Diplomatic cables leaked, uncensored and complete

[Lord Zentei]

You cannot prove that, and so it cannot actually be an outright lie. It is quite possible that you innocently made an observation that incorporated one of the major talking points against WikiLeaks, one which you have, after I made my post, repeatedly indicated that you sympathized with, and which seems to form the core of your arguments against the organization. It is possible that not a trace of vindication was in your thoughts as you made that post. So I will subside, and you should probably lick your wounds, given how they seem to smart.

Hoo boy. So by that standard, you can't prove your allegation that I've got some deep seated psychological issues either. Have you got anything relevant to say at this point, or are you just slinging shit for the hell of it?

So why do you consider it to be so likely that it is brought up as a reasonable possibility? I mean, it's possible that someone spontaneously guessed the password, too, but that's incredibly unlikely! Just answer the question.

Because they've threatened to do it, dumbass. It's a perfectly legitimate possibility. Neither have I at any point said that it's the only one.

So what you're saying is that WikiLeaks, a volunteer organization without any real experience in expunging documents, should have not involved the Daily Telegraph, Der Spiegel, or any other journalistic organization (which has such experience) in the process of censoring the documents for publication? And that they should have afterwards destroyed the originals completely? Are you for fucking real?

Are you trolling? Don't you understand that there's a difference between redacting sensitive information before releasing information to the media and not involving them at all?

[Thanas]

...and did you miss my post? Or why do you persist in the whole media angle?

[Lord Zentei]

...and did you miss my post? Or why do you persist in the whole media angle?

No.

No, the press sources they used demanded a complete set of the database and the masterkey before they would deal with Assange as they wanted to be the one filtering it and not trusting Assange to be unbiased. And Assange was very afraid to hand it over precisely out of fear of this getting out of hand. Der Spiegel detailed this process in their wikileaks book.

OK, that's fair enough. Though one might wonder which media outlets would not make that demand and whether Assange should have dealt with them only if he's genuinely concerned with that.

[Bakustra]

You still don't get it. The point is that they (Der Spiegel) wanted to be involved in the censoring process, and WikiLeaks wanted to have professionals censor the cables. They offered to work with the US initially, but were turned down. WikiLeaks worked alone on the Afghanistan materials they released, and it was concluded that there was a danger of informants being identified from the material because they did a poor job. So they ended up working with professionals. Either way, it would not affect the existence of an uncensored archive at WikiLeaks, which they would have to destroy to prevent this scenario from happening.

Ps: They threatened to do it in the case of the US attempting to seriously shut them down. Again, why do you think we shouldn't take them at their word? Should we assume that Ulster separatists actually want to purge all non-Celtic-descended peoples from the British Isles, rather than their stated goal of integrating Ulster with Ireland as a whole?

[Simon_Jester]

Wikileaks was at least making an effort to release the information methodically and with an aim to cause as little harm to innocent individuals. The total release of documentation could have more significant and drastic results. "Collaborators" of the US could face significant harm. Wikileaks is guilty of poor security (unless it can be proven they did this deliberately to get released, which seems highly unlikely), nothing more. But any damage done will be attributed to them. And governments with less idealistic justice systems or organizations with more sinister goals will use this information.

This seems to the the story of the summer that hardly anyone is reporting. This event could potentially spell disaster for the Wikileaks ideals purely through bad press. Then again, the media has grown tired of the story apparently and moved on.

Why put the word collaborators in scare quotes? Are we talking about collaborators here? If so, tough titty for them. If we're talking about innocent people (NOT collaborators) then Wikileaks isn't responsible, the US government is for putting these innocent people in that position to begin with.

Is it immoral if the US government, let us say, hires someone to spy on the Iranian nuclear program? Whether or not the Iranians have nukes is a matter of legitimate concern to many countries, the US among them. Any country might want to know about the Iranian nuclear program, even if they have no imperialist or evil intentions at all, because they are afraid of getting nuked.

Suppose an Iranian spying on the Iranian nuclear program is outed because of information stolen from Wikileaks, and that this person is put to death by the Iranian government for treason. Who, if anyone, is morally at fault? The US government? Wikileaks? The person who took the information from Wikileaks?

