Wikileaks release US diplomatic cables

Eliot Rosewater

Yesterday the whistle-blower website Wikileaks released some 200 US diplomatic cables, part of a collection of 250,000 cables that have come into their possession. Included in the cables are appeals from middle-eastern countries urging the US to stop Iran's nuclear programme through an armed attack. An example of a cable on the Wikileaks site, this one noting that "many in Kuwait hoped a silent, targeted strike would take out the troublesome reactor and leave the region more relaxed."

From the Guardian article:
As the cables were published, the White House released a statement condemning their release. "Such disclosures put at risk our diplomats, intelligence professionals, and people around the world who come to the US for assistance in promoting democracy and open government. By releasing stolen and classified documents, WikiLeaks has put at risk not only the cause of human rights but also the lives and work of these individuals."

So what do ye think of Wikileaks releasing these documents? Is it a good showing of freedom of speech and governmental accountability, or is it a naive move that will cause the US unnecessary trouble in its foreign diplomacy?

Crucifix

How damaging they will be remains to be seen, with the vast majority of cables still to come.

I'm not up to date on what people have found more recently, but the most shocking so far seems to be the spying on UN officials, including aquiring passwords, and biometric data (such as DNA, fingerprints). But even this is being dismissed as business as usual by some commentators.

Most of the other cables I've heard about seem to be mildy embarrasing (casual postive and negative comments on world leaders, etc), or even portraying the US better than many expected (advocating for diplomacy, rather than war, with Iran).

prinz

I hate Wikileaks. There I said it. No time for them, their spokespeople or their deeds. The effects of the latest 'leaks' will be felt much further around the world than just the US too.

Eliot Rosewater

Crucifix wrote: »

How damaging they will be remains to be seen, with the vast majority of cables still to come.

I suppose diplomacy is a delicate game, and even the slightest insult could sour relations.

prinz wrote: »

I hate Wikileaks. There I said it. No time for them, their spokespeople or their deeds. The effects of the latest 'leaks' will be felt much further around the world than just the US too.

It seems to me as if there is an ulterior motive in the foundation. They're claiming that the organization is run to increase government accountability, but I think it's merely run to promote the idealogical beliefs of the owners. They're not releasing the cables because they want more open government (as they claim); they're releasing the cables because they want to shame the US government.

Equally, they didn't release the Iraq video because they believe in press freedom; they released it because they are against the Iraq war. That's how it seems to me. It remains to be seen whether them having different motives matters.

Bottle_of_Smoke

It seems to me as if there is an ulterior motive in the foundation. They're claiming that the organization is run to increase government accountability, but I think it's merely run to promote the idealogical beliefs of the owners. They're not releasing the cables because they want more open government (as they claim); they're releasing the cables because they want to shame the US government.

It is possible they want both. Ditto with the Iraq war. Can't help but have respect for some of the things they released. Massacres shouldn't escape recorded history.

Unfortunately the long term effect will not be a more transparent governments, simply governments will change how they record communications.

Nodin

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

It seems to me as if there is an ulterior motive in the foundation. They're claiming that the organization is run to increase government accountability, but I think it's merely run to promote the idealogical beliefs of the owners. They're not releasing the cables because they want more open government (as they claim); they're releasing the cables because they want to shame the US government.

Equally, they didn't release the Iraq video because they believe in press freedom; they released it because they are against the Iraq war. That's how it seems to me. It remains to be seen whether them having different motives matters.

That would presume they had control over access to documents. The fact is that the largest leak in history happened to drop into their laps from the US, from a suprisingly 'lowly' source. While I doubt they wept into their pillows at the thought of exposing the US, its really just an accident of history that its worked out that way.

invinciblePRSTV

Who really cares about the supposed motivations of Wikileaks operators? the info they provide offers those of us - who don't fall for hook, line and sinker the 'official' line as spun by countries like the US & the UK - a real insight into the murky, overlapping world of diplomacy and espionage.

Any attempt to open up the byzantine world of regimes with large security apparatus' is fine by me, and instead of trying to call for the clamp down on wikileaks, people should be encouraging others with access to this kind of info to contribute it, transparency is always a good thing.

What i'd give for some lowly civil servant in the DoF, the Taoiseachs office, the Irish banks or indeed the IMF and EU Commission to download and pass on the the kind of sensitive info we'd love to see for ourselves, i bet people wouldn't be condeming wikileaks or its operators then!.

Helix

been looking through a few, and i have to say its quite bad form leaving email addresses and contact phone numbers in the documents

aside from that, i think the content is fair game

Nodin

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

....................It seems to me as if there is an ulterior motive in the foundation. They're claiming that the organization is run to increase government accountability, but I think it's merely run to promote the idealogical beliefs of the owners. They're not releasing the cables because they want more open government (as they claim); they're releasing the cables because they want to shame the US government.

..............

"In the coming days, we are going to see some quite startling disclosures about Russia, the nature of the Russian state, and about bribery and corruption in other countries, particularly in Central Asia," says Investigations Executive Editor David Leigh at the Guardian, one of the three newspapers given advanced access to the secret U.S. embassy cables by the whistleblower website, WikiLeaks.

(my bold)
http://www.democracynow.org/2010/11/30/we_have_not_seen_anything_yet

ChocolateSauce

I welcome any and all revelations from the site. Informal mutterings of diplomats aren't going to really affect anybody, and serious issues need to come to light. Wikileaks cannot embarrass a nation, the nation embarrasses itself by doing unethical things; wikileaks just lets people know about it.

I think the only legitimate use of the power to classify documents is if a government can point to a document and then to a named person and say this person will be harmed by these people if that document is leaked.

