US diplomatic cables released

[Skgoa]

What I can't get my head around is that it seems as if the security model was "we only give accounts to people we trust, so everyone who logs in is trustworthy without limits." If Manning (sp?) could just download all that stuff and burn it to CD, they were begging for a leak right from the moment they started to plan this network.


(I feel I can rightfully go all internet tough guy in this instance, because "a traitor on the inside" was mentioned as a threat in the very first lecture of the data security course I attend this semester. )

[The Grim Squeaker]

What I can't get my head around is that it seems as if the security model was "we only give accounts to people we trust, so everyone who logs in is trustworthy without limits." If Manning (sp?) could just download all that stuff and burn it to CD, they were begging for a leak right from the moment they started to plan this network.

That does boggle the mind, although as a military intelligence analysis maybe he simply had access to a few "tiers" of classified data.

If the US system is anything like that used by sane countries, there are multiple levels of classification (classified = might as well mark it as classified, secret = don't tell this to outsiders, restricted = you do NOT talk about this outside your base or with family, and so on and so forth). Some "Services" use different levels too, since you don't need the same levels of "Super duper state secret" for diplomatic cables as you do with, say, launch codes, secret bases, planned black ops operations and the like.

From what i've read of the cables, it's very low end stuff frankly, aka "Classify it to keep it out of the press, but you can talk about it freely, just not as an "official statement"".
The data breach is incompetence, plain and simple. (Even non classified military stuff is usually on a seperate network [with no fucking CD burners or USB slots!], with some places having many such networks, physically separated, isolated and protected).
At least, that's what makes sense.

As a side note, the us diplomatic cables are rather politce compared to some of the things i've seen diplomatic representatives talk candidly about . (Not in terms of classification ofc!, but in terms of the language, tone, bluntness and informality).
I miss the army ^_^.

[The Grim Squeaker]

What I can't get my head around is that it seems as if the security model was "we only give accounts to people we trust, so everyone who logs in is trustworthy without limits." If Manning (sp?) could just download all that stuff and burn it to CD, they were begging for a leak right from the moment they started to plan this network.

Ah, forgot:
So an intelligence analyst like manning might have access to, say, level A & B of classified files, but not C+, and a bunch of records of phone calls between embassies while classified, might easily be within his perview. In fact, he'd probably have access to a lot more sensitive data than that, depending on just what his job entailed.

[mizuno]

I remember that after 911 one of the major criticisms of the intelligence agencie's failures were that they didn't share intelligence, that is why SIPR was created, to allow open communication. And now the State Department as pulled the plug on SIPRNet.. I can't help but feel that this wikileaks fiasco just made the US government and intelligence agencies more secretive and walled off from each other. stupid

And this has got to be the worst timing to release the korea information, the South is ready to fire back, the North just found out their only major "ally" is ready to drop them and they have nukes and a crazy leader.. wikileaks couldn't have held on to this information for a few months longer? Worst timing ever

[Stravo]

What's really funny is that the State Department was tripped up in much the same way that adolescent girls who keep diaries are: They put things in writing that they don't want anyone else to read, when writing it down guarantees that someone will see it.

This point is what lawyers and anyone involved with commerical lawsuits always finds fascinating. The things people, management, companies put in writing would shock you. People seem to have this almost irrational idea that things won't get out there. They freely write things on company email that I can't imagine why they ever thought it was a good idea. While reviewing emails I have come across the first flirtatious beginnings of an affair and read into the full blown thing raging and then the inevitable cool down and then break up all in an evenings review of company emails.

It always makes me think twice about the things I put down in writing when communicating with colleagues and clients. Now I see this phenomenon extends to top secret government communications as well.

I know some people think this is a good idea, the whole notion of no secrets should be kept from the people and such but there must always be a balance to this. For example one cable noted that Yemen would represent that the bombings going on in Yemen against AQ targets was governmental meanwhile in reality these are American bombings. With these kind of releases governments, especially hostile or shaky governments, would be less inclined to work with the US on these kind of operations.

