wikileaks: the diplomacy dump.

[roachboy]

first off, i am amused by the official american responses to this. actually by most of the official responses to it. this guardian blog is the best more-or-less real time compendium that i've found of the reactions. if you follow another and it's good, by all means please post it.

WikiLeaks US embassy cables: live updates | News | guardian.co.uk


here's a summary of the main areas covered in yesterday's release of state department cables and other information, most of which is somewhere between personal and secret:

Wikileaks embassy cables: the key points at a glance | World news | guardian.co.uk

i have to say that i find alot of what i've read so far from the cache(s) of documents to be interesting, particularly the material that's come out about iran, the pressures that are and have been placed on the united states to "do something," where it's come from and the duration of it.

i don't buy much of anything from the american official reactions and think all this conservative whining about "treason" to be laughable. (pace peter king, who's always good for a laugh or two)

what do you think of this leak?
what have you learned from it? are you looking at the material or being a good little american and not looking? because then of course, all the information will just go away. la la la, i'm not listening...

do you think it compromises american positions internationally, as the conservatives and others are claiming?

the way i figure it, the only problem this release causes is embarrassment, and even that is difficult to determine the root of, really. because in this case much of what's in these cables is likely known one way or another. but it does cross networks, make things that may be commonplace in some channels but non-existent in others more evenly present. personally, i dont see that as a problem---quite the contrary. but american officialdom isn't reacting the same way.

what do you make of the situation concerning iran based on this material? this seems to most explosive information yet released...does it change your general view of iran? of american policy toward iran?

again, i don't see this endangering anything or anyone--but it does make things a little bit more transparent.


i'm glad these people are doing what they're doing.

---------- Post added at 07:26 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:10 PM ----------

here's a different list of the areas of interest covered in the leak. it highlights the spying on the united nations (squalid.) and the secret war in yemen (yeah...):

The 10 most important WikiLeaks revelations

From Iran to Yemen to Israel to North Korea to the U.N. -- what the leaked documents tell us about the world

The AP has concluded that there is nothing "particularly explosive" so far in the archive of State Department cables that has begun to be released by WikiLeaks. That assertion is debatable in itself. But anyone who takes time to browse through the documents will find both fascinating and solidly new and newsworthy information about U.S. foreign policy and international relations.

WikiLeaks says the documents will be released in stages "over the next few months," so much of what we know now comes through the filter of the handful of media organizations who had access to the full archives. Only a few hundred cables have been released. Here are the top 10 revelations so far:

* Diplomats as spies: As part of an intelligence gathering effort, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in 2009 ordered diplomats overseas and at the U.N. to collect personal information on foreign officials including credit card and frequent flier numbers and biometric information. Read that cable here, and the New York Times' writeup here. While this may not be shocking to foreign policy wonks, it is certainly embarrassing for the United States and calls into question how much -- and how frequently -- the role of diplomat and spy has been blurred.
* Secret war in Yemen: The Obama administration has secretly launched missile attacks on suspected terrorists in Yemen, with the Yemeni government taking responsibility and consistently lying about it. While the attacks have drawn relatively little public attention, dozens of civilians along with some suspected terrorists have reportedly been killed. Salon's account of the Yemen revelation is here. The January 2010 cable describing a meeting between Yemen's president and Gen. David Petraeus is here.
* Iran and North Korea: American intelligence believes Iran has received 19 missiles from North Korea with a range up to 2,000 miles, making them the longest-range missiles in the Iranian arsenal. The Times' story on the missiles is here. The Times says it did not publish the cable at the request of the Obama administration. It has not been posted by WikiLeaks.
* Gates skeptical on Iran attack: Secretary of Defense Bob Gates, in a meeting with his French counterpart in February of this year, said that "he believed a conventional strike by any nation would only delay Iranian plans by one to three years, while unifying the Iranian people to be forever embittered against the attacker." That cable is here.
* Saudis want U.S. to bomb Iran: Several Arab leaders have privately urged the U.S. to launch an attack on Iran to stall or stop its nuclear program. Most memorably, King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia is reported to have "told you [the U.S.] to cut off the head of the snake," according to a Saudi diplomat . That cable is here. And here is the Guardian's write-up.
* Israel bluffing on Iran threats? The government of Israel, which has been publicly vocal about the possibility of launching airstrikes against Iran's nuclear program, was not considering such an attack, Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman told his Russian counterpart on a trip to Moscow in June 2009. The cable describing Lieberman's trip to Russia is here. A story on the cable from the Israeli press is here.
* Fears of uranium in Pakistan: The U.S. has since 2007 tried to get enriched uranium at a Pakistani nuclear reactor out of that country, fearing that the uranium could fall into unfriendly hands and be used to make a bomb. The effort has been unsuccessful. The Times' story on this is here. The cable has not been published.
* Fatah had warning of Gaza invasion? Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak told an American congressional delegation that Israel had asked Egypt and Fatah, the Palestian movement that governs the West Bank, "if they were willing to assume control of Gaza once Israel defeated Hamas" prior to Israeli's devastating attack on Gaza in late 2008. That revelation comes in a June 2009 cable that you can read here. Haaretz's writeup is here.
* Afghan corruption: The U.S. government deals regularly with a brother of President Hamid Karzai whom it believes to be corrupt and a drug trafficker. That's the conclusion of a cable from October 2009 about Ahmed Wali Karzai, who has also been reported to be on the CIA payroll. This does not come as a shock, but it amounts to official recognition that a U.S. partner in Afghanistan is implicated in criminal enterprises. AFP has more on this story.
* Undiplomatic name-calling: This is probably less important than the revelations above, but it is already making waves in the international press: Several of the cables have U.S. diplomats describing foreign leaders in unfriendly terms -- from comparing Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to Hitler to calling Russia's Vladimir Putin "alpha-dog" and French President Nicolas Sarkozy "the emperor with no clothes." The CBC has more.

