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

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

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

this is false though - they're not dishonest given their mission statement is pretty blatantly to reveal government and corporate secrets. "because they can" is not a motivation so much as it's just...pretty inextricably tied to that action

yeah well i dunno what your 'mission statement' in life is but i'd guess that's not the whole story

there do seem to be some worthwhile goals in here (reunification of n/s korea) that might be threatened by the reveal

it's easy enough to provide an ethical rationale for wikileaks, and it holds in many instances

assange likes being the story tho, being a general mischief in a false-clandestine way, an inverse 007

Many more cables name diplomats’ confidential sources, from foreign legislators and military officers to human rights activists and journalists, often with a warning to Washington: “Please protect” or “Strictly protect.”

this seems dangerous

The Downing Street source said: “We don’t think there will be much about the Coalition Government. There might be some slightly embarrassing things about David Cameron’s time in opposition but it will be nothing compared with what was said about Brown.

“The diplomatic cables were more about Labour. Brown was seen as paranoid and weak and unstable. These files are going to be embarrassing for him.”

It is believed London-based diplomats were shocked by reports of Mr Brown’s erratic tantrums.

President Obama witnessed one outburst first hand. At the G20 Summit in London last year, he said to Mr Brown’s aides: “Tell your guy to cool it,” as the PM threatened to erupt over something that had upset him.

from alan partridge extra/former british diplomat carne ross:

#wikileaks Am torn btw joy at transparency - at last - and anxiety over unforeseen consequences

#wikileaks even a preliminary read of the disclosures suggests that damage will be done eg revelation that US removing Pak uranium

#wikileaks diplomacy will never be the same again after this; diplomats will stop writing down the sensitive stuff

#wikileaks everyone will play this down in public, but no one will trust US dips in quite the same way again, for a while at least

assange likes being the story tho, being a general mischief in a false-clandestine way, an inverse 007

― rouxymuzak (nakhchivan), Sunday, November 28, 2010 7:56 PM (5 minutes ago)

i guess the more this is repeated the more it becomes received wisdom - i don't get this impression at all though

yeah -- let's forget Assange's motives (and, as I've pointed out, skeptical about the value of the last couple of massive leaks). That's how the American press tried to smear him a few weeks ago.

you could say its irrelevant psychologizing/personalization, but he doesn't dissuade it with his h4x0r shtick

i think he'd do a greater service by getting a few hundred pages of high-level stuff together and redacting any idenitifiable informants etc, than just releasing a quarter of a million documents every few weeks

I agree though, whatever value these leaks will have will be independent of assange himself

naturally

lol at this btw

Bargaining to empty the Guantánamo Bay prison: When American diplomats pressed other countries to resettle detainees, they became reluctant players in a State Department version of “Let’s Make a Deal.” Slovenia was told to take a prisoner if it wanted to meet with President Obama, while the island nation of Kiribati was offered incentives worth millions of dollars to take in Chinese Muslim detainees, cables from diplomats recounted. The Americans, meanwhile, suggested that accepting more prisoners would be “a low-cost way for Belgium to attain prominence in Europe.”

haha the eu is just like guantanamo detainees

"the island nation of Kiribati was offered incentives worth millions of dollars to take in Chinese Muslim detainees"

there's got to be a documentary in there

Hakka to Haka -- former jihadi turns to rugby and acquires NZ citizenship

The group has said it intends to post the documents in the current trove as well, after editing to remove the names of confidential sources and other details.

i kinda doubt how effectively this can be done w/ 251,287 files

ctrl+f

"the island nation of Kiribati was offered incentives worth millions of dollars to take in Chinese Muslim detainees"

there's got to be a documentary in there

― rappa ternt sagna (jim in glasgow), Sunday, November 28, 2010 8:24 PM (5 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

yah or hilarious screwball comedy

directed by Jason Reitman and starring Tom Hanks and Julia Roberts.

not sure if a few dozen ppl skimreading stuff with very localized information can 100% determine what information is potentially revealing to concerned intelligence agencies/other unfriendly ppl who will know exactly what to look for

THERE ARE SEVERAL LESSONS FOR THOSE WHO WOULD NEGOTIATE
WITH PERSIANS IN ALL THIS:

- --FIRST, ONE SHOULD NEVER ASSUME THAT HIS SIDE OF
THE ISSUE WILL BE RECOGNIZED, LET ALONE THAT IT WILL
BE CONCEDED TO HAVE MERITS. PERSIAN PREOCCUPATION WITH
SELF PRECLUDES THIS. A NEGOTIATOR MUST FORCE RECOGNITION
OF HIS POSITION UPON HIS PERSIAN OPPOSITE NUMBER.

- --SECOND, ONE SHOULD NOT EXPECT AN IRANIAN READILY
TO PERCEIVE THE ADVANTAGES OF A LONG-TERM RELATIONSHIP
BASED ON TRUST. HE WILL ASSUME THAT HIS OPPOSITE
NUMBER IS ESSENTIALLY AN ADVERSARY. IN DEALING WITH
HIM HE WILL ATTEMPT TO MAXIMIZE THE BENEFITS TO HIMSELF
THAT ARE IMMEDIATELY OBTAINABLE. HE WILL BE PREPARED
TO GO TO GREAT LENGTHS TO ACHIEVE THIS GOAL, INCLUDING
RUNNING THE RISK OF SO ALIENATING WHOEVER HE IS DEALING
WITH THAT FUTURE BUSINESS WOULD BE UNTHINKABLE, AT
LEAST TO THE LATTER.