[Lord Zentei]

You still don't get it. The point is that they (Der Spiegel) wanted to be involved in the censoring process, and WikiLeaks wanted to have professionals censor the cables. They offered to work with the US initially, but were turned down. WikiLeaks worked alone on the Afghanistan materials they released, and it was concluded that there was a danger of informants being identified from the material because they did a poor job. So they ended up working with professionals. Either way, it would not affect the existence of an uncensored archive at WikiLeaks, which they would have to destroy to prevent this scenario from happening.

Sure I do. But my point was that the conditions Der Spiegel placed on WikiLeaks shouldn't have prevented them from restricting themselves to other media outlets which might have made less strict demands - assuming that everyone else didn't make the same demands, that is. But if you'll go back to read again what I posted elsewhere, I absolutely blame the US itself too for the whole mess, and arguably moreso than WikiLeaks, since they definately screwed up. This information only adds another group (Der Spiegel) to the list of those who might have been the other party who also screwed up.

As an aside, if WikiLeaks keeps the unedited archives somewhere it's entirely possible that they lost it rather than Der Spiegel. Why keep that archive when the "insurance" file is all over the web? I'd think it's more likely that someone just leaked the encryption key.

Ps: They threatened to do it in the case of the US attempting to seriously shut them down. Again, why do you think we shouldn't take them at their word? Should we assume that Ulster separatists actually want to purge all non-Celtic-descended peoples from the British Isles, rather than their stated goal of integrating Ulster with Ireland as a whole?

Say what? What kind of analogy is that?

In any case, we don't know what's going on with them, or for that matter, whether they panicked due to feeling threatened or whatever. Regardless of what's more likely, it is a possibility that they did it, and while I've seen good arguments for why someone else might have been responsible, in a situation like this, I'm not going to rule legitimate possibilities out just yet.

[Shroom Man 777]

Would anyone be bitching if wikileaks managed to reveal, say foreign Russchinaranianesian spies infiltrating the USA, leading to the USA capturing these spies and punishing them and waterboarding them?

Or, like, how Hydrocephalic Platypus Cuckolding Animals probably rejoiced when wikileaks leaked out Climategate and fucked global warming scientists up, that was great and they all probably celebrated by having a barbecue with deep fried ice cream sneaker bars. But when the leaked out material ends up threatening their precious military graphs, all the Start Sades and Bart Blades and Art Ades would scream "Balls!" and declare wikileaks as a bunch of Robert Strange Space Satan McNamaras and shriek about hanging the liberals and white phosphorusing union protesters or whatever stupid bullshit they spout in their misbegotten little lair.

So apparently its a good thing that foreign spies in US soil are captured. But foreign US spies in other nations' soils getting captured is... ungood?

Me, I'm worried about all the Iranian and Chinese and Russian operatives infiltrating the USA. I sure hope those innocent guys don't get caught by the Americans because of this Wikileaks thing, because we all know how that horrible freedom-hating nation's regime is so prone to torture and human rights violations.

(Seriously though, this sucks and would reduce confidence in Wikileaks. Like, even amongst those guys who wish to reveal information to them but would want to keep their identities secret.)

But hey, Bradley Manning. Now the shoe's on the other foot, America. And as they say, if the shoe fits... one must wear it.

[Simon_Jester]

Would anyone be bitching if wikileaks managed to reveal, say foreign Russchinaranianesian spies infiltrating the USA, leading to the USA capturing these spies and punishing them and waterboarding them?

I think the Russchinranianesians might complain. I wouldn't blame them. Everyone has a right to complain about being spied on.

But the problem gets really harsh if there are people like, say, Iraqi schoolteachers who get in shit with the guerillas over this. Or people who are trying to give up information on a real terrorist organization to a government (the US, or even some other government)- the US government may be a bunch of dicks about this stuff, but that doesn't mean it's cool to hand someone who reported an Al Qaeda guy to them over to Al Qaeda on a plate.

Also, even if it's just outright spies getting outed and executed or otherwise punished, there's an important point: it hurts your neutrality. Suddenly, instead of just impartially reporting horrible shit whenever it comes to your attention, you've got a situation where you've done a lot of hurt to one side of an ongoing conflict by directly doing something that helps the other side of the conflict.

