately?". Check their previous leaks.

Re:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers

[interkin3tic]

"Democrats" can only be said to "hate wikileaks" if you think all democrats work in the administration or think that all democrats have more of an interest in Obama's PR than real issues. Both would be equally stupid ideas.

Re:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers

[diegocg]

Wikileaks has announced that they will publish leaks related to the russian government. But, as other have already said, language is probably a huge barrier.

Re:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers

[nschubach]

No problem. If he wants to be as secretive as he wants... but why should he expect me to keep it secret for him?

Re:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers

[electron sponge]

The Pentagon Papers were revealed by the New York Times during the Nixon Administration, not Johnson.

Re:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers

[lenzm]

I think this argument is ridiculous, it's close to an argument that people make for no right to privacy - that you shouldn't do anything that you wouldn't want other people to see. By that logic you wouldn't mind having a camera on you 24 hours a day - in your bathroom, in your bedroom.

Re:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers

[mcgrew]

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:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers

[Actually, I do RTFA]

Isn't it his job to inform me on his views on the quality of leadership in France?

Not even close. Let's say he thought the French president had BO and was lazy. There's certainly a reason that some aspects of the Canadian government would need to know (lets say, to train themselves to ignore the smell, or to keep communiques short). 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.

Now, whether the citizens of France should have access to it or not - thats a whole different story

Maybe on an intellectual level, sure. But there is no way to send that information just to Canadian citizens (and at least one Canadian must have French dual-citizenship.) The reality is either its public or its secret.

Its a representative democracy. I need to know how the people I elect to look at that data think. I need to know when the data and their decisions combine to defy their public reasoning. If these showed some horrific hypocrisy or that the US government was doing evil things, that would be meaningful. If it's just a collection of white lies and, well, the difference between diplomatic exchange and real thoughts, I could do without.

Re:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers

[OldeTimeGeek]

And people who were just there at the time who have little to no relationship to the events will suffer. But they're just mushrooms, so who cares?

Re:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers

[Sigma 7]

I was also for it when they released the collateral murder video, that was a serious war crime

Not according to the pilots. When they're in an area where they're being shot at, and at the distance where they saw an individual crouching around a corner with what appears to be a long cylinder, or a silhouette that somehow looks like its carrying an AKA-47, they think they're bad guys.

Note that when they saw a target crawling on the ground, they didn't shoot because they didn't see a weapon.

and coverup that needed to be exposed.

That's the real issue - not the fact that civilians were fired upon.

Re:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers

[Kagura]

I think I am entitled to have an opposing opinion, just as you are entitled to have yours. Don't be rude to people you don't know, even if you aren't face-to-face with them.

Re:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers

[nschubach]

Or reporting only the news that the Government (or residing President) approves of...

Re:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers

[interkin3tic]

You're implying it's not war mongering because it's against a country you don't like? I'd say warmongering is warmongering whether you like or don't like the government it's against. Either way, it's mostly going to be people dying who had little to do with the reasons you like or dislike the government.

Re:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers

[owlnation]

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.

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:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers

[rakuen]

False dilemma. You assume there are only two extreme choices for a diplomat to make, when in reality there is a broad range of possibilities. For example, a diplomat could suggest to Mugabe that his policies might not be in the best interests of his country, and perhaps offer suggestions or potential alternatives. Please note this should not be done heavy handed, thus the stack of qualifiers I injected into that statement.

Contrary to popular belief, you can tell someone the truth without being a contemptuous jackass about it. Of course, some people still might not take it well, but I think that says more about the person you're talking to than the person doing the talking.

Re:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers

[Bahumat]

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:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers

[Bigjeff5]

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:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers

[X.25]

If that were so, then where are the leaks from China, from Germany, from Russia, etc? Or is it only US government transparency? That would be an odd agenda for a group of Europeans led by a South African Boer.

Well, sooner you send them leaks from China, Germany and Russia, sooner they will release them.

Re:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers

[Demanufacture]

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.

http://documents.nytimes.com/letters-between-wikileaks-and-govWikileaks tried to be responsible and gave the US government a chance to redact anything they though would endanger lives or should be not be disclosed for national security reasons. The US government threw away the chance and decided to throw a tantrum instead. So if these disclosures cause anyone's life to be put in peril then the US government should be held responsible.

Re:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers

[turbidostato]

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

Because he still is a public employee.

"If everything he says become public knowledge, then the diplomat has to severely censor what he is going to say."

Or else, make damn sure whatever he says is on a properly secured channel.
Or else, make damn sure whatever he says does in fact hold water.

And then, the one that knows about his secret shuld be grown enough to know those are the points of views of the one making the assertion, not the one being informed (i.e.: POTUS) nor the point of view of anyone else in government.

Re:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers

[ChefInnocent]

If people were honest they would have no friends and marriage would never happen.

If a man were married to a woman for say 5 years, one day she says, "do I look fat in this dress?" No wise man is going to say yes. Is a 10lbs gain over the winter really worth a huge fight and maybe half your bank account? No. Instead, you find a tactful way of avoiding the question (there is none, a pleading of the fifth is admitting the fact in this case), or answering with a lie. Instead, you look at all the surrounding facts, and choose to avoid the argument or set the building aflame. Even in a hell of a marriage, you're probably looking to minimize casualties.

So, if most people cannot tell their spouse the truth, what makes you think nations can?

Re:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers

[turbidostato]

"The problem is that when diplomacy is the game, everyone lies. Being pure of heart in this game kills people, sooner or later, and lots of it."

As it does being double-faced. All in all being equal, I still would want to be percieved as honest and single-faced.

Re:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers

[b0bby]

The Economist summed it up well, I thought:

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2010/11/wikileaks

"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

[nofx_3]

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

[TheDarAve]

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".

Re:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers

[turbidostato]

"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?"

What do you want to achieve? For you don't really think the way to get Mugabe stoping to be "a festering idiot who is destroying his country" is by *not* telling him, do you?

The only situation where you would want showing as a friend while informing your own country is that you *want* Mugabe to be "a festering idiot who is destroying his country" while you make your moves to take advantage from the wreak. I for one don't want our politicians to do that.

"Your "upfront and honest" policy might work in your makebelieve land, but not in reality"

Quite interesting you think so while possibly the only reason for you being able to write down this is because of a politician that resolved to be honest and perfectly clear at least once: Kennedy managed to cold down the Cuba missiles crisis by being clear about what could or couldn't be standed by USA. Probably the two-faced approach would have ended up on a global nuclear war, so go figure.

Re:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers

[dnahelicase]

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.

Who's public? It might be hard to see how the USA public benefits, but what about the people all around the world? It's not the job of a non-US based media outlet that specializes in releasing leaked information to decide whether or not this is in someone's best interest.

Frankly, I think it was above and beyond for them to warn the US that it was being released. I would love it if people gave me warning before they spread office gossip about me.

I know politicians/gov't agents might expect a level of privacy, but they shouldn't. I still can't believe people don't understand that, when you write something down and hit the "send" button - it's permanent. You can't take it back. Someone else has that information.

I mean, really, didn't they figure this stuff out in Watergate? I have no sympathy for a government that gets caught with their pants down. Either they need to stand behind their words or they should take their medicine for having such lax security practices.

Re:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers

[melikamp]

This should a huge level of irresponsibility on the part of WikiLeaks for releasing the entire database rather than incriminating files.

This "database" was leaked not by Wikileaks, but, for all we know, by a US government employee. May be Bradley Manning, may be someone else, we don't know for sure. But it was not leaked by Wikileaks, and, chances are, not only to Wikeleaks.

These files were not published just by Wikileaks. In fact, because of the DDOS, they were initially published by papers like NY Times and Guardian. They actually released the info to public first this time. Why are you singling out Wikileaks? And for what? For an activity in which major journalistic outlets share willingly?

Take your head out of your anus.

Re:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers

[TheDarAve]

What else is going on in Bizzarro world?

Iran solves world hunger and supports the Chinese in peacefully convincing most of the middle east that Democracy is the way to go while denouncing the constant threat of nuclear war in Europe the Swiss keep threatening with their Swedish rockets.

Re:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers

[dwillden]

But this isn't about politics, it's about international diplomacy, which requires them to be two faced. You cannot negotiate effectively if you just lay all your cards out on the table for everybody to see. You build a knowledge of your diplomatic opponents, as they are building one of you. Then you both sit down and based on your knowledge you gradually share more info in return for their equal sharing in return. Quid Pro Quo, not here is everything we have, want and need; pretty please agree to something slightly beneficial to us in return.

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.

Re:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers

[Oldstench]

You've obviously never played "Diplomacy".

Re:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers

[AltairDusk]

Where do you find these "honest politicians"? And can we order some from there?

The cost is astronomical and they're all on indefinite backorder...

Re:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers

[AltairDusk]

Unfortunately, it has... but being political means thinking and interacting before acting. It means telling someone where their faults are and working through it, not holding it all in for the when the shit hits the fan. You can tell someone they are wrong in a constructive way.

However I think most people now will associate the term with GP's definition. I normally hear this definition phrased as "being tactful".

Re:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers

[AlamedaStone]

I think I am entitled to have an opposing opinion, just as you are entitled to have yours. Don't be rude to people you don't know, even if you aren't face-to-face with them.

An opinion is one thing, but you're just copy-pasting a block of text anywhere you can. That sounds more like astroturf propaganda to me.

Re:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers

[AltairDusk]

To be fair though 60 people provide a lot less vectors for a security breach than the scale the government is working on. I'm not saying they don't deserve some flak for this, just pointing out that no matter what your procedures are the more people with access to the secure date, the more possibility there is of a leak.

Re:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers

[nizo]

Diplomats also damn well better be using secure ways to communicate, otherwise the "other guys" will find out things they shouldn't know. If anything this points a big neon arrow at problems in that area that most certainly need to be addressed, because if wikileaks was able to gain access to this info you can pretty much guarantee other countries can too.

Re:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers

[Phoobarnvaz]

Diplomats are not politicians, they are not elected. They are supposed to give uncut views about their foreign circumstances.

For the most part...diplomats are political appointees who got the job because they or a friend of theirs gave the most money to the winner. It has nothing to do with intelligence...being able to construct a sentence in French or the best person for the job...but someone with their hand out after the election who can usually win Senate confirmation.

Re:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers

[Phoobarnvaz]

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.

Sadly...it goes back to who has the deepest pockets...the best lawyers and the best friends who can silence the critics who will keep these people in the appointment or office. Just as long as they can serve a purpose and keep their name out of the news will be assured a lifetime position.

Re:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers

[turbidostato]

"They should have not disclosed documents which reveal internal reports and assessments of other governments, internal relations and legitimate negotiations between the US and other nations"

Why not, exactly? And then, if they *really* are "legitimate negotiations", what's the problem about releasing them?

"Having privileged information doesn't mean having to disclosed it"

Certainly not. But then you should ask yourself, privileged to whom? privileged about what? And then you might change your mind and ask it to be released in order for the privileged being privileged no more about that.

Re:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers

[Kagura]

I think I am entitled to have an opposing opinion, just as you are entitled to have yours. Don't be rude to people you don't know, even if you aren't face-to-face with them.

An opinion is one thing, but you're just copy-pasting a block of text anywhere you can. That sounds more like astroturf propaganda to me.

I made a post yesterday, and I recompiled it here. That is not "copy-pasting a block of text anywhere I can".

Re:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers

[c 0xFF]

Since when does the ambassador report to you? Since when is it his job to give reports on other countries to the general public?

No, his job is to represent your government officials in another country. He reports to them, not you.

You might argue that the Prime Minister is duty-bound to give reports like this to the general public, and you might have a point ... but that still wouldn't necessarily include the ambassador's opinions. I think it's very reasonable for such things to remain private or even classified.

Re:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers

[gknoy]

That's a good point. There's always the balance between effectiveness and political prudence (rather than correctness).

Re:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers

[rastilin]

If people were honest they would have no friends and marriage would never happen. If a man were married to a woman for say 5 years, one day she says, "do I look fat in this dress?" No wise man is going to say yes. Is a 10lbs gain over the winter really worth a huge fight and maybe half your bank account? No. Instead, you find a tactful way of avoiding the question (there is none, a pleading of the fifth is admitting the fact in this case), or answering with a lie. Instead, you look at all the surrounding facts, and choose to avoid the argument or set the building aflame. Even in a hell of a marriage, you're probably looking to minimize casualties. So, if most people cannot tell their spouse the truth, what makes you think nations can?

On that subject I think it's more to do with how you phrase your honesty. For example "It does a bit, you're still gorgeous though." would communicate what you want without a messy argument. The worst thing about being dishonest is that it becomes much harder to take you seriously when you want to tell the truth and it's more easy for your wife to trust you when she knows you're an upfront person. Also, she might decide to lose weight.

Also, if you're married to a person who takes a honest answer, even a rude and thoughtless one with "OMG DIVORCE", you've married the human version of NK.

Re:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers

[gknoy]

While it wasn't at all clear from the words I wrote, I didn't mean to imply that one shouldn't ever say things which others might take poorly ("Bob's selfish" or "The Prime Minister of Elbonia eats babies"), but rather that one should expect that they may become public. Others have pointed out that the entire context of these messages was SUPPOSED to stay secret ... however, this proves that that's not guaranteed. Self-censorship by diplomats is probably not a good idea, in that context.

Re:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers

[gtbritishskull]

Wikileaks exists to publish information in the public domain that would otherwise be suppressed. They are not spies. If they get information, then someone has already decided to release it to the public. They only facilitate getting it to the widespread public by posting it on the internet (instead of it spreading by personal networks through email, irc, bittorrent, ect). The governments are not learning anything that they would not have learned anyway (their intelligence services would have found it eventually). It is the public at large which benefits from Wikileaks, because they get information they would not have otherwise had.

That being the case, I do not want Wikileaks trying to keep me ignorant. They should do their best not to help spread information that can get people killed (naming informants and the like), but everything else should be fair game. I want them to have no agenda besides exposing leaked information so that the average person can find it. I don't care who it embarrasses. It is not their job to protect someone else's secrets when that person has already failed to do the same.

Re:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers

[Aim Here]

If that were so, then where are the leaks from China, from Germany, from Russia, etc?

Howabout here, here, here and here, for starters.

I don't see any Russian documents on a brief scan, but that might be a linguistic thing, or just that they've not had any Russian leakers yet.

Re:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers

[lennier]

Politics is the opposite of honesty.

In much the same way as business is the opposite of fair pricing.

But perhaps it doesn't have to be that way.

Re:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers

[lennier]

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.

Mmm, fireshine and brimbows and hellpuppies...

Re:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers

[Culture20]

If people were always honest, no wife would ask her husband if she looks fat in an article of clothing, because it's a potentially explosive question (the answer is always truthful). People would learn to alter how they ask things.

Re:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers

[TheEyes]

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. 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

[SETIGuy]

The difference is that today's politicians aren't smart enough to see that there's no difference.

Re:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers

[losfromla]

Yet diplomatic action can easily be worth a thousand days' worth of troop movements.

Not for the USA based on what we've seen (Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc).

Re:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers

[sycodon]

Diplomacy is all about establishing and maintaining relationships among countries. As with any kind of relationship, there will be things left unsaid and thoughts that should never see the light of day.

Imagine if your every thought about your girl/boy friend/mother-in-law, etc. were all made public for them and everyone else to see. I suspect that any relationship you had would quickly sour. Although, I bet many Slashdotters don't really bother with relationships.

The information release does not come close to rising the level of "truth" that wikileaks bleats about being their sole reason for being. Most will acknowledge that Julian is on some kind of paranoid power trip ...it's all about him and not what has or will be published.

Re:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers

[Nadaka]

The first shooting incident COULD have been mistaken identity. The second shooting incident where the guy in the helicopter lied to his commander over the radio (about armed hostiles collecting weapons and bodies when it was clear the only thing they were doing was rescuing the wounded man) eager and begging in order to receive permission to open fire again? That was clearly a war crime.

Re:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers

[techsoldaten]

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:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers

[hubie]

Well, that certainly wasn't a very diplomatic response. :)

Re:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers

[SETIGuy]

The existing plan has done nothing but embolden the regime by making them think they have more friends than they really do.

No, the regime is emboldened by knowing that under the current circumstances the US could not win a war against Iran. If the US makes limited strikes Iran will make a mess of Iraq and Afghanistan. We're being bled dry by limited wars in little countries with half the population of Iran. A real war would cause a major economic collapse in the US. And what has prevented war, despite the urging of the Israelis and the Saudis, is that we know that we would lose.

It's not like Iran didn't know the feelings of its Arab neighbors. Is there anyone who couldn't guess that the Saudis would want the destruction of their major competitor for regional domination? And you can be damn sure the Saudis want someone else to do the deed and foot the bill.

Re:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers

[clarkkent09]

Actually you are wrong there. Diplomacy gets done by a small army of full time professional civil servants who get promoted on merit (as much as that is possible in any government department). Only the top layer in the State Dept, and ambassadors and such are the ones who get elected or appointed and although they make the final decisions in the big picture, the actual work is handled for them and pretty much handed to them to sign and if they can be bothered to read it, well that's ok too. Ever seen the British show Yes, Minister?

Re:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers

[sycodon]

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

[hrvatska]

Daniel Ellsberg, the person released them, helped write them and knew what was in them. The only thing comparable between what wikileaks does and what Ellsberg did is that they both release classified documents. Wikileaks doesn't have any idea whether the documents they release are relevant, irrelevant, dangerous or harmless.

Re:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers

[leehwtsohg]

Iran isn't an arab country.

Re:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers

[Serious Callers Only]

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.

Re:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers

[jmac_the_man]

No. He's implying that Iran is warmongering, and the US is disregarding the advice of its allies/"allies" about the matter.

Re:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers

[greenbird]

There's a such thing as responsible disclosure, and Wikileaks blew it. They're irresponsible.

Ummm...and how did Wikileaks get all those documents? I'd say the above statement is more applicable to the US government than to Wikileaks. The US government is the one with the information they were trying to keep secret. I'd say it's the height of irresponsibility to have security so friggin piss poor that one person could leak that much secret information.

Re:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers

[couchslug]

Try an experiment. Go for a week blurting out ALL your opinions, of everything and everyone, immediately as they occur to you.

Honesty isn't always a useful tool of statecraft. For example, Arabs who support the US against Iran risk getting killed. Don't forget what happened to Anwar Sadat for making peace with Israel.

Re:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers

[Mr. Slippery]

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.

Re:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers

[clarkkent09]

You should read the leaks and then see if they are damaging to American interests. My impression so far is the exact opposite. What are the biggest news here:
 
Pakistan has a less then adequately secured nuclear material and US is trying to secure it but Pakistan is refusing.
Arabs hate/fear Iran just as much as Israel does and are urging US to attack it but US is being the one who is cautious.
North Korea has supplied long range missiles (capable of reaching Europe) to Iran.
Lots of silly stuff about Gaddafi's mistress, Berlusconi's partying and Putin being an alpha-dog and "Batman" (he will enjoy that).
 
  Find one thing that is seriously damaging to US interests. Even previous leaks about Iraq will only validate that war when the dust settles and historians total up the score and it is realized that if the war was avoided and international sanctions (which killed more Iraqis than the war) were kept up forcing Iraqi's to starve as well as live under a dictator, the civil war would still be likely the moment Saddam was weakened enough to encourage Kurds and Shiites to rise up. In the end far more Iraqis would have died and Iran would end up being in control of Iraq (minus Kurds) which would be a disaster for the whole region. If these documents didn't get leaked anyway, the US should have leaked them on purpose.

Re:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers

[techsoldaten]

People who brag about being able to get the best tacos in the world down at the piazza will suffer!

Re:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers

[Mr. Slippery]

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.

Re:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers

[Threni]

> 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.

From http://cablegate.wikileaks.org/
Currently released so far... 272 / 251,287

Uh...that's a trickle.

Also from that page:

>The embassy cables will be released in stages over the next few months. The
>subject matter of these cables is of such importance, and the geographical
>spread so broad, that to do otherwise would not do this material justice.

At this rate it's going to take about 5 years! Isn't there a risk `something will happen` to the site or the people behind it? Why not release it all in one go?

Re:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers

[SETIGuy]

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 have also glanced at the documents on the WikiLeaks cable release pages, and I can categorically say that these documents for the most part are relatively uninteresting and probably not very damaging to U.S. interests, since most of the information in them was fairly widely known already. You can give me an example of one that was strategically damaging if you wish. And then explain why none of the other 2.5 Million people that had access to it sold it to an interested party.

We know what Chancellor Merkel thought about W. Is it all that bad that we know what some diplomat thought of her? None of this lives up to Hillary running around like Jar Jar Binks yelling "Weeza All Gonna Die!"

Re:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers

[Mr. Slippery]

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".

Re:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers

[strack]

the US government feels the need to xray my junk every time i get on a airplane. so im trying really hard to give a crap about 'responsible disclosure', whatever the hell that means, but frankly a little bringing down to our level the privileged opaqueness of their operations is long overdue IMHO.

Re:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers

[poity]

I'd like to see you win a game of poker with you cards face up on the table.

Re:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers

[lennier]

Consider North Korea.... 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.

If North Korea is the United State's boss, then the world has a lot bigger problems than a mere diplomatic leak.

Re:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers

[jpmorgan]

Do you want to help people in Zimbabwe, or would you rather just feel morally righteous about letting them starve?

Re:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers

[poity]

Why a link from wikipedia? Why not just link to the leaks on wikileaks.org? Oh right, they've been removed.

Re:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers

[aXis100]

-- "It does a bit, you're still gorgeous though." would communicate what you want without a messy argument.

Hahahahahha. Hahahahahah, hoohoohooohohohoo, hehe.

After many years of marriage and subsequent divorce I still I dont know much about women - but I'm guessing you know even less. :)

Re:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers

[hey!]

You're thinking of ambassadors, and only *some* of them, at that.

You don't think that the US embassy in Moscow or China is staffed *entirely* by political hacks, do you? Or that everyone currently in the US embassy in Pakistan picked up Pashto or Urdu from listening to Berlitz tapes after the 2008 election?

Re:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers

[hey!]

Well, that assumes that every regime is rational and willing to be cooperative when its in the interest of the people it serves (or rules). It also assumes that people in key positions don't let their personal feelings affect their decisions or judgment.

That's a bit naive, isn't it?

Take Robert Mugabe. One of the cables leaked was a very frank and incisive assessment of his (unpleasant) character: intelligent, tactically brilliant even, but vicious and consumed with malignant narcissism. The kind of guy you want to tell your successor: be very, very guarded about what you say to this guy. He is not nice, but that does not make him stupid.

Re:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers

[spazzmo]

The term "being diplomatic" means always censoring everything you say. If a diplomat cannot live like that, then they are not a diplomat.

Re:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers

[paedobear]

Mod parent up - the fact Iran isn't an Arab country is a significant part of why the Arab states all hate the place (they even tried to wipe out the Iranians a few hundred years ago, did about a good a job as the Nazis did to the Jews, and the Iranians certainly haven't forgotten)

Re:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers

[bjourne]

Look, if any diplomat in a cable wrote that he thinks Kim Il-Jong is a blowhard pedophile, then that diplomat is not being professional. Diplomacy is about being objective and mediating solutions. It is also one of the highest paid jobs there is, and if you spend your highly paid time gossiping about irrelevancies, then you deserve to be fired.

My opinion about my boss is not relevant when it comes to me doing my job at my workplace. Just as his opinion about me isn't, as long as I do my job. That is the difference between professional life and private.

Re:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers

[bjourne]

The truth: You are a sissy and your wife is fat.

Re:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers

[Alimony Pakhdan]

p>Randomly speaking... I'm a Canadian...

Well... that explains a few things.

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?

Unless you are in government, it is not his job to tell you doodley squat. You as a private citizen dont get to directly deal with foreign policy.

Re:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers

[Gryle]

It's a nice thought, but can we can barely get people to turn out to vote for presidential (every 4 years) or congressional elections (2 years). What makes you think they'll show for an annual election?

Re:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers

[blahplusplus]

"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.

Re:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers

[MyLongNickName]

Um... no. The diplomat should be frank as hell when reporting back to superiors.

Re:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers

[MyLongNickName]

And nuclear launch codes should be public too since it was our tax dollars that built those nukes...

Re:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers

[reboot246]

Some diplomats are political appointees, but most are career professionals. Calling them politicians is an insult.

Remember the old joke - what's the difference between a lady and a diplomat?
If a diplomat says yes, he means maybe; if he says maybe, he means no; and if he says no, he's not a diplomat.
If a lady says no, she means maybe; if she says maybe, she means yes; and if she says yes, she's not a lady.

Their world is not our world and it's filled with lies, half truths, and deception. Some of their secrets should never be known. It cripples their ability to do the work we hire them to do.

Re:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers

[MyLongNickName]

If you thought those two statements were linked to each other directly, then you have big problems.

Re:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers

[MyLongNickName]

Mugabe kills people who disagree with his politics. How do you politely disagree with that? Perhaps if only Neville Chamberlain had disagreed strongly with Hitler, France might not have been invaded...

Re:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers

[MyLongNickName]

Let's play poker sometime. You play with your cards face up.

Re:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers

[human_geode]

so, we can kidnap/kill foreign nationals, but not foreign dignitaries? The point is that no matter how heinous, most politicians will cover for each other (to save their own sorry butts). If he's so terrible - off him and move on - but no, politicians fear that it would lead to backlash, so they only kill people if there's no one around that will avenge them.

Re:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers

[sumdumass]

or what makes anyone thing that anyone would know anything about a 1002 page bill times the 2-300 or more of them a year that gets passed on to the president to sign if they can't even get their information correct about the people they are voting for in the presidential election.

A lot more then just getting people to vote would be needed.

Re:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers

[human_geode]

I'm in favor of this: it's a final check against the executive and legislative branches, and sidesteps the whole "hope the SC sees it our way" question. But then, we would see massive advertising by corps on favored bills.

Re:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers

[localman]

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.

Re:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers

[sycodon]

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:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers

[BitZtream]

Except for specifics like names, nothing really ever comes out of Wikileaks that you can't get already via legal channels.

