Wikileaks Embassy Cables

Originally posted by 753
they can scream and legislate all they want, there'll be no stopping this. just like napster as you acurately pointed out. And despite the us and other governments formidable propaganda machines, whistleblowers are much harder to label terrorist than a random armed militant or direct action activist. This will eventually erode the credibility of the use of the terrorist label - as it has already been eroded to a point - until it loses effect, which will actually be good against the criminalization of dissent, of course, it'll weaken criticisms of actual terrorism.

I guess that is good if you are a terrorist.

Originally posted by 753
they can scream and legislate all they want, there'll be no stopping this. just like napster as you acurately pointed out. And despite the us and other governments formidable propaganda machines, whistleblowers are much harder to label terrorist than a random armed militant or direct action activist. This will eventually erode the credibility of the use of the terrorist label - as it has already been eroded to a point - until it loses effect, which will actually be good against the criminalization of dissent, of course, it'll weaken criticisms of actual terrorism.

but that sort of "labeling" of terrorist is just part and parcel of the Republican propoganda machine, this is what Palin said of Assange on her facebook:

Assange is not a 'journalist,' any more than the 'editor' of al Qaeda's new English-language magazine Inspire is a 'journalist.' He is an anti-American operative with blood on his hands. His past posting of classified documents revealed the identity of more than 100 Afghan sources to the Taliban. Why was he not pursued with the same urgency we pursue al Qaeda and Taliban leaders?

remember, this is the same Palin who refused to call those who bomb abortion clinics terrorists.

frankly, I half expect the next republican "tweet" to claim that Assange attended a madrass as a child.

(for the record, I do want to do a bigger post addressing the "more than 100 Afghan sources" claim)

Haven't had a chance to look these over yet, it comes as no surprise though. These politicians are all two-faced rats so the shock factor isn't really there.

The rape charges did crack me up a bit though. Desperate to get the guy locked up.

Wiki leaks is a welcome addition to the internet

Originally posted by Liberator
The rape charges did crack me up a bit though. Desperate to get the guy locked up.

see, its just as likely hes using the limelight to make it seem like he didn't do it, or waiting for US politicians to say dumb things, like they already are, to make it look like he really might be the target of some huge spy conspiracy.

idk, its a tough one. Its one of those conspiracy situations that I can't simply "logic" out of

Originally posted by inimalist
see, its just as likely hes using the limelight to make it seem like he didn't do it, or waiting for US politicians to say dumb things, like they already are, to make it look like he really might be the target of some huge spy conspiracy.

idk, its a tough one. Its one of those conspiracy situations that I can't simply "logic" out of

Aye, it gets very iffy when its blown up to this proportion.

I've read through some of the documents, I don't think I'm reading the right ones but I haven't really found anything of much interest yet. Anyone find anything neat?

Risk vs Reward

The common and really only valid criticism of Wikileaks is that its dumps of secret information may endanger lives. One couldn't say there are no risks, but the question is, how much risk? Even at the cost of lives, most people on this forum support the Danish cartoons of Mohammed or supported South Park against its death threats. The principle is the same (not in magnitude, obviously freedom of speech is more important than wikileaks), only can it be said that what we see in Wikileaks releases is worth the harm that it undeniably has the potential to cause?

The primary concern has been for “informants” and other sources. So, how easy is it to find these names? Well, for the sake of argument, lets say what this blog says is true:

http://philosophistry.com/archives/2010/08/wikileaks-one-month-later.html

He says, in a few hours, he is able to figure out a quick way to search the Afghan war Wikileaks such that he finds a number of informants, clearly named. I could do big math and say “even if he was searching an impossibly large number of files per hour, and he searched for a whole day, and his search trick was very effective, he still would have only seen 0.000XXXX-whatever percent of the files, and we can extrapolate that to mean there are potentially some impossibly high number of named sources in the files”, but ya, even if it is the few this blog found, that is a direct threat to these people's lives.