Same goes towards the Korean situation. Things are heating up there and now you have these leaks that only damage the situation and not make it worse by adding fuel to the paranoid fires of NK with open discussions about the reunification of Korea and their strongest ally not really giving a shit. If you're a paranoid sick old man who is deeply afriad of what will happen to him and his country and has access to nuclear weapons that is not the kind of info you want floating out there.

I can understand the notion of information should be free but as in all things there must be a balance. The US is handicapped in conducting diplomacy without having the same secrecy other nations enjoy when it comes to communications and information like this.

And another question of balance is why isn't Wikileaks airing Chinese or Russian dirty diplomatic laundry?

[Covenant]

And another question of balance is why isn't Wikileaks airing Chinese or Russian dirty diplomatic laundry?

I presume because they haven't had it handed to them yet. I think being able to keep your leaders accountable is a good thing, if this was strictly an anti-American effort then that would be a bit stupid, but the presumption should be that everyone is doing the same kind of dirty tricks bullshit that the US does. Highlighting everyone's over-reach should be a net positive. Even if all we're hearing about is American over-reach, it shows the kind of sleight-of-hand used by major world powers and arms everyone against it. Airing dirty laundry doesn't make you weaker unless your power is built on it. Plus, being able to confirm things like Syria and China and Russia doing stuff behind closed doors paints the same kind of shades-of-black foreign policy world most people expected.

So much of the information is controlled and mishandled. "No, of course we have full faith in our allies in ___, do not imply anything to the contrary!" While behind closed doors we know they're handing weapons to crazy people. Being able to actually understand the world map will make the average idiot less idiotic. You have to think some of the extreme secrecy and dirty tricks we perform are the result of having a population whose world is a false construction based on carefully maintained fabrications.

I haven't read anything shocking yet. This just looks like hard-knuckles diplomacy. If anything I find it remarkable how much hand-wringing people do as opposed to actual arm-twisting.

[Simon_Jester]

I know some people think this is a good idea, the whole notion of no secrets should be kept from the people and such but there must always be a balance to this. For example one cable noted that Yemen would represent that the bombings going on in Yemen against AQ targets was governmental meanwhile in reality these are American bombings. With these kind of releases governments, especially hostile or shaky governments, would be less inclined to work with the US on these kind of operations.

The real problem I see is that we have a system where information on American foreign policy seems to be 'classified until proven harmless' rather than 'unclassified until proven sensitive.' And where 'sensitive' can mean 'would embarrass President Bob,' not 'might provoke war between Boravia and Moronia.'

That's where the "public information blackout" I talk about comes from: when all critical information on what the government's goals is kept secret and only propaganda is ever released to the public, and when the means by which those goals are achieved is equally secret (except for undeniable outcomes such as bombs falling on foreign cities).

When that happens, you get things like Johnson promising not to escalate in Vietnam while planning to escalate. And claiming that Vietnam needs to be made safe for democracy while DoD is privately admitting that the war is more about avoiding the embarassment of defeat than it is about ever achieving democracy in South Vietnam. When the government's stated reasons for doing things bear no resemblance to its real motives, the public cannot judge whether the government is doing its job properly.

To take a more modern example, in 2002-03, Bush was building a case for the Iraq War and then invading Iraq. Much of this case revolved around the supposed threat of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, which turned out to be a no-show. Thinking about this affair, there are two obvious, familiar questions- "what did the president know, and when did he know it?"

Did Bush know there were no Iraqi weapons of mass destruction? Did he know this before the invasion? If so, why did he invade? Did he have other motives, and what were they? Were those goals that the American people would approve of? Did he have a viable way of achieving those goals?

These are things that the American people needed to know in order to make a valid decision about whether to keep Bush in office in 2004. Whether you supported or (for most here) opposed the war at the time, I think any reasonable person can agree that it matters whether or not the president's publically stated motives and plans reflected what he was really trying to do.

By keeping all this information secret, the Bush administration made it impossible for a democratic society to assess whether Bush should stay in office or not. And they tried to fill this information blackout with their own official line- which may or may not have been an accurate statement of what they really thought.

Quite a lot of work has been done on the question of the runup to the Iraq War, of course... but that is now a matter for historians, not for the electorate. The electorate needed to know all this in 2004, and by and large they did not, because the government did not allow access to its own internal documents and because the press lacked the ability, the inclination, or both to do serious investigation of whether the government was telling the truth.