What are we missing here? Shoot us an e-mail if you see anything of interest in the documents.

The 10 most important WikiLeaks revelations - War Room - Salon.com

the linked version is better because you can use this list to access stories about the specific situations and use those to shape access to the documents, should you be so inclined.

[loquitur]

from a fairly cursory read of the news reports it looks to me like the documents mainly confirm what any reasonably astute observer already knew or suspected.

I'd still like to know who appointed or elected Julian Assange to make decisions about what should be public. Maybe someone should print his home address, personal phone number and license plate number, just because the public has the right to know.

[roachboy]

on the other hand, if people in state are worried about what they do and say being made public, maybe it'd be better if they acted and spoke in ways that minimized the concern, yes?

no, you're right. better to be pissy about asange. way easier.



an aside: apparently at this point, about 2/3 of the fox viewership that's taken this poll

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/...-organization/

(whatever that means)

thinks that wikileaks is a "terrorist organization" which is defined as bad people who want to hurt the united of states (not much of a paraphrase, that).

just as in indicator of spin this is getting in reactionary-land.

[SecretMethod70]

Metafilter comment: "What is it our government likes to say about poking into our privacy? If you've done nothing wrong, what do you have to hide? So why are they so worried about their own secrets being leaked?"

[Willravel]

It's unfortunate Wikileaks is necessary. I only wish more people in the private sector were as willing to provide Wikileaks of damning information. Perhaps someone from Goldman?

[dksuddeth]

Originally Posted by loquitur

from a fairly cursory read of the news reports it looks to me like the documents mainly confirm what any reasonably astute observer already knew or suspected.

I'd still like to know who appointed or elected Julian Assange to make decisions about what should be public. Maybe someone should print his home address, personal phone number and license plate number, just because the public has the right to know.

is there a constitutional right to privacy for the government and it's business?

[StanT]

Julian Assange is Australian, his servers are in Sweden, and doesn't seem to live anywhere in particular for very long.

He may well have broken US law; but it wouldn't seem that he is subject to it.

[Willravel]

Julian's an American citizen.

[filtherton]

Originally Posted by loquitur

from a fairly cursory read of the news reports it looks to me like the documents mainly confirm what any reasonably astute observer already knew or suspected.

So if it's obvious information to anyone who is involved, what's the problem with
releasing it? I hope we aren't going to do the whole "It's going to ruin everything" followed by the "But it isn't anything everyone didn't already know" bullshit again.

I'd still like to know who appointed or elected Julian Assange to make decisions about what should be public. Maybe someone should print his home address, personal phone number and license plate number, just because the public has the right to know.

This type of grumbling is irrelevant. The fact that Assange gets the bulk of this type of criticism whilst the media organizations who are playing a large part in the dissemination of this information don't seem to get any criticism is pretty telling.

How many "serious" pundits will follow their criticisms of Assange by repeating and commenting on the very information they're criticizing him for publicizing? He is a pretty interesting guy. He apparently has the power to get Hillary Clinton and the viewers of Fox to agree on something.

[StanT]

Originally Posted by Willravel

Julian's an American citizen.

Julian Assange - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I'm not seeing anything in the link you posted regarding US citizenship, nor do I see any possibility from marriage or birth.

[Baraka_Guru]

I haven't read through any of it, but I did glance at summaries.