To focus on Afghanistan still, the Taliban have said they are searching the war logs to find traitors and it is foolish to think that the horizontally organized international Jihad isn't computer savvy (certainly enough to search a website). Further, the Taliban almost certainly don't use the same definition of “informant” that we do. The blog I posted, at the end, makes the argument that some of the named Afghan individuals aren't actually “sources”, but rather, in the case of a soldier who almost defected to the Americans, just other people the American army talked to. Clearly, what this blogger and Wikileaks miss is that even things that might seem innocuous to us might be considered treasonous to the Taliban. This soldier is likely in real danger. How would an American soldier be treated if they almost defected to Iran? A semantic argument about what classifies as an informant doesn't really address this.

However. It must be said, Wikileaks does go through the documents to try and filter out names, the pentagon has said that no people have been harmed by the release and that no sources were compromised. Further, Asange offered the American government the chance to search both the Afghan war logs and the State dept memos, yet was turned down. Ultimately then, it must be said, in real terms, the risk that these leaks seem to pose is minimal at best, but not zero.

So then, what is there to gain from Wikileaks, if we are to accept this risk, however minimal? In terms of new information that regional experts and local reporters are totally unaware of, little. There are examples from all of the dumps of things we didn't know, for sure, but for the most part, the releases weren't saying things that people didn't already know. Afghan experts on AJE seemed astonished at how little was actually revealed in the documents. But what they all show are the nuts and bolts that operate between political decisions politicians and citizens make. We get an unfiltered view at what soldiers face on a daily basis, we see the decision making process with more clarity, we understand the real costs associated with policies, this in terms of war and diplomacy. The revelations on Kenyan corruption, while certainly no new, do show just the type of corruption American business are willing to tolerate and support:

http://www.nation.co.ke/News/American%20business%20chiefs%20praise%20Kenya%20/-/1056/1043764/-/ccl0pa/-/index.html

The Kyrgyzstan cable, that got headlines for the Prince's comments, is far more revealing of the back room negotiations between the economic interests of democracies and autocratic dictators.

To me, this is almost more important, the hows and the whys that fill in how world events work. I don't think what Wikileaks does is journalism, but it is something like it, and like freedom of the press, which comes at some risk, it is worth having.

Originally posted by Liberator
Aye, it gets very iffy when its blown up to this proportion.

I've read through some of the documents, I don't think I'm reading the right ones but I haven't really found anything of much interest yet. Anyone find anything neat?

as the Washington post put it, in an otherwise terrible article, most of what we have seen so far is US State department employees doing their job well.

But ya, if you troll the Guardian and NYT daily blogs they have going, you can find good summaries of what has been released.

Wikileaks started releasing cables that hadn't been by the newspapers yet, afaik, but they are down again.

Wikipedia (whose founder is actually against the release) actually has the best collection I've seen:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_diplomatic_cables_leak#Contents_by_region

Isn't it interesting how as soon as Wikileaks announced the next leak to be an expose of the banking industry, Mike Huckabee and Marc Thiessen start calling for executions and an invasion of Sweden while Obama suddenly calls for arrests? They're probably afraid that people will get upset enough to organize a general strike or will start clipping the rich and powerful in the streets. What can I say? If you're gonna do a rerun of the 1890's and the 1920's, you're gonna have to deal with pissed off populists (the real ones, not the teabagging social darwinist fascists who taint the word) angry enough to grind the system to a halt and anarchists who are gonna want to play Robespierre. Duh.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
Isn't it interesting how as soon as Wikileaks announced the next leak to be an expose of the banking industry, Mike Huckabee and Marc Thiessen start calling for executions and an invasion of Sweden while Obama suddenly calls for arrests? They're probably afraid that people will get upset enough to organize a general strike or will start clipping the rich and powerful in the streets. What can I say? If you're gonna do a rerun of the 1890's and the 1920's, you're gonna have to deal with pissed off populists (the real ones, not the teabagging social darwinist fascists who taint the word) angry enough to grind the system to a halt and anarchists who are gonna want to play Robespierre. Duh.

the same calls were coming out before that Forbes interview went up, congressmen were musing about "snatch and grab" teams and what have you.

What is more interesting, imho, is that Bank of America's stock has fallen significantly, as it is assumed the files are about them.

Originally posted by inimalist
[b]Risk vs Reward

The common and really only valid criticism of Wikileaks is that its dumps of secret information may endanger lives. One couldn't say there are no risks, but the question is, how much risk? Even at the cost of lives, most people on this forum support the Danish cartoons of Mohammed or supported South Park against its death threats. The principle is the same (not in magnitude, obviously freedom of speech is more important than wikileaks), only can it be said that what we see in Wikileaks releases is worth the harm that it undeniably has the potential to cause?