Re:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers

[gmhowell]

And it's the easiest thing in the world to spin things against soemone who's being brutally honest.

Spoken by a man who has been to divorce court.

Re:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers

[sycodon]

While this is only tangentially relevant to my post, I'll have a try at it.

Like it or not, politicians are necessary. The only alternative are generals, who would negotiate with a barrage of artillery instead of words.

And just as the Geneva Convention outlines the civilized way to kill each other, Diplomatic conventions pretty much outlaw the outright assassination of heads of states and diplomats during anything less than all out war and even then it is not a good idea. After all, at some point, you will want to talk to those who have their hands on the levers of power regardless of the outcome of hostilities.

Assassinating Kim Il whatever the hell his name is would risk a nuclear war on the Korean peninsula and would also risk involvement of China. There is a time and a place for killing SOBs like him, but you need to be smart about it.

And kidnapping/killing foreign nationals who represent a threat AND are hosted by hostile governments, while you may think it distasteful, has been going on for centuries.

Re:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers

[cdrguru]

You have a rather funny idea about people.

How about this scenario: you are sitting at a table with a large man with a heavy, large caliber semiautomatic pistol. He has acne scars, extreme BO and is easily the ugliest person you have seen that was still alive. He is emotionally unstable and is waving the gun around.

He asks you if you are think he is handsome. You have the option of telling the truth and perhaps discovering how unstable he really is or you can lie. You have five seconds to make up your mind.

See, the problem is that if you are honest to people like Mugabe you can find yourself in a grave somewhere in the jungle. Folks like this - and many of the rest of the world's leaders - are simply not interested in "honesty". They have an attitude problem a mile wide and are only interested in their opinions being confirmed by those around them. Everyone else is unimportant, especially if they don't agree with them.

Diplomacy is the art of being in the same room with a person like this and not getting shot but still conveying a viewpoint that is opposed to theirs. This isn't possible all the time but it is important to maintain contact even so.

Re:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers

[bhiestand]

Quite interesting you think so while possibly the only reason for you being able to write down this is because of a politician that resolved to be honest and perfectly clear at least once: Kennedy managed to cold down the Cuba missiles crisis by being clear about what could or couldn't be standed by USA. Probably the two-faced approach would have ended up on a global nuclear war, so go figure.

That's a pretty misinformed claim. One of Kennedy's biggest regrets was his public pledge to not tolerate nuclear weapons in Cuba. Kennedy would have happily accepted a nuclear Cuba rather than risk war, but his hands were tied because of his public statements made to score some cheap political points.

Funny enough, Kennedy made this pledge because the USSR had already secretly agreed with the US govt. that they would not place nuclear weapons in Cuba. The USSR was being two-faced about this, and it nearly worked. The crisis only came about because the US did not know about the nukes and did not know that they were operational... this would have been a Soviet victory if the US either had better intelligence and knew they were operational or if the soviets had done a good job of camouflaging the facilities.

Re:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers

[MyLongNickName]

I hope you are right.

Re:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers

[Tokerat]

It's a strange thing that "do unto others as you would have others do unto you" is not only the most important teaching of Jesus but also the most overlooked, especially here in Jeebus Country USA

Re:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers

[dbIII]

Zimbabwe is nothing compared with some of our military allies such as Algeria. Then there's far worse basket cases such as Somalia. Things are quite terrible in Zimbabwe but there's no point pretending it's run by the most evil people on earth or even in the same ballpark as North Korea if you really want to talk about people starving to death. A partway to democratic state with signs of improvement is a hell of a lot better than the alternatives (as the numbers of people starving or not shows).

Re:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers

[dbIII]

Really? I thought he would more fit the Libertarian idea of telling us all what the government is hiding from us instead of the Divine Right of fucking Kings idea where you can never question ANYTHING the government does.
Three million people had access to this stuff. It was bound to happen and if there was anything that can endanger the country in there then whoever put it there is the guy you should be looking for to lynch.

Re:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers

[adamdoyle]

Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers but they sure do hate Wikileaks. What's the difference?

At the time of release of the Pentagon Papers, republicans were in power.
At the time of release of the various Wikileaks documents, democrats were in power.

Can't definitively say that's the sole reason, but maybe it certainly could've been a component.

Re:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers

[rtb61]

Secrets kill, they always have and they always will. You can not have a representative democracy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representative_government if your representatives are keeping secrets from you.

The truth is entirely too many secrets are being kept and not to save lives but to save jobs and careers of incompetent bureaucrats and politicians. Lies that allow tax dollars to flow to corrupt corporations, lies that promote war to feed the military industrial complex and, lies that hide the juvenile nature of the players involved in life and death situations.

Sorry but truth is requirement of true democracy and there are no secrets a government is ever really entitled to hide from the people 'WHO ARE THE GOVERNMENT', a government of the people, by the people and for the people, are no just empty meaningless words. So every bit of information that affects who the people would elect to be their representatives by democratic principle must be released to the people for judgement.

The truth doesn't kill, if the egomaniac had been told the truth of their insignificance from birth then bruising their ego would not lead to war, so secrets protected by lies lead to war, not the truth. The truth applied early and often will lead to a better world, fact.

Re:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers

[uninformedLuddite]

When Julian was a big bad hacker his handle was 'Mendax' possible derived from 'Splendide Mendax' or 'Untruthful for a noble purpose'. Seriously who the fsck would list hacker on their resume? I would love to be thought of as a Hacker by those who's opinions count(I'm not of course) but to actually call myself a Hacker would be just a self aggrandising wank. What about his big 25 criminal charges hack job? Six charges dropped, a slap on the wrist, and a few years later he becomes the 'world's most dangerous man' - LOL. Nothing Wikileaks has released has actually hurt the US or Israel in their ongoing attempts to shape the world as they see fit. I have said it before and I will say it again. If you believe the crap being released by Wikileaks then you are a twit of very low standing in the twit world. Where was it he got his Doctorate again? I haven't added any links to the above data because I shouldn't have to in this matter. If you are pro-WL and don't know of any of the above you really don't deserve an opinion in the matter. Previous sentence was not directed at Clark09.

Re:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers

[pegasustonans]

Wikileaks doesn't have any idea whether the documents they release are relevant, irrelevant, dangerous or harmless.

Bullshit.

Wikileaks is screening the documents, redacting names of persons involved and generally exercising prudence in releasing the information. It seems you've bought into someone's FUD.

Re:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers

[mug funky]

what's an analogy again?

oh yeah, something that describes a complex situation in an everyday form that perhaps can be more easily understood.

perhaps it could be expressed as a car analogy, then you'll see the flaw in it?

Re:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers

[xophos]

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.

Are you counting on respect for human rights or on incompetence of the US government agencies in your last sentence? ...

Re:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers

[turbidostato]

"Let's play poker sometime. You play with your cards face up."

Exactly my point: modern foreign politics shouldn't be a poke game.

Re:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers

[AK Marc]

Unfortunately it's also dangerous gossip.

If Wikileaks has it, it's already in the wild. At least when they release it, everyone has equal access. And it isn't gossip. It's factual reporting of what someone else said to someone. "Bob said Billy wears a bathing suit in the shower" is gossip. You don't know if it's true. You don't know if Bob actually said it. But if Bob walks up to you and says "I saw Billy wearing a bathing suit in the shower" then it is a fact. It may be incorrect, but it is still a fact.

That you don't like the factual opinions released doesn't affect the fact that they aren't gossip. Nor does it affect the fact that someone provided them to Wikileaks (and possibly others). They were in the open, even if not published, before Wikileaks published them. That's the first problem, and it has nothing to do with Wikileaks. Secondly, the content is considered as factual by all, and no one considers recordings of official (even if internal) opinions as "gossip." Except maybe you.

Re:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers

[ThePhilips]

For a moment you got me startled. Main site is probably DDoSed all the time (either maliciously or by sheer volume of netizens trying to dig it) but Wikipedia lists two functioning mirrors of the real Wikileaks' wiki. The mirror is slow, but seems to be complete.

Re:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers

[TheTurtlesMoves]

When a diplomat is doing their diplomacy thing in the name of *my* and their country. They represent *me* and the rest of the country. We have a right to know how we are being represented! This is *official* business and has nothing to do with personal privacy.

This is *nothing* like having a camera in the bedroom. Never mind that these same "officials" suggested that this sort of thing is a good idea *for us* but not them.

Re:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers

[TheTurtlesMoves]

It doesn't have a duty to help the US government do anything.

As I understand, neither does any US web site, company or persons.

Re:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers

[TheTurtlesMoves]

|I often say this. Its not like these cables can't be leaked *without* wikileaks...

Re:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers

[TheTurtlesMoves]

Its not just their personal views. Its views they communicated in their official capacity as a diplomat. How exactly are we, the public, better served by letting our governments do this all behind closed doors? How are we, the people they represent served with secrecy.

The only difference is now you know.... How is that worse than not knowing?

Re:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers

[JackieBrown]

When I read statements like this, I realize how out of touch most radical liberals are. (I guess any radical group is out of touch but no other group seems as sanctimonious.)

Your comment is the equivalent of me complaining that Regan and Bush were too far left since they did not pass rightist agendas in exactly the way that I wanted them to (not to mention compromising and passing liberal agenda items as well.)

Re:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers

[someone1234]

Wasn't this a retaliation strike for falsely accusing Assagne?

Re:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers

[thehostiles]

That depends if I feel like being an idealist or a cynic today.
So both in practise. Thanks for bringing that up.

Re:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers

[Flaming Foobar]

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.

I disagree. International politics is analogous to a game of poker. No one wants to give away all information to the others. Now, what WikiLeaks is essentially doing, is they are publicizing not only some of the "cards" that the US holds, but also what they know about the others' "cards".

I'm all for openness and honesty, but it's not just the American voters who are getting the info. It's available to everyone now.

Re:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers

[MyLongNickName]

Can we play high stakes poker together? You play with your cards face up...

Re:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers

[MyLongNickName]

Well then you miss the point. It is a poker game and only one side has to play with their cards face up. Your views on what the ideal state of the world is had no bearing on that.

Re:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers

[Thing 1]

Aren't we somewhat "a little late" for this? I mean, Echelon (et al) are scanning and likely recording all communication, including that by government officials. The more they try to hide their conversations, the more the state machinery will want to hear what they're saying. And if the state machinery records it, the state machinery can leak it (Valerie Plame?) as well as be leaked (the recent WikiLeaks incidents).

Re:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers

[ZoCool]

Every note I have read to date (I soon gave up - too boring) seemed just honest opinions, reasonably honestly expressed. Could this be the start of something new in Intl. relationships, perhaps? Honesty? Oh! Don't be so stupid, you foolish old woman, you. Radical, but.

Re:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers

[poetmatt]

not all women are that bad :)

my fiancee will not give me those questions. I was explicit in telling her that I am not going to answer the "does this make me look fat" and other "there is no safe answer" questions unless she feels like getting blunt honesty.

Re:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers

[poetmatt]

it's a bit different when everyone's hand is up on the table.

that's the whole misnomer right there - it's not about my hand, it's about everyone's.

Re:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers

[nedlohs]

"Hey Billy, you know that Bob told me he doesn't like you at all and would like for me to punch you in the nose."

"Hey Billy, did you know that Bob is having some family issues right now and there's no way he'd be able to stop you occuping his back yard."

Re:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers

[AmiMoJo]

A more apt comparison might be hiring a business negotiator. You employ him to further your interests with other companies. You don't see what goes on in meeting rooms, just the outcome. One day someone leaks his private emails and you realise he has been saying all kinds of stuff that you would never have allowed and now you look like an asshat because he is your spokeman.

The problem here is that there is no way for citizens to know what their diplomats and elected officials are saying on their behalf without the rest of the world finding out too. Ideally there would be some kind of oversight in place that maintains secrecy and acceptable behaviour and that is what most countries try for. Unfortunately it clearly doesn't work too well.

Re:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers

[Monkeedude1212]

Since when does the ambassador report to you?

Perhaps this misguided illusion that the government is designed to be serving me and my countrymen as part of a democracy, where if it were put to a vote "Would you like to know what is in the Ambassador's report?" A majority might vote yes - but never such option exists.

There's a reason why working for a government agency makes you a "public servant".

Re:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers

[Monkeedude1212]

I prefer idealist but they sound similar enough.

Re:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers

[Actually, I do RTFA]

learning that the U.S. is instructing diplomats to engage in espionage against U.N. officials

To my understanding, all countries do the same. I'd be shocked if the US wasn't doing that. "We're not spying on your diplomats" seems like the polite lie. Also, gathering ways of proving that diplomats are who they say they are (cables are tied to gathering biometric IDs), well, that might prevent an 8 month negotiation with a shopkeeper.

or that our "friends" in Saudi Arabia are pushing the U.S. to attack Iran

Again, I thought this was common knowledge. Like how they publicly yelled about Islamic solidarity while begging us not to leave the country and expose them to Saddam Hussein's army.

Re:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers

[yuna49]

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.

Indeed. Where are the massive document archives from the Kremlin, Beijing, Tehran, or Tel Aviv? Oh, it's harder to get leaks from those places, you say? Or is it that Assange isn't trying very hard to expose those nations as well?

Re:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers

[localman]

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.

Re:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers

[rockfistus]

I think maybe they're just throwing a wrench in our systems gears, and see what happens. Which I personally support, something's got to give. Wikileaks is like a magnifying glass over the ants....literally and figuratively. :P Get your popcorn.

Re:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers

[minchazo]

Bull. Being 'honest' doesn't mean you lack tact, it means you don't lie. Tell her you prefer another dress, tell her she's beautiful, tell her you're glad you married her. Politicians should be adept at avoiding the question. Lying just makes you look stupid and destroys credibility when it's discovered.

Re:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers

[TheTurtlesMoves]

Nice straw man you have there.

Re:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers

[rahvin112]

Direct Democracy has always resulted in two very bad things.

Majority rule and minority repression.

The whole point of a representative democracy is to give minority voices power and protection. You put majority rule in place and things like the Yugoslavian war happen because the minorities are suppressed and targeted by the majority. It's a common theme in human relations to blame minorities for all your problems. It's been the basis for the majority of wars and leads to more unrest and death than just about any cause besides direct religious conflict (which is indirectly a majority/minority issue). Look at almost any conflict in the world today and you will find a majority repressing a minority to the point where violence is considered the only option by the minority. Direct democracy is BAD in any situation where the population isn't one big homogeneous group of like minded people from the same culture (in other words never). Direct democracy almost always leads to minority repression and the only time it's ever been successful was 2000+ years ago in the very small communities of Greeks that all had the same religion, enterprise, background and world views.

Re:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers

[sumdumass]

The problem is, he didn't tell us anything, he released a shit load of classified documents. No one that I know of has supported the divine right of kings or that you could never question government either. You must live in a shaded world influences mostly from your imagination.

Three million people had access to this stuff. It was bound to happen and if there was anything that can endanger the country in there then whoever put it there is the guy you should be looking for to lynch.

Your right, 3 million people had access to this stuff and only one person broke the rules and attempted to put his government into jeopardy. and of course there are avenues for any one of those 3 million people to pursue that involves different branches of government if they ever discovered anything seriously wrong. I have my eyes set on the right asshat, Manning should be executed as soon as a speedy trial would allow.

Re:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers

[MyLongNickName]

Do you have any clue what a straw man argument is? the argument is that the U.S. should have all of its diplomatic views aired publicly while every other country doesn't have to. This is very analogous to playing poker with your cards showing. A cute little "straw man" sentence does not negate this.

Re:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers

[Hatta]

There's no reason you cannot have a constitutionally limited direct democracy. It's the limitations built into the constitution that protect minorities, not representation. In fact, representation can even be harmful to minorities. If we have a 40% minority, then in a direct democracy it gets 40% say in the government. If we elect representatives based on a plurality, that 40% will never be able to elect a representative, and so it will have 0% say in the government.

Re:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers

[Dread_ed]

"Truly independent?" You need to tighten down your tinfoil hat my friend.

The US government is currently experimenting with unprecedented ways of circumventing the constitution, isolating themselves from the governed, and manipulating the monetary system and national business structure in ways that could be comfortably called proto-fascist. This leak of documents provides the US government (and other governments) with every plausible reason imaginable to increase restrictions to government information, further inhibiting the populace's ability to properly evaluate and criticise their governing body.

Now I'm not saying that this is the case. However, when your governing body commonly uses phrases like "never waste a good crisis," is it too far fetched to think that they could create a crisis or two to further their goals?

Re:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers

[akayani]

Leak like a sieve, democracy should be 110% transparent or it is NOT democracy.

That said what is leaked and why is another issue. The process is subject to flaws.

1. It is possible to deliberately leak material to Wikileaks that benefits certain parties. Clearly leaking material that suggest everyone is pro-bombing Iran and that Arabs favor Israel over Iran is of benefit to the cause of Zionism.

2. Overloading Wikileaks with crap creates a 'diffusion and dilution' effect of what matters. Prosecutors use this technique to overwhelming the limited resources of a defense team.

3. Wikileaks have an established credibility, this can be used by people with an agenda.

4. Judge the material in concert with people on the ground in a specific county or at least with intellectual skepticism.

Re:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers

[dbIII]

How could you mix things up so badly? I was talking about YOUR attitude from how you want him treated because while I can read what you wrote I really have no way of knowing what the guy who released the stuff was thinking.
Also, since so many people had access THERE SHOULD BE NOTHING INCLUDED IN THERE THAT PUTS A GOVERNMENT IN JEOPARDY otherwise it's a failure on the part of whoever is sharing sensitive information with so many people. So far there's not even anything that will catch somebody taking bribes so it has not even endangered any criminals, so that renders your "jeopary" bit as complete or utter bullshit.
Was that clear enough?
Now why the fuck do you want this guy dead? I'm guessing it's because he went up against the holy fucking unqestionable edifice of government and didn't do what he's told so I'm throwing it back in your face that you are showing the Royalist attitude (unquestionable divine right of Kings) Washington rebelled against and calling it Libertarianism.

Re:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers

[Geminii]

the Johnson Administration

Is that the TSA's new how-to guide?

Re:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers

[sumdumass]

Also, since so many people had access THERE SHOULD BE NOTHING INCLUDED IN THERE THAT PUTS A GOVERNMENT IN JEOPARDY otherwise it's a failure on the part of whoever is sharing sensitive information with so many people.

Failure of a woman to dress in a way that makes sure no one would get sexually excited does not in any way mean she is responsible for any rape or sexual assault that may happen. You are right, it is a failure, but the failure does not infer or imply any justification or right of action to Manning.

So far there's not even anything that will catch somebody taking bribes so it has not even endangered any criminals, so that renders your "jeopary" bit as complete or utter bullshit.

Really? You think that? giving out information that has the potential and actually did inflame tensions between interested parties didn't harm the US in any way? When I say jeopardy, I do not mean someone in the government is at risk, I mean out entire operations around the world and the interests of the US whether you agree with them or not.

Now why the fuck do you want this guy dead? I'm guessing it's because he went up against the holy fucking unqestionable edifice of government and didn't do what he's told so I'm throwing it back in your face that you are showing the Royalist attitude (unquestionable divine right of Kings) Washington rebelled against and calling it Libertarianism.

I don't want him dead, I want him punished to the most extreme extent possible which happens to be the death penalty. And I want him punished not because he went up against the government, but because he took a job, swore and oath to defend the country against enemies foreign and domestic, sought after and received clearance for classified information to some level, then forgot all that and attempted to damage and destroy the efforts of the same country by releasing the information he did after he was disciplined for actions of his own making.

This isn't some valiant warrior attempting to fight the evils he sees around him. He was a disgruntled employee who was trying to strike back at his employer which in this case ended up being the US government. He could have quit in protest, he could have notified several separate entities including the courts, federal prosecutors, congress, local and state entities, and media outlets of specific accusations or wrong doing instead of blindly releasing all sorts of information with the intent to damage the US.

You can go work for some company if you want to do that. If you are trying to damage the country, you can go to hell and I'm more then willing to help. And by you, I don't mean you specifically, I mean you as in anyone taking that action.

Re:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers

[dbIII]

This isn't some valiant warrior attempting to fight the evils he sees around him. He was a disgruntled employee who was trying to strike back at his employer which in this case ended up being the US government.

We don't know that either way yet do we? All we know is that he has been charged and locked up, so while it's fair to assume he did it we've heard nothing about why apart from speculation.
Thus you are making shit up to pretend you don't have an attitude that all declared enemies of the empire must die. You've fallen into the trap of thinking it's a perfect state that should never be questioned while pretending to be the exact opposite.
Also why should this guy die when the idiots that tried to sell secrets to the USSR (that got disgruntled after learning of a botched and pointless CIA operation to interfere with the Australian government) were merely locked up. Why do you think we need this guy dead? Oliver North didn't get executed for selling US weapons to Iran and embezzling a bit on the side and Poindexter even got other jobs in government. Why is leaking very low level secrets worth a far more extreme penalty than arming our declared enemies at the same time we had ships in peril from Iranian attack?
You need to actually think about this stuff instead of thinking press secretaries attached to government are infallible.

Re:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers

[sumdumass]

We don't know that either way yet do we? All we know is that he has been charged and locked up, so while it's fair to assume he did it we've heard nothing about why apart from speculation.

We know he had represented that to be the case in chat's with Lamo in which he admitted to being behind the leaks. These Chat logs are also what got him arrested.

Thus you are making shit up to pretend you don't have an attitude that all declared enemies of the empire must die. You've fallen into the trap of thinking it's a perfect state that should never be questioned while pretending to be the exact opposite.

How can I be making stuff up that is public knowledge if you just look for it. I think maybe you have fallen into the trap of allowing your concerns to develop into allusions and now your suffering from the lack of the ability to discern reality from what you want it to be.

Also why should this guy die when the idiots that tried to sell secrets to the USSR (that got disgruntled after learning of a botched and pointless CIA operation to interfere with the Australian government) were merely locked up.

IF anything at all, it's because he succedded in releasing the information while the others didn't. But hey, your question incorrectly assumes that I don't think those guys should have gotten the capitol punishment. This is not the case at all.

Why do you think we need this guy dead?

I already stated that but I guess I could expand a bit. It's because he defrauded the government (we the people) in keeping his position when failing to follow the rules of classified information and did so not in some attempt at right a serious wrong, but in exposing and harming the country (again, we the people as in me and you personally).

Oliver North didn't get executed for selling US weapons to Iran and embezzling a bit on the side and Poindexter even got other jobs in government.

You do realize that North and Poindexter have had their conviction overturned. They were railroaded from the start. I'm not advocating that we short circuit the legal process and not allow manning to defend himself or his action, but if he is found guilty and doesn't win on appeal, he needs to die.

Also, Iran Contra was only illegal because the beal amendment was being stretched beyond it's original intent to apply to a scam that was specifically designed to sidestep it. In other words, there was some unethical things done which was against the expressed intent of congress, but nothing in Iran Contra was illegal and the administration had the constitutional power to do what was done.

Why is leaking very low level secrets worth a far more extreme penalty than arming our declared enemies at the same time we had ships in peril from Iranian attack?

The president is the head of state. He determines who our friends and enemies are unless congress has declared war on them. The executive can make this determination independent of congress. What you are complaining about is the limits of congress that they couldn't control the administration when they tried. That is dangerous because it stops the branches of government from being separate.

you need to actually think about this stuff instead of thinking press secretaries attached to government are infallible.

Perhaps it is you who needs to think about this stuff a little more. And before you do that, try to keep and unbiased and open mind, then consider the effect and intent in an unbiased way. I think if you do this, you will see that anything done to violate the confidence presented to you and your government that you accepted willingly only to betray with an express intent of harming your government deserves the strongest punishment possible.

Re:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers

[dbIII]

I'll only bring up one point that I think really illustrates the problem very well. You are saying that it was completely OK to sell weapons to Iran (while the Navy was in the gulf getting ships damaged by Iranian mines) and to steal some of the money from that for personal use? And you are saying the reason it is OK is because the government of the time said it was so? To top that off you said (way above, before you attempted to take it back) that someone who leaked what have turned out to be petty secrets should be executed. Presumably it was once again because a government spokesman said so. You are being led by the nose into a vastly disproportionate response. Why should he die for a hell of a lot less than even the Valerie Plume leak? It's also nothing on the treason scale compared to Ford taking a bribe from Saharto to look the other way and then demand a UN vote veto on East Timor (we didn't find out about that one until both were dead).

Re:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers

[sumdumass]

I'll only bring up one point that I think really illustrates the problem very well. You are saying that it was completely OK to sell weapons to Iran (while the Navy was in the gulf getting ships damaged by Iranian mines) and to steal some of the money from that for personal use? And you are saying the reason it is OK is because the government of the time said it was so?

Well, no I'm not saying it was ok, I'm saying it was not illegal under the laws written at the time. Nothing prevented the government from doing what it did because they more or less used a loophole that wasn't accounted for in the laws at the time. This has nothing to do with whether you think it was right or wrong, it has to do with whether or not the administration violated the law- it didn't. Of course congress didn't want that to happen, but they didn't expressly forbid it in their attempts to stop it with the Boland Amendment. (I thought it was beal but it's boland)

An no, it was not selling weapons and using the money for personal use, it was using the money for official policy use in which congress passed a law disallowing the president to use existing money for that policy. Aiding the Nicaraguan Contras was an official policy of the US, congress just wanted us to remain neutral as far as providing further aid so it couldn't escalate into another Vietnam with us Half hardheartedly getting sucked into a war we had no desire to win or follow through with.

To top that off you said (way above, before you attempted to take it back) that someone who leaked what have turned out to be petty secrets should be executed.

Yes, I said that what the government has done may have been morally wrong but it was a legal right and no laws were broken in the process. Someone who leaked information- no matter how petty, without the right to do so, who had pretended to swear under oath the he wouldn't do so, has not only betrayed the trust he worked to establish with the country, but worked intentionally and or carelessly to damage the country and the men and women along side him who are in harms way when betraying that trust and defrauding the government. That is illegal, inexcusable and deserves the strongest penalty available under the law.

Presumably it was once again because a government spokesman said so.

No, it's because some self centered convict who wanted his name in the papers again said so after being interviewed about his part turning this asshat in.