For groups that are supposed to be impartial, like journalists, this is at best going to be awkward. There are times when it's what you've got to do anyway, sure, but it's still a problem.

(Seriously though, this sucks and would reduce confidence in Wikileaks. Like, even amongst those guys who wish to reveal information to them but would want to keep their identities secret.)

Yep.

[Omega18]

Why put the word collaborators in scare quotes? Are we talking about collaborators here? If so, tough titty for them. If we're talking about innocent people (NOT collaborators) then Wikileaks isn't responsible, the US government is for putting these innocent people in that position to begin with.

Among other people those "collaborators" are going to be individuals who reported serious human rights violations to US diplomats at various locations around the world. (While we can certainly take the position that the US is not always as concerned about such violations as they should be, there are in fact situations where the US does react and adjust their foreign policy in response to a sufficient number of reports judged to be reliable.)

What's exceedingly likely to happen now is in individuals who are named (or effectively identified even if their actual name is not used) in some of the cables now fully released are going to have ugly things happen to them in retaliation in some of the countries with nastier dictators.

Concern about their identities leaking in the future is likely to make people reporting human rights violations to US embassy personnel far more wary about doing so in the future so the US, so the US may entirely stay in the dark in some cases. Wikileaks just did a major favor for some really nasty dictators.

You can say its the fault of the US to a degree for not properly securing this info so it could be all released by Bradley Manning in the first place, but Wikileaks effectively did a bunch of dictators around the world a huge favor. (As noted, if they gave full copies of the material to a number of media sources around the world, that action inherently further compromised their security in the first place.)

[TheHammer]

This is the exact reason I felt that the U.S. was absolutely justified in throwing the fucking book at Bradley Manning. He deserves to have the maximum penalty levied, not only because of his own indescriminant stupidity, but to discourage the next Manning from thinking he'll get away with a slap on the wrist.

[Metahive]

If they had only thrown the book at Manning, but they had to go for downright abuse and humiliation as well. Are you OK with that too?

[Atlan]

If they had only thrown the book at Manning, but they had to go for downright abuse and humiliation as well. Are you OK with that too?

Not having followed this closely, and the press having moved on, HAVE they in fact thrown the book at him by now, or are they still in "abuse and humiliation" territory?

[Stofsk]

If they had only thrown the book at Manning, but they had to go for downright abuse and humiliation as well. Are you OK with that too?

Not having followed this closely, and the press having moved on, HAVE they in fact thrown the book at him by now, or are they still in "abuse and humiliation" territory?

Google to the rescue!

So it seems that after a protest campaign, they relaxed the whole 'abuse and humiliation' thing. The article was posted in the beginning of May.

[K. A. Pital]

I think the Russchinranianesians might complain

Yes, but the First World would be drooling hysterically over the new heroes ("defectors") who accomplished the valiant task of discovering the spies of Mordor inside the walls of Gondor. Which is sort of a predictable reaction, just like the outrage over Wikileaks from the same subset of people.

For groups that are supposed to be impartial, like journalists, this is at best going to be awkward.

Yeah, I agree. It is an excellent thing for a rebellious group seeking to harm their enemies as best they can. For a respectable journalist who seeks to work and be imbued in the system, not some radical who is seeking to destroy it, that is clearly unacceptable. Partisanship is the lot of marginals. Alas.

[TheHammer]

If they had only thrown the book at Manning, but they had to go for downright abuse and humiliation as well. Are you OK with that too?

No

[Simon_Jester]

I think the Russchinranianesians might complain

Yes, but the First World would be drooling hysterically over the new heroes ("defectors") who accomplished the valiant task of discovering the spies of Mordor inside the walls of Gondor. Which is sort of a predictable reaction, just like the outrage over Wikileaks from the same subset of people.

Of course. Whenever anything bad happens to Side A, the partisans of Side A will be upset, and the partisans of Side B will approve, because Side A has gotten into trouble.