The primary concern has been for “informants” and other sources. So, how easy is it to find these names? Well, for the sake of argument, lets say what this blog says is true:

http://philosophistry.com/archives/2010/08/wikileaks-one-month-later.html

He says, in a few hours, he is able to figure out a quick way to search the Afghan war Wikileaks such that he finds a number of informants, clearly named. I could do big math and say “even if he was searching an impossibly large number of files per hour, and he searched for a whole day, and his search trick was very effective, he still would have only seen 0.000XXXX-whatever percent of the files, and we can extrapolate that to mean there are potentially some impossibly high number of named sources in the files”, but ya, even if it is the few this blog found, that is a direct threat to these people's lives.

To focus on Afghanistan still, the Taliban have said they are searching the war logs to find traitors and it is foolish to think that the horizontally organized international Jihad isn't computer savvy (certainly enough to search a website). Further, the Taliban almost certainly don't use the same definition of “informant” that we do. The blog I posted, at the end, makes the argument that some of the named Afghan individuals aren't actually “sources”, but rather, in the case of a soldier who almost defected to the Americans, just other people the American army talked to. Clearly, what this blogger and Wikileaks miss is that even things that might seem innocuous to us might be considered treasonous to the Taliban. This soldier is likely in real danger. How would an American soldier be treated if they almost defected to Iran? A semantic argument about what classifies as an informant doesn't really address this.

However. It must be said, Wikileaks does go through the documents to try and filter out names, the pentagon has said that no people have been harmed by the release and that no sources were compromised. Further, Asange offered the American government the chance to search both the Afghan war logs and the State dept memos, yet was turned down. Ultimately then, it must be said, in real terms, the risk that these leaks seem to pose is minimal at best, but not zero.

So then, what is there to gain from Wikileaks, if we are to accept this risk, however minimal? In terms of new information that regional experts and local reporters are totally unaware of, little. There are examples from all of the dumps of things we didn't know, for sure, but for the most part, the releases weren't saying things that people didn't already know. Afghan experts on AJE seemed astonished at how little was actually revealed in the documents. But what they all show are the nuts and bolts that operate between political decisions politicians and citizens make. We get an unfiltered view at what soldiers face on a daily basis, we see the decision making process with more clarity, we understand the real costs associated with policies, this in terms of war and diplomacy. The revelations on Kenyan corruption, while certainly no new, do show just the type of corruption American business are willing to tolerate and support:

http://www.nation.co.ke/News/American%20business%20chiefs%20praise%20Kenya%20/-/1056/1043764/-/ccl0pa/-/index.html

The Kyrgyzstan cable, that got headlines for the Prince's comments, is far more revealing of the back room negotiations between the economic interests of democracies and autocratic dictators.

To me, this is almost more important, the hows and the whys that fill in how world events work. I don't think what Wikileaks does is journalism, but it is something like it, and like freedom of the press, which comes at some risk, it is worth having. [/B]

Yes, while I am not a leninist, his theory of imperialism was essentially correct and still as true today as it was back then. What people fail to realize is that wikileaks is denouncing atrocities and the exposing them is always a first step in opposing them. These atrocities include the war crimes and police abuses commited in iraq and afghanistan, but also the systemic and perennial conlude between democratic, freedom loving 1st world governments and transnational capitalists to secure raw materials and consumers markets in the 3rd world at the expense of the populations' material and political wellfare, always with the eager help of the local political elites (be them ellected or dictatorial) that are more than willing to cooperate in exchange for support to obtain or remain in power and compromise the public's interests in exchange for a piece of the cake.

What a coincidence wikileaks boss Julian Assange has got a warrent out for his arrest, apparently for sexual harrasment and rape. Is it just me or is the timing a bit suspicious??

Are you serious? 😐

Originally posted by Bicnarok
What a coincidence wikileaks boss Julian Assange has got a warrent out for his arrest, apparently for sexual harrasment and rape. Is it just me or is the timing a bit suspicious??