You are being led by the nose into a vastly disproportionate response. Why should he die for a hell of a lot less than even the Valerie Plume leak? It's also nothing on the treason scale compared to Ford taking a bribe from Saharto to look the other way and then demand a UN vote veto on East Timor (we didn't find out about that one until both were dead).

Listen, we are a nation of laws. The laws were on the books when Manning leaked the information, they were on the books when he took the job. The laws have special mens rea applications which denote the state of mind at the time. The Valery Plame leak was an accidental statement made by Richard Armatage to Robert Novak while he was intoxicated as a response to a question pertaining to something completely different. This made the leak not illegal. Ford asking the UN to veto on East Timor is not illegal.

Ford taking a bribe is illegal but from your construction of events you speak of so far, I suspect this is more of your imagination then anything. Suharto was supposedly eliminating the communist threat in the area which is why we supported the invasion and actively worked to stop retaliation. IF that was the bribe you are talking of, it's not illegal as it wasn't a bribe in any way- it was the US government furthering its own policy against communism.

Unless your speaking of something else, you have stated examples that we

Re:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers

[dbIII]

no laws were broken in the process

Not even the embezzlement for North to take money from the sale of weapons to Iran to get his house airconditioned? How about the destruction of evidence that North and Poindexter were shown to have done later? They are criminals with powerful friends and on the right policial team for the time but IMHO that didn't make them any less guilty. Thirty-seven American lives were lost in that conflict while North was selling weapons to Iran.

Ford taking a bribe is illegal but from your construction of events you speak of so far, I suspect this is more of your imagination then anything.

The documents were released a few years ago (2005?) about the very large "donation" that Ford picked up in person in Jakarta on the day of the invasion. Since the money went to a political party and not an individual it can be argued that it was not treason but the released documents discussed how the timing was very unfortunate and how it could look as if it was. The USA did not consider the regime in East Timor to be Communists prior to the invasion - they went from supportive and singing the praises of a new democracy inspired by the USA to the opposite within the space of a single day. Anyway that was just an example of something I consider a hell of a lot more treasonous than releasing some documents with wide circulation a few years early.
So what has been the outcome so far? About the worst it's done is embarrass Hillary Clinton for issuing an order that slaps that "we are a nation of laws" in the face. Should Manning really die for that? Is Hillary really that infallible and important that this man should die as revenge for the embarrassment of being caught out not being able to do her job?

Re:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers

[sumdumass]

Not even the embezzlement for North to take money from the sale of weapons to Iran to get his house airconditioned?

Are you sure you are talking about the right person? This is the first I have heard of that. The wikipage doesn't even get that careless with the facts and mention it. Perhaps you could provide a creditable citation for it?

How about the destruction of evidence that North and Poindexter were shown to have done later?

You mean that they admitted to right? North and Poindexter were pretty up front with everything. They did not hide any of the facts concerning it.

They are criminals with powerful friends and on the right policial team for the time but IMHO that didn't make them any less guilty.

Or perhaps they were more like Clinton and used legal outs to not be breaking the laws. It doesn't matter though, as what they did did not rise to any level of law that caused the death penalty to be used. I don't think any penalties were actually listed in the laws for the claimed violations. In fact, one of the arguments put forth on the appeals was that congress couldn't limit the administrations ability to conduct foreign relations to the point they did and that their dealings with the contras were technically legal according to the law.

Thirty-seven American lives were lost in that conflict while North was selling weapons to Iran.

What conflict? Are you talking about Operation Nimble Archer or Operation Praying Mantis? I hope not, because those happened after the Iran Contra arms deals.

The documents were released a few years ago (2005?) about the very large "donation" that Ford picked up in person in Jakarta on the day of the invasion. Since the money went to a political party and not an individual it can be argued that it was not treason but the released documents discussed how the timing was very unfortunate and how it could look as if it was.

It still wouldn't be treason. However, I'm not aware of the documents containing a unspecific large donation to the GOP charges. Maybe you can cite them too.

The USA did not consider the regime in East Timor to be Communists prior to the invasion - they went from supportive and singing the praises of a new democracy inspired by the USA to the opposite within the space of a single day. Anyway that was just an example of something I consider a hell of a lot more treasonous than releasing some documents with wide circulation a few years early.

That's not exactly how I remembered the situation. In fact, it was a couple of months when East Timor was converting to communism and the US basically walked away from it.

Anyway that was just an example of something I consider a hell of a lot more treasonous than releasing some documents with wide circulation a few years early.

You do understand that treason has a very specific legal definition in the US and can only be interpreted that way right? Now I know you are using your big boy words for effect, but "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort."

When you claim something is treason that doesn't remotely approach that definition, you look like a disgruntled idiot that doesn't know what he is talking about but pissed off and blabbering.

So what has been the outcome so far? About the worst it's done is embarrass Hillary Clinton for issuing an order that slaps that "we are a nation of laws" in the face. Should Manning really die for that? Is Hillary really that infallible and important that this man should die as revenge for the embarrassment of being caught out not being able to do her job?

Re:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers

[dbIII]

Are you sure you are talking about the right person? This is the first I have heard of that

It's one of the many things that came out in court. Of course you didn't hear of it becuase you know so little about the cases that you were saying laws were not broken - a pardon after a guilty verdict is very different to "not guilty" you know. Being a 1980s thing there isn't much on the net so it's a slog through books (with wild bias in both directions) and old newspapers if you were not old enough to hear about it the first time.

North and Poindexter were pretty up front with everything. They did not hide any of the facts concerning it.

They are famous/infamous in IT circles for spending days deleting the emails one by one (no block delete). The sysadmin in the place watched this going on and put the backup tape aside, and sure enough a year or two later it was required as evidence. As for the trials, if you think they were "pretty up front with everything" somebody has conned you very badly. They could have been replaced with a tape loop of "I can't recall".
The whole bizzare operation is a good story of people getting way out of their depth to the point where their incompetance and greed provided material support to a declared enemy. It was partly justified as an attempt to only do it via "moderate elements" but snowballed out of control into dealing with the Iranian government and Hezbolla directly. Idiots blamed it all on Reagan which is probably why your backlash is to pretend that it didn't happen.

What conflict? Are you talking about Operation Nimble Archer or Operation Praying Mantis?

The initial naval deployment to protect tankers from the Iranians which was going on before the news broke and the arms sales to Iran stopped.

OK, so you've been very insulting and then started talking about definitions - now you tell me exactly which part of the definition applies to Manning and tell me why selling fucking missiles to Iran and Hezbolla is not something that "aided the enemy and put our soldiers in further harms way". You do remember what Hezbolla had done to US troops no long before those arms sales do you? Even if you think Iran is OK you'll surely have to draw the line at the weapons that ended up with Hezbolla.
Personally I think this is a stupid outbreak of "my King can do no wrong" which just does not belong in the USA even if you think the rightful King can only be from one party. If North was pardoned by Carter, Clinton or Obama I'm sure you would be calling him and his pardoner traitors.
As for the other bit, if you actually go to any effort to find out I think you'll find that the democraticly elected government of East Timor that was heavily inspired by US values was only called communist after the invasion. We don't have to pretend anymore because all the players are dead and the documents long released.

Re:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers

[sumdumass]

It's one of the many things that came out in court. Of course you didn't hear of it becuase you know so little about the cases that you were saying laws were not broken - a pardon after a guilty verdict is very different to "not guilty" you know. Being a 1980s thing there isn't much on the net so it's a slog through books (with wild bias in both directions) and old newspapers if you were not old enough to hear about it the first time.

And you are sure that I don't know what happened? I mean you aren't citing anything, throw about accusations of pardons that never happened and want to sit there and claim I don't know anything about it? Well, if you would have in the least attempted to cite what you were speaking of, you would have in the least known that Both North and Poindexter's convictions were overturned on appeals. They were not pardoned, North was only charged with minor infractions, Poindexter was charged with some felonies, but neither of the offenses carried the death penalty. Give it up, just because someone else does something bad does not in any way make it ok for someone else. This is pointless if you think so.

Being a 1980s thing there isn't much on the net so it's a slog through books (with wild bias in both directions) and old newspapers if you were not old enough to hear about it the first time.

Actually, there is quite a bit on the net including a good bit of the trial(s) including the appeals. All you have to do is search for United States v. North and United States v. Poindexter.

They are famous/infamous in IT circles for spending days deleting the emails one by one (no block delete). The sysadmin in the place watched this going on and put the backup tape aside, and sure enough a year or two later it was required as evidence. As for the trials, if you think they were "pretty up front with everything" somebody has conned you very badly. They could have been replaced with a tape loop of "I can't recall".

Their senate testimony admitted to all their destruction of evidence and nothing found through backups or other sources recounted their stories. Their argument or line of defense was that they were following orders. The only con you have going on here is your insistence to interpret the facts to fit your fallacy world. I mean the I don't recall was Reagan's answer to everything. And most experts seem to agree that early signs of his Alzheimer was present before Reagan went before congress and his I don't recall answers were probably truthful because of his condition at the time. Of course it wasn't until after he was out of office that we knew he was losing his memory inside the office.

The whole bizzare operation is a good story of people getting way out of their depth to the point where their incompetance and greed provided material support to a declared enemy. It was partly justified as an attempt to only do it via "moderate elements" but snowballed out of control into dealing with the Iranian government and Hezbolla directly. Idiots blamed it all on Reagan which is probably why your backlash is to pretend that it didn't happen.

You seem to be over looking the fact that the administration controls foreign relations and has the constitutional power to declare someone an enemy or not, or even open negotiations with a known enemy to use them in an effort to advance other policy issues. If Reagan participated, then your outrage is completely misplaced and existing where it shouldn't. It doesn't amount to some great conspiracy to damage the US, it amounts to you not approving of policy decisions and the administration attempting to bypass congress's attempts to retard that policy which some argue is unconstitutional in the first place.

The initial naval deployment to protect tankers from the Iranians which was going on before the news broke and the arms sale

Re:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers

[dbIII]

And you are sure that I don't know what happened?

Yes, and you don't need to look any furthur than the block of text you quoted where I said "a pardon after a guilty verdict is very different to "not guilty" you know". From what you have said it is extremely obvious that you know very little about it and are just cheering for what you think are members of your political team (which they are not because they were self serving criminals merely exploiting connections).
As for the other bits they just demonstrate the view that some people are above the law that I was pointing out earlier, and a weasel excuse of policy or the President said so is not enough to put somebody above the law if US values are to be respected.
Also the sales were still going on right until they were uncovered in 1987, so that is why other events in 1987 were happening at the same time! Give up on the clueless cheerleading for people that are your enemy and just happened to have connections with the part you cheer for.
East Timor was no more "communist/socialist" than Washington and probably less so than Franklin! Try reading more than just excuses for a very sudden reversal in policy that just happend the day Ford was in Jakarta accepting a large donation for the Republican party from a foreign head of state. Nobody wants to write that the USA was for sale that day and we didn't really know it was until about five years ago.

Re:Democrats loved the Pentagon Papers

[sumdumass]

Yes, and you don't need to look any furthur than the block of text you quoted where I said "a pardon after a guilty verdict is very different to "not guilty" you know". From what you have said it is extremely obvious that you know very little about it and are just cheering for what you think are members of your political team (which they are not because they were self serving criminals merely exploiting connections).

Really, Do you really think so? Here is a hint, there was never any pardon. Their cases were thrown out on appeal. An over turned case is not a pardon no matter how much you want it to be. You are simply wrong, wrong, wrong. Even after I told you that you are wrong, you could have at minimum attempted to look it up and make sure you were right, you didn't because there isn't any pardon and you know it but don't want to admit to it. If there had been some secret pardon no one but you knows about, I'm sure you would have provided links instead of closing your eyes and insisting it to be true.

It's little inaccuracies like that which makes most of everything else you say seem so unbelievable. So when we check that out and find no fucking evidence of the sorts, you then attempt to claim it's my political bias for not believing what you cannot produce.

As for the other bits they just demonstrate the view that some people are above the law that I was pointing out earlier, and a weasel excuse of policy or the President said so is not enough to put somebody above the law if US values are to be respected.

When you are the constitutional being that is supposed to create and shape policy, then you changing that policy- if only for a short period of time, is a lot different then someone with absolutely no authority to do so making changes. You may not like it, It's certainly apparent that you don't understand it, but it's simply not on the same levels as your attempting to make out. And it's a pointless bullshit argument because it doesn't change anything concerning Manning because the two situations are so dissimilar, the same laws don't even apply.

Also the sales were still going on right until they were uncovered in 1987, so that is why other events in 1987 were happening at the same time! Give up on the clueless cheerleading for people that are your enemy and just happened to have connections with the part you cheer for.

Are you just making shit up now? The last arms transfer happened in October of 1986 and was something like 500 tow missiles. The Lebanese news paper outed the deals in march of 1987. They were not ongoing and if you would have checked, you would have known this. Stop calling people stupid cheerleaders when you can't even get your facts straight.

East Timor was no more "communist/socialist" than Washington and probably less so than Franklin! Try reading more than just excuses for a very sudden reversal in policy that just happend the day Ford was in Jakarta accepting a large donation for the Republican party from a foreign head of state.

Yawn.... I'm sorry the world is much different then you let yourself believe. I'm also sorry that your delusions camp out in your mind above reality. I've gotten my information from many places and they all say something completely different then you. East Timor was run but member of the communist party whether you want to admit to it or not. It wasn't a sudden reversal of policy.

Nobody wants to write that the USA was for sale that day and we didn't really know it was until about five years ago.

You right, nobody want to write false and incorect lies. Trust me, it's not the world or everyone out to get you, it's not everyone trying to make you look funny or feed you a bunch of crap, it's you who is confused and probably delusional. Yep, it's you- not everyone else that wrong.

Had time?

[2.7182]

I don't really think one day is really enough time to process these documents.

Re:Had time?

[Mitchell314]

Yeah, two days is more like it.

Re:Had time?

[TommydCat]

The real question is after many other countries digest the content, will there be any retaliation/action/bad stuff by the documented actors? Somehow I don't think foreign interests will give the US State Department a pass on this if it involves said interest.

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.. :-(

Re:Had time?

[unity100]

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.

considerable cost. like the one below ?

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

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.

and now, they came out, and they are saying that 'its irresponsible'. actually meaning 'inconvenient' of course, since they are those who are responsible for the filth exposed. they wouldnt like it to come out.

Re:Had time?

[mean pun]

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.

Can you give any example of someone who has been endangered by this? As far as I can tell most of the leaks have been pretty tame, and only confirm what everyone more-or-less knew anyway. I'm not saying it is not possible, but thus far I haven't heard of any example that comes even close.

Re:Had time?

[TommydCat]

I haven't waded my way through more than a few before I realized I was supposed to be doing actual work instead of reading, but my comment is speculative of disclosing an agent in the field, comments fingering third-parties and general collateral damage.

I also agree with the reap-what-you-sow comment above, but I'm more interested in those third parties that may be caught in the cross-fire.

Re:Had time?

[Anonymous Coward]

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:Had time?

[Random BedHead Ed]

I don't really think one day is really enough time to process these documents.

Yeah, two days is more like it.

Either is far too long when five minutes is enough to visit /. and read uninformed rants about them. Process, shmrocess.

Re:Had time?

[Obfuscant]

Can you give any example of someone who has been endangered by this?

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:Had time?

[The End Of Days]

The human race at large has no interest in furthering the perpetration of this diplomatic game by the rules set in place by the self-protecting powerful. Only those who style themselves masters of humanity have such an interest. They will be unhappy, and I will call them a wahmbulance. They are getting exactly what they deserve to get.

Re:Had time?

[gtall]

The Iranian regime had no illusions about what high esteem they are held in Arab capitals, their lackies in Damascus not withstanding. This leak doesn't tell them anything they didn't already know, reports of Arab leaders urging the U.S. to attack Iran and even giving them a list of targets has been out in the media for at least a year....long before any of Wikileaks wet dreams.

Re:Had time?

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

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?

[grcumb]

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?

[metrometro]

What documents? They have released, so far, a few hundred cables. The millions of cables are things they have promised to release in the near future.

So not only has no one successfully "processed" these documents, no one has even seen them.

Re:Had time?

[aphelion_rock]

Only a small sample has been released so far. Of the 251,287 documents, only 1,442 are on WikiLeaks so far.

Re:Had time?

[unity100]

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:Had time?

[unity100]

so, grabbing a foreign country's citizen in some other part of the world and kidnapping it, and possibly torturing it, and then threatening that country regarding arrest of those who did the kidnapping, and then coming up and rephrasing it in a beautified manner, wasnt illegal enough for you ?

with your mindset, i wouldnt what to know what constitutes 'illegal' for you.

Re:Had time?

[mbrod]

They only released 220 documents on Sunday of of those not many were in their entirety.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/29/world/29cables.html?src=me

WikiLeaks posted 220 cables, some redacted to protect diplomatic sources, in the first installment of the archive on its Web site on Sunday.

Re:Had time?

[martyros]

See, that's a quote of actual significance. But I didn't see that one in the Guardian's front-page linked here. Instead, I saw quotes that were perfectly valid things for people to say internally, but much more embarrassing in public: honest assessments of people's and their capabilities.

Here's the thing. If you happen to overhear private conversations, you have a responsibility to sort stuff. If you overheard your boss threatening an employee into not taking his vacation or something else he has a right to do, then it's proper that you make that public. If you overhear your boss talking with his wife about his erection problem, you have a contrary responsibility to keep that private and not spread it around. If you overhear your boss bad-mouthing and complaining about another manager, you also have a responsibility to keep that secret.

I think Wikileaks is in a similar position. Threatening another country if they pursue justice? Definitely needs to be published. Saying the UK's military has been incompetent, and that Karzai is paranoid? Definitely needs to be kept quiet. Everyone says honest things about other people that they wouldn't want them to hear -- that's 100% normal and healthy behavior. The ability to have that kind of honesty is very important for any team, especially one that has to communicate across a globe. This is going to undermine the ability of people to communicate openly.

In a way, having all those embarrassing things in there is not only bad ethics -- it undermines what could be a great effect of Wikileaks. If Wikileaks had filtered out stuff that was really evil and damning, that's all you'd see; as it is, you're likely to see a ton of stuff that makes good headlines but isn't actually of any import. And it gives the government a story to spin. They can focus on the "embarassing but not important" things, and completely ignore the ones that actually mean something.

Re:Had time?

[unity100]

as long as the 'need for secrecy' is kept, there will be those who manipulate it for their own benefit.

secrets havent worked so far. they do not work. it is not logical to keep that concept.

Re:Had time?

[unity100]

if they didnt want to end up this way, they shouldnt have used the secrecy of diplomacy and the concept of 'state secret' to propagate filth. its as simple as that.

Re:Had time?

[Obfuscant]

The Iranian regime had no illusions about what high esteem they are held in Arab capitals, their lackies in Damascus not withstanding. This leak doesn't tell them anything they didn't already know,

Yes, and now all the citizens of Iran know it, too. What insults take place in private can be ignored if inconvenient. Insults made in public change the equation. A leader of a country who is insulted in public will need to take measures to save face that an insult in private would not require.

Given the repeated claims that Islamic terrorism is not state sponsored, it would seem disingenuous to ignore the threats created by releasing information that those states hold secretly to a public that often takes their own actions in response to insults.

Re:Had time?

[unity100]

Everyone is acting like Wikileaks is some sort of heroic whistleblower that is exposing corruption in Government

in the current state of our civilization and its matters, wikileaks is the closest to the whistleblower hero, you can get.

Re:Had time?

[unity100]

that was reported YEARS ago, by media because of a lawsuit filed by a rights group. it was 'reported'. it wasnt confirmed. now, the leaks CONFIRM it, officially from u.s. government.

Re:Had time?

[Serious Callers Only]

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.

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:Had time?

[gtbritishskull]

What line did Wikileaks cross? They did not leak the information. Someone else did (who had access). Do you think that the person who leaked them (who obviously wants the public to know about them) would have burned them all if Wikileaks had not published them? No. That person would have found other ways to publish them. You might have seen them hidden in the back alleys of the internet like Usenet and IRC and anonymous message boards. Other governments (who pay people to find information like this) would have gotten this information eventually. The only people who would be uninformed would be the public at large. You. Me. Well, you may want to stay ignorant, but I prefer not to. You want to blame anything bad that happens on Wikileaks, but the people who do the "bad" things would have gotten this information anyway. All you are advocating is to keep the unwashed masses ignorant and controllable.

Re:Had time?

[donny77]

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.

Just an honest question: How many other countries are having their filthy laundry aired on Wiki Leaks? So how do we know their hands are any cleaner?

Re:Had time?

[GigaHurtsMyRobot]

Nor are ~250 being released of 250,000 enough to digest all of them... /eyeroll at this summary.

Re:Had time?

[Ltap]

I agree fully. However, both of the examples you listed are trivial in a wide sense. Personally, they are damaging, but the decision is not a great one and both are fairly clear. As well, how can one person be relied upon to decide? Discretion, in many cases, can hurt far more than indiscretion. I definitely prefer Wikileaks' "give it all" attitude.

Second of all, if someone is having a personal/secret conversation, it might not be a good idea to record it as public within the sphere of their own organization. If they are, institutionally, going to be critical of a country or person without publicizing it, then I don't see the huge crime in publicizing it. Rather than protecting the interests of an individual's opinion, you are hiding an institutional agenda that, in my opinion, should be publicly known.

Re:Had time?

[unity100]

The fact is, you haven't even looked at 0.01% of the documents, let alone 99%. You haven't even looked at SUMMARIES of 0.01% of them. You don't know what's in them at all. Thus, acting as though you do makes you a liar.

the fact is, you made up the above out of your ass. i have read summaries of the documents.

Re:Had time?

[unity100]

britain for example. a lot of arab countries. china. russia. italia. turkey. count as much as you can. there is a lot of shit there.

Re:Had time?

[EdIII]

I'm going to support the devil's advocate here a little bit, but.......

First, you are absolutely correct to point out that example. Those CIA officers should have been held accountable PERIOD. That innocent German citizen deserves no less justice and there is no excuse.

It reminds me of the heinous shit in the Patriot Act that unconstitutionally strong arms people into keeping silent when they dare to speak out about government subpoenas. That was complete bullshit, as was the whole situation with FISA and Obama becoming a complete pussy (best case scenario, worst being a traitor) and not sending people to prison over it. He just rolled over and "got with the program". Not the change I was hoping for by a long shot.

That being said...

I do think it was irresponsible to release some of the documents. Especially those documents that show that Bahrain and Saudi Arabia were very much on board with US policy regarding, and equally afraid, of Iran's nuclear ambitions. What does that really accomplish? Now those countries are going to be much less forthright and supportive. Officials in those countries are subject to real danger if militant extremists believe they are enemy.

Those documents that show corrupt actions which are also suppressing justice (like your example) should have been released, but not all the documents fall into that category.

Wikileaks should have been more thorough and used a little bit more discretion. Do something truly good for the world and not be just some political papparazis. I can't 100% support everything they just did, but definitely a lot of it, including your example.

Re:Had time?

[Gofyerself]

You my friend have a very narrow view of the world. Join the military and see how long you last with all information being "free". The enemy will know and exploit every weakness you have.

Re:Had time?

[rainmouse]

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.

You seem to forget that the owners of this information prior to the leak felt it did not need to be handled with any form of discretion at all. Apparently 3 million army personnel all had access to this information, even the lowest of army privates. I don't know why they even pretend to be surprised it leaked, I'm only surprised it took this long.

Re:Had time?

[unity100]

Especially those documents that show that Bahrain and Saudi Arabia were very much on board with US policy regarding, and equally afraid, of Iran's nuclear ambitions. What does that really accomplish? Now those countries are going to be much less forthright and supportive. Officials in those countries are subject to real danger if militant extremists believe they are enemy.

that is one of the more helpful information released. now everyone knows who is who. this will reduce warmongering nations' clout. it will also reduce their pressure on any of their allies. will give a hand to their allies regarding this.

i very much think, everything, EVERYsingle information that governments hold, should come out. this age is not an age of secrets. all governments know what each others are doing already. we are at the age of spy satellites, and hourly rotation schedules of random border guards are known by any other country. not to mention that innumerable surveillance, wiretapping, electronic espionage (like echelon, eastern bloc probably has stuff like that too) also have become commonplace since 70s.

now we have a situation that every government knows what others are doing. the only ones left out of the loop, are citizens of the world. and governments and private interests are using that advantage to propagate filth.

Re:Had time?

[unity100]

u.s. should not be grabbing people in neutral countries. period. imagine what would it be like if iranians grabbed random americans in middle of new york.

Re:Had time?

[dbIII]

I think finding out that the king of one of your neighbors has asked the Big Devil, Source of All Evil ... isn't it reasonable to think that maybe the list of targets might have changed a bit since the release?

No because what's news to you isn't news to Iran - they know the Saudi's hate their guts and just like everyone else that reads more than three pages of a newspaper they certainly know that there are US military bases in Saudi Arabia becuase that is no secret.
All that has changed is that YOU now know about it and you know some of the details that those paid to pay attention know.

Re:Had time?

[mug funky]

i believe wikileaks' mission is to release anything that comes to them. as far as i can tell they don't have a strong political agenda beyond "if we receive it, it gets published, come what may".

they do redact things that could endanger people. but i don't think they feel they have a right to suppress anything that could colour politically what they've released.

it just so happens they received this, so they felt obliged to publish it. that's what they're there for.

personally i'd love to see leaks come from more varied places (companies?), but they can't really control that as they're at the mercy of what they receive.

Re:Had time?

[vegiVamp]

So Germany didn't bother to hush it up and told their citizens what the US was pulling. It may not have been necessarily straight from the government, but the citizens knew. How many US citizens would you say knew what shit their government was pulling in other countries ?

Re:Had time?

[Syobon]

I really don't like being on this side of the argument.. :-(

Yes, you like, you and half of the world who doesn't have the guts to do what wikileaks is trying, expose the dirt secrets of world nations, see, Hitler was right at some point, there is only winners, what US government has doing can be considered as terrorist by other nations as any extremist group in the most wanted. What wikileaks is doing is at minimum, cleaning a bit of US karma, let's show to the world what world people live in.

Re:Had time?

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

The worst I've seen is embarrassing truths aired in public.

It's the embarrassing truths that are worrisome. The one that comes to mind are the various countries pushing for attack against Iran. It may be that Iran realizes it doesn't have the support it thought it did and backs down - that would be spiffy. Alternatively they may accelerate whatever they had in place in order to preempt any such attack.

