US diplomatic cables released

[Phantasee]

Coyote's criticisms are what I've been hearing more of up here. People are wondering why he's going exclusively after the US. I keep pointing out news articles from the past four years where they've exposed stuff from other countries.

I'm sorry, but other countries aren't as open as the US is. They keep a tighter control on their information. Do you really want to emulate that? And on top of that, the US is far more interesting than places like Nigeria, and I honestly find US interactions with Nigeria more interesting than Nigerian interactions with other African countries. US is the top dog, a lot of those "real problems" are related to them.

If you've got information on the high-up places of folks like Pakistan, Iran, the conflict escalation decisions in the DPRK, Russia, Burma or Syria's WMD plans, please, contact Wikileaks so the rest of us can learn something too.

[Bakustra]

They also got the war diaries and the cables from one guy in the US Army. If they get a similar supply from, say, a disgruntled FSB officer in Russia, then they'd probably end up with a lengthy series on Russia. They've taken down the links to a lot of these sights, but they have every document in their archive available for torrenting right now.

[Coyote]

But is Assange even trying? The original idea behind WikiLeaks, according to an NPR report I heard Friday, was that there would be regional WikiLeaks branches seeking information on everyone in their areas of interest-- the dirty dealings of China, Iran, etc as well as the USA. The interviewer said that Assange's decision to focus primarily on the USA has caused dissent... and I have to agree. If it becomes nothing but a anti-US site, why should it become any more credible than any other of a million anti-US sites? At some point, how will we even know if the stuff is even real anymore, or being planted purposefully by people who want to give the US a black eye?

I'm not saying the US should be given a free pass. And I actually would love to see them go after the big banks and Wall Streeters.

But I have to agree with the criticisms I've heard about the latest round of leaks-- the fact that the USA sees Medvedev as Putin's sockpuppet not only isn't much of a revelation, but it also isn't in the same league as the torture memos or the helicopter shooting video. International diplomats need to be able to speak candidly from time to time. If they're speaking candidly about "Mrs. Sarkozy sure is hot! And the Chief Minister of Dogcatchers in Asscrackistan sure is a dumbass, huh?", that's not leakworthy, IMO. Catching them talking candidly about "I'll turn this guy over to you so you can torture him, then we'll share the information, 'kay?" That would be leakworthy.

But no one's going to talk candidly at all, at least for awhile. If anything, the latest round of leaks reads more like tabloid gossip. If anyone sees this as damning as the torture memos, they're nuts.

[Thanas]

But is Assange even trying? The original idea behind WikiLeaks, according to an NPR report I heard Friday, was that there would be regional WikiLeaks branches seeking information on everyone in their areas of interest-- the dirty dealings of China, Iran, etc as well as the USA. The interviewer said that Assange's decision to focus primarily on the USA has caused dissent... and I have to agree. If it becomes nothing but a anti-US site, why should it become any more credible than any other of a million anti-US sites? At some point, how will we even know if the stuff is even real anymore, or being planted purposefully by people who want to give the US a black eye?

I'm not saying the US should be given a free pass. And I actually would love to see them go after the big banks and Wall Streeters.

They plan to do that. You seem to be a bit ill-informed about a lot of the stuff, I suggest rereading this thread.

Catching them talking candidly about "I'll turn this guy over to you so you can torture him, then we'll share the information, 'kay?" That would be leakworthy.

Did you perchance, even when I quoted it in reply to you, miss the leaked document about the US Armed Forces being complicit in widespread torture in iraq, including even going so far as to issue orders forbidding US soldiers to launch investigations into it?

But no one's going to talk candidly at all, at least for awhile. If anything, the latest round of leaks reads more like tabloid gossip. If anyone sees this as damning as the torture memos, they're nuts.

Oh really? So the US pressuring allies not to start inquiries into what happened to their citizens is not newsworthy?