I agree, it does seem suspicious. I would think, if the US really wanted to get him, he would just have an accident.

that would raise a lot more suspicion and woul possibly martirize him, while a demoralization atempt aimed at destroying his reputation and credibility to silence him and wikileaks through ad homine fallacies could actually succeed.

the whole timeline for the events seems off, he would have molested 2 different women on separate ocasions a few days apart and then a couple of weeks later they'd both show up toghether to press charges against him

Wikileaks released a DOD document earlier in 2010 about its plan to neturalize the site.

One of the plans was to discredit him. There is a HUGE conspiracy side to this, when you get into the relationship between Bradley Manning (likely leaker) and Adrian Lamo (who reported Manning to the gvt).

One of the swiss prosceutors tried to defend the warrant on AJE (I posted before) and does a terrible job, making the entire operation seem very unorganized and directionless

The problem is, at the time it happened, Asange was a huge media figure. With his obvious ego, it isn't hard to imagine that he might have gotten in to some trouble with a girl or two. There is nothing extremely suspiscious about how the girls have behaved, and even the angle that these are the accusations of "lovers scorned" is a real possibility. However, if it really is a type of smear campaign lobbied by the US, why is Asange hiding? Obviously he shouldn't give interviews on the matter, but why not face it directly in court?

Guilty or not, he is riding this underdog heroism for all it is worth. And with the way the US government is reacting, especially on the right, the idea that he might be targeted for such a campaign seems increasingly believable, even if Asange is a rapist.

Ultimately though, I don't think it matters. Wikileaks is bigger than asange at this point, and I agree with 753, if something dramatic were to happen, it would embolden people more than it would damage the ability to leak.

Originally posted by 753
the whole timeline for the events seems off, he would have molested 2 different women on separate ocasions a few days apart and then a couple of weeks later they'd both show up toghether to press charges against him

I can't remember where, but I read that the women had discovered each other, and after that, they decided to press charges. Makes me think the jilted lover angle has some legs

It's not actually suspicious at all considering when and where the alleged incidents took place. If it was a sudden resurfacing of a ten year old issue then you might have something, but as it is... don't give the guy a free ride just because you like what he has done elsewhere.

Spreading misinformation does not help, 753. The accusations were both made within a few days of the incident. It could all be nonsense, of course, as he is a celebrity figure and these things happen (real or not), but the instant jump to conspiracy is an unseemly conclusion- especially from a country like Sweden (hardly evil central), and even more especially when one of the accusers is from a party that supports his efforts. He's admitted having sex with them; he is hardly a monk.

Anyway, these revelations are pretty bland. 'Diplomats say bad things about political figures shock horror'. Kind of like 'sun rises in morning'. The stuff was barely even classified- it was openly viewable by millions. The biggest revelation- that the Saudis wanted the US to attack Iran and the US refused- does more credit to the US than anything else, happily blowing some of the more ludicrous comments on the US out of the water.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
It's not actually suspicious at all considering when and where the alleged incidents took place. If it was a sudden resurfacing of a ten year old issue then you might have something, but as it is... don't give the guy a free ride just because you like what he has done elsewhere.

Spreading misinformation does not help, 753. The accusations were both made within a few days of the incident. It could all be nonsense, of course, as he is a celebrity figure and these things happen, but the instant jump to conspiracy is an unseemly conclusion- especially from a country like Sweden, and even more especially when one of the accusers is from a party that supports his efforts.

Anyway, these revelations are pretty bland. 'Diplomats say nad things about political figures shock horror'. Kind of like 'sun rises in morning'. The biggest revelation- that the Saudis wanted the US to attack Iran and the US refused- does more credit to the US than anything else, happily blowing some of the more ludicrous comments on the US out of the water.

The length of time between the first alleged event happening and the investigation being opened was merely six days. The second event was two days later. Either may well have been reported before that, as they'd need to interview the women concerned etc. before deciding to open an investigation. Regardless, these are entirely appropriate and normal times. There is nothing suspicious.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
The length of time between the first alleged event happening and the investigation being opened was merely six days. The second event was two days later. Either may well have been reported before that, as they'd need to interview the women concerned etc. before deciding to open an investigation. Regardless, these are entirely appropriate and normal times. There is nothing suspicious.

at least if only about the actions of the women