Something like Wikileaks revealing Bush's real plans for Iraq in black and white back in 2003 would have been a tremendous boon for American democracy, regardless of whether it would support or weaken Bush's public credibility on the war.

[Uraniun235]

And another question of balance is why isn't Wikileaks airing Chinese or Russian dirty diplomatic laundry?

In a way, they already have; some of the cables included a Chinese representative admitting that North Korea was no longer a useful ally and describing the North Korean government as "psychopathic". That could affect the leverage China has on North Korea. But, as mentioned earlier, Wikileaks works with what they get; it's not like they've orchestrated an intelligence operation against American interests.

That said, their next big release - hoped to be made sometime early in 2011 - is supposed to be from one of the biggest banks in the US, comprised of material that allegedly could bring down the bank. I'm really curious to see that one.

[Zed]

It always makes me think twice about the things I put down in writing when communicating with colleagues and clients. Now I see this phenomenon extends to top secret government communications as well.

None of this material was top secret.

[Night_stalker]

And this has got to be the worst timing to release the korea information, the South is ready to fire back, the North just found out their only major "ally" is ready to drop them and they have nukes and a crazy leader.. wikileaks couldn't have held on to this information for a few months longer? Worst timing ever

Bloody Wikileaks, couldn't they've keep that sort of info hidden until after tensions have gone to something a bit lower? I mean, so a country with 1.21 soldiers might have just found out that their only ally is not going to be saving them from the US and South Korea whipping their ass this time? What's the worst that could happen? It's not like they don't have chemical weapons, plus lots of arty all of which are aimed at everything south of the 38th Parallel? Wikileaks just threw a jerry can of gasoline onto a raging bonfire, all in the name of free information for all.

That sort of journalism is what gives the media bad names, concern focused on releasing the story, and not the potential consequences that will come from publishing said story.

[Guardsman Bass]

Some more articles have been written on the newly released stuff. Apparently Blackwater tried to get into the pirate-hunting business:

WASHINGTON — Besieged by criminal inquiries and Congressional investigators, how could the world’s most controversial private security company drum up new business? By battling pirates on the high seas, of course.

In late 2008, Blackwater Worldwide, already under fire because of accusations of abuses by its security guards in Iraq and Afghanistan, reconfigured a 183-foot oceanographic research vessel into a pirate-hunting ship for hire and then began looking for business from shipping companies seeking protection from Somali pirates. The company’s chief executive officer, Erik Prince, was planning a trip to Djibouti for a promotional event in March 2009, and Blackwater was hoping that the American Embassy there would help out, according to a secret State Department cable.

But with the Obama administration just weeks old, American diplomats in Djibouti faced a problem. They are supposed to be advocates for American businesses, but this was Blackwater, a company that Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton had proposed banning from war zones when she was a presidential candidate.

The embassy “would appreciate Department’s guidance on the appropriate level of engagement with Blackwater,” wrote James C. Swan, the American ambassador in Djibouti, in a cable sent on Feb. 12, 2009. Blackwater’s plans to enter the anti-piracy business have been previously reported, but not the American government’s concern about the endeavor.

According to that cable, Blackwater had outfitted its United States-flagged ship with .50-caliber machine guns and a small, unarmed drone aircraft. The ship, named the McArthur, would carry a crew of 33 to patrol the Gulf of Aden for 30 days before returning to Djibouti to resupply.

And the company had already determined its rules of engagement. “Blackwater does not intend to take any pirates into custody, but will use lethal force against pirates if necessary,” the cable said.

At the time, the company was still awaiting approvals from Blackwater lawyers for its planned operations, since Blackwater had informed the embassy there was “no precedent for a paramilitary operation in a purely commercial environment.”

Lawsuits filed later by crew members on the McArthur made life on the ship sound little improved from the days of Blackbeard.

One former crew member said, according to legal documents, that the ship’s captain, who had been drinking during a port call in Jordan, ordered him “placed in irons” (handcuffed to a towel rack) after he was accused of giving an unauthorized interview to his hometown newspaper in Minnesota. The captain, according to the lawsuit, also threatened to place the sailor in a straitjacket. Another crew member, who is black, claimed in court documents that he was repeatedly subjected to racial epithets.