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.

Those particular files are the ones I've no objection to seeing released - they're the ones that the public *should* be aware of in order to prevent such actions from happening again.

Re:Had time?

[Serious Callers Only]

It's the embarrassing truths that are worrisome. The one that comes to mind are the various countries pushing for attack against Iran. It may be that Iran realizes it doesn't have the support it thought it did and backs down - that would be spiffy. Alternatively they may accelerate whatever they had in place in order to preempt any such attack.

If anything I think the leak you mention weakens the case for war-mongering inside Iran because it undermines the bullshit propaganda about a great satan and zionist enemy that Ahmadinejad loves so much. That's why Ahmadinejad hates wikileaks and newspapers for releasing this - his latest line is that it's a US conspiracy - and that's why it was right to do so (IMHO).

Surprising in its unsurprisingness

[jpmorgan]

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:Surprising in its unsurprisingness

[Thelasko]

Yes, most of the information is uninteresting. Such as:

Comments such a description of Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, Russia's head of state, as playing "Robin to (Prime Minister Vladimir) Putin's Batman,"

However, there are a few juicy tidbits in there. Like the Saudi king asking the US to attack Iran.

Re:Surprising in its unsurprisingness

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

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:Surprising in its unsurprisingness

[Thruen]

Admittedly, this isn't news to anyone who's read even a little Chomsky or the like, but the vast majority of America is ignorant of all this because they have to go looking for the information. There isn't anything being published that we didn't already know or couldn't figure out, just like with the last set of documents about Afghanistan and Iraq, but most of the US (and much of the rest of the world, I suspect) needs to have it thrown in their faces before they'll believe it. It's sad that it takes controversy like what Wikileaks is stirring up just to get people to pay attention. I'm not saying this is the best way to change things, or that it'll work, but it's an attempt and I think the benefits to getting this information out there outweighs the cost.

Re:Surprising in its unsurprisingness

[BigJClark]

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:Surprising in its unsurprisingness

[girlintraining]

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:Surprising in its unsurprisingness

[DigiShaman]

I laughed hard this morning when I read that about both Putin and Dmitry. It's true, they do act like a set of dynamic duo alpha dogs. Real Men with testosterone weeping out of every pore. Actually, they should take it as a compliment. Still funny as shit though.

Re:Surprising in its unsurprisingness

[eht]

And you think Canada is not spying on the US? or that Britain is not spying on Canada and vice versa?

got a bridge to sell you

Re:Surprising in its unsurprisingness

[RAMMS EIN]

``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.''

That's what I would think, too. So what _is_ the big deal here? Obviously, there is a big deal, otherwise governments wouldn't get so upset over it.

Re:Surprising in its unsurprisingness

[gknoy]

I would be extremely surprised if Canada, Britain, France, Germany, Russia, and just about any other ally of the United States were not also spying on the US (and on each other). I imagine that any successful government needs to have both a diplomatic arm, where it tries to be friends with its neighbors, and an intelligence arm which tries to figure out what the hell the others are doing (or trying to do).

Re:Surprising in its unsurprisingness

[gman003]

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?

• Murder: No
• Torture: No. Even Guantanamo isn't large enough to qualify as a crime against humanity
• Rape: No
• Racial/Religious/Political Persecution: No
• Enslavement: No

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:

• Murder or enslavement of prisoners of war: No
• Murder or enslavement of civilians: No (as with any war, some civilians will be killed in the crossfire, and this, while regrettable, is only a war crime if deliberate)
• Murder of hostages: No
• Destruction of cities, towns and villages not justified by military or civilian necessity: No.

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.

Re:Surprising in its unsurprisingness

[Abcd1234]

So far, it's looking more like the latter.

How about option c) punishing governments, around the world, for classifying documents to the point where no one trusts them anymore.

Re:Surprising in its unsurprisingness

[Captain Splendid]

And you think Canada is not spying on the US?

I'm sure there's a few Canadians who cross the border to do some price-checking, but other than that...

Seriously, a Canadian Spy Service? Next you'll be telling me the Mexicans have a Police Force!

Re:Surprising in its unsurprisingness

[jeffmeden]

American and Non-American? Why word it like that? I interpet that as "with us, or against us."

Oh, sorry, the confusion is terribly embarrassing; you must have missed it when we *actually* said that... http://edition.cnn.com/2001/US/11/06/gen.attack.on.terror/

Re:Surprising in its unsurprisingness

[icebike]

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

[Alef]

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.

But if the documents are as unsurprising as you say, wouldn't publishing them rather act against this cause to harm the US? In that case, they will clear the US from suspicion in a way no PR machinery could ever do.

I get it that this can become incredibly embarrassing for american diplomats and the administration, but in the long run I think transparency benefits everyone (that is honest).

Re:Surprising in its unsurprisingness

[icebike]

Real Men with testosterone weeping out of every pore.

More likely flowing in thru every needle. There are no drug tests in the Tour de Kremlin.

Re:Surprising in its unsurprisingness

[Monkeedude1212]

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:Surprising in its unsurprisingness

[DigiShaman]

Everyone spies on everyone. It doesn't make it right, but it's an unwritten rule of global politics. Now if you want to be real transparent about it, make spying a non-international crime. Any nation who gets caught can't have it used against them in diplomacy. For example, two double-agents can pass information back and forth, but breaking and entering to obtain information solo would be a crime. It's up to the parent nation to secure said information. Call it the Spy Doctrine if you will.

One other thing, you still face punishment from your home country for being a double agent. Get caught, you might face execution depending on where you're from. Risky business indeed.

Re:Surprising in its unsurprisingness

[mcgrew]

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:Surprising in its unsurprisingness

[icebike]

I'm upset that the americans are spying on us Canadians,

Oh, PLEASE! Do grow up.

Do you not think Canadians are doing the same?

With Canuckistan being the gateway of choice why wouldn't the US watch closely? Its not like Canadians are paying any attention to who they allow in or what organizations they give their blessing to.

Re:Surprising in its unsurprisingness

[Sepodati]

With any luck, there might be evidence in these documents that will be presented at GWB's war crimes trial

Sounds just like "we must pass this health care bill so we can see what's in it", to me. Is that you, Pelosi?

If those documents exist, then they should have been the only ones released. I would have supported WL then.

Re:Surprising in its unsurprisingness

[jandrese]

I have never once considered Robin a "Real Man with testosterone weeping out of every pore". I'm pretty sure that's not the image the state department guy was trying to get across either.

Re:Surprising in its unsurprisingness

[icebike]

Yes, very interesting how LITTLE new and shocking information was actually in the documents.

The biggest "crime" revealed so far is that diplomats talk frankly among themselves, and apparently don't care if a buck private in the army reads their mail.

Re:Surprising in its unsurprisingness

[Johnny5000]

Everyone spies on everyone. It doesn't make it right, but it's an unwritten rule of global politics. Now if you want to be real transparent about it, make spying a non-international crime. Any nation who gets caught can't have it used against them in diplomacy.

I'm sure there's probably plenty of spying between allied countries where the spy gets caught, and they just get sent home for "unrelated" reasons. No need to cause a huge embarrassing international incident between friends.
Now something like US vs Soviet cold war era spying, that was usually taken much more seriously.

Re:Surprising in its unsurprisingness

[Belial6]

If at the end of the day, none of the secrets cause any harm, then Wikileaks did the world a favor. Wouldn't it be great to find out that your government WASN'T just a front for an evil warmongering, murdering cabal? It would be a little like coming clean with your wife about your mistress, and her telling you that she pretty much figured what was going on. Then suggesting that since it is all out in the open now, why don't you just start inviting the mistress over to the house, since you have better things to spend your money on than hotel rooms.

Re:Surprising in its unsurprisingness

[Daniel Phillips]

I would be extremely surprised if Canada, Britain, France, Germany, Russia, and just about any other ally of the United States were not also spying on the US

So your defense is "they do it too"[1] which somehow makes it ok in your mind.

[1] Bare assertion without supporting evidence

Re:Surprising in its unsurprisingness

[fishbowl]

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:Surprising in its unsurprisingness

[girlintraining]

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.

Yes, but nobody would say the NYT was full of evil and unpatriotic... *cough* deep throat *cough*

Re:Surprising in its unsurprisingness

[guruevi]

What should be upsetting is that the US uses embassy officials to spy on people, collect fingerprints, iris scans, dna samples, encryption keys etc. etc.

The embassy is supposed to be there for foreign relations and helping out citizens that are in that country. Leave the spying to the spying organizations like CIA, FBI and NSA.

Re:Surprising in its unsurprisingness

[DarthVain]

We look just like them eh? I don't know what it is aboot us that they keep finding us oot. What a bunch of hosers!

Re:Surprising in its unsurprisingness

[gtall]

Shame on you, the Mexicans have a fine Police Force. It is just that some of them also work for the cartels, some are open to the highest bidder, and some are 6 feet under taking a well deserved rest.

Re:Surprising in its unsurprisingness

[nosferatu1001]

Wars of Aggression are war crimes.

Re:Surprising in its unsurprisingness

[grcumb]

``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.''

That's what I would think, too. So what _is_ the big deal here? Obviously, there is a big deal, otherwise governments wouldn't get so upset over it.

It's just that the US Government never thought they'd be forced through the moral equivalent of a backscatter scanner themselves.... It's unpleasant, being naked in front of a crowd.

Re:Surprising in its unsurprisingness

[bluefoxlucid]

You do realize that the best way to gain power is to become allies with everyone, then backstab your allies?

Re:Surprising in its unsurprisingness

[Fnkmaster]

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:Surprising in its unsurprisingness

[Sigma 7]

Has the US government, as a policy, condoned or ordered any of the following on a large scale?

• Racial/Religious/Political Persecution: No
• Enslavement: No

Citizens of Japanese descent were forced into internment camps during the second world war, and given only 5 minutes to pack up.

Alleged members of the communist party were persecuted for being communist, regardless of assistance lended during the Second World war.

Re:Surprising in its unsurprisingness

[ubermiester]

This really is calling the US to account for its war crimes and crimes against humanity.

Really? What crimes against humanity are you talking about? Torture? If so, that evidence is common knowledge at this point. President Bush (our worst ever) talks about water-boarding and its legality publicly. Rendition? It is public knowledge that Gitmo prisoners have been sent to other countries for interrogation.

The reason many previous Wikileaks supporters are upset with this release - including high-level people who have resigned from Wikileaks because they believe Assange has gone too far - is that there appears to be no "smoking gun" here. The only effect so far has been that the opinions of some diplomats have been (incorrectly) interpreted as the official position of the US govt, and that various world leaders have been embarrassed by having their opinions about nations like Iran made public. How does that serve anyone in the US general public? Even the supposedly more damning info that came from the Afghan assessments released earlier this year did nothing to change anyone's opinion of the war effort or of how the US conducted itself. The fact is that aside from some specifics about individual incidents (e.g., the chopper shooting the unarmed reporter), there was nothing either release that people didn't already know - albeit in less detail.

This does little more than weaken US diplomacy going forward because candid assessments will be...less candid, and as a result decision makers will be that much more in the dark about what other nations are thinking.

There is certainly a place for Wikileaks in the public sphere, and I am not one to call for it's extinction. But I do feel as though this was basically a personal vendetta by a small group of individuals who quite accidentally came upon a stack of sensitive documents and saw an opportunity to make a name for themselves and the project they started.

The only solace for the American public is that the kid who started this is in custody - he won't be releasing anything to anyone except his lawyers for a long time - and once his initial contribution dries up, Wikileaks will be back to doing what it does best: acting as a forum for things like corporate malfeasance and specific govt illegalities.

Re:Surprising in its unsurprisingness

[Loadmaster]

I have top secret footage that proves Canada has elite spies in the highest of positions in the New York am news radio industry.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYa2s1xY7xY

Re:Surprising in its unsurprisingness

[gman003]

Yes, I'm fully aware of and against those things. However, the subject was "recent wars". Blaming Bush for WW2 and Cold War crimes is just ridiculous.

Re:Surprising in its unsurprisingness

[gman003]

"Crimes against humanity" is a very, VERY serious charge. Not just "serial killer" serious. I'm talking "Hitler"-level evil, the sort of crime that is remembered for generations to come. If you use that term for every politician you disagree with, you're diluting the term.

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:Surprising in its unsurprisingness

[gman003]

Uh, no. Starting a war of aggression is a "crime against the peace". Yes, it is possible (and in fact likely) that war crimes will be committed during a war of aggression, but the two are not inextricably linked.

Re:Surprising in its unsurprisingness

[MrSteveSD]

Big fucking deal, everybody spies.

Spying on the UN is a big deal. It's a complete violation of a number of treaties the US signed (I was going to say 'signed in good faith' but I suppose that's just not true). Perhaps it is time for the UN Headquarters to move to a country which shows the organisation a little more respect.

Re:Surprising in its unsurprisingness

[inquisitive_cherub]

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.

Re:Surprising in its unsurprisingness

[amentajo]

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.

Here's one that I'm particularly OK with. If I recall correctly, this was the first time that I had heard about ACTA.

Re:Surprising in its unsurprisingness

[corbettw]

Worked for me first time I played Diplomacy. Who knew Turkey could take over all of Europe just by convincing Italy and Russia to invade Austria and Germany?

Re:Surprising in its unsurprisingness

[SargentDU]

Maybe Wikileaks should print pictures of Mohammad and things against Islam and see how long they last. :)

Re:Surprising in its unsurprisingness

[gknoy]

Pretty much. I don't consider Canada to be my country's enemy, even if they're trying to scope out our secrets. I obviously don't want them to succeed at getting those secrets, but it's naiive to think that they're not going to try to. It would be like considering teenagers to be bad just because they keep secrets from their parents: Wouldn't it be nice if they didn't ... what color is the sky on that planet?

Re:Surprising in its unsurprisingness

[v1]

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 can you expect anyone to be consistent with the Bible when it can't even get a start at being consistent with itself?

The christian bible is one of the most self-contradictory pieces of literature in existence, and that's after all the edits made in the last 600 years to try to make it more consistent.

Re:Surprising in its unsurprisingness

[corbettw]

What terms would you rather she use? "American" and "Not Yet American"? "American" and "Other Terran"? Or maybe "American" and "Not American, But Still Just As Good"?

Or are you one of those deluded individuals who thinks "American" always refers to the Western Hemisphere and all of the inhabitants thereof? In which case, I'll ask you my standard question for those types: when people chant "Death to America", do you think they're talking about you?

Re:Surprising in its unsurprisingness

[AltairDusk]

Very well said, now if only I had mod points.

Re:Surprising in its unsurprisingness

[Anonymous Coward]

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:Surprising in its unsurprisingness

[ubermiester]

It can be about how US foreign policy actions are often against both their own laws

I'm sorry, did i miss something? Where is there even a bit of evidence of this?

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.

So you justify all of the damage this release has caused to US relations with the world by coming to the Monday morning assumption that the US State Dept. spent a few million dollars unwisely? Are you kidding? The US sends billions of dollars every year to dozens of nations that do it outright harm (e.g., Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, etc) just to maintain some influence over their behavior and you're worried about some individual payoffs that went bad? A bit naive i think. Not only because of the small scale of the spending, but also because you assume that the US was capable of properly assessing the risks and failed to act upon them. Sometimes people are simply duplicitous. And how many payments in question were actually successful at achieving their goals? In other words: what is the US batting average in such cases? I would suggest that it is much higher than you would expect.

Democracy is not well served by lying to the public about what you're doing and how you're doing it

What did the US lie about exactly? If you're talking about the Afghan assessments from a few months ago, I would agree that the source assessments were more harsh than what the govt officially reported, but no one claims that the US lied about anything. And as for the latest release, there is so far no reason to believe anything even close to that. Please enlighten us with your special insight.

Re:Surprising in its unsurprisingness

[AltairDusk]

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.

Re:Surprising in its unsurprisingness

[ubermiester]

Wikileaks didn't kill a bunch of brown people in an some country with an unpronounceable name and then pretend it didn't happen.

What are you referring to exactly? Do you mean the chopper pilot that killed the reporters? If so, no one has claimed that the pilots were acting outside the rules of engagement, and there was fighting going on only a few hundred yards from where the incident occurred. Was it tragic? Yes. And did the pilot come off as a cold-hearted bastard? Yes. But anyone who has actually suited up and taken aim during a gun fight (modern warefare 2 doesn't count) will tell you that the first thing you must overcome is your own sense of empathy for the human being you are about to gun down. Go to a boot camp and note how much of the training is designed to remove any remorse from the mind of the grunt. They are not out there to make decisions about who is innocent or guilty beyond the rules of engagement they operate under. If they hesitate, they - or someone next to them - will die. To believe otherwise is naive and quite dangerous. Should the pilot have said, I think he's got a missile launcher, but I'm not 100% sure so I'll let him go until he shoots at me or someone else? Not bloody likely.

Re:Surprising in its unsurprisingness

[jpmorgan]

Have you actually read them? I have. They're almost entirely "boring", like talking about Ghadafi's aversion to living on top floors, or the details of trade sanction or nuclear antiproliferation enforcement.

And yes, they have blacked out names... but that doesn't help when the information source includes references to specific actions taken by the information source. To use the Ghadafi example, I have no clue who was talking to a US agent about Ghadafi's personal phobias and oddities, but I can guarantee you that Ghadafi's people do, since the report tells us that the source was responsible for finding Ghadafi's accommodations in New York.

So yes, this release was absolutely irresponsible.

Re:Surprising in its unsurprisingness

[vxice]

For as much oil money the Saudi royal family gets I would expect them to ask for what they expected the US to want them to ask.

Re:Surprising in its unsurprisingness

[poity]

That's just wikipedia, if you follow that link it points to a wikileaks document that has not been available for quite some time
The only documents you can now access are USA documents, which actually supports Fnkmaster's argument.

Re:Surprising in its unsurprisingness

[Logic Worshipper]

What went on at Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib are crimes against humanity. Waterboarding qualifies as "inflicting severe pain and suffering" no matter how you cut it.

Article 7: Crimes against humanity

1. For the purpose of this Statute, "crime against humanity" means any of the following acts when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack:
(e) Imprisonment or other severe deprivation of physical liberty in violation of fundamental rules of international law;
(f) Torture;
(i) Enforced disappearance of persons;
(k) Other inhumane acts of a similar character intentionally causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or to mental or physical health.
2. For the purpose of paragraph 1:
(e) "Torture" means the intentional infliction of severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, upon a person in the custody or under the control of the accused; except that torture shall not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions;
(i) "Enforced disappearance of persons" means the arrest, detention or abduction of persons by, or with the authorization, support or acquiescence of, a State or a political organization, followed by a refusal to acknowledge that deprivation of freedom or to give information on the fate or whereabouts of those persons, with the intention of removing them from the protection of the law for a prolonged period of time.

Article 8: War crimes

1. The Court shall have jurisdiction in respect of war crimes in particular when committed as part of a plan or policy or as part of a large-scale commission of such crimes.
2. For the purpose of this Statute, "war crimes" means:
(a) Grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, namely, any of the following acts against persons or property protected under the provisions of the relevant Geneva Convention:
(ii) Torture or inhuman treatment, including biological experiments;
(vi) Wilfully depriving a prisoner of war or other protected person of the rights of fair and regular trial;
(vii) Unlawful deportation or transfer or unlawful confinement;
(b) Other serious violations of the laws and customs applicable in international armed conflict, within the established framework of international law, namely, any of the following acts:
(v) Attacking or bombarding, by whatever means, towns, villages, dwellings or buildings which are undefended and which are not military objectives;

Re:Surprising in its unsurprisingness

[gman003]

It was rather obvious that I was referring to modern times. Yes, the US has done some bad things over 400 years, but you can't exactly execute Andrew Jackson for anything at this point.

I'm also going to point out that killing enemy soldiers during a war is not murder (in fact, it is not even illegal). I'll also end by saying that the vast majority of civilian deaths in Iraq were caused not by Coalition troops, but by other Iraqi.

Re:Surprising in its unsurprisingness

[gman003]

"when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against a civilian population". That's the key part. There's what, a few hundred people at Gitmo? With the only trait common to them all that they are suspected of committing, or intending to commit, a combative action, an act that would remove them from the category "civilian"?

Is it torture? Yes. Is it criminal and unjustifiable? Yes. Is it a crime against humanity? NO.

Re:Surprising in its unsurprisingness

[10101001 10101001]

So, on the one hand these documents are unsurprising and don't contain a smoking gun or really damaging information and, on the other hand this is probably the work of a malicious person trying to get back at big bad America? Yea, that makes zero sense.

America doesn't become damaged in the eyes of the world or its citizens except when it shows itself to be a festering sore of corruption since it is precisely the transparent, high-minded concern for the rights of individuals that is the defining image of America*. Perhaps you mean attacking diplomats who make jackass comments for which they'd never say if they were accountable to the public or other countries for their words (mostly in being fired, likely)? Or perhaps you mean unmasking the face of advisors so you know just who it was who was pushing to bomb another country for which any honorable person should feel compelled to speak honestly and even publicly about the support (with some delay, perhaps, for military necessity)? Yea, I can see why those people who are misusing "national security" might feel being uncovered is malicious.

*Yes, yes, we all know no country is a perfect beacon and that various individuals will at times or even large populations will shamefully violate those tenets. But, there's a strong statement to the truth that "they hate us for our freedom". It is our own attacking of that and shaming ourselves which is most damaging. Confirming known breeches is only damaging in that such reports should have been declassified already not only to punish those who do go against the US ideals but also to not be or appear to be complicit in a cover-up of those crimes. In short, Bush, Obama, etc have damaged the US more in the War on Terror than any amount of leaks on Wikileaks ever could, I think.

Re:Surprising in its unsurprisingness

[Daniel Phillips]

The US government is not a bunch of teenagers.

Re:Surprising in its unsurprisingness

[flyingsquid]

From CNN.com: "According to cables obtained by WikiLeaks, South Korea's then vice foreign minister, Chun Yung-woo, said earlier this year that senior Chinese officials (whose names are redacted in the cables) had told him they believed Korea should be reunified under Seoul's control, and that this view was gaining ground with the leadership in Beijing."

I'm all for openness and government accountability, and if WikiLeaks had focused on releasing evidence of criminal behavior and abuses of power, then I'd call them heroes. But releasing information that could provoke a paranoid military dictatorship is literally risking the lives of thousands if not millions of people. Anyone who can rationalize doing that in the name of openness and accountability... you're no better than the governments you're fighting.

Re:Surprising in its unsurprisingness

[Beetle B.]

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:Surprising in its unsurprisingness

[Ihmhi]

Seriously, a Canadian Spy Service?

Of course there is. Leslie Nielsen isn't dead, that's just the cover story. He's been recalled from deep cover and is being debriefed at the secret log cabin bunk under Lake Saskatchewan.

Re:Surprising in its unsurprisingness

[gmhowell]

That Mexican police officer isn't resting! He has ceased to be. He is an ex-Mexican police officer.

Re:Surprising in its unsurprisingness

[Omestes]

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:Surprising in its unsurprisingness

[Wiener]

I would be extremely surprised if Canada, Britain, France, Germany, Russia, and just about any other ally of the United States were not also spying on the US

So your defense is "they do it too"[1] which somehow makes it ok in your mind.

[1] Bare assertion without supporting evidence

I think gknoy was probably going for the "Trust, but verify" angle.

Re:Surprising in its unsurprisingness

[taucross]

You said that the US doesn't destroy cities, towns and villages when it isn't justified by military or civilian necessity. You then said the invasion of Iraq was not, strictly speaking, a defensive military action. How can the justification of "military or civilian necessity" be invoked when it is an offensive action?

Here's some more history questions: Has the US government ever condoned slavery? Has the US ever created a policy to marginalise a specific race? How about waterboarding? You trivialise this by saying it "isn't large enough to be a crime against humanity". How much torture is enough? How about executing children?

The US aren't the only country that can be accused of making mistakes, and maybe they've made less than other countries. Whatever the case, there government has enough of a track record that vigilance is required.

Re:Surprising in its unsurprisingness

[gman003]

Let me put it this way: "destroying a city" means it isn't there anymore. Burned to the ground. Razed. Pulverized. Wiped off the map. Bombed back to the stone age. Gone like Donkey Kong. If you still have a door for the army to kick in, the town isn't destroyed.

As to "how can an offensive action be justified", I will point to things like Hiroshima or Monte Cassino - destroying them was deemed a necessary tactical/strategic maneuver, either to destroy a major command/control center for an enemy army, or to deny a strategic position to the enemy. Both were committed by armies on the offensive. Both were militarily justified.

Now, as to scale. The laws use the term "widespread and systematic". Obviously, there is no definite line, but I would venture to say that 800 people (not all of whom were actually tortured) from a population of 57 million is not widespread, and that taking only those believed to have been involved terrorist acts is not "systematic".

Finally, your last arguments about historic actions is irrelevant to the current discussion, but I will briefly answer it: Yeah. America done fucked up. We've done some really crappy stuff over the past 400 years. Every country has. Vigilance against it is always required, but throwing about exaggerated accusations is not the way to guard against it.

Re:Surprising in its unsurprisingness

[pleappleappleap]

Ummmm.... try again. That's not the New York Times. That's The Washington Post.

Re:Surprising in its unsurprisingness

[cold fjord]

Canada naïve about terrorism, CSIS head says in WikiLeaks memo

WASHINGTON—Canadians have an “Alice In Wonderland” attitude toward global terrorism, the former head of Canada’s spy service told a U.S. counterpart in 2008, according to a secret American memo disclosed Monday.

Canadian Security Intelligence Service Director Jim Judd is also quoted as saying that Canadian courts have the security service “tied in knots,” hampering their ability to detect and prevent terror attacks inside Canada and beyond.

Alleged terrorism plot targeted Canada

Toronto terror plot foiled -- Canada

From 2001 - Canada called 'weak link' on terrorism

Mohammed is one of the estimated 350 suspected terrorists living in Canada, taking advantage of the nation's liberal refugee program, which takes in about 60 percent of the people who apply, more than three times the U.S. rate.

"Anybody can apply for refugee status. All you have to do is arrive and say,

'I've been persecuted,' and we give them the benefit of the doubt," said Martin Collacott, former director general for security services at the Canadian Department of Foreign Affairs. "Within days of arriving you can get welfare, free dental and medical. And if you need to, you can just disappear in the country."