Separate from this, though, we do have to ask about utilitarian consequences. When Wikileaks is involved in the revelation of US human rights abuses, that is very well for the cause of human rights. When Wikileaks' (or anyone else's) lack of information security leads to people in tyranny-besieged countries getting in trouble for reporting human rights abuses, that is bad for the cause of human rights.

It would have been better if Wikileaks had been able to avoid this release of information, and the fact that the information was released does somewhat undermine their credibility as someone who can be relied on to keep your secret for you.

For groups that are supposed to be impartial, like journalists, this is at best going to be awkward.

Yeah, I agree. It is an excellent thing for a rebellious group seeking to harm their enemies as best they can. For a respectable journalist who seeks to work and be imbued in the system, not some radical who is seeking to destroy it, that is clearly unacceptable. Partisanship is the lot of marginals. Alas.

True.

Of necessity, most people in a given system will not want it destroyed- reformed, hopefully, but not destroyed. Reform depends on the existence of neutral bodies that can report crimes and abuses, so that those crimes and abuses can be reformed. That's why nearly all regimes, insofar as they do things a reasonable person would want reformed, seek to prevent impartial investigation of their actions. And so we get the Soviet monopoly on the media, the American right's efforts to politicize and polarize the practice of journalism so that their followers will become trained to ignore news stories which don't fit the right's narrative, and so forth.

When organizations that are 'supposed' to be impartial wind up (accidentally or deliberately) aligning themselves with one or another party in a conflict, it undermines this goal of making sure all crimes are revealed, reported, and reformed.

And yes, I recognize this creates a lot of dilemmas for the media, especially since partisans will always accuse an impartial observer of bias.

[Thanas]

If they had only thrown the book at Manning, but they had to go for downright abuse and humiliation as well. Are you OK with that too?

Not having followed this closely, and the press having moved on, HAVE they in fact thrown the book at him by now, or are they still in "abuse and humiliation" territory?

Google to the rescue!

So it seems that after a protest campaign, they relaxed the whole 'abuse and humiliation' thing. The article was posted in the beginning of May.

They still have not charged him with anything, which is beyond shady.

[Metahive]

So they still haven't actually thrown the book at him? Wasn't there something in the constitution about a right to a fair and speedy trial or something? Or maybe they've just decided to extent the whole "enemy combatant" nonsense to US citizens as well, wouldn't surprise me.

[Stofsk]

lolwhut? STILL? Haha what a joke.

[Thanas]

No, they seem to follow the good old "let's throw him into a cell and then forget about the trial part" strategy.

[TheHammer]

They still have not charged him with anything, which is beyond shady.

Where did you get that idea? He hasn't gone to trial yet, but he certainly does have charges against him. Scans of which can be found here: http://news.cnet.com/2300-31921_3-10006905.html

[Thanas]

They still have not charged him with anything, which is beyond shady.

Where did you get that idea? He hasn't gone to trial yet, but he certainly does have charges against him. Scans of which can be found here: http://news.cnet.com/2300-31921_3-10006905.html

Yeah, charged. But not gone to trial yet, nor has a trial date even been set.

[Lord Zentei]

Isn't a year and a half since he was arrested, anyhow? That's hardly in line with the principle of "speedy trial". And his deplorable jail conditions were only improved after a massive protest campaign.

[Stofsk]

Man when I hear he's been on remand for over a year and a bit and is still awaiting trial, I think 'so business as usual'. Because that shit's pretty typical down here.

It's wrong but what can you do? Manning can't do shit except wait. Is the delay due to how long the trial might be expected to be, and thus a spot won't open up until quite awhile has passed?

[Block]

Man when I hear he's been on remand for over a year and a bit and is still awaiting trial, I think 'so business as usual'. Because that shit's pretty typical down here.

It's wrong but what can you do? Manning can't do shit except wait. Is the delay due to how long the trial might be expected to be, and thus a spot won't open up until quite awhile has passed?

Part of it is that military trials are weird. They can take forever to get started or they can be over and done with in a day, it depends on the severity of the crime, the overseeing authority and a bunch of other stuff that I really have no idea about since I wasn't in JAG. I think one of the rights waived in signing enlistment papers is the right to a speedy trial, but I could be wrong.