Um, I Think It's Time for a Thread on WikiLeaks

http://c1.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/images02/39/l_d78e990a055c453d82f5ef951448c578.jpg

"some day this war's gonna end"

govt trots

Those old Marxism Today bunch get everywhere...

http://cablegate.wikileaks.org/index.html
Currently released so far... 219 / 251,287 ?

I still don't understand what this leak is supposed to accomplish, other than "look what Wikileaks can do" (history mayne OTM). Isn't diplomacy the best way to avoid "Endless War" and to prevent future ones? How does compromising diplomatic trust in the US (and the countries it deals with on a regular basis) supposed to help that?

At the end of the day, I'm sure that the Saudi king -- the champion of human rights and free speech that he is -- will be the first to admit that carrying out diplomacy completely in the public domain will be the most effective way to bring peace to the Middle East.

I don't know what its moral purpose is meant to be anymore. It just seems like reckless posturing more than anything else, and whether the impact of revelation X is positive or negative in the long run isn't even relevant. It's like the Popbitch of geopolitics - juicy gossip dressed up as The Truth.

"other than look what ___ can do" sounds a lot like certain countries' foreign policies.

the best way to prevent misdeeds and corruption is to bring records thereof to the public attention and hold the people involved accountable (lol ok let's not get carried away though). countries and corporations that don't want their misdeeds made public by wikileaks or other whistleblowers shouldn't commit misdeeds or do things they don't want made public (to paraphrase a much-beloved around here writer)

k3vin OTMFM

also i've no idea how diplomatic relations with the US will be adversely affected considering the US hasn't consented to the release of the cables and in fact has been strongly critical of it

i think id have a much better relationship with my friends if they knew every single thing id ever said about them to other people. cant see any problem with that. at all.

"other than look what ___ can do" sounds a lot like certain countries' foreign policies

omg you totally went there

yeah sure, the us went into afghanistan just to show everyone how big its dick was

simple

totally the point, great job xp

a lot of this stuff isn't 'corruption' or 'misdeeds', it's grown-ups talking

the state dept has x-opinion about putin? well surely it's everyone's business to know

truth to power eh mayne

Also, there's no context here.

This leak is akin to sending out a private email to your entire address book.

What's corrupt about Saudi Arabia and the US discussing how to deal with Iran's nuclear program? What's corrupt about the government trying to find out if the Chinese government is involved in global computer hacking? Yeah, let's "hold China accountable" -- I'm sure that thanks to this heroic leak, the Chinese government will be so embarrassed that they'll voluntarily stop with any cyber-chicanery they might be doing!

I found today's revelations unspectacular (exception: first time in years I've come across a reference to Eritrea). But classifying millions of documents because of a fetish for secrecy will lead to an inordinate interest in the trivialities leaked today. Which is to say: I found last July's leaks a lot more interesting than today's.

max think of it as the irl equivalent of no meta on 77 - mad threads are getting moved

ok cracking myself up now, bbl

I think it's fascinating to see what the supposedly good guys are doing behind the scenes, makes you wonder what's going on in the "rogue/evil" countries.

Killing guys like Assange?

i.e. fulfilling Jonah Goldberg's fantasies?

it's funny we never find out, coz they're probably really lenient with truth-telling journalist types

xp

I did find it interesting to learn how hard arab countries are pushing for strikes against Iran. I feel there's probably some value in the public being aware of this?

Ho hum

emeni President Ali Abdullah Saleh admits covering up US military strikes on Al-Qaeda in Yemen by claiming they are carried out by Yemeni forces, according to US documents leaked by WikiLeaks.

yeah who knew saudi arabia had beef with iran, huh? major revelaish there.

xp

One thing I'll say is that these leaks appear to be a lot more entertaining than those boring war documents. Probably harder to justify leaking, though.

http://i.imgur.com/ObiTM.jpg

just gotta love the post-ironic SS symbol on that seal...

One thing I'll say is that these leaks appear to be a lot more entertaining than those boring war documents. Probably harder to justify leaking, though.