The Criminal Intelligence Service, Canada's CIA, estimates there are about 50 terrorist organizations spread throughout Canada, including 350 members of Hamas, Hezbollah, the Tamil Tigers and al Qaeda. Among them is Ahmed Ressam, an Algerian with ties to al Qaeda who was caught by U.S. immigration officials attempting to sneak explosives in the trunk of his car, from Canada, in December 1999.

While awaiting approval of his refugee claim in Montreal, Ressam traveled to an al Qaeda training camp in Afghanistan, where he learned how to make bombs, the CIS has reported. Ressam later confessed his plot to blow up Los Angeles International Airport at the turn of the millennium.

"Canada is our weak link," said Vincent Cannistraro, retired chief of counterterrorism operations for the CIA. "U.S. security is only as good as Canadian security."

Re:Surprising in its unsurprisingness

[dbIII]

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?

The only way I can think of that you can come to that conclusion is some mindless attitude along the lines of "anyone that questions the word of the King is a traitor!". It's not a monarchy ruled by divine right. We are supposed to ask questions every now and again to stop bastards like Oliver North selling guns to Iran and embezzling a bit on the side to get his house airconditioned.
Also this is the stuff three million people could read. You are not going to find if the complete fuckup of a coup to overthrow Chavez was a CIA plot or not from something like this, just stuff like what happened to Google in China which is still very interesting.
Take that example: how is releasing information about the Chinese government hacking Google "someone's personal agenda to get back at the big bad Americans?". You are screaming fire when there is not even dust let alone smoke.

Re:Surprising in its unsurprisingness

[Caraig]

He's NOT GAY, dammit! Honest! Really, he isn't!! /DothProtestTooMuch

Re:Surprising in its unsurprisingness

[Caraig]

We do know that the Iraq documents leak were traced to him. I suspect that they have no idea how the bulk of these cables got in the hands of WikiLeaks so for the time being they're blaming a sergeant in Army Intel.

Naturally, I could be wrong and he could be a leaking machine. Wait, that didn't come out right... oh, dammit, neither did that....

Re:Surprising in its unsurprisingness

[xtracto]

"Crimes against humanity" is a very, VERY serious charge. Not just "serial killer" serious. I'm talking "Hitler"-level evil, the sort of crime that is remembered for generations to come. If you use that term for every politician you disagree with, you're diluting the term. .

Mhmmm, should I declare you a Godwinner? ... how many picohitlers are we talking about here?

Re:Surprising in its unsurprisingness

[ThatsNotPudding]

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.

/head explodes

Re:Surprising in its unsurprisingness

[mcgrew]

Nice job avoiding the point there. Bush's saying "If you're not with us, you're against us" is akin to saying "thou shalt commit adultery".

Re:Surprising in its unsurprisingness

[nedlohs]

Sure the Bible says that in one place, but in another place it says:

He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters.

He took a different biblical quote and used it as is, is he only allowed to read the parts of the bible you agree with?

Re:Surprising in its unsurprisingness

[horos2c]

> 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.

bullshit guy..

There is no way that with this amount of volume of documents being released that they would possibly be able to vet all of the information contained therein and make it so that the people referred to could be free from repercussions from its publication. People will die because of this, and the moron who released it will likely get the death penalty.

I can't say I've got a lot of sympathy for him.

Ed

Re:Surprising in its unsurprisingness

[mcgrew]

What chapter and verse?

Re:Surprising in its unsurprisingness

[happyfeet2000]

We have a Police Farce.

Re:Surprising in its unsurprisingness

[nedlohs]

Matthew 12:30, Luke 11:23

Re:Surprising in its unsurprisingness

[Logic Worshipper]

False, "when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against a civilian population" only refers to genocide, not all crimes against humanity.

I may have had an unusual reaction to the leaks...

[Dr. Spork]

I don't know if this happened to many other people, but when I was reading through the leaks, I thought: It's good that my government knows all this stuff and keeps track of it. I think I've grown so used to thinking of the USA as being run by fools that it was actually a bit comforting to see that they actually do research and know stuff. Too bad that doesn't stop them acting foolishly!

But really...

[garyisabusyguy]

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?

Re:But really...

[heathen_01]

Without the poor security we would never have got our hands on these documents. On the other hand if the government(s) were trustworthy there would not need any need for the leaks.

I should know better however I am still disappointed that the answer to this problem is to improve security instead of fixing the real issues.

Re:But really...

[jimbolauski]

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?

Your falling into a common problem there are always circumstances where these rules will need to be flexible, if word comes out from above to ban all removable media this will be a problem. Removable HDs are essential as many unconnected computers can be used for multiple programs where the data can not be placed on the same HD this would go away under your shortsighted plan, and since the HDs are unconnected a backup will need to be made this is a vulnerability. The real problem was that private manning was able to access way too much information, he had no reason to access much of that information and should not have been able too.

Re:But really...

[kaiser423]

They do already have all of those safeguards. The problem is that some security officer somewhere wasn't following required procedures....that person's head is going to seriously roll.

Re:But really...

[garyisabusyguy]

"Removable HDs are essential as many unconnected computers can be used for multiple programs where the data can not be placed on the same HD this would go away under your shortsighted plan, "

Sorry, but my shortsighted plan would be using hardware encryption on the hard drives, removable or not.

All that I have to protect are a few million people's test results and I have enough sense to isolate data, require conformation for access, record everybody who is granted access to encrypted systems and keep my patches up to data to avoid attempts to compromise our systems

How the hell can anybody have confidence in a system that seems to have been compromised by an INDIVIDUAL!!!

Hell, no control over access, no countersigning for access, no encryption of sensitive data and 'apparently' no physical searches at point of entry/exit... next thing you're gonna tell me is that it's 'ok' to run this type of data over 'commercially available' operating systems, because everybody in the government should work on a computer in a locked room, with no network connection or direct physical contact, because that way it is safe :(

Re:But really...

[garyisabusyguy]

if you let me touch the case, I can install a usb card and get around your epoxy

but seriously, are you saying that there is no way to disable all usb devices in the 'commercially available operating system' du jour?

Re:But really...

[elucido]

They do already have all of those safeguards. The problem is that some security officer somewhere wasn't following required procedures....that person's head is going to seriously roll.

How do we know that person wasnt in on it?

Re:Where Is The Trust Metric

[Em Ellel]

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

Fundamental question

[IICV]

Fundamental question, here: if these documents are "putting at risk the lives and the freedom of countless Americans and non-Americans around the world", how the hell did Wikileaks get ahold of them? If this information is so sensitive, how is it that an upstart organization like Wikileaks managed to acquire it?

Because honestly, anything that Wikleaks knows, intelligence agencies the world over have probably known for decades.

Re:Fundamental question

[Nukenbar]

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.

Re:Fundamental question

[LWATCDR]

Actually it looks as if this was part of the leak from the military person that is now in jail. He will be for a very very long time.

I love how people are absolving wikileaks of all responsibility.
Lets put this into a differn't set of terms.
An employee of a company say a network admin got access to the credit card info of a large number of people. He stole it and smuggled it out on a flash drive.
He then put up for sale and let's say Microsoft knowing that it was gotten illegally paid him for it and used it for marketing.....
We know how wikileaks got it but wikileaks didn't have to publish it.
Assage better start to really worry. He has now made some nations that are not the US very angry at him. Those nations have no problem with the idea of killing people that make them angry. And frankly since all the Wikileaks people will blame the US they will not even get a second look and wouldn't care if they did.

Re:Fundamental question

[flyingkillerrobots]

Lets put this into a differn't set of terms. An employee of a company say a network admin got access to the credit card info of a large number of people. He stole it and smuggled it out on a flash drive. He then put up for sale and let's say Microsoft knowing that it was gotten illegally paid him for it and used it for marketing.....

I'm not sure if your analogy is perfect, because I don't think he was paid by Wikileaks for the information. Correct me if I am wrong.

Re:Fundamental question

[jimbolauski]

how is it that an upstart organization like Wikileaks managed to acquire it?

A private in the army who has access to a classified network downloaded the information and sent it to wiki-leaks so people would think he is a cool superhacker. Private manning was used and manipulated by Assange to get this information, I just hope Assange realizes that he is partially responsible for ruining the kid's life, I bet he does and couldn't care less.

Re:Fundamental question

[dougmc]

Lets put this into a differn't set of terms.

Let's not. Analogies may be useful in explaining complicated concepts -- but this is not such a situation.

This is quite simple, simple enough that anybody can understand the actual facts without you "putting it into a differn't set of terms".

Re:Fundamental question

[grcumb]

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.

Re:Fundamental question

[LWATCDR]

Funny but so manny people are letting Wikileaks off the hook with no responsibility that I just don't think you are correct.
I don't care if you buy the information, steal it, or have it given to you on a silver plater. If you publish it knowing that it will do more harm than good or don't even bother to check it then you are in part morally responsible.

I don't think that a large number of people get it. They are blaming the government for not securing it better. Which is a valid gripe but the way it was taken was a person violated his oath, regulations, and the law to take it.

No one left a door open or left a password set to a default. This was an inside job by someone that was supposed to be trustworthy.

Re:Fundamental question

[taucross]

Dude, he's probably like 12 years old. Relax.

Re:Fundamental question

[dougmc]

I wasn't trying to be funny at all -- I was dead serious.

You seem to be approaching this from the angle of "people don't agree with me, therefore they must simply not understand, so I should give them a flawed analogy to help them see it my way".

Sorry, but I reject that angle. The situation is quite simple, and nobody needs you to confuse it just to help them see it your way. Instead, if you find that so many people don't agree with you, the thing to do is to re-evaluate your own case, and if you don't find flaws in your own position, try to change people's minds with facts rather than flawed analogies.

I don't really see any benefit to wikileaks releasing the information beyond "look what we have!" bragging -- but I don't see a whole lot of damage being done either (governments spy? who knew!). The true criminals are those who leaked the information -- if it's sensitive, secure it!

If you're relying on journalists to not publish things because it'll make you look bad, well, you've already lost. (And yes, wikileaks sees themselves as journalists of a sort -- and they are.)

Re:Fundamental question

[LWATCDR]

I disagree that this was mostly harmless. Some of the information may have some serious repercussions between the US, China, South Korea, and North Korea and could cost lives.
Should Wikileaks be shutdown. Interesting question legally. I do really want to see freedom of the press eroded but I also feel Wikileaks is acting irresponsibly in the extreme.
Of course they may actually be breaking US law by publishing that information.
Yes the person taking this information was committing a crime. As I said Wikileaks may or may not be committing a crime but I do feel they are acting immorally.

They shouldn't

[McTickles]

fuck people over if they dont want trouble. Wikileaks and everyone involved in exposing the treacherous activities are heroes of the people now, nothing can stop them. The best bet for the governments involve is to admit their wrong and change their behaviour for the future. Some should perhaps even call it quits but politicians are like vermin, very hard to get rid of.

Hear that bullshit

[unity100]

"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 )

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:Hear that bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

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:Hear that bullshit

[schnikies79]

Bullshit. Every government have secrets and every single one of them lie about what they do.

Re:Hear that bullshit

[radtea]

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] )

Sure, but you have to realize that the lives of the patricians are worth more than the lives of the plebs, and the lives of the plebs are worth more than the lives of the subjet peoples.

Dead foreigners don't count because they aren't "real people", and detained Americans don't count because they aren't "Real Americans".

The notion that every single human being is free and equal in rights and dignity is too complex for the average person to grasp, and while it was defended vigorously for a while amongst academics neither the post-structuralist Left nor the post-traditionalist Right have any interest in it. Tribalism is the order of the day, as it always has been except for very brief interludes of quasi-legal peace and prosperity, which tribalists find intolerable because it is impossible to control peaceful, prosperous people through xenophobia and other forms of easily induced fear.

Personally, I believe that peace and prosperity are possible, but there is no doubt they have to be defended--mostly by ridicule--against tribalists of all kinds.

Re:Hear that bullshit

[Beerdood]

I love hearing that line "putting lives in danger" when juicy info comes out. Makes me laugh every time. Lets try an analogy of that :

I'm currently having an affair with my wife, and my wife is known to be a little bit unstable and crazy. You know I'm having that affair, and you're about to tell her, but I implore you not to tell her because you're "putting lives in danger (countless?)". Why? Well, because if she finds out, she might kill me and / or my mistress!!

Yes, that's a bit of a silly example, but it pretty much illustrates the point captain obvious made it clear from the beginning - if you think your life may be in danger because someone finds out something you did, then maybe you shouldn't have been doing it in the first place! . I've done embarrassing things that I'd rather not have anyone know about, but I seriously doubt anyone would ever kill me for something I did or said. Perhaps it's time to rethink your job, if your job involves fucking with someone else so much that they would kill you if they knew what you were really up to. And yes, I'm aware that some jobs may be considered more noble than others where secrecy is needed (i.e. an undercover cop as a mole in the Mafia) and in an ideal world we wouldn't need this, but there's a fine line between doing what you think is noble or right, and doing any sort of shady deal / backstabbing for your own (or own nation's) game. Somehow I'd like to think the latter is more applicable in the majority of these documents that are being released.

Re:Hear that bullshit

[FictionPimp]

Your view of freedom is wrong.

They want us to have freedom from thought, freedom from wealth, freedom from worry, and freedom from anything that doesn't support their lifestyles.

Re:Hear that bullshit

[chemicaldave]

north korea kills its citizens. it doesnt pretend to be doing it for freedom. china executes journalists. it doesnt say its doing it for freedom. they are being repressive and brutal, bluntly, and flat out. they are not LYING about it.

NK and China don't have to lie about executing dissidents for the freedom of the populace because that is never their reason for doing so. They execute their opponents because they claim it preserves their society and ideological way of life. Under this lens the US is doing the exact same thing.

Re:Hear that bullshit

[Xest]

Wikileaks isn't putting anyone at risk, when the US government put this charge forward to Wikileaks, Assange responded asking for an example name of someone who would be put in trouble so they could negotiate over further redacting the documents to protect such people, the US responded stating they wont negotiate over it and to hand it all back.

If anyone is at risk over this the blame falls entirely on the US government, they had the option to ensure the leaks damaged only reputation but not put people in danger and they refused to accept it.

Re:Hear that bullshit

[rhizome]

They execute their opponents because they claim it preserves their society and ideological way of life. Under this lens the US is doing the exact same thing.

If they do indeed use those terms to describe what is happening to Chinese people using the Chinese language, then they have a leg-up on the US.

Re:Hear that bullshit

[unity100]

yeees.

please read threads before posting things other people posted.

'two wrongs do not make right' in this context means just leave them to keep the 'national security', 'state secret', 'trade secret' bullshit, and keep committing filth behind those veils.

that is, without even mentioning exposing filth is not something wrong. it IS the right thing to do. at any point given in time, any age, anywhere.

Re:Hear that bullshit

[horos2c]

> Wikileaks isn't putting anyone at risk, when the US government put this charge forward to Wikileaks, Assange responded asking for an example
> name of someone who would be put in trouble so they could negotiate over further redacting the documents to protect such people, the US
> responded stating they wont negotiate over it and to hand it all back.

I think that falls under the header of 'refuse to negotiate with terrorists'. By vetting the documents, the US would have given implicit admission that the leaks were somehow legit.

They are not. It takes two to tango, and the fact that he chose to release them to the detriment of pretty much everybody (except perhaps underground movements like Al Quaeda who will use it as a recruiting tool against pretty much every arab government in existence).

Politics is a dirty business, and governments by necessity need to be given a measure of secrecy in their proceedings. They can't be given carte blanche, of course, but at the same time, they have to be free to be able to negotiate with a certain expectation that what they decide will be confidential. If wikileaks had gone through the documents and picked out bits and pieces which were warcrimes (ie: that directly lead to someone's death) that's one thing - full sale disclosure is quite another.

I HOPE that Mr. Asssange is caught and sentenced. Ironically, I think it paints the US in a pretty good light, considering exactly how restrained the response has been to the original leaks. Now that he has poked the eyes of much more dangerous governments (iran, north korea, etc) my guess is that his life is forfeit, and its only a matter of time.

But I think that he knows this already.

Ed

Data portability

[girlintraining]

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:Data portability

[heathen_01]

You still require a functional network after applying all the security. Anything less than functional and people will work around the security creating other problems.

Re:Data portability

[Nadaka]

easy to solve. Fill any unused ports with epoxy, epoxy any ports in use so that the device can not be removed. You still have the problem that someone might splice into the mouse cord and insert a media device that way, but that is a lot less likely.

Re:Data portability

[vux984]

And then you buy a new computer when the mouse breaks. Our tax dollars at work.

Re:Data portability

[Abcd1234]

Bah. Simple solution: build a case where the connectors of the USB devices are mounted in a solid cover plate. The USB ports are then aligned with those connectors, and so that when the cover plate is installed, the connectors are installed in the ports, and the whole thing is covered by the plate, so that, externally, you just see a flat surface with the cables sticking out. The plate, itself, is physically locked in place. Want to replace the computer? Unlock and remove the cover plate, replace machine, and install cover plate on new machine. Want to replace the mouse? You replace mouse, keyboard, and cover plate, all in one shot.

These are entirely solveable problems.

Re:Data portability

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

It's HID, not HUD.

Some notes about classified systems:

• All systems with classified information are already required to be air gapped. Further, networks for different projects or applications are usually required to be on separate, air gapped networks.
• The systems themselves are kept in separate rooms with physical access control.
• Flash drives and other removable media are generally banned.
• Classified system configuration is logged. These logs include models and serial numbers of all connected devices. Random audits are conducted
• Most people with access do not have the rights to change the hardware configuration.

This leak is a direct result of a breach of trust by a person with a clearance. Air gapping would not have stopped this leak. Routine full-body searches might have stopped this, assuming they searched the person's shoes and other personal effects. Gluing in all data cables to their ports and removing the unused ports might have worked. This leak was not an accident, nor was it an outside job, thus most security measures will not stop it.

Re:Data portability

[kaiser423]

Our classified computers have all USB ports disabled.

Same with everything that can transmit data except the ethernet jack. A RW drive in a classified computer? You've got to be kidding me!

Some security officer wasn't doing their job...

Re:Data portability

[cdrguru]

Epoxy in the USB ports is pretty simple and relatively foolproof. Removing all optical media drives before computers are given to people is another step that is pretty common.

The idea that people should have full and complete access and the ability to copy anything to a USB device is utterly absurd these days. Most large companies have a pretty good handle on this because they have already been burned a few times or at least the things that have happened have been well discussed by HR-type people.

Re:Data portability

[xclr8r]

How hard is it to put the computer case and monitor in a Plexiglas case and lock it, with only the keyboard and mouse cables coming out? The operator would not have a key to the Plexiglas case. If the lock is broken or cables cut and spliced it would be pretty obvious. This would prevent a lot of what you describe. I'm sure the government entities can come up with something better than my thought that took about 2 seconds.

Re:Data portability

[penguinchris]

Then all it takes is to get a copy of the key, or to pick the lock. I'm sure we've all seen enough heist movies to know that this is almost always one of the simplest parts of a plan (The Great Train Robbery notwithstanding, where getting all four keys was the whole plan, and was very difficult).

I think the point of the epoxy idea is that it is essentially permanent - you could probably drill it out, or remove it in some other time-consuming way, but not without anyone noticing. If it's that important, replacing the entire computer when the mouse breaks (better start with high-quality mice, anyway) is probably cheaper than coming up with a really good solution that allows you to block the USB ports non-permanently yet somehow still securely.

Or, you know... they could use a PS/2 mouse and keyboard...

Re:Data portability

[Abcd1234]

Then all it takes is to get a copy of the key, or to pick the lock.

Or just tamper with the cords.

Again, the point is to make it *hard*, not impossible. If "impossible" is your goal, you're fucked, plain and simple.

I'm sure we've all seen enough heist movies to know that this is almost always one of the simplest parts of a plan

Ah, yes, informing security decisions based on hollywood heist films... good plan. I'm sure, if they show it's easy to steal a key or pick a decent lock, it must be, right?

too bad nothing about UFOs

[Anonymous Coward]

I was expecting some juicy details about diplomacy with green aliens from another galaxy, disappointed :(

Re:too bad nothing about UFOs

[DigiShaman]

Oh hell, the entire UN is like that bar scene from Star Wars as it is. Why bother stating the obvious?

Re:too bad nothing about UFOs

[Infiniti2000]

That would be higher than Secret!

Re:too bad nothing about UFOs

[chichilalescu]

surely, you can't be serious!

Transparency

[Degro]

I realize it could put certain individuals in harms way (hopefully any such names were redacted before the dump), but I hope Wikileaks keep this up. There's far too much secrecy going on around the world. It's all one big self-fulfilling prophecy in which nobody trusts each other and everybody is forced to keep a gun under the table. Anyone that is angry about this for nationalistic reason is a tool. Of course, these leaks could be baloney psy-ops, which is real a possibility. That's a scary scenario and in the complete opposite direction of what it's presenting itself as.

Re:Transparency

[MyLongNickName]

Please tell why a diplomat's private communication to superiors about his assessment of Russia's leadership should be public knowledge? There certainly should be less secrecy, but nothing positive was served about this type of leak.

Re:Transparency

[vm146j2]

Because it CAN BE! Woo-hoot!

This is the world that diplomats live in, not the 18th century, or WWI or the 1970's; but keep pretending, it makes for great entertainment!

Re:Transparency

[Obfuscant]

It's all one big self-fulfilling prophecy in which nobody trusts each other and everybody is forced to keep a gun under the table.

And, of course, dumping all this diplomatic information out into the public will increase the level of trust between nations and help eliminate bad feelings and ill will worldwide.

Here's another glass of kool-aid. You seem a bit thirsty.

Re:Transparency

[truthsearch]

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.

Re:Transparency

[the-empty-string]

This has nothing to do with you "being represented fairly". It was not your government's assessment, it was the assessment a government employee sent to his superiors. Even if it *was* the government's assessment, it should still not be public knowledge. Hell, most people don't want their assessment of their in-laws to be public knowledge, and you think this is a good idea for foreign policy?

That said, I am glad this stuff came out. Governments should conduct their business assuming the public may find out at any moment what they're up to.

Re:Transparency

[Kazoo the Clown]

Yep-- why should we care about their privacy? They showed us with the AT&T case, that they don't care about ours. At least Wikileaks is getting us a little payback for the moment. If it wasn't for the fact that illegal wiretapping acts by AT&T got immunity, maybe we'd be a little more sympathetic, eh? As it is, whoever leaked those docs is my hero. I don't care how boring the darned docs actually are, as long as they don't want us to have them that's enough for me...

Re:I may have had an unusual reaction to the leaks

[koreaman]

I had exactly the same reaction. It was pretty refreshing.

if Wikileaks can get this...

[painandgreed]

What I really have to wonder is that if essentially one guy with a website can get this much info, how much do the other nations with active espionage units manage to get?

Re:if Wikileaks can get this...

[MyLongNickName]

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:if Wikileaks can get this...

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought it was PFC Bradley Manning and that Wikleaks has been sitting on this for awhile.

Re:if Wikileaks can get this...

[pwilli]

The US is probably the only country that combined diplomacy and military intelligence into one network (SIRPNet) that is completely accessible by far more than 100.000 people worldwide. They therefore put usability far above the need for security.

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.

Re:if Wikileaks can get this...

[chemicaldave]

What I really have to wonder is that if essentially one guy with a website can get this much info, how much do the other nations with active espionage units manage to get?

I wouldn't characterize Wikileaks quite that way. Assange isn't obtaining info himself. He is merely providing a safe haven for people who want to "leak documents/blow whistles" and providing a means to publish that information. It only takes one person with more access than they need to obtain this sort of information

Re:if Wikileaks can get this...

[lgw]

As I understand it, the US moved to this setup after 9/11, based on the criticism that data was overly compartmentalized and while the government as a whole had access to the information needed to prevent 9/11, no one depertment did. As a result, all non-Secret information was moved to a common network. Note that none of the released information was Secret or above (though some of it maybe should have been, that's normal with such a large data set).

Re:if Wikileaks can get this...

[BristolCream]

What makes you think that the US isn't behind leaking the info to wikileaks?

Re:if Wikileaks can get this...

[TaoPhoenix]

Per Yahoo they're on their secondary level false denial now, just to keep up appearances. If this were really the greatest security breach in 5 years they would have made this Code Purple and pulverized Wikileaks. But no, they're whining in slow motion about "going to mount investigations" despite having all five lead players in hand.

I repeat an earlier remark, that this is total Platypus Shit, hoping the chemical composition of such might slow down amateur forensics by a week.

Come on, really now, they already said the major players fed it to newspapers months ago "so they could study it".

Incredibly, stupid.

[ChasmCoder]

I say post them all. Air the dirty-laundry so to speak. The only thing at "stake" is the respect, career, and face of the individual who sent the original defaming document in the first place. Certainly, if the people they were speaking of find out, they'll be upset, but what good does upset do? Oh NO! Somebody called me unstable! ... oh wait... I called them the same thing last week...but let's not go there! Rock on Wikileaks! *I agree, two days should DEFINITELY be enough to process those document LOL*

Re:Where Is The Trust Metric

[grub]

that guarantees the leaks from Wikileaks are legitimate and not some delusional writing from Sarah Palin?

These were done on computer, not with paper and crayon.
That's all the proof you need.

Doh

[unity100]

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

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:Doh

[Rockoon]

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:Doh

[Rockoon]

You are justifying imagining the most damning information possible because it might have happened to those germans? Really?

They might have sent them on a space shuttle ride, fed them like kings, presented them with daily hookers and blow...

Imaginations do not bare witness to reality, and the fact that you are unwilling to entertain the notion that your imagination has run away with you means that you are currently a lost cause. You no longer interpret reality as it is, but only as you imagine it to be.

Re:Doh

[unity100]

that came out 4 years ago through german channels. now it is confirmed by u.s.'s own cables itself. thats the difference.

Re:Doh

[Rockoon]

it happened to other people. whether it happened to germans is irrelevant.

You specifically said torture happened to the specific Germans kidnapped specifically by the CIA. Now you are saying that well, it wasnt Germans, or the CIA, but damn the CIA because there was torture done somewhere in the world, performed by someone, to someone?

How do you not see the problem? You really need to self-evaluate, because now you are deparately rationalizing your imagination. Almost as if it is you that is self-centered as you claimed I was, that you think that you are so amazingly important that your imagination trumps reality not only for yourself, but that your imagination also trumps reality for others as well.

