WikiLeaks

[mijopo.livejournal.com]

Well, hell, if nobody's going to open up the floor to discuss WikiLeaks, lots of links let's start here, let me get the ball rolling with a few questions:
a) what's the most surprising/troubling revelation so far?
b) what's the most damaging to US interests?
c) Is Assange a modern day hero or vile supporter of terrorism?
d) Was the NYT right to publish the documents?
e) Does Palin's lashing out on her Facebook page, suggest Tea Partiers are working with an odd notion of "freedom" and "limited government"?
f) Who's responsible for Sunday's DoS attack on WikiLeaks?

 

I'm not really prepared to do a full blown analysis, just eager to hear what some of your keen minds had to say,  so let me just say the following:

a) I guess I won't say it's surprising but it really pissed me off that  "U.S. officials warned Germany not to arrest CIA officials involved in the bungled rendition of an innocent German citizen who shared the same name as a wanted terror suspect".  Apparently these idiots kidnapped and held someone for months just because he had the wrong name.  The US really can't expected not to be hated in the world if it won't allow for any sort of justice in grave travesties like this.  Also, the Yemen president can't be happy.

b) I think that the most damaging thing here will be the complete erosion this will have on US diplomacy going forward. 

c) I think Assange is neither.  He's no Daniel Ellsberg, he's motivated mostly, I believe, by a desire to embarass the US, not high principles of valor.  On the other hand, the US attempts to portray him as the equivalent of a terrorist are ridiculous.  They're afraid of the embarrassment, for obvious reasons, but disingenuously spin it as a concern for safety of informants.  If that were their real concern, they could have worked a lot harder to negotiate for redaction.  Furthermore, it's unclear that leaks to date have resulted in any deaths or casualties calling into question attempts to portray this as a human safety concern. See, for example, this article on that.

d) Yes, I think so.  The documents were being made available anyway, arguably their network can do a better job of helping people understand and contextualize. 

e) Palin says  "Why was he not pursued with the same urgency we pursue al Qaeda and Taliban leaders?"  Seems a bit ridiculous to compare this guy to people who murder people in cold blood.   "What if any diplomatic pressure was brought to bear on NATO, EU, and other allies to disrupt Wikileaks’ technical infrastructure?"  Read that and the rest of the paragraph, to me it seems at odds with the purported value that she and Tea Partiers place on freedom, free speech and limited government.  I'd be interested to hear arguments to the contrary.

f) D'uh

ETA: It's starting to look more and more like a very major story coming out of this is China's willingness to see Korea reunified.  This has gone from diplomat speak to something that may be approaching official statement/policy very quickly: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/nov/30/china-wants-korean-reunification.  to the extent that the leaks spurs movement on this, doesn't it become harder and harder to argue that it was such a terrible thing?

 

Comments

[brockulfsen.livejournal.com]

I've been wondering when The Citizens gave the US (or Australia for that matter) a Right to Government Secrecy.

[a-new-machine.livejournal.com]

According to SCOTUS, when they separated off the executive power. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Reynolds)

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

The first time the USA tolerated the Alien and Sedition Acts in 1800. There was a fair bit of time when Australia was more democratic than the USA was.

[htpcl.livejournal.com]

There's much to be said, but I'll say just this for now. I love the way everyone from gov't officials to opposition politicians to those media who didn't have the privilege to publish the leaks, gets so worked up about the act of revealing the information, rather than what the essence of the information itself is about. Nice distraction, that.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

A) That the United States prefers to hide its bad deeds instead of simply biting the bullet and hoping it will all go away. It gives the things a power beyond what they already have. It's also bad policy on the part of the Administration that does this.

B) All of it, essentially. Not necessarily the revelations themselves so much as the fear that the USA cannot be trusted to keep a secret.

C) Depends on how you look at it. In the crude sense he's giving the Taliban a hit list in Afghanistan and Iraq, in the long term this may well force the USA to take a long and hard look at how it's fighting the War on Terror and realize that for all the pretense of secrecy a low-ranking intelligence officer could get away with this. And what that implies for the efficiency of US "security measures."