In the end, Blackwater Maritime Security Services found no treasure in the pirate-chasing business, never attracting any clients. And the Obama administration chose not to sever the American government’s relationship with the North Carolina-based firm, which has collected more than $1 billion in security contracts in Iraq and Afghanistan since 2001. Blackwater renamed itself Xe Services, and earlier this year the company won a $100 million contract from the Central Intelligence Agency to protect the spy agency’s bases in Afghanistan.

[Thanas]

Oh, but maybe Thanas's peerless, white virginal shining knight of Europe will ride in and restore an international order based on collaboration, mutual respect, reason and justice?

Tell you what - why don't we just assume this response was based on you being a tad emotional about this instead of actually being a response?

Thanas made the claim "The US is currently the only western democracy which tortures and flaunts international law and human rights so outrageously." That is a false claim, disproved by only a single counterexample, the French Republic.

Bolded because you seem to be unable to read. Has france unilaterally invaded and is currently occupying another country? Is France abducting and torturing the citizens of its allies? Is France opening a torture camp on French soil?

There are of course others within the European Union that also violate human rights in more or less similar ways;

Name them, especially on this scale.

and one merely has to go back to the 1980s to implicate even more in accused abuses of the rights of terrorists.

Oh, really. Name the terrorists we carded off to Syria or so that they got their penis slashed with knives. Go on.

He did not say that Europe represented an alternative, but as the only other Western democratic force with anything like the potential to exercise the scale of influence and power as the US it was certainly implied.

Bull.

Stop pretending either Europe or Germany has some virginal purity - which is what you did. If you had claimed that the US is simply dirtier I would have no qualms with that but you claimed your country had no part in this sort of thing, which is untrue. If Germany is so virtuous why aren't there people protesting every time one of those "torture flights" refuels? Or at least whenever the public finds out it has happened, as I expect it's all kept very hush-hush when it actually is occurring.

Are you incapable of reading? I said "so outrageously". Obvious qualifier right there. And I fail to see how "allowing to refuel" = "torture accomplices" in any way of the word especially as we know from the case of al-Masri that the German governenment was not provided any specific details about the flights and were they were headed. And btw, if Germany was so complicit in this, why did the CIA need to charter private planes and file false flight plans to the German authorities?

You're so busy trying to point out how awful my nation is you can't see you're standing in mud yourself. Again, I am in no way claiming my country is better, I am in no way denying the US does awful things. You act as if getting me to admit something (none of which I've denied) somehow absolves your country of sin. It doesn't. YOU are the one in denial. Get down off your pedestal, Thanas. Your country isn't perfect, far from it.

Yes, it is not. However, as long as it does not open up a gulag and wages a war of aggression, I can safely say that Germany is a saint compared to the USA. Your act is pretty much comparing a thief who stole 10 cent to a multi-million dollar embezzler to claim that the latter is not so bad.

[Stark]

That's how tribalism works, Thanas. You obviously can't make (hurtful, irrefutable) statements about the great USA because your country doesn't meet the required standard.

[Guardsman Bass]

I thought this cable was interesting to read. It's a report on Islamic extremism in France.

The Guardian also has some articles about cables concerning Russia:

Russia is a corrupt, autocratic kleptocracy centred on the leadership of Vladimir Putin, in which officials, oligarchs and organised crime are bound together to create a "virtual mafia state", according to leaked secret diplomatic cables that provide a damning American assessment of its erstwhile rival superpower.

Arms trafficking, money laundering, personal enrichment, protection for gangsters, extortion and kickbacks, suitcases full of money and secret offshore bank accounts in Cyprus: the cables paint a bleak picture of a political system in which bribery alone totals an estimated $300bn a year, and in which it is often hard to distinguish between the activities of the government and organised crime.

Among the most striking allegations contained in the cables, which were leaked to the whistleblowers' website WikiLeaks, are:

• Russian spies use senior mafia bosses to carry out criminal operations such as arms trafficking.

• Law enforcement agencies such as the police, spy agencies and the prosecutor's office operate a de facto protection racket for criminal networks.