(1) the U.S. military formally adopted a policy of turning a blind eye to systematic, pervasive torture and other abuses by Iraqi forces;

(2) the State Department threatened Germany not to criminally investigate the CIA's kidnapping of one of its citizens who turned out to be completely innocent;

(3) the State Department under Bush and Obama applied continuous pressure on the Spanish Government to suppress investigations of the CIA's torture of its citizens and the 2003 killing of a Spanish photojournalist when the U.S. military fired on the Palestine Hotel in Baghdad (see The Philadelphia Inquirer's Will Bunch today about this: "The day Barack Obama Lied to me");

(4) the British Government privately promised to shield Bush officials from embarrassment as part of its Iraq War "investigation";

(5) there were at least 15,000 people killed in Iraq that were previously uncounted;

(6) "American leaders lied, knowingly, to the American public, to American troops, and to the world" about the Iraq war as it was prosecuted, a conclusion the Post's own former Baghdad Bureau Chief wrote was proven by the WikiLeaks documents;

(7) the U.S.'s own Ambassador concluded that the July, 2009 removal of the Honduran President was illegal -- a coup -- but the State Department did not want to conclude that and thus ignored it until it was too late to matter;

(8) U.S. and British officials colluded to allow the U.S. to keep cluster bombs on British soil even though Britain had signed the treaty banning such weapons, and,

(9) Hillary Clinton's State Department ordered diplomats to collect passwords, emails, and biometric data on U.N. and other foreign officials, almost certainly in violation of the Vienna Treaty of 1961.

What of that is not newsworthy?

[Coyote]

Thanas, you seem to be under the impression that I am arguing for an "all-or-nothing" situation WRT these leaks.

Some things deserve to be brought out. Candidly discussing torture is one of them. I'm against torture, and it needs to be confronted when it takes root in our society.

On the other hand, snarky comments about Presidents Medvedev or Sarkozy (for example) accomplish nothing --except making America look bad.

So you can publish one without the other, see? I think publishing the snark will simply chill the willingness of certain people to relax and speak candidly. In other words, showing some judgment would be worth the effort. I'm sure there are plenty of legitimate reasons to be critical of the USA. As it is, this is like attacking a political opponent with counterpoints on his failed policies, his voting hypocrisies... but then also adding a bunch of stuff about how he's a closeted gay that kicks his dog. It's how 4th-graders "win" fights.

[Stark]

Except the whole point of releasing such a huge volume of material is that it reduces the ability for anyone to deny any part of it while increasing the veracity of your sources. Frankly, why the fuck should leakers SHIELD your government? To make you feel better?

Its ironic that you apparently believe the US is now in a fight ... with the truth. And the truth is cheating!

[Broomstick]

Of course, if you release too much snark in proportion to the really serious stuff you risk the serious stuff getting lost in all the snark.

Some snark is going to come out. Probably some should. But if you're really do this sort of thing to change things for the better you should be emphasizing the really heinous things and taking care they aren't lost in all the trivia.

[Thanas]

The problem is that if you hide stuff, it seriously diminishes the credibility. Then you open yourself up to the accusation that you only focus on the bad stuff and that most is actually quite benign. Full disclosure is a better way to go.

[Stark]

Nothing gets 'lost in the snark' unless you're dealing with idiots. Even the terrible media of the day helps the stupid focus on the important bits, and if they declined to release xyz for no reason (ps, hurting your feelings counts as no reason) than anyone could attempt to discredit the leaks by saying 'oh but they cut out these bits over here that make it all ok'. There's a reason to release everything, and if you're cut that the greatest power in the world is over-represented, its time to grow up.

Calling it 'snark' (a stupid word) that is bad because ... somehow... that they should have edited out so they could open themselves to actual accusations of bias has no justification I can see beyond 'I am a US cheerleader and now feel bad about my disgusting government'.

[Broomstick]

Well, hey, you asked for reasons why people are getting their panties in a twist over this and I called it like I see it. I don't particularly care to argue the rightness or wrongness of those reasons, I just provided them because you asked, Stark.

Me - I positively enjoy separating the wheat from the chaff when I've got the time to do it, I enjoy digging for real dirt. But I'm probably an exception to the rule.

Sure, make everything accessible, but I'd prefer the media say "Hey, these are the really offensive things" rather than concentrating on who accused whom of boozing and wild parties. Which would be an issue with US media more than with WikiLeaks. As for WikiLeaks, there is so much stuff there now that it might be time for a better way of organizing it all, but that's as much growing pains as anything else. I expect that to get sorted out with a little time.