D) As right as they were to publish the Pentagon Papers in the Vietnam War. After all, that was definitely an illegal war the USA was lied into but by the same token when Uncle Sam withdrew the results were the Killing Fields and the Third Indo-China War. Something people should remember if anyone brings that up, as while there was never going to be a good option there the Pentagon Papers ensured the US withdrawal that led to Democratic Kampuchea, itself a process of the USA's misguided means of fighting the war to end it.

E) Palin's a political celebrity. As such she's to put it crudely an attention whore along with all the other celebrities and making inflammatory statements to draw the eye of mass media is what she wants. This might lead one to question where the line between celebrity and trolling is, but then that's for another discussion.

F) Could be anyone, judging it immediately does not lead to anything ending well.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

I might also note that if the United States apparatus is that easy to hack that a low-level operative could do this, what's to say that others might not have already done this as well? Would there be a possibility then that at least some of what Assange has mentioned might actually be the result of another guy like his source who decided to troll everyone?

Or alternately for a really twisty-minded possibility, perhaps some latter-day J. Edgar Hoover has pushed this whole thing to mastermind some kind of stronger security measures for the intelligence community. It's a near picture-perfect Xanatos Gambit, get people appalled at what actually exists but use this as an example for the future to impose draconian restrictions on Intelligence and possibly the Freedom of Information Act.

On the other hand this may be crediting the government with a lot more intelligence and imagination than it's ever displayed in the real world.....

[johnny9fingers.livejournal.com]

Hahahaha!

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

a) what's the most surprising/troubling revelation so far?

I personally keep waiting for something surprising or troubling to be revealed. It seems like a lot of stuff we already knew or assumed so far.

b) what's the most damaging to US interests?

See above.

c) Is Assange a modern day hero or vile supporter of terrorism?

Neither. He's a bit of a nutter who's clearly bitten off more than he can choose.

d) Was the NYT right to publish the documents?

In what way? I don't think it matters, but it would have been nice for them to be consistent, given that they didn't want to print the leaked Climategate emails.

e) Does Palin's lashing out on her Facebook page, suggest Tea Partiers are working with an odd notion of "freedom" and "limited government"?

Not as far as I can see.

f) Who's responsible for Sunday's DoS attack on WikiLeaks?

4chan?

[a-new-machine.livejournal.com]

4chan loves Wikileaks.

[thies.livejournal.com]

wikileaks still fails at journalism and whistleblowing

[devil-ad-vocate.livejournal.com]

a) that our security system is so lame
b) see above
c) Neither; he's a giant ego blob
d) the NYT's job is to report the news; this is news
e) haven't looked at her Facebook page - wouldn't bother.
f) don't know, but I would like to send them a Christmas basket

[policraticus.livejournal.com]

a) what's the most surprising/troubling revelation so far?

Not really surprising to me, but the leaks pretty much vindicate the crazy neocon assertion that the Arab states are eager for the US and Israel to bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran.

b) what's the most damaging to US interests?

Why would anyone speak candidly to us again?

c) Is Assange a modern day hero or vile supporter of terrorism?

Assange is a nasty piece of work. He is an anti-American activist, so to the extent that that gives comfort and aid to America's enemies, who include terrorists. But I don't think that is his primary motivation. He is an anarchist, an egotist and a information vandal.

d) Was the NYT right to publish the documents?

I think it is amusingly inconsistent, but since the documents were going to be published hither and yon, I think its pretty neutral. If they add some context that is to the good.

e) Does Palin's lashing out on her Facebook page, suggest Tea Partiers are working with an odd notion of "freedom" and "limited government"?

I don't see it.

f) Who's responsible for Sunday's DoS attack on WikiLeaks?

Occam's razor says, someone like Julian Assange.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Said notion making sense to anyone with a grain of understanding about the Middle East and how the mostly secular dictators there react to the theocratic and (gasp!!!) Persian dictatorship in Tehran. Anyone that pooh-poohed that is equivalent to someone that mistook 2003 Baghdad for 1944 Paris.

[harry-beast.livejournal.com]

a) It's surprising that the US doesn't take better care to protect these documents.
b) I think the damage will be minor, all things considered.
c) Neither.
d) No.
e) Standing up against people who attack the United States is not contrary to the principles of freedom, free speech and limited government. It is a separate issue altogether. Wikileaks is attacking the United States, so it makes sense for the United States to defend itself.
f) China or possibly Iran.