• Rampant bribery acts like a parallel tax system for the personal enrichment of police, officials and the KGB's successor, the federal security service (FSB).

• Investigators looking into Russian mafia links to Spain have compiled a list of Russian prosecutors, military officers and politicians who have dealings with organised crime networks.

• Putin is accused of amassing "illicit proceeds" from his time in office, which various sources allege are hidden overseas.

The allegations come hours before Putin was due to address Fifa's executive committee in Zurich in support of Russia's bid to host the 2018 World Cup. Putin last night abruptly cancelled his trip, complaining of a smear campaign to "discredit" Fifa members. In an angry interview with CNN's Larry King Live, recorded before the latest disclosures, Putin also denounced the cables and warned the US not to stick its nose in Russia's affairs.

He made clear he was not amused by a US diplomat's description of him as "Batman" and President Dmitry Medvedev as "Robin". "To be honest with you, we did not suspect that this [criticism] could be made with such arrogance, with such rudeness, and you know, so unethically," Putin remarked.

The principal allegations stem from a Spanish prosecutor, José González, who has spent more than a decade trying to unravel the activities of Russian organised crime in Spain. Spanish authorities have arrested more than 60 suspects, including the top four mafia bosses outside Russia.

In a startling briefing for US officials in January, González said Russia was a "virtual mafia state" in which "one cannot differentiate between the activities of the government and OC [organised crime] groups".

González said he had evidence – thousands of wiretaps have been used in the last 10 years – that certain political parties in Russia worked hand in hand with mafia groups. He alleged that intelligence officials orchestrated gun shipments to Kurdish groups to destabilise Turkey and were pulling the strings behind the 2009 case of the Arctic Sea cargo ship suspected of carrying missiles destined for Iran.

At the summit of what is known in Russia as the power "vertical" lies the Kremlin, a prime beneficiary of the entrenched system of kickbacks, bribes, protection money and suspect contracts.

In a detailed and apparently plausible analysis of how corruption in the capital works, the US ambassador John Beyrle cited one source as saying: "Everything depends on the Kremlin … [former Moscow mayor Yuri] Luzhkov, as well as many mayors and governors, pay off key insiders in the Kremlin."

Beneath the Kremlin is a broad layer of top officials – mayors and governors – collecting money based on bribes almost like their own personal taxation system. At the next level down the FSB, interior ministry and police collect protection money from businesses, licit and illicit.

"Criminal elements enjoy a krysha [a term from the criminal/mafia world literally meaning roof or protection] that runs through the police, the federal security service, ministry of internal affairs (MVD) and the prosecutor's office, as well as throughout the Moscow city government bureaucracy," Beyrle noted. "The Moscow city government's direct links to criminality have led some to call it 'dysfunctional' and to assert that the government operates more as a kleptocracy than a government."

González said the FSB had two ways to eliminate "OC leaders who do not do what the security services want them to do". The first was to kill them. The second was to put them in jail to "eliminate them as a competitor for influence".

Sometimes the FSB put crime lords in prison for their own protection. Luckier crime leaders might end up in parliament. "The government of Russia takes the relationship with organised crime leaders still further by granting them privileges of politics, in order to grant them immunity from racketeering charges," Beyrle noted.

The US is not alone in its assessments. In one cable, the Foreign Office's Russia director, Michael Davenport, is quoted as calling Russia a "corrupt autocracy".

The cables also reveal that the Americans believe Putin was likely to have known about the operation to murder Alexander Litvinenko in London in 2006.

The Kremlin has denied involvement but a remark by another US ambassador in Moscow, Williams Burns, sums up US attitudestowards the new Russia: "Whatever the truth may ultimately be [about Litvinenko] – and it may never be known – the tendency here to almost automatically assume that someone in or close to Putin's inner-circle is the author of these deaths speaks volumes about expectations of Kremlin behaviour."

Russia's foreign intelligence chief said yesterday that he would order his spies to study the cables relating to Russia. Mikhail Fradkov, the head of Russia's foreign intelligence service (SVR), told the ITAR-TASS news agency: "There are many issues which have been revealed by the disclosure by WikiLeaks – this is material for analysis. We shall report our conclusions to the leadership of the country."

