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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Waleed_bin_Talal

think saudi arabia h8s iran because they are the main regional players and well there ya go #thomas_hobbes

nah pretty sure it has something to do with news international

I didn't say that - but al-Q's *are* high on a particularly harsh strain of Wahhabism exported from Saudi Arabia and they *are* undermining all these countries' ability to govern and trade. Rich Saudis finance them! I find the whole thing very manipulative.

as i say, they are both regional players with fingers in many unpleasant pies. iran funds, you know, hezbollah, hamas...

while i love good conspiracy, isnt p much every country in the middle east freaked out about a nuclear iran? i dont think im being a 'drumbeat to war' here

+ natural shiite/sunni conflict undergirding it all

ehh idk about that

wouldn't over do it

regional big dicks always hate each other -- now *that's* nature

today's times implies otherwise

3 Charitable activities
3.1 World Trade Center attacks

You've got to be cruel to be kind.

'Rude' Prince Andrew shocks US ambassador

Very weak stuff I think. Esp. for the lead story.

all in the perception i guess

new yorker grandee George Packer:

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/georgepacker/2010/11/the-right-to-secrecy.html

On the whole, the trove makes American diplomacy look pretty good. Obama’s Iran strategy of engagement-leading-to-isolation is shown to have succeeded. Bush—contrary to the impression left on every page of his new memoir—had enough self-awareness about the disaster in Iraq to put the brakes on military action against Iran. And American diplomats are capable of writing blunt, vivid, even amusing assessments of world leaders. Berlusconi is feckless, Sarkozy thin-skinned, Mugabe a megalomaniac: the accounts seem spot-on. The faceless corps of tight-lipped American embassy officials turn out to be an alert and discerning bunch.

professional insane person David Goldman ("Spengler"):

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/LK30Ak02.html

American career diplomats have been telling their masters in the Obama administration that every theater of American policy is in full-blown rout, forwarding to Washington the growing alarm of foreign leaders. In April 2008, for example, Saudi Arabia's envoy to the US Adel al-Jubeir told General David Petraeus that King Abdullah wanted the US "to cut off the head of the [Iranian] snake" and "recalled the king's frequent exhortations to the US to attack Iran and so put an end to its nuclear weapons program".

Afghani President Hamid Karzai warned the US that Pakistan was forcing Taliban militants to keep fighting rather than accept his peace offers. Pakistani government officials, other cables warn, might sell nuclear material to terrorists.

The initial reports suggest that the US State Department has massive evidence that Obama's approach - "engaging" Iran and coddling Pakistan - has failed catastrophically. The crisis in diplomatic relations heralded by the press headlines is not so much a diplomatic problem - America's friends and allies in Western and Central Asia have been shouting themselves hoarse for two years - but a crisis of American credibility.

id go w/ the nyers assessment on the whole: this dump has not really made the US look bad

imho it's made Wikileaks look pretty bad (like, what was the point of making diplomatic docs public again? I fail to see the political angle)

like this isn't stuff that's exposing abuses of power or coverups or lies really, its just y'know diplomats bein diplomats.

anyway how long before Assange goes to jail

*wrings hands* ffs a political point needn't be made - and that's not the goal, as far as i've gathered - like alfred said if these are indeed trivial it just goes to show how ridiculous this secrecy fetish is. and when it exists as a matter of policy it's anti-democratic

eh I can see the virtue of confidentiality for diplomats - sometimes you don't want to have to show your hand to whoever you're negotiating with. is there something inherently morally wrong with that? I don't really think so.

Look, I'm totally in the Moynihan camp -- the US' fetish for secrecy is abhorrent -- but these latest releases, I don't know, undermine the gravity of the previous ones?

of course they "don't want to" show their hands, but that's not wikileaks' problem. as a voter i'm not entitled to know what my government is up to? i'm just supposed to get all my news from what robert gibbs tells me? that's not how a demcracy should work imo xp

insofar as their release makes Assange look like a petty, embittered crank without much concern for how foreign policy actually functions, I would say yeah.

xp

xxp only if you think about everything like a rock critic

of course they "don't want to" show their hands, but that's not wikileaks' problem. as a voter i'm not entitled to know what my government is up to? i'm just supposed to get all my news from what robert gibbs tells me? that's not how a demcracy should work imo

dude I don't want to know EVERYTHING the government knows. What would I gain from having access to the daily threat matrix, for example? Or other people's tax returns? Or these diplomatic communiques, which are largely inconsequential and of little interest?

