Slashdot Mirror
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.
I don't really think one day is really enough time to process these documents.
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.
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!
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?
Wherever You Go, There You Are
"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'"
Read radical news here
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.
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
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.
Dog is my co-pilot.
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.
Free Martian Whores!
Their agenda seems to be government transparency.
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?
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.
Trolling is a art,
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.
Read radical news here
They only released 243 cables at this point. http://cablegate.wikileaks.org/
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.
Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
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.
"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.
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.
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.
See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
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.
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?
Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
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.
"His name was James Damore."
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.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
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.
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!
"The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
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.
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).
All hope abandon ye who enter here.
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.
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?
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
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.
Thanks to the War on Drugs, it's easier to buy meth than it is to buy cold medicine!
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.
A work that expires before its copyright never enters the public domain and thus enjoys eternal copyright protection.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
My UID is prime. Hah!
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.
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.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
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.
in girum imus nocte et consumimur igni
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.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
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.
Welcome back, agent Kagura. I guess operatives such as yourself don't have time to rewrite previous comments. We understand.
My UID is prime. Hah!
I think you mean "where are the leaks from China, from Germany, from Russia, etc, lately?". Check their previous leaks.
My UID is prime. Hah!
Dont ask dont tell is sound?
Really?
Idiot.
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.
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.
You catch enchiladas by picking them up behind the head and holding them underwater until they don't kick anymore -VeGas
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.
"To pass through the jungle; silence, courtesy, ferocity, as the occasion demands." -- Kamau, "Proper Passage"
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.
Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
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.
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...
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".
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.
http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/
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.
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.
I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
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.
Developers: We can use your help.
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.
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.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
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.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
Iran isn't an arab country.
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.
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.
Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
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.