US diplomatic cables to be dropped by wikileaks; US doing pre-emptive damage control

[Kerberoz]

There's a big difference between what something means and what people will think it means.

"People" as in the general public, sure. "People" as in people with information to leak, not so much.

[Max™]

Pretty sure that given the nature of internet assholes, Assange would become a martyr of sorts.

Shit, who remembers when scientology killed that one dudes cat?

THEY KILLED HIS FUCKING CAT!

[Antithesis]

"When WikiLeaks announced it was releasing 251,287 US diplomatic cables, we all thought we knew what was meant by its earlier ominous words that, 'The coming months will see a new world, where global history is redefined.' It now appears the organization is sitting on a treasure trove of information so big that it has stopped taking submissions. Among data to be released are tens of thousands of documents from a major US banking firm and material from pharmaceutical companies, finance firms and energy companies."

http://news.slashdot.org/story/10/11...andal?from=rss

"According to the Twitter feed for Wikileaks, the attack on the controversial site is increasing and is now at 10 Gigabits per second. In light of the recent release of highly sensitive documents and calls by many lawmakers around the world to swiftly find, extradite, and try suspected rapist Julius Assange for breaches of national security, one nation, Ecuador, has offered asylum."

http://news.slashdot.org/story/10/11...andal?from=rss

[BerenTebogo]

Fuck yeah, Ecuador.

[Kuya]

Wholeheartedly agree with Greenwald:

Before setting forth why these WikiLeaks disclosures produce vastly more good than harm, I'll state several caveats as clearly as I can. Unlike the prior leaks of war documents, there are reasonable concerns about this latest leak (most particularly that impeding diplomacy makes war more likely). Like all organizations, WikiLeaks has made mistakes in the past, including its failure to exercise enough care in redacting the names of Afghan informers. Moreover, some documents are legitimately classified, probably including some among the documents that were just disclosed.
Nonetheless, our government and political culture is so far toward the extreme pole of excessive, improper secrecy that that is clearly the far more significant threat. And few organizations besides WikiLeaks are doing anything to subvert that regime of secrecy, and none is close to its efficacy. It's staggering to watch anyone walk around acting as though the real threat is from excessive disclosures when the impenetrable, always-growing Wall of Secrecy is what has enabled virtually every abuse and transgression of the U.S. government over the last two decades at least.


In sum, I seriously question the judgment of anyone who -- in the face of the orgies of secrecy the U.S. Government enjoys and, more so, the abuses they have accomplished by operating behind it -- decides that the real threat is WikiLeaks for subverting that ability. That's why I said yesterday: one's reaction to WikiLeaks is largely shaped by whether or not one, on balance, supports what the U.S. has been covertly doing in the world by virtue of operating in the dark. I concur wholeheartedly with Digby's superb commentary on this point yesterday:

My personal feeling is that any allegedly democratic government that is so hubristic that it will lie blatantly to the entire world in order to invade a country it has long wanted to invade probably needs a self-correcting mechanism. There are times when it's necessary that the powerful be shown that there are checks on its behavior, particularly when the systems normally designed to do that are breaking down. Now is one of those times. . . . .As for the substance of the revelations, I don't know what the results will be. But in the world of diplomacy, embarrassment is meaningful and I'm not sure that it's a bad thing for all these people to be embarrassed right now. Puncturing a certain kind of self-importance --- especially national self-importance --- may be the most worthwhile thing they do. A little humility is long overdue.

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/gl...ald/index.html

The central goal of WikiLeaks is to prevent the world's most powerful factions -- including the sprawling, imperial U.S. Government -- from continuing to operate in the dark and without restraints. Most of the institutions which are supposed to perform that function -- beginning with the U.S. Congress and the American media -- not only fail to do so, but are active participants in maintaining the veil of secrecy. WikiLeaks, whatever its flaws, is one of the very few entities shining a vitally needed light on all of this. It's hardly surprising, then, that those factions -- and their hordes of spokespeople, followers and enablers -- see WikiLeaks as a force for evil. That's evidence of how much good they are doing.

[BerenTebogo]

Seconded @ Kuya

[guartz]

I wonder what separates people's instinctual reaction to this. I mean, the very first reaction. When I found out about this, my first reaction (bias?) was 'Good, I hope it's all damaging as hell'. Without any intention of polarizing the entire world, but, there must have been people who had entirely opposite reaction. On the simplest level, I, don't trust authority, and some people do. What psychological attribute separates us? Parenting? Experience?


side note; This was written while I was sitting on the John.