[mijopo.livejournal.com]

Standing up against people who attack the United States is not contrary to the principles of freedom,

US citizens are presumably also involved in distributing this information. Also, advocacy for free speech shouldn't be country specific should it? Should we believe in free speech only for US citizens and muzzle people elsewhere throughout the world. One believes in free speech because there's an inherent usefulness in allowing and even encouraging discussions and openness.

Can you say more about how this is an attack on the United States?

[http://users.livejournal.com/-wanderer-/]

What motivation do China or Iran have for that?

[mrsilence.livejournal.com]

All I can say is that I am cheering Assange on and hoping he continues to be able to bring more and more of this stuff to the public eye.

The outrage from the U.S. that he isn't a citizen, owes the U.S. no allegiance and is at least for the moment beyond your jurisdiction amuses me no end.

[devil-ad-vocate.livejournal.com]

You'd be OK with someone publishing a private communication between yourself and another person?

[mrsilence.livejournal.com]

"(...)State Department’s legal adviser, who said publication of the documents was illegal(...)"


I just love this sort of shit.

Illegal? Sure, if you're a U.S. citizen and/or on U.S. soil. I'm pretty sure theres no international law that says you can't post the secrets of foreign nations on the internet.

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

a) what's the most surprising/troubling revelation so far?

The amount of classified information and the ease with which it was obtained.

b) what's the most damaging to US interests?

Lying.


c) Is Assange a modern day hero or vile supporter of terrorism?

Neither. Just another source. Now that wikileaks exists, its fair game for false leaks, promos, etc,

d) Was the NYT right to publish the documents?

Yes.


e) Does Palin's lashing out on her Facebook page, suggest Tea Partiers are working with an odd notion of "freedom" and "limited government"?

LOL.

f) Who's responsible for Sunday's DoS attack on WikiLeaks?

Hard to say. Likely someone aligned with US interests.


Clinton claims Wikileaks broke the law. We shall see.

The question in my mind is Wikileaks guilty of the same type of thing as leaking the name of Valerie Plame.

One was retaliation, the other?

[tridus.livejournal.com]

Well, the government did that Valerie Plume thing. When the government is breaking secrecy, it's in the national interest somehow. But embarass the government? Oh man, you're a terrorist!

[kinvore.livejournal.com]

Apparently his next target is a major US bank, to be revealed early next year:

http://blogs.forbes.com/andygreenberg/2010/11/29/wikileaks-julian-assange-wants-to-spill-your-corporate-secrets/

Shit's about to get real.

[a-new-machine.livejournal.com]

Personally I'd much rather this than government. We have a lot of checks on government, and not nearly as many on business malfeasance.

[tridus.livejournal.com]

a) what's the most surprising/troubling revelation so far?

I don't even know where to start, really. The one I'm most amused at so far was the head of Canadian Intelligence bashing the Canadian courts and people for having an "Alice in Wonderland" attitude. (http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/11/29/wikileaks-canada-csis-judd-cable.html) That wasn't surprising so much as it was entertaining.

For troubling, I'd probably go with the one about the lengths the US is going to in order to try and pawn off Guantanamo's prisoners on other countries.

b) what's the most damaging to US interests?

The unbelievably pathteic and inept US response. What we're seeing from outside the US is a spoiled bully who just got showed up and is now going completely apeshit. Causing embarrassment to the government is not an act of terrorism. Acting like it is just destroys the last shred of credibility you've got. The next time Obama screams "terrorist!" I'm immediately going to think "oh not this bullshit song and dance again."

On the upside, at least nobody is talking about the farce of paranoia that is TSA anymore?

c) Is Assange a modern day hero or vile supporter of terrorism?

He's some guy with a website who really hates secret documents. Given the shotgun nature of this release (rather then whistleblowing on specific wrongdoing), I don't think you can put another label on him. At least he's consistent.

d) Was the NYT right to publish the documents?

Absolutely. It's not a newspapers job to avoid embarrassing the government. This is news.

e) Does Palin's lashing out on her Facebook page, suggest Tea Partiers are working with an odd notion of "freedom" and "limited government"?