― https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ipr-wS5iBv0 (Princess TamTam), Sunday, November 28, 2010 5:58 PM (50 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

otm

ha

I'm resolutely against the current wars. Right now, the leaks themselves simply mean another opportunity to criticize these wars. The content of the leaks and whether or not one condones them is more or less irrelevant to me at this moment. Attention has been shifted to US foreign policy and that's good enough for me.

the focus isn't on the wars, though, it's on whatever's juicy. i don't have a big objection to the US being involved in yemen -- obviously torture, avoidable civilian casualties, etc., those i'm against -- but even if i did, i don't see what the leaks do to clinch an argument.

yr kinda conflicted between deprecation and indignation -- either the information is crap/redundant or dangerous but not conceivably both

some of it is redundant, some is possibly a bit damaging

something can useless for making a case against a war (tho Alfred's point is that he doesn't care about making a care against it, just creating awareness -- presumably he believes the case against it has already been made sufficiently and lacks exposure, and maybe he's right) and still be dangerous. for instance a totally meaningless piece of information can blow up into a scandal (a sex scandal is a good example of dangerous useless information) or a person's identity could be exposed and endanger them despite containing meaningless information.

guardian going hot and heavy with this lot anyway

Timothy Garton Ash: A banquet of secrets

the focus isn't on the wars, though, it's on whatever's juicy. i don't have a big objection to the US being involved in yemen -- obviously torture, avoidable civilian casualties, etc., those i'm against -- but even if i did, i don't see what the leaks do to clinch an argument.

― rip whiney g weingarten 03/11 never forget (history mayne), Sunday, November 28, 2010 7:12 PM (14 minutes ago)

they're informative, dude. they don't have to be one or the other

The info published in today's NYT is the kind of color I love to read about in biographies but looks, well, harmless to those of us not in the national security establishment.

there's so much of this stuff

i guess some ppl have probably skimmed through all of the last lot by now, but a lot of it must remain pretty obscure

i wonder about the iraq/afghanistan stuff.....even if names of informants etc are removed, whether they can still be understood contextually etc

yr kinda conflicted between deprecation and indignation -- either the information is crap/redundant or dangerous but not conceivably both

― rouxymuzak (nakhchivan), Sunday, November 28, 2010 7:21 PM (6 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

eh i think the thing about diplomacy is that cables like CAN be both? like there can be common-but-unacknowledged truths abt int'l relations that if openly acknowledged could lead to some... well, maybe not dangerous, but awkward sitautions. "dangerous" is a funny word--i feel a little weirded out by it--i just think this is one of those irritating situations where i dont see how this helps anything, not really even our knowledge of the situation. (i guess i was heartened to see the administration putting its weight behind getting the gitmo detainees off cuba?)

all that being said i still support in principle the idea of a "transparent" or at least "more transparent" gov't. just dont think anyone should be going around touting this leak as anything but evidence that diplomats are doing their "jobs" such as they are.

it "helps" me be entertained too i guess. i dig this kind of insidery gossip shit.

not referring to informant stuff there xp

rather the headlines stuff here, like is it dangerous that arab connivance wrt iran is publicized?

it "helps" me be entertained too i guess. i dig this kind of insidery gossip shit.

― max, Monday, 29 November 2010 00:33 (2 minutes ago)

that make u a ______

feel like the 'massive info dump' is still a retarded media strategy

im sure there are impt nuggets that get lost in the white noise

rather the headlines stuff here, like is it dangerous that arab connivance wrt iran is publicized?

― rouxymuzak (nakhchivan), Sunday, November 28, 2010 7:35 PM (2 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

nah--tbh i dont know enough about int'l relations to really say but i can conceive of a situation where, say, everyone "knows" gov't x is behind an attack on gov't y but cant "openly acknowledge" it for strategic reasons--if these cables leak and show that the us gov't is openly acknowledging it, it can damage that relationship, undermine the strategy, etc. "dangerous" again i dunno. but.

im sure there are impt nuggets that get lost in the white noise

― rip whiney g weingarten 03/11 never forget (history mayne), Monday, 29 November 2010 00:39 (38 seconds ago)

the signature of this is the insane about of detail really being prohibitive even for dozens of journalists to sift through and cross-reference

obv in web 2.br0 utopia, esp in an organization called 'wikileaks', citizen journalists would do this unpaid, but, um, well

i'd agree that wikileaks is a bit dishonest, clearly they do this just cuz they can, it's a rather remedial logic

i think this stuff is a lot more justifiable than individual case reports from the counterinsurgencies