[Phantasee]

The media now has access to a wealth of material to mine for articles...like they've been doing everywhere except the US. Instead of quality reporting we get Wolf Blitzer wondering how the government let this information get out. The Guardian, Der Spiegel, and El País have been writing up articles using the cables as sources every day since the cables began coming out. The CBC has done a decent job of highlighting the Canadian connections. What has the US done?

ASSANGE IS A RAPING TERRORIST HOW DID HE GET THIS INFORMATION

Where is the critical reporting that uses this new material? Why is the debate in the US centring around whether Assange was correct to do this and whether it is treason and whether he is a terrorist and who won Dancing With the Stars instead of all the shit that's out there, begging to be mined?

[Thanas]

I guess TERRORIST RAPIST THREATENS USA sells better than "hey guys, we are betraying our ideals".

[Broomstick]

^ This.

The New York Times is actually discussing some substance in regards to the stack of shit released. In addition, they've got an on-going bit about the legal issues, ethics, and other meta-issues going on their site as well.

My local papers aren't publishing much on the matter - maybe because they concentrate on local issues, hmm? - but what they have discussed has been on the cables related to the Middle East, Chinese hacking activities, and the difficulty WikiLeaks is having staying on line.

But forget TV "news" - that's been shit for years, and way too beholden to support from advertisers who exert monetary pressure on the stations. A lot of the national media has the same problems - trying to pay the bills means they have to have that revenue, which means gotta sell more than they have to tell the truth. This is where we get "if it bleeds it leads" from. Ironically, some fiscal support from the government to free them of reliance on private advertisers might, in fact, make for more balanced reporting (that, by the way, was wild ass speculation on my part, not intended as a well-thought out suggestion.) Maybe that's why the public broadcasting stations (which do receive some government money) can afford to buy news feeds from abroad, resulting in English translations of news from places like Germany and France where Americans can receive a different viewpoint. But, of course, there's always a campaign in Congress to kill public broadcasting of that nature.

All hail the free market and capitalism, ay?

[D.Turtle]

While that may have some influence, it by far isn't enough to explain the terribleness of the American news business.

The vast majority of news organisations here in Germany are private, and they also hold higher journalistic standards than most publications in the US. The problem is that large parts of American journalists (or news organisations) have decided that it is ethically acceptable to fuck morality and just try to go for whatever profits themselves (or the company) the most.

Its this mindset that anything is acceptable if it improves the bottom line that is behind a lot of the misery in the US. And since this mindset is supported by a large part of the American populace (paradoxically especially those who are hurt the most by it), it doesn't seem like it will change quickly.

[Siege]

The "anti-US site" argument is absolutely hysterical. Wikileaks is anti-US... because it exposes the US for what it is... which I suppose means the US is anti-US? Yeah, that makes sense!

[Broomstick]

Not quite - the argument is not that the US is being exposed for what it is, as noted, virtually no one is denying the truth of what is revealed, but rather that it is ONLY airing US dirty laundry. The people screaming about that have, as a general rule, not known about WikiLeaks prior to this uproar and thus are unaware that it has, in fact, published stuff on other entities than the US government. Even if they are, they might argue that it is the proportion of US shit to other shit being revealed that makes it anti-US, though as also frequently noted the US is more open about information than many societies and it is easier to get information out of the US than out of other places. Finally, there are reports of Assange being anti-US himself, which then leads many to conclude the site must then be anti-US, which ignores the fact that Assange is not the only person working for WikiLeaks.

[weemadando]

Not quite - the argument is not that the US is being exposed for what it is, as noted, virtually no one is denying the truth of what is revealed, but rather that it is ONLY airing US dirty laundry. The people screaming about that have, as a general rule, not known about WikiLeaks prior to this uproar and thus are unaware that it has, in fact, published stuff on other entities than the US government. Even if they are, they might argue that it is the proportion of US shit to other shit being revealed that makes it anti-US, though as also frequently noted the US is more open about information than many societies and it is easier to get information out of the US than out of other places. Finally, there are reports of Assange being anti-US himself, which then leads many to conclude the site must then be anti-US, which ignores the fact that Assange is not the only person working for WikiLeaks.