[Max™]

Nationalism?

The most vehement cries for his head on other boards I've been at have been from the most blindly patriotic "I bleed red white and blue" types.

[Kuya]

People who identify the nation with the State. Paradoxically, these people tend to be conservative, so they also have animus towards the federal government (especially when it's populated by anything other than Republicans), but it seems that this animosity is lessened when the federal government is held in counterposition (contraposicion) to a foreign element. Especially if the part of the federal government is identified as martial.

They love the military.

[MF Perm tha Fineass]

I love the irony bubble bath that the same ignorantly repugnant people that walked around wearing wal-mart t-shirts saying "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots" believe that patriotism means your country can do whatever it wants ( except help its own people ) and you'll stand by and defend its right to do this.

[Edelweiss]

That Salon article Kuya sampled from sums up my sentiments pretty well; specificly regarding the necessity of WikiLeaks and of Julian Assange. Any checks against such overt behavior by persons/groups in power are long since gone. Nevermind that it seems as if the public views WikiLeaks with such disdain, to the point they pretty much fucking miss the point.

I'd also chalk alot of this being permissible/approved of by the public to absurd-levels of nationalism, especially moreso in the wake of 9/11 (and all the shit that comes with it).

@Perm:
Very much so. The isles of Wal-Mart are this twisted, horrible display of fucking ignorance and gross nationalism. It's like Christine O'Donnell could pop up at every turn. I seriously doubt a single one of them ever questioned the right of the government (or the morality of) to act as it has (in their name, no less).

[guartz]

People who identify the nation with the State. Paradoxically, these people tend to be conservative, so they also have animus towards the federal government (especially when it's populated by anything other than Republicans), but it seems that this animosity is lessened when the federal government is held in counterposition (contraposicion) to a foreign element. Especially if the part of the federal government is identified as martial.

They love the military.

Which is why N.Korea is doing a lot of military posturing, setting up external threats upon itself for the upcoming regime change. How after all these years Machiavelli is still relevant puzzles me.

[archibaldcrane]

What seriously have we learned here that we didn't already know?

Confirmation of black-ops strikes in Qatar...anything else?

[Weeks]

What seriously have we learned here that we didn't already know?

Confirmation of black-ops strikes in Qatar...anything else?

That Fox News isn't the most slanted news organization in the western world, while The Guardian is in operation.

[Khajit]

Which is why N.Korea is doing a lot of military posturing, setting up external threats upon itself for the upcoming regime change. How after all these years Machiavelli is still relevant puzzles me.

Machiavelli is still relevant because people tend to forget that his most famous book was a satire which makes for much hilarity when world leaders take it seriously.

[guartz]

Prince satire.

This is all assuming the man couldn't hold two opposite beliefs simultaneously, of course.

[Kuya]

What seriously have we learned here that we didn't already know?

Confirmation of black-ops strikes in Qatar...anything else?

What are you talking about? I've read on Middle Eastern opinions on Iran, the political attitudes of the prime minister of Turkey, Argentina's political relationships with the US, Brazil and Bolivia. All of which has details that i'm sure you knew nothing about (i know i didn't, and i know more about this stuff than you). Maybe you want to rephrase your question?

edit: you meant Yemen

[archibaldcrane]

What are you talking about? I've read on Middle Eastern opinions on Iran, the political attitudes of the prime minister of Turkey, Argentina's political relationships with the US, Brazil and Bolivia.

Boy, I'm sure glad the Government is getting it's feet held to the fire about all those top secrets, what an invaluable leak! :eyeroll:

I'm talking about stuff that matters, abuses of power, truth behind "the official story", things of that nature. Do you really think that the U.S. is being unreasonable not making most of this banal opinion-related "through the eyes of one diplomat" material publicly accessible?

I'm not saying it's not interesting, I'm just saying most of it seems pretty..."not leak-worthy".

[Kuya]

Boy, I'm sure glad the Government is getting it's feet held to the fire about all those top secrets, what an invaluable leak! :eyeroll:

I'm talking about stuff that matters, abuses of power, truth behind "the official story", things of that nature. Do you really think that the U.S. is being unreasonable not making most of this banal opinion-related "through the eyes of one diplomat" material publicly accessible?

I'm not saying it's not interesting, I'm just saying most of it seems pretty..."not leak-worthy".

Oh, you're talking about naughty things the US government is doing. So far, that would be the strikes on Yemen and spying in the UN.

[guartz]

Only if you count one book out of everything else he ever wrote as proof that he did.

Book? more like a pamphlet. I agree, though.