[hongi]

I thought this cable was interesting to read. It's a report on Islamic extremism in France.

Sort of confirmed what we knew already, but still very interesting nonetheless.

[Vympel]

As for the Interpol arrest warrant on Assange about the rape charges:-

On the issue of the Interpol arrest warrant issued yesterday for Assange's arrest: I think it's deeply irresponsible either to assume his guilt or to assume his innocence until the case plays out. I genuinely have no opinion of the validity of those allegations, but what I do know -- as John Cole notes -- is this: as soon as Scott Ritter began telling the truth about Iraqi WMDs, he was publicly smeared with allegations of sexual improprieties. As soon as Eliot Spitzer began posing a real threat to Wall Street criminals, a massive and strange federal investigation was launched over nothing more than routine acts of consensual adult prostitution, ending his career (and the threat he posed to oligarchs). And now, the day after Julian Assange is responsible for one of the largest leaks in history, an arrest warrant issues that sharply curtails his movement and makes his detention highly likely. It's unreasonable to view that pattern as evidence that the allegations are part of some conspiracy -- I genuinely do not believe or disbelieve that -- but, particularly in light of that pattern, it's most definitely unreasonable to assume that he's guilty of anything without having those allegations tested and then proven in court.

[Guardsman Bass]

Interestingly enough, Sec. of Defense Bob Gates doesn't seem to think it's a huge deal:

Let me just offer some perspective as somebody who’s been at this a long time. Every other government in the world knows the United States government leaks like a sieve, and it has for a long time. And I dragged this up the other day when I was looking at some of these prospective releases. And this is a quote from John Adams: “How can a government go on, publishing all of their negotiations with foreign nations, I know not. To me, it appears as dangerous and pernicious as it is novel." …

Now, I’ve heard the impact of these releases on our foreign policy described as a meltdown, as a game-changer, and so on. I think -- I think those descriptions are fairly significantly overwrought. The fact is, governments deal with the United States because it’s in their interest, not because they like us, not because they trust us, and not because they believe we can keep secrets.

Many governments -- some governments deal with us because they fear us, some because they respect us, most because they need us. We are still essentially, as has been said before, the indispensable nation. So other nations will continue to deal with us. They will continue to work with us. We will continue to share sensitive information with one another. Is this embarrassing? Yes. Is it awkward? Yes. Consequences for U.S. foreign policy? I think fairly modest.

[K. A. Pital]

Oh, but maybe Thanas's peerless, white virginal shining knight of Europe will ride in and restore an international order based on collaboration, mutual respect, reason and justice?

Stop pretending either Europe or Germany has some virginal purity - which is what you did. If you had claimed that the US is simply dirtier I would have no qualms with that but you claimed your country had no part in this sort of thing, which is untrue. If Germany is so virtuous why aren't there people protesting every time one of those "torture flights" refuels? Or at least whenever the public finds out it has happened, as I expect it's all kept very hush-hush when it actually is occurring.

What? Seriously, it is a fact that the majority of the war crimes, human rights and international law violations commited by First World nations in the period from 1990 to 2010 falls to the USA. To get Germany seriously implicated in something requires you to actually go much deeper into history.

No amount of pointing to the French or the Germans would change that fact. Sure, in the 1960s France and Britain were assholes in their own right, but the last 20 years? Try finding anything similar to the magnitude of U.S. dickery.

I think Thanas hardly meant Europe has "virginal purity", considering what it did historically - he was referring to the current timeframe. And he was completely right. Whatever misdeeds the current Euro nations have, they can hardy compare even with a single U.S. outrage (say, Iraq).

[Thanas]

Like I said above, both posters either failed to read the obvious qualifiers or were actually so stupid as to believe that I would fall for their strawman coupled with a tu quoque fallacy.

I also believe this should be dropped now.

[Broomstick]

What I can't get my head around is that it seems as if the security model was "we only give accounts to people we trust, so everyone who logs in is trustworthy without limits." If Manning (sp?) could just download all that stuff and burn it to CD, they were begging for a leak right from the moment they started to plan this network.

Manning is accused of hacking, not just downloading. Hacking, as in deliberately going around/defeating security systems.