I think that you're skewing this a bit. The fact is that they got handed a massive pile of the US' dirty laundry and that's what they've been doling out. If you think that they wouldn't release this kind of stuff on other nations, then you're making some strange assumptions.

And lets face it. It's not like the US diplomatic cables haven't put a whole shitload of other nations dirty laundry out there either as a result.

[Thanas]

Yeah, like catching some of germany's politicians red handed in trying to start intrigues or revealing state secrets to the americans.

[Omega18]

Except the whole point of releasing such a huge volume of material is that it reduces the ability for anyone to deny any part of it while increasing the veracity of your sources. Frankly, why the fuck should leakers SHIELD your government? To make you feel better?

Its ironic that you apparently believe the US is now in a fight ... with the truth. And the truth is cheating!

The reality is this excuse is basically complete BS. Wikileaks in reality has an extremely massive amount of material due to the impact of how this worked with digital down loads of massive amounts of documents, and could have easily stuck with a far smaller portion of the material being released and no risk of it plausibly being denied. (They could have simply waited and released a bit more of the info which is not really damaging for anyone if problem with the US denying it did actually happen.)

Not bothering to leave out the stuff which doesn't reveal significant details about the US and foreign country's policies is pure laziness at absolute best. The US and any other government as I previously noted has an absolutely legitimate need to for instance for diplomats to privately make accurate but unflattering observations and political figures of other countries. If diplomats are afraid to do so in the future that could be a real problem. The only real reason other than time saving to release this info is either to hurt the US in general or to seek additional publicity for the hell of it. It certainly doesn't fulfill a justifiable public interest.

The reality is the actually scandalous info regarding US policies which you can really argue were covered up is actually a tiny portion of it. Incidentally, to reasonable people the Honduras revelations actually put the US is a better light if anything. The leaks appear to debunk the idea the US actually was secretly behind the coup, and it should certainly be noted the US definitely did not rush to embrace the new Honduras government after the coup, pissing off allot of conservatives in the US in the process. The idea the US didn't want to publicly make the statement the coup was illegal and take a much more confrontational stance which could lead to all sorts of complications with everything else the US had on its plate at the time is not surprising to anyone with a realistic grasp of how this kind of foreign policy works. (I.E. the US is certainly not a saint out to right every wrong in existence with its foreign policy, but it should be noted they did insist on new elections in Honduras in a prompt manner after the coup in question.)

Not admitting Wikileaks should have been more selective in what they leaked is really defending the indefensible. To be clear, diplomats worrying about their honest observations getting leaked and not being frank enough with their communications to Washington D.C. could potentially actually lead to an unnecessary war in the future. If you look at history, misconceptions regarding foreign countries and failing to understand them have been the key factor behind plenty of wars occurring in the past. Anything likely to make this situation worse in the future is not a good thing.

[Coyote]

No... if Wikileaks is exposing real problems --like the torture, for example-- fine. But WikiLeaks wants to be this site promoting transparency; but they focus primarily on the US. They would have more credibility, IMO, if they focused as much on other countries' dirty dealings as they do on the USA.

Bypassing interesting stuff --hey, did you know that the North Korean nuclear program is, like, 500% larger than anyone even previously imagined?-- to get to bullshit like "we think Medvedev is Putin bitch!-- teehee!" --makes WikiLeaks into little more than an anti-US tabloid rant that occasionally gives nuggets of useful truth.

So no one here would be as interested in, say... what the Israeli government talks about when they make decisions on Settlements? Or if you want tabloid rag stuff, the Italian government right now seems to be a gold mine. How about how the Greeks make financial decisions?

...no, journalist murders in Russia, for example, are not as important as Clinton getting caught on tape calling someone a poopyhead.

[General Zod]

No... if Wikileaks is exposing real problems --like the torture, for example-- fine. But WikiLeaks wants to be this site promoting transparency; but they focus primarily on the US. They would have more credibility, IMO, if they focused as much on other countries' dirty dealings as they do on the USA.