When have those things ever applied to using force? Palin is who we thought she was: a pretty face who just repeats whatever slogans are popular right now.

f) Who's responsible for Sunday's DoS attack on WikiLeaks?

A patriotic script kiddie with a botnet.

[woopflying.livejournal.com]

These leaks show that the autocracies and dictatorships of SaudiAabia, Egypt,Jordan,Abu Dhabi, Arab Emirates have the full support of the USA.


The more the public know the more governments have to fear.

[a-new-machine.livejournal.com]

If you thought the US disapproved of any of those countries before this leak, you haven't been paying attention.

[ninboydean.livejournal.com]

I love living in a nation of sheep who have such trust in their government that they join the media in attacking those who release documents which show that the government is both responsible for war crimes and misrepresentation of a slew of issues. If anyone needed proof that we are living with a fascist mentality, they need not go any further than the comments in this thread.

Absolutely disgusting.

[malasadas.livejournal.com]

What a terrible burden it must be for you to tolerate such fools in your midst.

[malasadas.livejournal.com]

I'm of a mixed mind on the wikileaks project is general.

Overall, I am not concered if documents are leaked that embarrass the United States gtovernment or expose overt lies to the public. For example, the Obama administration has promised to close the Guantanamo Bay prison but has moved very slowly if at all on the issue. If internal documents were leaked that showed the administration had no intention of ever doing it and considered anyone who took the promise seriously as a boob to be laughed at, leak away.

My problem with Assange is that he appears to accept zero ethical responsibility for anything that he does that has predictable negative consequences. Some of current leaked documents apparently specify the location of nuclear weapons, opening the possibility of nuclear espionage. The leaked war documents from earlier in the year actually named collaborators -- making them easy targets for assassasination. That Assange would put information like that out without redaction is contemptible, and I hope that the families of anyone murdered because of it are assisted in bringing suit against him.

Assange is not a journalist -- actual journalism requires a balance between the public's need to know, the public's right to know and the consequences of that knowledge. When you know full well that disclosure of information can put people at risk of death, you damn well owe greater consideration to the nature of information than wikileaks currently shows.

[ninboydean.livejournal.com]

I don't think people are fools. But they seem to be suffering from "Plato's Cave": Allegory of the Cave (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegory_of_the_Cave)

No evidence that WikiLeaks releases have hurt anyone (http://www.kentucky.com/2010/11/28/1544375/no-evidence-that-wikileaks-releases.html) (from Nov 28th, 2010)

Sunday, another Pentagon official told McClatchy that the military still has no evidence that the leaks have led to any deaths. The official didn't want to be named because of the issue's sensitivity.

"We have yet to see any harm come to anyone in Afghanistan that we can directly tie to exposure in the WikiLeaks documents," Morrell told the Washington Post on Aug 11. But "there is in all likelihood a lag between exposure of these documents and jeopardy in the field."

What would your opinion be of threats to informants to the Taliban?

What about military policy which offers rewards to anyone who brings "suspected insurgents" to the Americans? (not sure if the policy is still in effect) This documentary describes the problem briefly: Taxi to the Dark Side (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxi_to_the_dark_side)

And dont forget the hundreds of deaths that have resulted in the cross-border raids on Pakistan by "our" military.


I bring these things up because there are very clear threats to civilian life in the region which are much more prolific than any thread Assange may be responsible for. The specific, supposedly dangerous information that has been released isn't even being cited anywhere when people complain about the "threat."

Why is the media (and in turn this community, this thread) so concerned about this "threat" without concerning itself with the threat that materializes every day that the US military poses? Why do informants deserve more concern for their lives than innocent civilians deserve?

It's really quite pitiful.

[meus-ovatio.livejournal.com]

If there's 250,000 of something, it isn't that important, ground-breaking, or surprising.

What I don't get is the feined naivete that government officials actually talk about things that don't sound like the official line. This is like listening in on the water-cooler at work and then acting all scandalized when you realize Bob from accounting actually hates Jane from finance.

[mijopo.livejournal.com]

"actually talk about things that don't sound like the official line"
Nobody's surprised by that I don't think. they're surprised by the content in some cases and learned completely new things in other and had suspicions confirmed in others.