and it IS kind of Assange's problem, he's responsible for his actions, and directly responsible for any fallout as well.

as a voter i'm not entitled to know what my government is up to?

also I dunno if you've noticed but these leaks are going to people who AREN'T voters

it's one thing for an American citizen to be able to satisfy their curiosity about our diplomatic relations, it's another thing for foreign countries to be able to satisfy that same curiosity, which has entirely different motivations.

terrorists, right xp

The stuff published by The NYT today was, like I wrote yesterday, entertaining but not worth the chatter. Assange has no judgment.

He wants to leak the stuff? Fine. But has he no advisers -- gifted lawyers and journalists who can say, "OK, this action by the American government is worth leaking"?

insofar as their release makes Assange look like a petty, embittered crank without much concern for how foreign policy actually functions, I would say yeah.

xp

― "smokin' hot" albeit in a "Nickelback on iPod" sort of way (Shakey Mo Collier), Monday, November 29, 2010 6:56 PM (1 hour ago) Bookmark

ah yes well he could have quite a lot of concern for how foreign policy actually functions, you know

but yeah according to the summaries i've skimmed, there's not a whole lot here. i am really loving all the right wing bomb iran peeps suddenly taking the word of, like, king abdullah going "see?!"

http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2010/11/29/politicians_pundits_and_wikileaks

it's a bloodthirstathon!!

on an only tangetially-related note i do get a sort of perverse pleasure watching people like this get worked up

Q. I’m writing regarding your decision to publish WikiLeaks documents, and my disappointment in your decision. Whereas, I acknowledge that you attempted to provide some censorship to the release of classified information. And I appreciate your gesture in forwarding documents to the Obama Administration for review. However, at the end of the day, I say, “How dare you?” How dare you decide what’s okay for release in this circumstance and what’s not!

I respect the First Amendment and believe in its importance. But does it mean that a line can never be drawn, even at the risk of national security? And, what makes The New York Times the most qualified to make this decision? I work in the field that you have just aided at putting at risk, and trust me when I say that you are not aware or understand the nuances of the information in these reports as well as you think you do. Even if you found a report or cable that appeared benign to you or simply political, you really aren’t aware of the secondary or tertiary affects that your release of these documents may have. Of course you will not listen to me, because The New York Times, along with WikiLeaks, obviously perceived yourselves to know better than the President of the United States, his National Security Advisors, and the United States military leaders of the war. Well, thank you for putting those of us who attempt to protect our country and your backsides in danger.

I’m sure at the end of the day, you felt compelled to release something because other news agencies were releasing information. Hopefully, you feel proud of partnering with WikiLeaks, as I have now lost a lot of respect for the editors and decision makers of The New York Times.

— F. Jean Ware

Q. I am greatly saddened by your role in this issue, and I disagree with your attempts to cloak your pursuit of readers in the context of some sort “right to know.” The fact is that these are secret documents of the United States Government, which by extension therefore are secret documents of the people of the United States. For the government to function, the simple reality, just as is undoubtedly the case in your organization, is that in order to candidly assess the situation, some items are not for public consumption. To say “it would be presumptuous to conclude that Americans have no right to know what is being done in their name” is a ridiculous statement. Are you really saying that the government should make public all its information at every level? There are reasons why there is secrecy. Should we have told Hitler when and where D-Day was coming so that the “people have a right to know”? Farce, plain and simple.

Moreover, in this case, the release of these documents means that people will die. It is as simple as that. I cannot say how many, but the butcher’s bill from this sorry “disclosure” will have to be met. Personally, I consider this willful release of secret documents to be treason.

I am not a Tea Party fanatic, nor even a Republican. I am proud to be a Democrat and have enjoyed your publication for many years both online and in print. I fear that this relationship will now have to end. I expected better.

— David Stier

You know, I'm all for making fun of these guys and stuff, but if this turns into some witchhunt where the gov't suddenly executes sweeping new censorship powers over the entire internet (which the music industry already seems to be doing) then we'll be longing for the days when we could make fun of these clowns.