- --THIRD, INTERLOCKING RELATIONSHIPS OF ALL ASPECTS
OF AN ISSUE MUST BE PAINSTAKINGLY, FORECEFULLY AND
REPEATEDLY DEVELOPED. LINKAGES WILL BE NEITHER READILY
COMPREHENDED NOR ACCEPTED BY PERSIAN NEGOTIATORS.

- --FOURTH, ONE SHOULD INSIST ON PERFORMANCE AS THE
SINE QUA NON AT ESH STAGE OF NEGOTIATIONS. STATEMENTS
OF INTENTION COUNT FOR ALMOST NOTHING.

- --FIFTH, CULTIVATION OF GOODWILL FOR GOODWILL'S SAKE
IS A WASTE OF EFFORT. THE OVERRIDING OBJECTIVE AT ALL
TIMES SHOULD BE IMPRESSING UPON THE PERSIAN ACROSS THE
TABLE THE MUTUALITY OF THE PROPOSED UNDERTAKINGS, HE
MUST BE MADE TO KNOW THAT A QUID PRO QUO IS INVOLVED
ON BOTH SIDES.

- --FINALLY, ONE SHOULD BE PREPARED FOR THE THREAT
OF BREAKDOWN IN NEGOTIATIONS AT ANY GIVEN MOMENT AND NOT
BE COWED BY THE POSSIBLITY. GIVEN THE PERSIAN
NEGOTIATOR'S CULTURAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL LIMITATIONS, HE
IS GOING TO RESIST THE VERY CONCEPT OF A RATIONAL
(FROM THE WESTERN POINT OF VIEW) NEGOTIATING PROCESS.

that whole document delivers on lulz

I was about to post that Mordy, it's great. It's from 1979 btw.

Iraq: Any plan B?
------------------

3.(C) MbR restated the UAE's support for the US in the region,
noting "the UAE is the only country that is 100 percent with the
US." MbR said UAE support for the US effort remained firm, but
asked what is "plan B" should the current US approach not
stabilize Iraq. Senator Lieberman quoted the Chairman of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff as saying "plan B is to make plan A work."

http://weaselzippers.us/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/lieberman1.jpg
http://moonprismpowermakeup.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/tim-gunn-the-ideal-man.jpg

make it work!

¶6. (C) Zhang asked the Ambassador whether the U.S. would
negotiate to keep the Base open. The Ambassador answered
that the U.S. side was evaluating its options. Zhang then
offered his "personal advice," "This is all about money," he
said. He understood from the Kyrgyz that they needed $150
million. The Ambassador explained that the U.S. does provide
$150 million in assistance to Kyrgyzstan each year, including
numerous assistance programs. Zhang suggested that the U.S.
should scrap its assistance programs. "Just give them $150
million in cash" per year, and "you will have the Base
forever." Very uncharacteristically, the silent young aide
then jumped in: "Or maybe you should give them $5 billion and
buy both us and the Russians out." The aide then withered
under the Ambassador's horrified stare.

holy shit that one is amazing

WHAT WILL THE END LOOK LIKE?

¶6. (C) This is the big, unanswerable question. One thing
at least is certain, Mugabe will not wake up one morning a
changed man, resolved to set right all he has wrought. He
will not go quietly nor without a fight. He will cling to
power at all costs and the costs be damned, he deserves to
rule by virtue of the liberation struggle and land reform and
the people of Zimbabwe have let him down by failing to
appreciate this, thus he neednQt worry about their
well-being. The only scenario in which he might agree to
go with a modicum of good grace is one in which he
concludes that the only way to end his days a free man is
by leaving State House. I judge that he is still a long
way from this conclusion and will fight on for now.

from the same:

Morgan Tsvangarai is a brave, committed man and, by and
large, a democrat. He is also the only player on the scene
right now with real star quality and the ability to rally
the masses. But Tsvangarai is also a flawed figure, not
readily open to advice, indecisive and with questionable
judgment in selecting those around him. He is the indispensable
element for opposition success, but possibly an albatross around
t heir necks once in power. In short, he is a kind of Lech Walesa
character: Zimbabwe needs him, but should not rely on his executive
abilities to lead the country's recovery.

¶5. (C) With all this in view, I'm convinced the end is not
far off for the Mugabe regime. Of course, my predecessors
and many other observers have all said the same thing, and
yet Mugabe is still with us. I think this time could prove
different, however,

(13 july 2007)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/nov/28/us-embassy-cables-wikileaks

The job of the media is not to protect power from embarrassment. If American spies are breaking United Nations rules by seeking the DNA biometrics of the UN director general, he is entitled to hear of it. British voters should know what Afghan leaders thought of British troops. American (and British) taxpayers might question, too, how most of the billions of dollars going in aid to Afghanistan simply exits the country at Kabul airport.

it's kind of lol mostly sad that this whole thing is gonna get preempted by leslie nielsen

nah

so between this and fake taliban last week any shot of diplomacy playing a role in ending the war in afghanistan is shot right?

more like kind of sad mostly lol

The Downing Street source said: “We don’t think there will be much about the Coalition Government. There might be some slightly embarrassing things about David Cameron’s time in opposition but it will be nothing compared with what was said about Brown.

“The diplomatic cables were more about Labour. Brown was seen as paranoid and weak and unstable. These files are going to be embarrassing for him.”

fucking hell, what a classy operation they have going at downing street

Brown was seen as paranoid and weak and unstable

... by everyone on the planet. Some revelation there.