Re:Doh

[cbhacking]

While I agree that adding an accusation of torture is uncalled-for without further evidence, given the circumstances it's not an unreasonable possibility. Why take him to Afganistan? For that matter, why take him out of Germany at all, especially to anywhere that isn't US territory?

I'm not saying he was tortured. I'm saying that given everything else that happened to him, torture doesn't seem far-fetched. This just goes to show how ridiculous the things we have evidence of are.

Re:Doh

[Rich0]

Dude - a bunch of innocent germans were kidnapped in their home nation and whisked away to who knows where by a foreign power.

And, you're arguing over whether or not they were tortured... Oh, gee, I'm comforted to think that they might not have been in complete agony the whole time. Sounds like a nice trip - I wonder how you go about signing up for one of these unplanned vacations?

Whatever happened to habeas corpus and due process, let alone bail?

Re:Doh

[Anonymous Coward]

He was tortured.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7036051.stm

Re:Doh

[TheTurtlesMoves]

Yea, and "leaking" documents that prove that torture was used is "un-American" and would "endanger peoples lives". Wiki leaks would clearly only leak such documents to make money and because of its strong anti American agenda. The US should be permitted all the "secrecy" they ask for.

"cause diplomatic problems around the globe"

[blai]

I don't like how that sounds. It is as if problems do not exist if nobody speaks of them, or if citizens have no right to know what goes on in a country controlled by people they voted for, or ...

Re:"cause diplomatic problems around the globe"

[Leafheart]

Neither in fact. What happens is that what diplomats say in private are hardly what they say in public. Yes, they lie to the press and other diplomats about their feelings of other countries. That is quite obvious and I think everyone expects that. There is a "Gentleman's contract" that this kind of thing is private because no country wants to be told to shove it in front of the international community.

More damaging are allegations that other Arab countries wants to bomb Iran. That is a big issue regarding the political powers on the Middle East. From the sky article, only Saudi Arabia (US lapdog, so expected) and Bahrein wanted it. If there are more, them we have an issue.

I couldn't care less for possible embarrassment of UK Royal Family members. Or maybe a whore and drug use scandal going with some of diplomats, for me those are irrelevant and personal and shouldn't be leaked. I don't think every cable should be linked too, as pointed above, some of these are personal opinions that will be damage to the political balance once live. Now, if there are crime indications, and crime allegations, those should be put online.

So?

[mgrinshpon]

A country is spying? It's using it's embassies to spy? Countries without nuclear capability don't want their mutual neighbor to get its hands on nuclear weapons? How is anyone surprised by any of this? Clearly a report written by esteemed whistle blower Captain Obvious.

Re:Where Is The Trust Metric

[Shining Celebi]

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...

The NYT was in a dialogue with the State Department over the leak, and the State Department never questioned that they were genuine.

I think a much more serious problem would be someone slipping in a small number of fakes amid the 200k real cables for malicious purposes.

Quartermillion? How about just 243...

[santax]

They only released 243 cables at this point. http://cablegate.wikileaks.org/

Re:Quartermillion? How about just 243...

[Anonymous Coward]

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:Quartermillion? How about just 243...

[santax]

Yeps and the one where the mossad wants to support surgeons and students in Iran to split up the land in 3 parts. It's hard to imagine why this isn't in the media.

Re:Quartermillion? How about just 243...

[Bill_the_Engineer]

Not only that, but most of the sensitive information was vetted.

Time's editor Keller says links were vetted to limit risks

Re:Quartermillion? How about just 243...

[rahvin112]

If the following is true they've already killed at least one person with this leak:

"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?"

http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/11/29/frum.wikileaks.iran/index.html?hpt=Sbin

I supported wiki-leaks with the war info releases because I felt there was a right to know for the public. On the other hand leaking diplomatic cables does nothing to help anyone. IMO there is no press-freedom or public interest in releasing private diplomatic assessments to the world. By agreement of nations these communications are private, to have these published does nothing but damage wiki-leaks. There is so little public value in these communications and so much damage to international relations that almost every country is going to see this release as damaging diplomacy and an internationally agreed institution where privacy is guaranteed. (Diplomatic satchels and communications are privileged by international agreement)

My guess is Assange is going to be charged with something for this by Australia (the only country he holds citizenship in) and the US will be able to convince it's allies that wiki-leaks threatens them all and as a result get cooperation in shutting it down by seizing servers and domain names. I can't help but believe with all my heart that this release was terribly ill advised and it's going to result in wiki-leaks ceasing to exist because Assange has a hard-on for attacking the US and getting publicity that he didn't get exposing small totalitarian governments. IMO this release is going to be the end of Wiki-Leaks, all reports indicate Europe and others are as upset about this release as the US is. Assange forgets that his only protection from the US right now rides on Denmark and Sweden supporting him and Australia not wanting to prosecute him and they all reacted negatively to this release. He should be very worried, if the US gets his hands on him he's going to be looking at life in prison and Australia is talking actively about finding something to prosecute him on. There is simply no public value in diplomatic cables and 100% of countries would be abhorred to have their diplomatic cables shown to the world. Frankly they shouldn't publish them because of their nature and doing so is going to destroy wiki-leaks, Assange is a fool to think he can release diplomatic cables without repercussion.

Re:Quartermillion? How about just 243...

[AfroTrance]

My guess is Assange is going to be charged with something for this by Australia (the only country he holds citizenship in)

That makes no sense. The US routinely charges citizens of other countries for breaking US law, even if they have never stepped foot within the US, even if the crime was entirely outside its borders.

Re:Quartermillion? How about just 243...

[elucido]

"3. (S) The Baku businessman is a UK-educated engineer from a
prominent Pre-Revolution Isfahan family, and formerly owned a
large factory in Iran. He is a former national fencing
champion of Iran. former President of the Iran Fencing
Association, and Vice-President of an Azerbaijan sports
association. He has been based in Baku for more than ten
years, working primarily as a sub-contractor to BP and the
Cape Industrial Services company. While his oil services
company includes an insulation division that may be in
competition with INSULTEC, source has provided "inside"
information on many other Iranian issues (including
comprehensive data on the status of new Iranian oil refinery
construction) that does not relate to his private interests
in any way.

4. (S) Note: A quick google check revealed several companies
with the name INSULTEC in the title - these may or not be
affiliated. Based on the information provided by source
(currently in Iran, where he frequently travels), one
possible candidate could be "INSULTEC Chitral Ltd." End
Note.
http://cablegate.wikileaks.org/cable...09BAKU179.html

Re:Can't wait for wikileaks next target

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Facebook advice for diplomats

[jythie]

This makes me think of all that advice 'stupid kids' have been given lately about forwarding emails or posting on facebook... perhaps State Dept officials need to start listening? Normally they seem to treat the weight of the federal government as a blank check to do and say whatever they want yet still be protected by secrecy. Maybe having the same risk of embarrassment the rest of us have will give them a little empathy for all those little people they claim to be working for....

Something to hide?

[Teufelsmuhle]

"You shouldn't care unless you've got something to hide."

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:Something to hide?

[Beerdood]

I still don't quite get that line. Doesn't everyone have something to hide? And yes, I mean everyone. Could be an embarrassing action done while younger and drunk, someone you bumped uglies with, a medical condition, a fetish etc.. Everyone has something they think, believe or have done that would probably embarrass them if other people knew about it. The next time someone asks me that I'll say "why yes, of course I have things I don't want you knowing. Is there nothing that you've said or done or thought that you wouldn't care about if other people knew"?

Re:Something to hide?

[human_geode]

EXACTLY THIS!!! guess they don't like when the naked scanner gets turned on them, eh?

Re:Something to hide?

[TheTurtlesMoves]

If i have done something in my official capacity as a diplomat... I should be required to face the consequences. We are *not* taking about personal privacy... Which incidentally many of these same officials don't want us to have either.

Re:Something to hide?

[Geminii]

And notice how the only outcry has been from politicians? Hmmm...

Let's Not Forget The Real Tragedy

[BRock97]

Many Bothans died to bring us this information.

Re:Let's Not Forget The Real Tragedy

[techsoldaten]

It's a trap!

WL just wants attention?

[catbertscousin]

Seems a lot like the annoying kids who break into lockers to try to find diaries/journals/rants about teachers so they can spread them all over school and feel like they're really smart, secret ninja types instead of the little whiners they really are. "Hey, everybody, we got secret government documents! Look at us, look at us, aren't we so clever!"

Yawn.

Those who yell the loudest

[shoehornjob]

have the most to lose. I have no sympthy for someone who looks like a fool when his blunder is exposed.

Re:Can't wait for wikileaks next target

[unity100]

The problem is not america being incompetent in hiding their crimes. It is the fact that they are committing those crimes, while CLAIMING to be fighting for 'freedom' and 'security' of people, even the entire planet.

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.

hey US government

[app13b0y]

if you have nothing to hide then you have nothing to fear

Re:I may have had an unusual reaction to the leaks

[IICV]

You remind me of this guy I met while going through security at the Seattle airport.

I, for one, am glad these cables were leaked.

[blind biker]

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:I, for one, am glad these cables were leaked.

[cpghost]

Turns out, there's more animosity between Sunni (Arab countries) and Shia (Iran) than they like to admit.

Wrong. The Iranian danger, as perceived in Arab countries, is not that they're Shia (they couldn't care less), it's that they are actively spreading revolutionary Islam(ism), therefore destabilizing the Arab governments from within. That's one of the reasons why e.g. Morocco severed its diplomatic ties with Iran: Iran tried to topple the Monarchy there by spreading and encouraging Islamism and islamist anti-royalist groups.

Re:I, for one, am glad these cables were leaked.

[FredMenace]

None of the things I have learned from these leaks surprised me at all.

While I haven't read any of the releases directly or read too many reports about them, I agree with this statement so far. I mean, is there really anything particularly shocking here? Is there some compelling reason for us to be keeping such massive amounts - I'm sure this is only a tiny fragment of it all - of fairly obvious and unsurprising information secret?

Re:I, for one, am glad these cables were leaked.

[blind biker]

The Arab countries are so barbaric..

Please for the love of dog, point out where in my entire post did I say anything even resembling what you stated! Instead of putting words in my mouth, you should pull your head from your ass and read what I wrote, instead of making shit up.

Oh, no Fallout add-on?

[El_Muerte_TDS]

Misread the title, I thought it was some cool add-on for Fallout.

No such thing as bad publicity?

[macwhizkid]

For a document release that was supposed to "reshape world history", it's actually been a pretty disappointing ride thus far. Embarrassing, sure, but by no means earth-shattering. No international corruption rings, not even a single assassination plot (Hollywood screenwriters hoping for some free inspiration must be sooo disappointed right now). Some spying sure, and amusing adjectives about various world leaders, but not much that wasn't already known or assumed at some level (if you needed the Wikileaks cable leak to learn facts like: Putin is Russia's power broker, China hacked Google, and Colonel Qaddafi is mentally unstable, then you haven't been paying attention).

If anything, it's actually strengthened my faith a bit in the US Government. No real smoking guns, and the Obama administration seems to have acted reasonably responsibly with respect to the multitude of issues in the Middle East, and even in accordance with their public policy. Yeah, I know it doesn't include "top secret" information, but still, most of it is of no particular interest except for world historians and a day of news entertainment for the masses.

I'm still solidly in the middle about the justification of release, and the lack of substantive information is pushing me back to thinking it's not justifiable. Yes, I think government should be transparent, but let me say, as someone who manages a small organization, I do talk about people behind their backs, often in email. Making snap judgments of other people based on limited encounters, subjective and unfair as it is, is how we manage our day to day lives.

The best part

[CCarrot]

From (one of) TFA:

"As a democracy, our nation has always believed the American people should have access to as much information as possible.

But we have also long recognized that -- to keep our country safe -- some information must be kept secret," he said.

"This is a balancing act that the American people themselves ultimately control through our democratically-elected representatives and our institutions.

...so, which of the "American people" are allowed to access enough information to determine this control?

In actuality, it's bureaucratic asshats who make the decisions on which scandals should be released "for the good of the people" (a.k.a., "for the good of my career").

North of the 49th, all observations and notes made by a public servant, even personal ones, about co-workers or clients are deemed non-personal information and subject to information requests. I don't know as much about goings on south of the border, but I would imagine there are some parallels...

Re:more is coming from wikileaks... and it good.

[Wyatt Earp]

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.

Actually, I would like them counted

[HeckRuler]

"WikiLeaks is putting at risk the lives and the freedom of countless Americans and non-Americans around the world."
Actually, I would like them counted and specifically explained how information leaked to wikileaks risked their lives and/or freedom.
Now, if you can point out a lot of people who are now at risk in a very real way, then yeah, I'd call shenanigans on Wikileaks and damn their irresponsibility.
Unless they deserve it.

But if you CAN'T point out who and what exactly is being threatened here, then the only real damage is some embarrassment. Tough. Most of these aren't really secrets, they're just candid and blunt assessments. Some of them WERE secrets, and shit that seriously needed to come to light.

Re:Actually, I would like them counted

[cheekyjohnson]

What's funny is that apparently Wikileaks contacted the US government to see which documents exactly had names of people who would be endangered, and instead of telling them, they responded to them with threats. Yeah, they really care about these supposed people and their freedoms...

Re:Actually, I would like them counted

[fl_litig8r]

I think by "countless", they mean "zero", as in "having no count".

All secrets should be released.

[maillemaker]

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:Can't wait for wikileaks next target

[Score Whore]

Everybody keeps saying "crimes," but for only a tiny number of the documents released could you even begin to make the argument that there is some kind of "crime" exposed. The vast majority of the documents do not reflect a crime. Saying that the leader of bumfuckistan is a corrupt bastard in a private communique to your boss isn't a crime. Not saying the same thing in public is also not a crime.

The real problem with wikileaks is that we have no idea what they actually have and what they release.

Ignoring that however, if you look at what they do publish, it seems to me that there is a good case for Julian and co. being narcissistic cowards. They only publish the private information of organizations that won't kill them. Thus we'll never see anything from Russia, China, the Middle East, etc.

No sympathy for Assange

[No Lucifer]

I have no sympathy for Julian Assange, should he somehow face prosecution for these leaks. For the longest time, I knew of WikiLeaks, but had never heard of Assange. Until more recent times, WikiLeaks' message was clear: We are simply to conduit for others to leak documents. I saw them much like a P2P network - people may use the service, but ultimate responsibility lies with the user.

I now feel different. With the Iraq and Afganistan leaks, as well as this one, it is clear to me Assange has fallen in love with his own legend. At least in spirit, WikiLeaks appears to have gotten into the promotion business and crafting a "public image" (and I believe have decided to push an agenda, but I understand that's a contentious point). Had Assange not decided to at the very least not become a celebrity (if not pushing an agenda), I firmly believe the media and government official would be more focused on the source of the link as opposed to being focused on WikiLeaks and Assange.

Assange himself has contributed to painting the target on his own back.

Re:No sympathy for Assange

[misexistentialist]

I think the problem was that the leaks were being ignored. The media aren't interest in "leaks" that could be "unpatriotic" and could disrupt their access to the government press releases that they lazily "report". But add a "celebrity" angle and they'll eat that shit up whether it's important or not.

Net Loss to Public

[bkmoore]

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:Net Loss to Public

[scubamage]

This is probably the best comment I've seen on this whole ordeal. I do agree that this is going to have a secrecy backlash, again. Either way, thanks for your service, soldier.

Re:Net Loss to Public

[rhizome]

The public has a right to know what the government is doing as long as it doesn't compromise operational security.

We've already seen that the definition of "operational security" can be expanded arbitrarily, so how about we limit operations to a more reasonable level of public accountability? It's our money.

Re:Net Loss to Public

[blair1q]

The effect it should have is that it should result in taking more care in classifying documents. It's expressly illegal for information to be classified merely because it's embarassing. And yet here we are with hundreds of thousands of documents, few of which have any direct bearing on anyone's safety, and the most journalistically interesting of which are merely embarassing. Rather than classifying more documents, it ought to lead to a drastic decrease in the number of documents that are classified.

The other effect it should have is that the entire diplomatic and military information security system should implement the security guidelines it already has in place. Manning should never have been allowed to bring his own media into the secure facility, much less download and remove the data. Security officers at the facilities where this occurred were not following existing procedures, and these leaks are evidence of that.

Re:Net Loss to Public

[Pandrake]

I second scubamage. Well said, bkmoore.

Re:Net Loss to Public

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Clinton, wake me when Val Plume Leak is procecuted

[Dan667]

The Valerie Plume Leak was real leak that resulted in lots of people being killed and no one involved was punished. If that was not a priority, I doubt any of this would be.

Really great idea...

[frank_adrian314159]

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.

The more you tighten your grip, Gates and Clinton, the more memos will slip through your fingers...

Don't focus on Assange

[peterindistantland]

Brad Manning is the real leaker. Anyone else could have done Assange's job.

Re:Don't focus on Assange

[bkmoore]

That is exactly right. Without people feeding him documents such as Pvt. Manning, Mr. Assange wouldn't have much of a web site.

Redefining terrorism

[qmaqdk]

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.

tit-for-tat

[Meniconi,Nando]

Could not have been said better

"I have a hard time getting worked up about it - a government that views none of my personal correspondence as confidential really can't bitch when this sort of thing happens."

http://www.balloon-juice.com/2010/11/28/wikileaks-reaction/

Why not stop him?

[o2binbuzios]

If someone robbed the Federal Reserve of a Billion dollars, and then bragged for 6 months over his intent to buy a Mansion and a Yacht, a government would be considered within their rights
to arrest and extradite him and recover property, right?

These documents are US government property and declaring them as stolen would prevent any legitimate business from posting them, and to take aggressive action against Mr Wikileaks.

(Yes, I'm sure he has a hundred cached sites with this info and they will never all be tracked down....but allowing this to become public record is unacceptable. It is unlikely anyone was surprised by this in any event. If the security was so piss-poor that a nincompoop could steal all this materiel, I'm sure smarter and more subtle spies have been reading through this like the morning paper for years. )

Re:Why not stop him?

[BradleyUffner]

With or Without Wikileaks the documents would have been made public. They were already leaked before they were made public up on the web site, that's how wikileaks got them in the first place. It's the leak that was illegal, not the publishing.

Re:Why not stop him?

[cheekyjohnson]

If they don't want themselves to be thought of as worthless, corrupt politicians, perhaps they shouldn't be worthless, corrupt politicians. Their actions are ultimately their own fault, and there's no reason that their crimes shouldn't be exposed. They violate the privacy of the people all of the time (Patriot Act, TSA, etc), and then they expect the people to care when it happens to them? I think not. If they don't wish their crimes to be exposed, they shouldn't commit them in the first place.

fair play

[Meniconi,Nando]

Like the cop told me the other night: "If you have done nothing wrong, you have nothing to hide. Now, bend over"

Transparency

[euxneks]

Really, this is fucking awesome. They complain when we the public have secrets, but they claim they need to have their own secrets, look, if you're going to rub my crotch when I go visit my brother or grandma, don't fucking expect any sympathy when you're plotting shit with radical governments and that crap gets out. If you want privacy, give me back mine.

246

[aethogamous]

... process the quarter million diplomatic documents published by WikiLeaks on Sunday, ...

Acutally, as of 29th November Wikileaks have published a grand total of 246 cables, which by my reckoning is not quite the same as a quarter of a million.

Knocking down the stovepipes

[golodh]

I recall that a few years ago admiral Poindexter (see e.g. http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=2959) made waves by proposing to "break down the stovepipes" that separate commercial and government databases.

It sure looks as if the admiral succeeded, at least as far as the stovepipes separating State Department and the Pentagon are concerned.

Unless I'm much mistaken. this latest batch of raw data also comes straight off SIPRnet ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SIPRNet just like the Iraq and Afghanistan data), which offers a convenient one-stop shopping opportunity for all things data that is militarily and diplomatically sensitive, up to and including that classified as " secret".

Of course there is the huge advantage of wide and instantaneous dissemination. On the other hand, perhaps disseminating all this data to about 3 million people throughout the US government has some drawbacks too. You know, just to take a totally off-the-wall scenario, if someone loads a couple of years of text data onto a USB stick or a CD and walks out of the building. I wonder how security analysts evaluated that possibility.

Does anyone know of any other large organizations that use such single-point-of-vulnerability systems for sensitive data?

Of course it's easy to second-guess whoever OK'ed this setup, but perhaps now is the time to reconsider its design (e.g. end-to-end encryption so that operators can't read the traffic so easily, and access logging in the sense that you keep a log of who then decrypts what).

Re: Don't Ask Don't Tell Should Have Kicked In

[nosferatu1001]

Dont ask dont tell is sound?
Really?

Idiot.

Looking in the wrong place for solutions

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

Why was all this information in one place where a disgruntled person could get at it?

Who disgruntled that person?

This was not a technological problem. Trying to hold it back with technological measures would be like trying to hold back the tide. (Well, maybe some kind of virtual desktop where the user is never in the same room as the hard disk and no Internet connection. But I'd bet someone on this site of all places will post a way to leak information from that kind of setup, withing minutes of my hitting Submit).

My most fun billable hours are spent dealing with technology, but every time I do a risk assessment something else turns out to be more important.

Re:Looking in the wrong place for solutions

[girlintraining]

My most fun billable hours are spent dealing with technology, but every time I do a risk assessment something else turns out to be more important.

Well, a computer by itself isn't much of a risk. It could start on fire from an electrical short, maybe, or occasionally glitch from a hardware or software fault... but those are pretty small risks. Now, put some idiot at the keyboard and suddenly it's a weapon of mass destruction.

Re:Where Is The Trust Metric

[TaoPhoenix]

Let it all be real even!

"Praise with faint damnation".

Seriously, something is way fishy here. Combining a couple parts of other slashdot stories earlier:

Are they seriously saying that half or more of this wasn't public knowledge in the spy community already? Just as a fictional example, couldn't James Bond have dug this info out of people? Are they seriously saying document security was so good this hasn't already trickled around at the cable level?

Are they seriously saying they couldn't do anything to stop this? Screw making Assange a marytr, doesn't that level of Ops kill for a living?

Someone else brought up the Copyright Defense. Wouldn't this be releasing copyrighted info to the tune of 11.6 Billion in fines at the going rate?

What's up with the multi-month head start to the newspapers - "Here's the story that makes Old Media a hero - wanna bid on the exclusives?"

No, this is just a Mikhail Tal grade chess move. So full of quadra twists absolutely everyone misses the real point. If this is so unstoppable a leak, is that the quarterfinal push to shut down the net as we know it?

pot/kettle?

[uncanny]

WikiLeaks is putting at risk the lives and the freedom of countless Americans and non-Americans around the world."

that seems like what the government has been doing since they started these wars anyways!

Glass House

[jimmerz28]

I'd much rather the international community be living in a glass house anyway; people are less prone to throw rocks.

Dear Hilary Clinton

[gstrickler]

We have a more pressing issue. The TSA is putting at risk the lives and freedom of countless Americans and non-Americans around the world.

When we've dealt with that, we can revisit the risk of the increasing irrelevant Wikileaks disclosure.

Re: Don't Ask Don't Tell Should Have Kicked In

[ultramk]

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.

boss

[cifey]

I think there are pros and cons but discretion should be used in mass publication of any information.
What is the point in damaging international relations because somebody was called a slob?
Will the net effect be less transparency and less communication?

Lucky for him he didn't host music files

[bonkeydcow]

If he hosted music files big brother would have shut his site down by now.

Re: Don't Ask Don't Tell Should Have Kicked In

[Anonymous Coward]

a + 4 interesting? Really mods? For a homophobic attack on gays thinly veiled as "facts"?

You're fucked.

[copponex]

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:You're fucked.

[phantomfive]

Wait, did you just blame the Iraq war for the disappearing middle class? Now, I've been opposed to the Iraq war from the beginning, but you need a better sense of proportion here. The Iraq war has only been costing a few percent of GDP. Three trillion dollars over the past 10 years is higher than most estimates I've seen, but working with that number, consider that the US has produced around $120 trillion worth of stuff over the same period.

If something is hurting the US middle class, it isn't the war. Really though, are you sure the middle class is disappearing? I looked into it recently, and it seemed like people are getting paid more and more if you consider the total compensation. Income appears to be going down, but really that's a side effect of rapidly increasing health costs (which is itself a side effect of aging baby boomers).

Re:You're fucked.

[copponex]

I looked into it recently

Bullshit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_inequality_in_the_United_States#Gini_index

Re:You're fucked.

[phantomfive]

lol oh yeah? That entire post and all you could reply to is one line?

You can't focus on income inequality alone. It makes you seem like a jealous old fool. And if your solution to inequality is to cut down the rich instead of finding ways to empower the poor, then you truly are an old fool.

Of course, maybe that isn't your solution, since you didn't say, in which case you are not a fool.

Re:You're fucked.

[copponex]

You are routinely full of shit, so I don't waste my time with your arguments. You don't understand the effect of adding more than 25% to our national debt without any return on infrastructure, so I can hardly expect you to understand anything else.

Re:You're fucked.

[phantomfive]

Well, generally I have a lot of respect for your arguments, but this time you went a bit too far. At most you can blame the increase in national debt on a future destruction of the middle class, because it hasn't hurt anyone yet, we're still paying off the interest with more borrowing. We haven't paid off anything. In all likelihood we'll just inflate it away.

In either case, 25% is still a minor component. (and are you really going to argue that the 200% increase under Roosevelt, I'm just talking about WWII here, went entirely or even mostly towards infrastructure improvements? Come on, now)

Re:You're fucked.

[copponex]

Yeah, sorry I'm being a dick. It's part of my charm.

WWII provided full employment, which is the only cure for a down economy. Automation has made employment unnecessary, so this round is not even providing increased employment, just increased profits and higher salaries for members of the board. You can look at any statistic you like. I recommend CEO pay compared to worker pay, which has skyrocketed since the 60s. It used to be that the CEO made about 30 times the average worker, now it's well into the 300s.

The effects are already damaging the middle class. Our savings rate has dropped to zero. Our net worth collapsed with the housing bubble, while the top 20% and especially the top 1% of income earners has increased substantially. This is because the wealthy demand protection from market forces in order to keep their money invested, though they want to deny that privilege to everyone else. Again, look at any statistic you like: life expectancy, literacy, and math and science have all fallen, especially compared to other developed nations across the world. We are literally becoming too dumb to be useful producers.