[Broomstick]

And another question of balance is why isn't Wikileaks airing Chinese or Russian dirty diplomatic laundry?

I presume because they haven't had it handed to them yet. I think being able to keep your leaders accountable is a good thing, if this was strictly an anti-American effort then that would be a bit stupid, but the presumption should be that everyone is doing the same kind of dirty tricks bullshit that the US does.

Except Julian Assange has been quoted as one of his motives being to damage US foreign diplomacy. IF WikiLeaks starts airing out confidential diplomatic communications from other nations maybe I'll believe this is all about openness and honesty but that remains to be proven. If we don't see that other material from other nations than what it is really about is damaging the US. So... a year from now let's see what happens. If everything from WikiLeaks is about bad stuff from the US then it's plainly and anti-US campaign (deserved or not) and the abuses going on in the rest of the world can just be ignored as far as Assange is concerned. If they actually do publish dirt on other countries, including other major players, then maybe it really is all about transparency and whilstleblowing. Let's check in next December on that.

[loomer]

Wikileaks has a long history of publishing information on just about everyone (they've only stopped the old way of things recently), Broomstick. I'd also like to see the source of that quote.

[Broomstick]

Apologies for the chopped up replies, but this isn't my computer system and I'm dealing with some limitations here.

And another question of balance is why isn't Wikileaks airing Chinese or Russian dirty diplomatic laundry?

I presume because they haven't had it handed to them yet.

Assange claims he does have stuff like that already. He's just choosing to air out the American dirty laundry first. Well, he's made no secret of the fact he doesn't like the US, which is his prerogative I suppose, but if that's the case he shouldn't be surprised if a lot of Americans aren't feeling too warm and fuzzy about him at the moment.

I think being able to keep your leaders accountable is a good thing, if this was strictly an anti-American effort then that would be a bit stupid,

So far, WikiLeaks has concentrated overwhelming on American dirty fingers. Like I said, I'm giving it a year before I make a conclusion in my own mind, but right now it appears largely anti-US. If he starts airing out bad crap from other nations that will certainly change how I look at his operation.

I haven't read anything shocking yet. This just looks like hard-knuckles diplomacy. If anything I find it remarkable how much hand-wringing people do as opposed to actual arm-twisting.

Much ado about not much - which enable the media to avoid reporting on the really hard stuff that's going on that SHOULD be talked about, but isn't.

[Broomstick]

Wikileaks has a long history of publishing information on just about everyone (they've only stopped the old way of things recently), Broomstick. I'd also like to see the source of that quote.

Another one of those things I saw/heard on the TV, which makes it difficult to link to - I've been trying to find a link or a decent attribution but without much success. But it definitely was Mr. Assange speaking, not someone saying he said that (It stuck in my mind because the name made me think he was French but when he spoke he definitely sounded Australian). The other reason I want to find it is to review it myself, to see if it was sharply trimmed enough that it might be a quote out of context or if it really is the stand-alone thought. I heard it before all hell broke loose with this current release of stuff, so it didn't stick in my mind as clearly as if I had heard it today and I'd like to refresh my memory for accuracy's sake.

I'm also aware that Assange is just one guy - he's important to WikiLeaks, but I presume the organization and website will continue even if he's taken out of play. I don't have an issue with an organization that engages in whistleblowing type activities as long as it is done sincerely and even-handedly - Amnesty International, for example, has a lot of bad things to say about my country but I fully support them as the reason they do that is because there really is a lot of bad there AND they report equally on other countries, it's not just American's sins, it's everyone's. When the US government gets its panties in a twist over AI I go right, fuck you - look at all this other stuff, it's not all about you, assholes, you can't excuse this as America bashing. Right now, WikiLeaks is wildly imbalanced in its reporting in the sense it's all about one country. Yes, they DID get and enormous data-dump about the US, and I'll give them credit for taking some time to review and organize this, and also for trying to work with the US to ensure no one gets killed over this (whether that effort was successful or not is another matter). That's also why I'm saying we need to look at this down the line

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

Somehow, the image of the Russian mafia going after Assange with an army of hackers come to mind if Wikileaks ever tried anything like releasing Russian files.