Crucifix

Julian Assange interviewed by Forbes (http://blogs.forbes.com/andygreenberg/2010/11/29/an-interview-with-wikileaks-julian-assange/)

How much of this trove of documents that you’re sitting on is related to the private sector?

About fifty percent.

You’ve been focused on the U.S. military mostly in the last year. Does that mean you have private sector-focused leaks in the works?

Yes. If you think about it, we have a publishing pipeline that’s increasing linearly, and an exponential number of leaks, so we’re in a position where we have to prioritize our resources so that the biggest impact stuff gets released first.

So do you have very high impact corporate stuff to release then?

Yes, but maybe not as high impact…I mean, it could take down a bank or two.

That sounds like high impact.

But not as big an impact as the history of a whole war. But it depends on how you measure these things.

....

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.

Hazys

invinciblePRSTV wrote: »

Any attempt to open up the byzantine world of regimes with large security apparatus' is fine by me, and instead of trying to call for the clamp down on wikileaks, people should be encouraging others with access to this kind of info to contribute it, transparency is always a good thing.

Hardly.

I dont go around telling people in my office everything i think of them because remaining civil is the best way to achieve results.

Helix wrote: »

been looking through a few, and i have to say its quite bad form leaving email addresses and contact phone numbers in the documents

aside from that, i think the content is fair game

Whats worse is thay have posted the names of Afghan informants working with the US, which puts themselves and their families in serious danger.

Spacedog

Hazys wrote: »

Whats worse is thay have posted the names of Afghan informants working with the US, which puts themselves and their families in serious danger.

No they havn't.

invinciblePRSTV

Hazys wrote: »

I dont go around telling people in my office everything i think of them because remaining civil is the best way to achieve results.

Your office isn't the same as international espionage and diplomacy. Transparency with regards Nations and their conduct is a lot different to telling Tracy the secretary she is an annoying cow.

Nodin

Russia is a corrupt, autocratic kleptocracy centred on the leadership of Vladimir Putin, in which officials, oligarchs and organised crime are bound together to create a "virtual mafiastate", according to leaked secret diplomatic cables that provide a damning American assessment of its erstwhile rival superpower.

Highlights, as such, are

• Russian spies use senior mafia bosses to carry out criminal operations such as arms trafficking.
• Law enforcement agencies such as the police, spy agencies and the prosecutor's office operate a de facto protection racket for criminal networks.
• Rampant bribery acts like a parallel tax system for the personal enrichment of police, officials and the KGB's successor, the federal security service (FSB).
• Investigators looking into Russian mafia links to have compiled a list of Russian prosecutors, military officers and politicians who have dealings with organised crime networks.
• Putin is accused of amassing "illicit proceeds" from his time in office, which various sources allege are hidden overseas.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/01/wikileaks-cables-russia-mafia-kleptocracy

Of course it should be noted that while this doubtless has foundations in truth, just how true it is would be another matter entirely, it being intelligence......

Manach

From a historical primary source it is a treasure trove that will keep generations of historians at work.

prinz

One wonders in the interest of openess, clarity, tranparency, being ethical etc if Julian Assange will be turning himself over to Swedish police to answer the charges against him now the Interpol have put out a Red Notice on him now. Perhaps Wikileaks, could you know, leak his whereabouts.

Hazys

Spacedog wrote: »

No they havn't.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503543_162-20011886-503543.html

Hazys

invinciblePRSTV wrote: »

Your office isn't the same as international espionage and diplomacy. Transparency with regards Nations and their conduct is a lot different to telling Tracy the secretary she is an annoying cow.

This is the most simplist example of why somethings are private...it doesnt even going into the bigger issues that are better left unsaid.

If somebody told Tracy in my office that i called her an annoying cow (i wasnt saying it just to be an ahole, i was giving this bit of info to someone on my team and this is how you shud communicate with her to achieve the best results), she may be professional and brush it off or she may take it personally and not work as well with me in the future, but either way, the relationship is affected and it hasnt been strengthened.


http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,2034088_2034097_2033526,00.html

In one cable sent from the embassy on March 24, 2009, Merkel is called "risk averse and rarely creative".

"The leak is extremely awkward for the U.S. embassy in Berlin, and it's bound to sour personal relations between U.S. officials and German politicians,"

Explain to me how this transperancy is always a good thing in this case?

Fremen

prinz wrote: »

One wonders in the interest of openess, clarity, tranparency, being ethical etc if Julian Assange will be turning himself over to Swedish police to answer the charges against him now the Interpol have put out a Red Notice on him now. Perhaps Wikileaks, could you know, leak his whereabouts.

Assange's personal affairs should be irrelevant to the way the public perceives Wikileaks. Besides, the whole case is bizarre. Why are Interpol, an organisation which concerns itself with high-level global crime like human trafficking and drug smuggling getting involved in a rape case?
Assange was questioned and cleared to leave Sweden. Why are the authorities chasing after him now?

prinz

Fremen wrote: »

Assange's personal affairs should be irrelevant to the way the public perceives Wikileaks.

Yes and no. While it has no direct bearing on the activities of the site people should be free to consider it, especially when they, Wikileaks, talk about justice, human rights, integrity and 'doing the right thing' etc. Except, it seems, when it comes to themselves. Hypocritical much? Credibility is at stake IMO.

Fremen wrote: »

Besides, the whole case is bizarre. Why are Interpol, an organisation which concerns itself with high-level global crime like human trafficking and drug smuggling getting involved in a rape case? Assange was questioned and cleared to leave Sweden. Why are the authorities chasing after him now?

The investigation was on going and he lost appeals against his detention.

Interpol concerns itself with what its members ask it to concern itself with. Sweden made the request and issued the notice, Interpol obliged by passing that info on to the other members, simple as that. There's also a EAW out on him.