Bypassing interesting stuff --hey, did you know that the North Korean nuclear program is, like, 500% larger than anyone even previously imagined?-- to get to bullshit like "we think Medvedev is Putin bitch!-- teehee!" --makes WikiLeaks into little more than an anti-US tabloid rant that occasionally gives nuggets of useful truth.

So no one here would be as interested in, say... what the Israeli government talks about when they make decisions on Settlements? Or if you want tabloid rag stuff, the Italian government right now seems to be a gold mine. How about how the Greeks make financial decisions?

...no, journalist murders in Russia, for example, are not as important as Clinton getting caught on tape calling someone a poopyhead.

You do understand how Wikileaks works, right? It's not like they go out and try to talk people into giving them stuff. The way you go on it's like you think Wikileaks is some kind of spy ring instead of just a bunch of guys who publish whatever people give them.

[D.Turtle]

Lets take a look at the Wikileaks "about" page:

2.2 Some of the stories we have broken
...
#
# Toll Collect Vertraege, 2002 - Publication of around 10.000 pages of a secret contract between the German federal government and the Toll Collect consortium, a private operator group for heavy vehicle tolling system
# Leaked documents suggest European CAP reform just a whitewash - European farm reform exposed
# Stasi still in charge of Stasi files - Suppressed 2007 investigation into infiltration of former Stasi into the Stasi files commission
# IGES Schlussbericht Private Krankenversicherung, 25 Jan 2010 - Hidden report on the economics of the German private health insurance system and its rentability

*

Suppression of free speech and a free press

* The Independent: Toxic Shame: Thousands injured in African city, 17 Sep 2009 - Publication of an article originally published in UK newspaper The Independent, but censored from the Independent's website. WikiLeaks has saved dozens of articles, radio and tv recordings from disappearing after having been censored from BBC, Guardian, and other major news organisations archives.
* Secret gag on UK Times preventing publication of Minton report into toxic waste dumping, 16 Sep 2009 - Publication of variations of a so-called super-injunction, one of many gag-orders published by WikiLeaks to expose successful attempts to suppress the free press via repressive legal attacks
* Media suppression order over Turks and Caicos Islands Commission of Inquiry corruption report, 20 Jul 2009 - Exposure of a press gagging order from the Turks and Caicos Islands, related to WikiLeaks exposure of the Commission of Inquiry corruption report
* Bermuda's Premier Brown and the BCC bankdraft - Brown went to the Privy council London to censor the press in Bermuda
* How German intelligence infiltrated Focus magazine - Illegal spying on German journalists

...

*

Ecology, climate, nature and sciences

* Draft Copenhagen climate change agreement, 8 Dec 2009 - Confidential draft "circle of commitment" (rich-country) Copenhagen climate change agreement
* Draft Copenhagen Accord Dec 18, 2009 - Three page draft Copehagen "accord", from around Friday 7pm, Dec 18, 2009; includes pen-markings
* Climatic Research Unit emails, data, models, 1996-2009 - Over 60MB of emails, documents, code and models from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, written between 1996 and 2009 that lead to a worldwide debate
* The Monju nuclear reactor leak - Three suppressed videos from Japan's fast breeder reactor Monju revealing the true extent of the 1995 sodium coolant disaster

*

Corruption, finance, taxes, trading

* The looting of Kenya under President Moi - $3,000,000,000 presidential corruption exposed; swung the Dec 2007 Kenyan election, long document, be patient
* Gusmao's $15m rice deal alarms UN - Rice deal corruption in East Timor
* How election violence was financed - the embargoed Kenyan Human Rights Commission report into the Jan 2008 killings of over 1,300 Kenyans
* Financial collapse: Confidential exposure analysis of 205 companies each owing above EUR45M to Icelandic bank Kaupthing, 26 Sep 2008 - Publication of a confidential report that has lead to hundreds of newspaper articles worldwide
* Barclays Bank gags Guardian over leaked memos detailing offshore tax scam, 16 Mar 2009 - Publication of censored documents revealing a number of elaborate international tax avoidance schemes by the SCM (Structured Capital Markets) division of Barclays
* Bank Julius Baer: Grand Larceny via Grand Cayman - How the largest private Swiss bank avoids paying tax to the Swiss government
* Der Fall Moonstone Trust - Cayman Islands Swiss bank trust exposed
* Over 40 billion euro in 28167 claims made against the Kaupthing Bank, 23 Jan 2010 - List of Kaupthing claimants after Icelandic banking crash
* Northern Rock vs. WikiLeaks - Northern Rock Bank UK failed legal injunctions over the ¡Ì24,000,000,000 collapse
* Whistleblower exposes insider trading program at JP Morgan - Legal insider trading in three easy steps, brought to you by JP Morgan and the SEC