We've already heard a congressperson argue for classifying them as the dreaded T word. I really hope an Internet Patriot Act isn't just around the corner...

reading today's nytimes front section was a blast. im lovin the details tbh

quaddafi likes voluptuous blondes! saudi king kind of looks like a badass and wants iran to lose its head like a snake! high ranking afganis are drug smugglers!

American career diplomats have been telling their masters in the Obama administration that every theater of American policy is in full-blown rout, forwarding to Washington the growing alarm of foreign leaders. In April 2008, for example, Saudi Arabia's envoy to the US Adel al-Jubeir told General David Petraeus that King Abdullah wanted the US "to cut off the head of the [Iranian] snake" and "recalled the king's frequent exhortations to the US to attack Iran and so put an end to its nuclear weapons program".

Afghani President Hamid Karzai warned the US that Pakistan was forcing Taliban militants to keep fighting rather than accept his peace offers. Pakistani government officials, other cables warn, might sell nuclear material to terrorists.

The initial reports suggest that the US State Department has massive evidence that Obama's approach - "engaging" Iran and coddling Pakistan - has failed catastrophically. The crisis in diplomatic relations heralded by the press headlines is not so much a diplomatic problem - America's friends and allies in Western and Central Asia have been shouting themselves hoarse for two years - but a crisis of American credibility.

― first as tragedy, then as favre (goole), Monday, November 29, 2010 4:18 PM (7 hours ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

this actually ... entirely contradicts the leaks? it suggests that obama's 'engaging' w/ iran was always plan A w/ a related plan B that they planned to execute from the beginning, which theyve done successfully, even getting china & russia on board. so ... .what?

http://blogs.forbes.com/andygreenberg/2010/11/29/an-interview-with-wikileaks-julian-assange/

Yes. We have one related to a bank coming up, that’s a megaleak. It’s not as big a scale as the Iraq material, but it’s either tens or hundreds of thousands of documents depending on how you define it.

Is it a U.S. bank?

Yes, it’s a U.S. bank.

One that still exists?
Yes, a big U.S. bank.

The biggest U.S. bank?

No comment.

When will it happen?

Early next year. I won’t say more.

http://www.unconditionalconfidence.com/mt/mt-static/FCKeditor/UserFiles/Image/nervous.gif

http://i.imgur.com/U172I.gif

lmao

anticipating that leak tho!

http://cdn.7static.com/static/img/sleeveart/00/002/476/0000247624_350.jpg

This is the greatest thing ever, as a big fan of transparency. Assange can crash on my couch for a night or two btw.

The butthurt reaction from your "liberal Western democracies" is almost as good as the confirmation that Vladimir Putin and Silvio Berlusconi are having a bromance btw.

So, thus far we've learned the following:

*Diplomats indulge in junior high-grade bitching.
*Prince Andrew will not be asked to join MENSA anytime soon. AA, maybe.
*China are cracking down on North Korea (I actually feel better knowing this).
*Saudis are basically trolling everyone while making bank.
*Bromance between hooker magnet and cub handler.
*David Cameron, joek.
*Some Afghani officials are drug fiends.

as a voter i'm not entitled to know what my government is up to? i'm just supposed to get all my news from what robert gibbs tells me? that's not how a demcracy should work imo xp

― overtheseas aeroplanes I have flown (k3vin k.), Tuesday, November 30, 2010 12:54 AM (7 hours ago) Bookmark

knowing what your govt is up to stops short of knowing the exact content of all communications between govt officials, i think

partly because you don't get to know without a lot of other people getting to know, but only partly that

as a voter i'm not entitled to know what my government is up to? i'm just supposed to get all my news from what robert gibbs tells me? that's not how a demcracy should work imo xp

― overtheseas aeroplanes I have flown (k3vin k.), Tuesday, November 30, 2010 12:54 AM (7 hours ago) Bookmark

this is.... kind of really reductive

lol it would be nice to be CCd on all govt emails tho

personally i still think that the (general) principles behind what wikileaks does are far more important than what the leaks have contained -- & moreso how those principles contrast with mainstream media than how they contrast with those of a democratic govt

as it pertains to what is contained in this recent round of leaks, this one now is pretty much just like someone leaked a pitch to hbo right?

lol it would be nice to be CCd on all govt emails tho

― max, Tuesday, November 30, 2010 2:53 AM (5 minutes ago) Bookmark

paladino 2012

Maybe if k3vin said "as a TAXPAYER I'm not entitled to know what my government is up to?..."