Let's put that 3 trillion into perspective: over the years of it's projected cost, from 2002 to 2017, it could have tripled funding for the Department of Education, from 90 billion to 290 billion. It could entirely pay for the costs of paying for the increased unemployment benefits three times over. It could have built a high-speed national rail network to cover the whole country, while providing employment, or been invested in ditching oil imports by increasing domestic alternative energy sources and subsidizing electric vehicle development.

Instead, it was literally blown up, and did nothing to reduce the threat of terrorism.

The United States has a fabulous amount of national wealth and infrastructure that isn't going away any time soon, but that's only if we keep investing in it. If there's more profit margin in building Predator drones and exotic weaponry than educating future generations, we have seen the decisions that has led to so far. The pussified, pathetic, and treasonous corporate bitches that are running the show do not give two shits about their fellow citizens. If they remain in power, they'll do what they have done since the 1980s: make some stupid bets, take the money, and run away while the middle class is holding the bag.

Sure, the war is simply a larger component of the cluster fuck that is our economy and society, but it's the most heinous. The loss of the thousands of soldiers who signed up to defend the Constitution didn't sign up for that shit. Just ask any one who's made it back alive.

Re:You're fucked.

[phantomfive]

That's so negative. Surely since the 1980s you can find SOMETHING that has gotten better.

More seriously, typically whenever I hear statistics like "the average ceo now makes 10 times more than they used to compared to the average worker" I want to hear an analysis of why that is. Certainly compensation methods have changed since the 1960s, are they taking it into consideration? Or once again, when you are talking about illiteracy, are you taking into consideration the huge number of immigrants from impoverished countries? Also, I don't care if someone else is rich, as long as I have enough for myself.

You do make a good point that we could have used the war money for better purposes, and I really would rather spend it on the things you mentioned, but really $300billion one way or another isn't much in such a large economy.

And I'm really looking forward to the Wikileaks release about the banks. I hope it exposes a ton of crooks and forces some banks to fail. I don't mind if other people are richer than me, but some of those bankers really have it coming, and by 'it' I don't mean another bailout.

modbombing idiots ?

[unity100]

idiots who have no knowledge of history to know that, american colonies were taking after the roman empire from their art to architecture (even kid's names) and united states government was modeled after the roman empire and senate ?

ignorance at best.

Re:modbombing idiots ?

[bmk67]

If by "roman empire" (~27BC-~1450AD) you meant "Roman republic" (~509BC- ~27BC) you'd be right on your second point. The government as formed under our Constitution in 1787 was no empire.

You could reasonably argue that the U.S. has engaged in imperialism since, but to claim that the US government was modeled after any empire is prima facie ludicrous.

Re:modbombing idiots ?

[unity100]

roman republic was an aristocratic oligarchy from the start. the only difference in between roman republic and roman empire as systems, there being one permanent emperor. and, even in times when senate appointed dictators during roman republic, it could easily be said that rome was an empire.

Let's discuss the CRIMES instead

[Steeltoe]

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:Let's discuss the CRIMES instead

[Kagura]

I just want to say thank you.

Re:Let's discuss the CRIMES instead

[Steeltoe]

Your welcome. Some of us do want to discuss and broaden our minds, not just reiterate group-think and preconceptions.

Your argument is sound and legitimate also, and I thought it deserved more attention compared to the flamatory comments using profanity to make their point, that somehow got +5 insightful points at times.

grudgonomics

[epine]

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.

[Anonymous Coward]

> 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:I may have had an unusual reaction to the leaks

[symes]

Indeed - what got me was that they asked diplomats to try and get hold of UN members credit card numbers... meaning that the US government are not in cahoots with every and all financial institution and some admin assistant in the Pentagon can't dial up someone's financial transactions on a whim. Conspiracy theorists around the world (and probably a few paranoid schizophrenics) take note!

Idea

[cheekyjohnson]

Stop being corrupt. Seriously. They won't have anything on you if you don't abuse your powers like power-hungry idiots. Don't get mad at them for exposing the truth.

All about the balance

[dcposch]

Of course the gov't has a legitimate interest in keeping certain secrets, but at the same time, letting politicians do things without even telling voters about it--let alone taking responsibility--is always going to be abused.

I wish we took a middle route. For example, things could be classified, but with the requirement that they have to be reevaluated every year. Anything the gov't does should be public as soon as it's safe. Currently, it seems like the path of least resistance is to keep anything that's classified secret indefinitely, which is dangerous and wrong.

If classified docs were actually released in a timely way, the government could build trust--if we knew that foreign policy from five years ago was reasonable, then we could be more confident that whatever is happening in secret today is reasonable. As is, we just found out through Wikileaks that Hillary Clinton ordered the state department to spy on a bunch of European diplomats (steal credit card info, frequent flyer numbers, etc). Not long ago, Wikileaks gave us video of American helicopters machine-gunning a photographer in Baghdad; he had been working for Reuters, and some soldiers mistook his camera for "a weapon".

The sad reality: Wikileaks is a necessary institution. It is a blunt instrument, but it is the only effective check we currently have on a government that often hides wrongdoing from us in the name of national security.

Yeah, we don't need to know the truth

[SmallFurryCreature]

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:Yeah, we don't need to know the truth

[lennier]

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:Yeah, we don't need to know the truth

[dbIII]

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

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.

I don't know

[cervo]

I"m all for whistle blowing in Scandals and in morally ambiguous situations (ie memos saying that some guy was tortured in a foreign country or memos detailing abuses in Iraq Prisons). But lately it seems like Wikileaks is just releasing documents to get some publicity. It is one thing to release leaks, but it is another just to release tons and tons of documents that are not necessarily related to wrong doing. The diplomatic cables are nothing special to me. I would assume every country has similar dialogs so it is no big deal. There's nothing really wrong about any of it for the most part. Maybe there are a couple of tidbits that would have been good to release about specific things. But the overall release just seems to give the us a huge disadvantage in diplomatic relations (since none of the other country documents were released as well). And for no good reason. Even the Iraq documents were too much. Specific Iraq documents showing war time torture offenses, theft of money, etc. would have been fine. But just releasing everything doesn't seem to have a good reason. When I think of whistle blowing I think of exposing illegal/immoral behavior, not just releasing everything for the sake of releasing it. If it was this manning guy I hope they throw the book at him. If he was whistle blowing then I think he still should have lost his job/etc. but maybe not so hard. Releasing every document just seems as a violation of his duty to keep classified information secret for no good reason. He should go to jail for a very long time.

In any case I don't think whistle blowers should be punished if they are really whistle blowing, but then again they probably should get some sort of light punishment. But for someone who is just releasing documents for the hell of it and nothing is classified throw the book at them. I sign a document basically saying I will keep my employer's shit confidential. If he/she is breaking the law, then I can release the stuff to the authorities and in theory I have done the right thing. In reality the authorities are often in bed with the company so I may not. But for normal stuff I wouldn't dream of releasing anything, otherwise it just violates the document I signed. Basically it is a trust thing, if you arbitrarily violate trust then you cannot be trusted with anything. You wouldn't go off airing the dirty laundry of your family usually, unless someone broke the law and even then you may still not go airing it.....

Re:I may have had an unusual reaction to the leaks

[geekymachoman]

I don't know if this happened to many other people, but when I was reading through the leaks, I thought: It's good that my government knows all this stuff and keeps track of it. I think I've grown so used to thinking of the USA as being run by fools that it was actually a bit comforting to see that they actually do research and know stuff. Too bad that doesn't stop them acting foolishly!

I seen this kind of comments here already. From my viewpoint it seems you're Government knows what they're doing when it comes to foreign 'relationships', which I suppose is because that's all it matters to them.

They already got American people by the balls, so why care for them.

if they used a ke$ha CD...

[__aatirs3925]

If they would have used a ke$ha CD it wouldn't have taken long before they would have gotten caught.

Re: Don't Ask Don't Tell Should Have Kicked In

[InsurrctionConsltant]

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.

Leaked by the US

[MichaelSmith]

Nothing I have seen so far really paints the US in a bad light. The stuff about China not supporting North Korea puts China in a position where they have to either support or drop N Korea. If anything really looks bad for the US Government it will most likely impact previous US administrations.

I think this release came from the Obama administration. I think it is an attempt to break stalemates, particularly relating to China and North Korea.

The Matrix vs. Nation-State War has begun!

[strangelovian]

This is not an attack on America, or "the international community", it is even bigger than that: it is a declaration of war on the nation-state itself. What we’re really watching here is the life and death struggle of the nation state vs. “the Matrix”. The war is heating up, and so far the Matrix seems to be winning pretty easily. If the Matrix can weather the global collapse of nation states, the world should look very different in a few decades. I’m imagining technologies like desktop manufacturing, “metacurrencies”, vertical farming, off-grid solar power and social networks allowing entirely new forms of human social organization to emerge. I'm sure the tech-savvy, "open source" readership of Slashdot can grasp the implications of all this, and will choose the winning side. The last piece of the puzzle that is still missing is an “open source religion”, which is a progressive, spiritual vision of where this is all taking us. I like to call my vision the “Eco-Matrix”, which I see as a more constructive alternative to the al Qaeda model. Maybe I’m a dreamer, but if enough people dream something it has a way of becoming a reality. I've written more about the Eco-Matrix here: http://thesingularitarian.blogspot.com/2010/11/imagining-eco-matrix.html

Re:are you kidding ?

[Blu-Ray]

"The files are all SECRET rather than TOP SECRET"
most of the cables are not even marked secret ..

"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."
again, are you kidding ????

You must have been born yesterday

[Logic Worshipper]

We hire politicians to be upfront and honest. We don't hire them to be two faced.

Wrong. We hire politicians to please the greatest number of people possible, and that requires being two-faced. Once you accept that, politics starts making sense.

Re: Don't Ask Don't Tell Should Have Kicked In

[chromozone]

"Homophobia" is just a stick for angry people like yourself to try an suppress dissent. The president of the American Psychological Association at the time when homosexuality was dropped as a disorder ("pending further research") was Nicholas Cummings. Cummings has said his profession was characterized by:

"intellectual arrogance and zealotry" and homophobia as intimidation is one of the the most pervasive techniques used to silence anyone who would disagree with the gay activist agenda..sadly, I have seen militant gay men and lesbians-- who I am certain do not represent all homosexuals, and who themselves have been the object of derision and oppression-- once gaining freedom and power, then becoming oppressors themselves."

Gender Identity Disorder of course still remains a recognized disorder (for the time being) and Manning really wasn't military service material.

The "gay suicide" epidemic is also mostly a media creation. Youth suicides are down drastically from the 80's and 90's with only a mild uptick in early 2000's. There are less than 5k suicides of people under 25 - and none of them fill out questionnaires about their sexuality before dying so the "gay suicide epidemic" is not substantiated (and a video that recently went viral showed a 14 yr old boy at a school board meeting lamenting
the "gay holocaust" of 6 million gay suicide deaths a year - preposterous of course). Some have tried to use (as evidence) half-way house and drug rehab surveys that suggested homosexuals in the surveys had more suicidal ideation but that was a small sample of an extreme population.

As for the "gay linguists" - they were discharged before even finishing training and were not even translators yet.

As a Congressional Research Service report made clear, homosexuals discharged from the military have decreased in numbers and most of the homosexuals discharged (almost 100% "honorably") "out" themselves most of the time because they want to get out of the military.

DADT - The Law And Military Policy On Same Sex Behavior"
  http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/150775.pdf

Re: Don't Ask Don't Tell Should Have Kicked In

[thesandtiger]

No, this is evidence that "people with mental health issues" shouldn't be given access to confidential materials. It has NOTHING to do with don't ask don't tell and EVERYTHING to do with someone who is (for whatever reason) likely mentally ill.

Gender Identity Disorder *can* lead to erratic behavior and other issues that would make someone unfit for military service. However, so could any number of other issues that have nothing to do with sexual orientation or gender identity. There are many people who are gender dysphoric, yet have robust mental health and who, with treatment that addresses the issue (usually transitioning to their target gender/social presentation) don't have more issues than many people have from any number of other issues.

Ditto for sexual orientation - in fact, I'll say that a culture that demonizes people just because of the gender of the consenting adults they are attracted to probably makes things RATHER worse. I can't imagine what it would be like to have to lie about who I am (swap the gender pronoun of my partners, for example) or hide who I am - but I can bet that it must be incredibly fucking difficult.

Frankly, the fact that you frame your entire argument as if it supports don't ask don't tell says to me that you have an axe to grind with homosexuals serving in the military, period and this is just more grist for that particular mill of yours.

Anyway, the idea is that people who are unreliable - for WHATEVER underlying reason - should not be put into positions where that can be an issue. The place where we disagree is that you seem to think that being homosexual or transgender in and of itself makes someone unreliable, and I think that's absolute horseshit.

Because History has Value, and So Does Truth

[Oxford_Comma_Lover]

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

There are only two scenarios that come to mind. (1) the later of Fifty years after the event or one year after the diplomat's death, or (2) when those views seriously inform the government on a position which later becomes an area of national controversy where there is legitimate reason to believe the government is deceiving or has deceived its people.

In the first case, releasing the information preserves history. Our history books are wrong--all it takes is one look at witness's statements in a crime and one look at what actually happened, or one listen to pro-Palestine and pro-Israel folks on the same peace treaty, to realize that everything is greatly colored by one's point of view. The more information we have about an event--especially the kind of event considered in these cables--the better we know what our world has been.

In the second case, the government is attempting to hoodwink its people. The people's first defense should be, if they already have evidence to show a government cover-up, some kind of legal action for the equivalent of discovery, but more carefully regulated.

Re: Don't Ask Don't Tell Should Have Kicked In

[thesandtiger]

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?

We're talking about diplomats, not politicians

[Oxford_Comma_Lover]

> We hire politicians to be upfront and honest. We don't hire them to be two faced.

Here, we're talking about diplomats, not politicians. Diplomats have to be political, but they're not what we think of as politicians in the US, because we think of politicians as presidents and Congressmen.

And presidents and Congressmen don't get elected based on statesmanship, truth-telling, or even (directly) political connections sufficient to get an appointment (like ambassadors).

Presidents and Congressment get elected on the basis, primarily, of being able to avoid saying anything substantive--if you can avoid saying anything substantive, then it is harder to attack you. And attack ads are the most effective kind. It's a horrible fact, one that does much to defeat the ideals of democracy at the heart of our government, but it is a fact.

Fortunately, a lot of Congressmen (and the President) are decent people, even if one disagrees with them. They are decent people, but that's not what they get elected for.

i love it

[luther349]

wikileaks is the savor of the usa. they expose are government for the duchbages they truly are hopefully enough to the point the sheeple get these 2 party out of power and start over. and we start electing people we believe can do the job again installed of 1 of 2 of the same type just spouting different lies. of course of korea keeps up what there doing we are looking at world war 3 anyways. rember this is how the first 2 started it was alot of different country's in fighting. we are blowing up sand people and the korens blowing up themselfs again.cuba and the sand people are in a never ending civel war and we are involved. people call the usa world police but when you try to police the world it only makes thre problems your problem and wala world war.

The leak could also start a war.

[Oxford_Comma_Lover]

> 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:The leak could also start a war.

[The End Of Days]

The leak can't start a war. Violent people in a position of power will start the war. Being caught being a shithead isn't a valid justification for mass murder, despite your attempt to somehow say it is.

Re:The leak could also start a war.

[Oxford_Comma_Lover]

> Being caught being a shithead isn't a valid justification for mass murder, despite your attempt to somehow say it is.

I said nothing of the kind. That is an unjustified insult of immense proportions.

Re:The leak could also start a war.

[The End Of Days]

You are correct and I apologize. I conflated several different posts throughout this story and had no reason for that reply to you.

Sorry.

Re:Can't wait for wikileaks next target

[techsoldaten]

As the leader of bumfuckistan, I resent you characterizing my recent actions in such a manner. Use a diplomatic cable next time you wish to speak out against the glorious leadership of my regime.

Re: Don't Ask Don't Tell Should Have Kicked In

[superflit]

I feel ashamed about the wikileaks.

I was a old time supporter but now not any more.

What we are seeing are true face cable that mean to be confidential.

And the world still is a ugly world. And US is not better or worse from any $country.

The problem is now that it will look that US has a lot of prejudice and bad mouthing while DictarshiT countries will seem 'nice'.

I do not believe US is a Saint, but it is the Less Evil, and when the shi---t cames the world always call for us.
(haiti,Earthquakes,etc)

The funny thing is...

[JonChance]

Not a single word of denial from the government

The Diplomat Goes To Work

[SumterLiving]

I'm going to work tomorrow as a diplomat like some /.'er suggest . Transparent is the word of the day. So here will be my first diplomatic words to boss man. "Boss, you're a hairy ape who is dumber than a box of rocks. You should just resign your position and let the goldfish in the front lobby take over." I'm sure these diplomatic responses will do wonders for our relationship and I'll get that raise I've been wanting. I might even try it on my wife when she makes at one special dish that I really don't like too much but is filling. "He babe this food is terrible". And of course I'm sure every Diplomat in this world would benefit greatly from this new sense of truth and openness.

Clinton Said

[Greyfox]

"We regret that these documents were leaked..."

Maybe we should be regretting all that shit our diplomats were talking about world leaders, instead. Seems like that might be more productive.

Re:Clinton Said

[Kazoo the Clown]

Yeah, that and regretting they gave illegal wiretaps by AT&T immunity from prosecution.

ha ???

[unity100]

ironically the perpetrators of this filth, are not those 'eurofag socialists'. they are precisely the 'american freemarketers'.

What happened to Freedoms of Speach and Press?

[OldHawk777]

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:What happened to Freedoms of Speach and Press?

[Dcnjoe60]

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.

Wikileaks is not a US citizen or even a US corporation, so why should it/they be protected under the US Constitution?

Re: Fire Hillary, the buck stops with her

[MrData]

Everyone is blaming the WikiLeaks guy, PFC Manning, etc. But its is the job of the State Department to make sure it's cables are secret. Yeah, I know she is not the actual computer nerd responsible for State's IT department, however she, and she alone is ultimately responsible for this mess. You see, the government knew PFC Manning had the State Department's cables months before this mess blew up from his pending court martial (http://www.bradleymanning.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/Charge-Sheet-redacted-Manning.pdf) .

AND THE STATE DEPARTMENT HAS DONE NOTHING TO RECTIFY THE SITUATION !

Hillary ... buh-bye !!!

country?

[currently_awake]

What country are you from? Your opinion of politicians doesn't bear any resemblance to any I know.

Re: Don't Ask Don't Tell Should Have Kicked In

[magus_melchior]

An argument can be made that Manning should have been denied security clearance for being unstable, but what does that have to do with DADT?

I can probably find a few thousand violent, unstable men who are just as unworthy of security clearance and yet quite straight. I can probably find a few thousand homosexuals with whom you could trust the secrets of every nation on this planet.

My point being, you're injecting DADT in an argument where it does not belong, without sufficient proof to show that "gays are unstable, hence that's another point against Manning having security clearance". Also known as a non sequitur fallacy.

YES YESH I CONFESS

[unity100]

it is appalling that you see 'confessions' that you are wanting to see. it seems my response is irrelevant. i bet you saw a few more confessions in this post too. suit yourself.

No. Wikileaks is Israel.

[Fantastic Lad]

Wow. A perceptive person among a flock of the blind. Good for you. That's a very hard thing to achieve these days.

But I would suggest that you are off just a bit. (Seeing as the U.S. isn't managed by the U.S.)

As always, it is profitable to apply the age-old wisdom of asking; "Who Benefits?"

Wikileaks is Israel.

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2010/11/27/gordon-duff-wikileak-predictions-sticking-my-neck-out-2/

-FL

Really? We're all going to fall for this?

[Fantastic Lad]

Come on! Is EVERYBODY asleep today? The spy rings are not a fantasy; they're documented right out there in the open. The blackmail via child prostitution rings in Washington are not a fantasy; they're documented right out there in the open. The Zionist machinations to manipulate the U.S. and the world to achieve their own ends are not a fantasy; TONS of that shit is right out there in the open, documented. Just because it's done at a whisper doesn't make it not there. Just because the term, "Sayanem" has been scrubbed from Wikipedia doesn't make it not there.

For goodness sake. The Israeli press even says it right out loud:

As always, it is profitable to apply the age-old wisdom of asking; "Who Benefits?"

Wikileaks is Israel.

There is a TON of information available on this subject, but you are not going to hear it on your TV. The article below summed it up before it happened. . .

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2010/11/27/gordon-duff-wikileak-predictions-sticking-my-neck-out-2/

-FL

Actions have consequences

[Dcnjoe60]

You say that Wikileaks isn't putting anyone at risk, but actions have consequences. If tensions in the Middle East escalate because the views of the Saudi Government (and others) has been made public with regards to Iran, isn't that putting people at risk? Sure the Iranian government may have already been aware, but what about the people on the street? What if some extremest uses this to say that the Saudis are in bed with the West and plan attacks against the Saudis? What about Yemen? The government was quietly helping the US, even though the people are definitely anti-US. Now that the information is leaked, how much support will the US get from the Yemen government? Will the government still continue to help or will it follow the will of its people? China though North Korea was getting to big for its britches. However, given that being made public and now the tension between North and South Korea, will China reinforce its ties with the North to safe face?

Actions have consequences and those consequences affect the lives of people abroad and in the US.

Re:Actions have consequences

[Xest]

But what if tensions in the middle east are resolved? what if Iran stands down now that it knows it's neighbours want it destroyed when it believed it's threat was from the US who has in fact been resisting attempts? What if North Korea stands down because it now knows China isn't quite the ally it thought it was?

You can't push "what if" scenarios, because you can equally say well what if a continuation of lack of openness makes the world worse? "What if" works both ways, it's stupid to use that argument for not doing something.

Re:Actions have consequences

[Dcnjoe60]

So are you saying that we should ignore what ifs? It seems we did that and some bad people flew some planes into the WTC. What ifs are very important in the real world.

Of course, there should be some probability to the what if. So, in the case of telling Iran that their neighbours don't like them, what is the more likely scenario, 1) they will act negatively towards them or 2), as you propose they will stand down? Same question regarding North Korea and the revelation about China?

Just because it may be "stupid" to use a what if argument for not doing something, doesn't mean that doing it isn't stupid, too.

Re:Actions have consequences

[Xest]

No, I'm saying using a "what if" as a premise for an argument when there is an equal and opposite "what if" that perfectly counterbalances that argument then that argument is pointless because it only shows half the picture.

Your suggestion was that the leaks will make things worse, but you simply do not know that, they could equally make things better.

Re:Actions have consequences

[Dcnjoe60]

Are you saying that the leaks regarding Iran and North Korea have a 50/50 chance of reducing the conflicts there vs escalating them? If so, then your argument is correct. However, most believe that is not the case and things will escalate, in which case, the leaks are more likely to produce harm and a negative "what if" is the more likely scenario.

These leaks aren't happening in a vacuum. They can and do effect world events and peoples attitudes. Therefore, it's not a simple heads or tails coin flip probability.

As much as we want things to be simple, they are not and it is naive to assume that actions do not have consequences. Good actions/deeds may bring about good, however, bad actions/deeds, most likely will bring about bad.

Outside the US, there is not a lot of trust of the US. These leaks flame that distrust. More distrust means more unrest and less cooperation. Now, not only is the US involved, but other countries are too. For instance, the people of Yemen are anti-US. The government of Yemen has secretly been helping the US in fighting terrorism.

Now, that the news is out, will people in Yemen be as supportive of their leaders? Will it fuel the opposition party? If it fuels it enough, will there be a change in leadership and will that change in leadership be as supportive of US policy in the area? You can hope that it would all be for the good, but you would most likely be wrong. The action of releasing the Yemen documents will have negative consequences. The same is true for most of the others.

As I said, actions have consequences.

Re:Actions have consequences

[Xest]

"However, most believe that is not the case and things will escalate, in which case, the leaks are more likely to produce harm and a negative "what if" is the more likely scenario."

Most believe? really? I suggest most don't. The only real noise suggesting it will make things worse has come from US government itself and US conservative commentators. Meanwhile, in the rest of the world, "most" don't seem to believe things will be worse. North Korea is on the brink of war before the leaks even started after it shelled South Korea and intelligence reports suggest it plans to go further, a response to which South Korea stated would be targetted missile strikes. It really cannot get much worse there. Sorry but your theory that most people think it will get worse, and hence, that is the most likely scenario is completely and utterly unsubstantiated.

"Outside the US, there is not a lot of trust of the US. These leaks flame that distrust. More distrust means more unrest and less cooperation. Now, not only is the US involved, but other countries are too. For instance, the people of Yemen are anti-US. The government of Yemen has secretly been helping the US in fighting terrorism."

Indeed, and why do you think there is so much distrust of the US? precisely because it has been doing everything from spying at the UN which is a gross breach of international trust, through to carrying out covert attacks on sovereign nations. What do you think will increase trust in the US more, continuation of these things, or the US stopping to think about the consequences of it's actions and standing down from such things a bit more? Distrust in the US exists precisely because of things like extraordinary rendition, performed and uncovered well before the Wikileaks leaks- distrust in the US exists precisely because it's lack of transparency, it's theory that it can do what it wants regardless of what the rest of the world thinks.

"Now, that the news is out, will people in Yemen be as supportive of their leaders? Will it fuel the opposition party? If it fuels it enough, will there be a change in leadership and will that change in leadership be as supportive of US policy in the area? You can hope that it would all be for the good, but you would most likely be wrong. The action of releasing the Yemen documents will have negative consequences. The same is true for most of the others."

It depends, if the US continues to act in a way in which it upsets the citizens of these countries, then yes things will get worse, if the US instead learns it's lesson and steps back from such actions then things will improve.

You clearly have a horrendously US centric view of the world, so here's a thought excercise for you. You're implying that the US should be able to carry out covert strikes in Yemen, because if they weren't covert there would be uproar amongst the population of that country, what justification do you believe exists for US priorities in Yemen to be over and above the will of the population? Turn it around and think about it- if you found out the Yemeni government had been carrying out covert killings of American citizens on US soil, would your reaction really be "Oh well that's okay, they're only doing what they think is right for the world- it doesn't matter that they just blew up someone I went to school with, they know best!"? That's the reaction you're expecting the Yemeni people to have. One might have thought 9/11 was a wake up call for the US, in that it happened because a bunch of Muslims were kind of fucked off that the US had spent the last few decades using their country as a playground with the Russians- it's a shame people like yourself recognise actions have consequences, but are completely and utterly blind to the fact that those consequences only occur because of previous US actions.