*

Censorship technology and internet filtering

* Eutelsat suppresses independent Chinese-language TV station NTDTV to satisfy Beijing - French sat provider Eutelsat covertly removed an anti-communist TV channel to satisfy Beijing
* Internet Censorship in Thailand - The secret internet censorship lists of Thailand's military junta

Cults and other religious organizations

* Church of Scientology's 'Operating Thetan' documents leaked online - Scientology's secret, and highly litigated bibles
* Censored Legion de Cristo and Regnum Cristi document collection - Censored internal documents from the Catholic sect Legion de Cristo (Legion of Christ)
* US Department of Labor investigation into Landmark Education, 2006 - 2006 investigative report by the U.S. Department of Labor on Landmark Education

Wow, look they are entirely anti-US!

[Coyote]

You do understand how Wikileaks works, right? It's not like they go out and try to talk people into giving them stuff. The way you go on it's like you think Wikileaks is some kind of spy ring instead of just a bunch of guys who publish whatever people give them.

I realize WikiLeaks isn't a spy ring ( ) but they got a lot of street cred at first by going after questionable things like the helicopter attack in Iraq, the torture, etc. I don't know how they cultivate sources, okay? But I have to theorize that at some level they do, in fact, cultivate sources in some manner.

[Thanas]

No... if Wikileaks is exposing real problems --like the torture, for example-- fine. But WikiLeaks wants to be this site promoting transparency; but they focus primarily on the US. They would have more credibility, IMO, if they focused as much on other countries' dirty dealings as they do on the USA.

Bypassing interesting stuff --hey, did you know that the North Korean nuclear program is, like, 500% larger than anyone even previously imagined?-- to get to bullshit like "we think Medvedev is Putin bitch!-- teehee!" --makes WikiLeaks into little more than an anti-US tabloid rant that occasionally gives nuggets of useful truth.

So no one here would be as interested in, say... what the Israeli government talks about when they make decisions on Settlements? Or if you want tabloid rag stuff, the Italian government right now seems to be a gold mine. How about how the Greeks make financial decisions?

...no, journalist murders in Russia, for example, are not as important as Clinton getting caught on tape calling someone a poopyhead.

Your comments, as D.Turtle showed, only serve to show your own ignorance. No more of this, please. You previously weaseled out of this by calling it your own personal opinion and not fact, but this statement contains several factual claims. Your claim that they do not expose useful stuff (who gets to decide that, btw?) is wrong as shown in this and numerous other threads over time. You want to talk about torture? Fine, the recent leaks had plenty of that. What part of the long list of releases I quoted to you several damn times is not important? Take your pick and prove it.

Otherwise, shut up. Last warning.

[General Zod]

I realize WikiLeaks isn't a spy ring ( ) but they got a lot of street cred at first by going after questionable things like the helicopter attack in Iraq, the torture, etc. I don't know how they cultivate sources, okay? But I have to theorize that at some level they do, in fact, cultivate sources in some manner.

Try reading their submissions page sometime.

2 Our anonymous electronic drop box

Wikileaks has an anonymous electronic drop box if you wish to provide original material to our journalists. Wikileaks accepts a range of material, but we do not solicit it. If you are going to send in material it should be done as securely as possible. That is why we have created our novel method of submission based on a suite of security technologies designed to provide anonymity. We have put a great deal of technical and design work into the drop box because we take the journalist-source relationship very seriously.