Your world view simple seems just so utterly naive and US-centric, that you think it's okay that the US should be able to covertly assassinate citizens of a foreign state in their own soil, and you think that it'

Re:Actions have consequences

[Dcnjoe60]

I stopped reading after your accusation that I have such a US centric view of things. If you only knew the truth. Of course the whole notion of truth is problem different in my culture and yours.

Okay, I lied, I did read the end of your post, too. The problem with people like Julian Assange is that he is fixated on America, when most of the rest of us are more concerned with where our next meal will come from or whether a family member or loved one will be there tomorrow for standing up for those things that are truly important.

If the US is corrupt and hypocritical as you suggest, it is not because of their leaders but their culture is that way. Their leaders are just a reflection of their people and there fore all of the leaks by Julian Assange will not change that. Those leaks, on the other hand have the real potential to disrupt the lives of the rest of us.

Re:Actions have consequences

[Xest]

"The problem with people like Julian Assange is that he is fixated on America, when most of the rest of us are more concerned with where our next meal will come from or whether a family member or loved one will be there tomorrow for standing up for those things that are truly important."

Do you not realise the irony of this in relation to your comment you don't have a US centric view of things? Have you forgotten how many non-US leaks there were prior to the recent ones? Just because the US happened to be the source of the largest, most prominent leaks does not mean there is a fixation on the US. Why do you have that view? precisely because you have such a US centric view of the world- you think it's all about the US.

"If the US is corrupt and hypocritical as you suggest, it is not because of their leaders but their culture is that way. Their leaders are just a reflection of their people and there fore all of the leaks by Julian Assange will not change that. Those leaks, on the other hand have the real potential to disrupt the lives of the rest of us."

It doesn't matter if it's the politicians or the people, the US needs to change, and all other methods of trying to demonstrate this to them have failed. Will such drastic action as this work? probably not, but people aren't just going to roll over and continue to let the US commit abuses all over the world so if they're not going to change, they'll have to continue to suffer this sort of embarassment- it's entirely their choice.

Re:Actions have consequences

[Dcnjoe60]

Recognizing that what happens in the US and what US policy is impacts the rest of us is not a US centric view of things, but instead is a pragmatic view. Ignoring that relationship is exactly what allows the US to be so arrogant. At the same time, ignoring humanitarian aid that comes from the US, whether through their government, or corporations, or directly from their people does not allow for a meaningful discussion.

Does their vaccines justify their aggression in Iraq, no, of course not. But, neither does their aggression in Iraq negate the good that comes from their country. And, yes, I know there are strings attached, at least very often. But, when a mothers child is dying from something that could be easily treated in the West, those strings are a small price to pay.

If you really believe that trying to embarrass the US is the best way to effect change in policy, then that's fine. However, it has been my experience that embarrassment only leads to knee-jerk reactions that usually exacerbate the real or underlying problems.

A bully does not make long lasting changes to their behavior because they were embarrassed. Sure, it might be a small change immediately, but ultimately they result to their former, more comfortable behavior. Look at how the american people first changed their behavior after the WTC attacks and now ten years later, they are resisting increased security measures (that are still pretty mild as compared to the rest of the world). Their Obama was elected President on a platform of change, but now, the people don't want to put in the effort that such change will take.

These "leaks" will only cause embarrassment to the US, they won't cause change, at least not real change. In the meantime, they have the potential to cause change elsewhere in the world that can cause unrest and instability. These lead to real people suffering.

The US has a history of "leaks" that have caused change. There were the Washington Papers against the Vietnam War, there was their Watergate. But each of these was very specific about what the purpose was and what the change sought was. Wikileaks used to follow this pattern, but lately, has just released hoards of documents and letting the chips fall where they may. That is why I say it is irresponsible and am concerned about the negative consequences of their actions.

If Wikileaks wants to fight injustices in the world, that is great, but the way you do is not to throw 250,000 unrelated documents against the wall to see what sticks. Nor is it the way to report that you have new leaks which will destroy the banking system. The only purpose of that is to draw attention to one's self and not the real problems. Causing instability in various parts of the world is one way to bring about change. It's usually referred to as a revolution. It might even be justified, but the way Wikileaks is going about it is irresponsible. I am not saying that Wikileaks is always this way. Very often, they report on specific abuses or corruption. But in these two specific instances they have chosen to just throw the stuff at the wall approach. Even, internally,many of their own staff have reported unease with what is going on.

For all of us, actions have consequences and just because we can do something does not mean it is the right thing to do. There is a general opinion that the US should be held accountable for it's actions, why would that not be the same for Wikileaks?

Assange threatens the lives of innocent civilians.

[elucido]

It does not matter if its a few hundred, a few thousand or a few million. The cable leaks reveal the identity of intelligence sources. These intelligence sources are innocent civilians whose lives are now in danger or ruined because of Assanges decision to leak.

In some cases their families lives are also ruined. Men, women and children who will have to change their identity and live on the run, or never see one another again, because foreign governments around the world now know they worked with the US government.

What did they ever do to Assange? If Assange's leaks theaten hundeds of lives then it's not worth it. I suspect these leaks cause even more damage because now people will be afraid to work with the US government and afraid to surrender out of fear that someday soon in the future Julian Assange will reveal their identity.

Revealing the identity of an intelligence source is one of the worst things you can ever do. It's one of the worst forms of snitching there is when you claim to be on the side of civilians then you have to be on the side of intelligence sources, not enemy combatants and soldiers.

Assange is making himself into an enemy combatant. He is passively assisting the enemy by revealing intelligence sources.

And if it's true that intelligence agencies around the world already know this and then some then it further diminishes the effectiveness of the intelligence agencies who wont be able to find anyone who will want to work with them. It will reach a point where people will rather die than work with US Intelligence.

They aren't all civilians

[elucido]

Yes theres 100,000 dead as a result of the war. Those 100,000 are mostly enemy combatants, terrorists, fighters, and some of them are civilians.

The people Julian Assange is putting are risk are 100% civilian. It's not the same.

Here is proof (directly from the cables)

[elucido]

"3. (S) The Baku businessman is a UK-educated engineer from a
prominent Pre-Revolution Isfahan family, and formerly owned a
large factory in Iran. He is a former national fencing
champion of Iran. former President of the Iran Fencing
Association, and Vice-President of an Azerbaijan sports
association. He has been based in Baku for more than ten
years, working primarily as a sub-contractor to BP and the
Cape Industrial Services company. While his oil services
company includes an insulation division that may be in
competition with INSULTEC, source has provided "inside"
information on many other Iranian issues (including
comprehensive data on the status of new Iranian oil refinery
construction) that does not relate to his private interests
in any way.

4. (S) Note: A quick google check revealed several companies
with the name INSULTEC in the title - these may or not be
affiliated. Based on the information provided by source
(currently in Iran, where he frequently travels), one
possible candidate could be "INSULTEC Chitral Ltd." End
Note.
http://cablegate.wikileaks.org/cable...09BAKU179.html

This all but names the intelligence source. How much more evidence do you need that Julian Assange is putting lives at risk? READ THE DOCUMENTS!

Re:Here is proof (directly from the cables)

[The Dodger]

Christ, that guy's family back in Iran are fucked.

If I find out where Assange is, my first call will be to the local US embassy to let them know, in the hope they have a CIA wet team handy to deal with him.

Re:Here is proof (directly from the cables)

[Xest]

So like I said, why did the US refuse to point out any information that should be redacted when it had the opportunity too? Either it doesn't care about the threat, or the threat is not substantial.

It doesn't matter what's contained, the point is that if there really is any danger to anyone, then the US refused to aid wikileaks in redacting it when they had the opportunity choosing instead to let them push ahead with full disclosure.

Re:Here is proof (directly from the cables)

[elucido]

So like I said, why did the US refuse to point out any information that should be redacted when it had the opportunity too? Either it doesn't care about the threat, or the threat is not substantial.

It doesn't matter what's contained, the point is that if there really is any danger to anyone, then the US refused to aid wikileaks in redacting it when they had the opportunity choosing instead to let them push ahead with full disclosure.

Why do you think US authorities have been trying to contact Julian Assange? Assange wanted to do the leak so its his job to do this not the US Government.

Re:Here is proof (directly from the cables)

[Xest]

No, his job, is to leak materials, that's what Wikileaks is about. Only the US government is claiming people are at threat- how do you know in your example the guy even has family in Iran who are at threat? It's for the US to tell Wikileaks which reports represent a threat to life if they are to make such a claim in the first place- if they make that claim, and have the opportunity to save lives, but do not take it, then they are at fault.

Re:I may have had an unusual reaction to the leaks

[fishbowl]

Well, at a minimum, someone *in* the government is being less than diligent with regard to secrecy.

The fact that people insist on referring to these messages as "cables" is a strong indicator of how out of touch certain party are. It's too much to expect them to use any kind of modern security measures, or even to know about them. The security of every one of these documents was compromised upon being committed to any medium in clear text.

The identity of an intelligence source is here

[elucido]

http://cablegate.wikileaks.org/cable/2009/03/09BAKU179.html

Thank your hero Julian Assange for putting this businessmans life at risk.
I don't know how you can be any more specific.

Re:The identity of an intelligence source is here

[mvdwege]

No, thank the embassy personnel playing spy and violating all rules of Operational Security.

Really? Putting the information and the personally indentifying information on the informant in the very same document?

Mart

Re:The identity of an intelligence source is here

[elucido]

No, thank the embassy personnel playing spy and violating all rules of Operational Security.

Really? Putting the information and the personally indentifying information on the informant in the very same document?

Mart

Maybe thats why the document was classified

Re:The identity of an intelligence source is here

[mvdwege]

To hide incompetence and stupidity? Absolutely.

Mart

It's even worse. The Baku Businessman

[elucido]

"3. (S) The Baku businessman is a UK-educated engineer from a
prominent Pre-Revolution Isfahan family, and formerly owned a
large factory in Iran. He is a former national fencing
champion of Iran. former President of the Iran Fencing
Association, and Vice-President of an Azerbaijan sports
association. He has been based in Baku for more than ten
years, working primarily as a sub-contractor to BP and the
Cape Industrial Services company. While his oil services
company includes an insulation division that may be in
competition with INSULTEC, source has provided "inside"
information on many other Iranian issues (including
comprehensive data on the status of new Iranian oil refinery
construction) that does not relate to his private interests
in any way.

4. (S) Note: A quick google check revealed several companies
with the name INSULTEC in the title - these may or not be
affiliated. Based on the information provided by source
(currently in Iran, where he frequently travels), one
possible candidate could be "INSULTEC Chitral Ltd." End
Note.
http://cablegate.wikileaks.org/cable...09BAKU179.html

The Baku Businessman document here

[elucido]

"3. (S) The Baku businessman is a UK-educated engineer from a
prominent Pre-Revolution Isfahan family, and formerly owned a
large factory in Iran. He is a former national fencing
champion of Iran. former President of the Iran Fencing
Association, and Vice-President of an Azerbaijan sports
association. He has been based in Baku for more than ten
years, working primarily as a sub-contractor to BP and the
Cape Industrial Services company. While his oil services
company includes an insulation division that may be in
competition with INSULTEC, source has provided "inside"
information on many other Iranian issues (including
comprehensive data on the status of new Iranian oil refinery
construction) that does not relate to his private interests
in any way.

4. (S) Note: A quick google check revealed several companies
with the name INSULTEC in the title - these may or not be
affiliated. Based on the information provided by source
(currently in Iran, where he frequently travels), one
possible candidate could be "INSULTEC Chitral Ltd." End
Note.
http://cablegate.wikileaks.org/cable...09BAKU179.html

Re:Clinton, wake me when Val Plume Leak is procecu

[swilly]

I think you mean Valerie Plame.

Nobody was killed as a result of that leak, only her identity as a CIA operative was revealed.

The identity of the leaker was Richard Armitage, who managed to get immunity from prosecution for cooperating with the investigation (which did result in a perjury and obstruction conviction for Scooter Libby, who I suspect was a fall guy). He claims that he didn't know she was an operative, and that the prosecution was lenient because he was forthcoming. I, however, suspect that it went something like this:

Prosecutor: Mr Armitage, in exchange for your cooperation, no charges will be filed against you.

Armitage: Sounds great, I'll cooperate.

Prosecutor: Do you know who leaked Valerie Plames identity?

Armitage: I did, sucker!

Worthless argument, here's why

[dbIII]

but can also serve as the spark that sets of far worse than a diplomatic crisis between other nations

Consider how the current Israeli government has been caught out with members of death squad pretending to be citizens of allied nations which now still allied with Israel. That should put things in perspective that a "spark" isn't going to do much at all to diplomatic relations anywhere unless it's around the size of an exploding nuke especially since the USA is liked far more than Israel so can get away with a lot more without the "damage" you imagine will happen.

Re:more is coming from wikileaks... and it good.

[shutdown -p now]

Multiple tyrants are better then one benevolent ruler?

What's benevolent about US rule overseas? It may be a democracy on its own soil, but outside of it, it has a proven track record of supporting dictatorships with known massive human rights violations (e.g. Pinochet, Pahlavi), and overthrowing democratic regimes (e.g. Allende).

Looks Like A False Flag Operation...

[littlewink]

managed by U.S. intelligence. Nothing truly significant has been released with the exception of information boosting the U.S. viewpoint and some interesting perspective on Chinese-N. Korean diplomacy.

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.

Re:I may have had an unusual reaction to the leaks

[Dr. Spork]

Interesting point! I didn't think of it that way. Of course, I doubt that Angela Merkel's credit card, that she uses on Amazon.de, for example, has "Angela Merkel" as the account name. I really don't know how it works, but I can imagine that governments have a rotating set of pseudonym accounts for the private use of diplomats. So maybe it's not a matter of having the records, but a matter of knowing which records match which diplomats.

Re:WL is run by the CIA

[kromagnon]

Exactly, have people stopped to think ? Simply that the leaks are for a reason as 'controlled opposition'.

http://mycatbirdseat.com/2010/11/gordon-duff-wikileaks-a-touch-of-assange-and-the-stench-of-aipac/

<u>WHAT WILL BE IN WIKILEAKS?</u>
If dual citizens who make up much of the Pentagon&rsquo;s leadership are working with Israel or AIPAC to formulate Wikileaks, as seems to be the case, then the upcoming leak will serve a pro-Israeli agenda, even if it damages the United States, as other Wikileaks have. These are Israeli agenda items:

Discrediting Obama foreign policy in order to weaken the president&rsquo;s influence with congress to push for a halt on new settlements in Palestine and the forced removal of Islamic property owners.

- Accusations involving Turkey, now feuding with Israel over the killing of Turkish citizens on the Mavi Marmara, now recognized as a purely humanitarian mission. These accusations against Turkey may include weapons being supplied to terrorists in Iraq, a fanciful abuse of reality. What will not be reported, if this story is &ldquo;leaked&rdquo; either through Wikileaks or the other Israeli sources, &ldquo;Debka&rdquo;..&rdquo;Stratfor&rdquo;..&rdquo;FamilySecurityMatters.org&rdquo;..or the infamous &ldquo;IsraelNationalNews.com&rdquo; is Israel&rsquo;s 40 years of complicity in the very acts they now accuse Turkey of.

-More importantly, is the issue of blaming Turkey for the actions of the terrorist group, PKK, long funded by Israel and now claimed to be allied to Al Qaeda, is vital to Israel&rsquo;s strategy against Turkey.

- Expect Pakistan to be hit, as usual. An Islamic nuclear power with a top rate million man army that outclasses Israel hands down, Pakistan, primary competitor for US aid dollars, a country that actually has agreements with the United States and real troops fighting alongside Americans, will get their usual Wikileaks bashing

Re:WL is run by the CIA

[kromagnon]

what are you rambling about ? If you have an opinion on what Americans think, start a thread about that.

OTH, if you have anything to contribute aboutabout wikileaks being a CIA, mossad operation come on out and spill it

Wrong plans

[SmallFurryCreature]

These invasion plans, approved by the senate, are specific for Holland because it holds the international supreme court. If ever an American is put on trial for war-crimes, the US will invade an allied friendly nation with full military force.

That says a LOT about the US of A.

only 226 documents published

[tlund]

The post claims that a quarter million diplomatic documents published to the world, but in reality, only 226 (out of 251287) documents have actually been published so far.

Re:more is coming from wikileaks... and it good.

[nedlohs]

Killing lots of Nazis is clearly good for the world in the long run.

Re:more is coming from wikileaks... and it good.

[Wyatt Earp]

The Aral Sea would like to argue the point.

Name one major body of water in the US that has been shrunken to 10% of it's original size and is an unmitigated economic and environmental disaster of that scale. Tulare Lake in the western US would be the closest thing, but the scope and destruction of the Aral Sea dwarfs it

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aral_Sea

Or the Soviet Union's 239 Nuclear Explosions for the National Economy.

Or hell, compare Chernobyl to American nuclear "disasters" like Three Mile Island.

Re:Of course you confess.

[unity100]

of course. and in addition, i admit that sarah palin is the greatest, smartest most intelligent human being this civilization has produced.

Why this happened to us

[cyberCMDR]

Wikileaks claims some sense of moral superiority by releasing this data to show us America's flaws, but this is only possible due to our strengths. We have a free and open society, and value free speech. If WikiLeaks released this level of documentation from Russia, Iran, or some other more repressive society, their people would be dying or disappearing. If they are truly interested in making the world better by releasing classified information, they should release Iranian documents on their nuclear program or Russian documents showing their government's organized repression of dissidents and open press. But they won't, because they want to remain alive.

YES YES !!!

[unity100]

im doing that. well spotted !! how could i not see myself !!! i confess i confess !!

Re:YES YES !!!

[unity100]

eh ? nothing else you want me to confess to ?

New Poll

[DaleCooper82]

That would be good poll: "What I wish was "wikileaked" next?"

I'd vote for Area-51 and Rosewell :)

Meanwhile, back in reality

[dbIII]

Your rambling about "secret pardons" is shown for the ignorance it is by a simple google search. Try a search for "pardon bush iran conta" and the top link is link to the New York Times with the heading "Bush Pardons 6 in Iran Affair, Aborting a Weinberger Trial". You really have no clue so please stop pretending I'm making things up.
Time to throw this back in your face after your accusation about me making things up over the pardons - "It's little inaccuracies like that which makes most of everything else you say seem so unbelievable".
Your action of calling for the death of somebody that committed a relatively trivial crime and then pretending you didn't sickens me. I suggest less mindless cheerleading and less of a royalist attitude and something more closely resembling adult behaviour. That "might makes right" attitude is why we have problems with countries that practice it, such as China and Iran. You may pretend to be a patriot by cheering on your political team right or wrong and calling for the deaths of those that embarrass the state but you are really pushing to create a little piece of Iran at home (complete with revisionist history when reality is inconvenient). As for the "everyone else", you'll find that you are a rarity and almost everyone in the entire western world values the rule of law over the rule of force.

Re:Meanwhile, back in reality

[sumdumass]

Your rambling about "secret pardons" is shown for the ignorance it is by a simple google search. Try a search for "pardon bush iran conta" and the top link is link to the New York Times with the heading "Bush Pardons 6 in Iran Affair, Aborting a Weinberger Trial". You really have no clue so please stop pretending I'm making things up.
Time to throw this back in your face after your accusation about me making things up over the pardons - "It's little inaccuracies like that which makes most of everything else you say seem so unbelievable".

And did you read those links you found? It was pardons for Caspar Weinberger, Elliott Abrams, obert McFarlane; and Duane Clarridge, Alan Fiers, and Clair George. North and Poindexter WERE NOT PARDONED.

Your action of calling for the death of somebody that committed a relatively trivial crime and then pretending you didn't sickens me.

What the fuck are you talking about?

I suggest less mindless cheerleading and less of a royalist attitude and something more closely resembling adult behaviour

The death penalty is the strictest punishment available under the law, Getting or stating you want the strictest punishment applied is not cheerleader at all. It's hoping that someone get in the most trouble possible for the crime they committed. And again, no the crime Manning did is not even close to Iran Contra in scope, effect, or available punishments.

That "might makes right" attitude is why we have problems with countries that practice it, such as China and Iran.

You are showing your delusions again. It's not might makes right, it's the punishment under the law and Manning new all about it well before ho chose on his own free will, to put the lives of his fellow service members in danger by releasing the information to foreigners including the enemies he was fighting.

You may pretend to be a patriot by cheering on your political team right or wrong and calling for the deaths of those that embarrass the state but you are really pushing to create a little piece of Iran at home (complete with revisionist history when reality is inconvenient).

Nope, I'm simply calling for the law to be enforced as written. And I'm not really any different then you, you seem to be foaming so bad you are imagining things about Oliver North and kin. Manning knew the penalty that was possible and he should have to face it.

As for the "everyone else", you'll find that you are a rarity and almost everyone in the entire western world values the rule of law over the rule of force.

Does the Espionage act say the penalty for giving information to the enemy in a time of war is death? I'm pretty sure it does. And don't get caught up on formal declarations of war because the war powers act specifically define what we are doing as a war. Manning knew what he was doing, he now should have to pay the piper, It's that simple. I'm sorry you don't like that but from our conversation, it seems that there is a lot you don't like. As I said before, this isn't a problem with the rest of the world, it's a problem with you.

Re:Meanwhile, back in reality

[dbIII]

What the fuck are you talking about?

The post I fucking replied to in the first place. What a pointless waste of time talking to a deluded piece of shit. Giving Iran and fucking Hezbolla stuff to kill Americans is OK in your book but something that might get make Hillary Clinton accountable for giving illegal orders is not? Laws for the weak but the mighty run free? You sicken me and you are the exact opposite of the man you attempt to portray yourself as.

Re:Meanwhile, back in reality

[sumdumass]

The post I fucking replied to in the first place. What a pointless waste of time talking to a deluded piece of shit.

You replied to a bunch of posts. I'm not even sure if you know who wrote it and are attributing something to me or not. Fuck, I mean it's not like I haven't asked you to cite the crap you were referring to before and now you cannot explain this simple little task or point to a statement I made? Are you deliberately attempting to be obtuse in some effort to conceal your own ignorance or something?

Giving Iran and fucking Hezbolla stuff to kill Americans is OK in your book but something that might get make Hillary Clinton accountable for giving illegal orders is not?

I never said it was ok, I said there was/is a difference between the two and there is. Do I need to list those differences out in bullet points and draw you a fucking picture? We weren't in armed conflict with Iran and Hezbullah at the time the arms transfers were made. And even if we were, the administration has the right under the constitution and several laws to make that choice. Manning does not have any right to make that choice and swore he wouldn't.

There are processes and procedures that are in place to notify authorities is a government official or superior officer is doing something wrong or illegal and if Manning would have followed those processes first- he wouldn't be in this situation. But because he failed to take the proper action and in turn gave secrets to the enemy and foreign nations at a time of war, he is facing the death penalty and my championing the enforcement of the law changes nothing on that. Face it, you are wrong, he was wrong and just because you don't like the outcome doesn't mean that is wrong.

Laws for the weak but the mighty run free?

And where is that happening? You have misconstrued and attempted to strong disimular situations together to paint a picture that does not exist. At best, all that you have shown is that you are a delusional idiot not worth the electrons wasted in the posts you wrote.

You sicken me and you are the exact opposite of the man you attempt to portray yourself as.

Judging from your lack of understanding about the situations and scenarios you attempted to speak about, I'm thinking you couldn't figure out what I attempt to portray myself as. There is a difference between what you have brought up, that difference is encoded in law as well as the punishment. If you seriously think that someone shouldn't get the punishment the law offered because someone else who broke a different law at another time altogether didn't get the same punishment the law provides for Manning, then you have a lot more problems then you and I can deal with. I suggest you seek professional help.

Re:Meanwhile, back in reality

[dbIII]

Since you can't work it out, let's change that to: YOUR post I fucking replied to in the first place which had the line "Bradley Manning is a disgruntled idiot who should be facing the death penalty".
Now you can withdraw your allegations that I am insane, the bit where you pretended you didn't write he should be killed and similar childish bullshit.

Re:Meanwhile, back in reality

[sumdumass]

What part of should be facing the death penalty is where I want him killed. As I already expained, I think he should be getting the most severe punishment possible and in his case that happens to be the death penalty. If the max were 10 years in prison, I would have said he should be facing the 10 years in prison.

Now, that does not in any way mean to say I want him killed. I want the most severe punishment possible applied which is killing him in this instance. And pointing that difference out does not mean in any way that I retracted anything. I did no pretend I didn't write he should be killed, I said I have no personal reason to see him dead other then that's the strongest punishment available under the law and he should get it.

I cannot withdraw any allegations that you are insane because all appearances set forward by yourself seem to indicate that is an accurate depiction. You should seek professional help at your earliest opportunity possible.

Re:Meanwhile, back in reality

[dbIII]

What part of should be facing the death penalty is where I want him killed.

English! Do you speak it? Try using english instead of speaking in weasel.

Re:Meanwhile, back in reality

[sumdumass]

Facing the death penalty is not saying I want him killed at all. It's saying I want the maximum punishment available given to him if he is convicted of the crime. Hence the terms penalty and facings (the penalty) which should have been enough for normal intelligent people with no mental problems to understand completely. If I wanted him killed, I would have said something to the effect of just take him outback and shoot him or something. They are two entirely distinctly different statements.

Re:Meanwhile, back in reality

[dbIII]

Cut the bullshit and read a dictionary. I really hate this childish argument style of having personal meanings for words just to win arguments.

Re:Meanwhile, back in reality

[sumdumass]

Then you should stop doing it. I made a statement, if you are not capable of understanding the statement, that's you problem not mine. Out of all the hundreds of thousands of people on slashdot, you are the only one who interpreted it wrong.

Re:Meanwhile, back in reality

[dbIII]

So now you come back with "you did it not me". Grow up.

Re:Meanwhile, back in reality

[sumdumass]

Grow up? You are the one who can' understand simple and plain English even after it was explained to you several times then go on some tyrade about other people using definitions you can't find in your broken dictionary. I mean hell, your defense of Manning was lacking so much that it didn't amount to much more then "well, these people over there did something completely different they they didn't get the death penalty".

Go seek professional help. There is something wrong with your brain.