Generally, my opinion is that much of the public outrage about this is overblown. I made a comment somewhere on Facebook today that suggests how we are reminded of the warnings issued by Huxley and Orwell when the public can be so vehement in response to those who deal in the truth.

The bottom line is that we are living in the age of information and instant transmission and duplication of data. If the data is that sensitive, then protect it better. If you withhold the truth from the public and you are a democratically elected government, it shouldn't be a crisis if information gets out, especially if it isn't information that puts people in immediate danger. You should always be prepared to own up to the truth of matters because you are responsible to those who elected you.

There are those who are saying what WikiLeaks is doing is harming America. Well, what America does at the top level is harming democracy. Maybe it's time to be a bit more honest about your dealings and there will be nothing to worry about.

Originally Posted by StanT

Julian Assange - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I'm not seeing anything in the link you posted regarding US citizenship, nor do I see any possibility from marriage or birth.

I think Willravel was being ironic. This is another tidbit of idiocy from (the person who will not—it is hoped—be the next President of the United States) Sarah Palin. A foreign national cannot commit a treasonous act against America. Assange needs to betray his own country to be treasonous.

[Willravel]

Sorry, my snark didn't translate as well as I thought it would.

[ASU2003]

This is sad. It would be one thing if it was released to the American people, yet it is another releasing it to the world.

I'm pretty far on the left and I think this is treason (if an American did it), and well played if foreign double agent got in and released documents supporting their causes (Israel, South Korea, Saudi Arabia,...) with others masking who did it. I'm trying to figure out what the person or people who did this are trying to accomplish

I think that all the people at Wikileaks have pretty big balls for trying to piss off 'the US government'. What kind of quality of life will he have always being on the run? Always looking over their backs that a hit team won't covertly kill some people there and make it look like an accident... I think someone needs to learn the lesson of what happens when you piss off a schoolyard bully, yet the principal doesn't care when you tattle on him, and wants you to go back outside and play.

[The_Dunedan]

I am conflicted on this.

On the one hand, I applaud Mr. Assange's efforts to bring the Truth, whatever it is, to light. Jesus came, after all, to bear witness thereto: as an aside, in one of my favorite works of right-libertarian SciFi, a nation exists in which State secrets are actually against the law. Likewise, the government of the Nation which I have learnt to love at its' best and loathe at its' worst should have nothing to fear from public scrutiny. Indeed, this latest batch of leaks seems to bear out a number of quite reasonable lines of inquiry vis-a-vis US interests: what exactly -is- the local position in regards to a nuke-capable Iran, for instance?

On the other hand, I am forced to wonder in what sort of danger some of these leaks have placed individual Americans abroad. People who are doing jobs with which I may not agree, but doing them in good faith and with the noblest of intentions and to the best of their abilities. I have friends who have served in the Peace Corps, with numerous military formations, and with various Embassies overseas. How, if at all, will this affect them? Their lives? Their liberties?

I think Julian Assange is a vicious little slime, probably a rapist and almost certainly a smug little shit who has it in for the United States in general and individual Americans in particular. I see very few redeeming features in him. When he goes after the Russians or the Chinese I'll allow him a pair of balls. I think he engages in a game of self-aggrandizing delusions which is simply ridiculous, either to look upon or to take seriously. However, I cannot deny that the Devil may be inadvertently doing the Lord's work (to mix metaphors, if I may) in this and similar cases.

As with most things in life, it is neither here nor there. Mr. Assange and I both stand along the Water Margin, and whether I like it or not that makes us brothers. But so too do American Soldiers and Marines who go to kill evil men in dark places, or French and British doctors who go to heal the debauched and the sanctified alike. We are all brothers, along the Water Margin. And so I am conflicted.

[roachboy]

well first off why should this material not be released internationally? secondly, in the context in which we live, releasing it nationally is releasing it internationally, yes?

i don't blame wikileaks for constructing a de facto consortium of news outlets in different countries to release through either. first, it multiplies the viewpoints that work with the material early on, which makes for a faster and more thorough-going exposure and interpretation. second, i think that one of the motivations behind wikileaks is a disgust with the degenerate political form that is the nation-state and the consequences of the often repellent role that united states plays in the present arrangements of nation-states, which is after all an effect of the post-world war 2 american empire, really---it's still deeply imprinted with it. the united states still acts like the hegemon, an entity outside of the rules that apply to everyone else. and as such it can and should (and ethically has to be) called on it. what better way to do it than to be complicit in hoisting the americans by their own petard? let their own words fuck them.

there's nothing anti-american about it. and there's nothing that endangers nationalsecurity. what there **is** is an undermining of the "sanctity" of raison d'etat--which is exactly the thinking that has resulted in the americans acting hegemon in the first place. so if you politically oppose the way the americans have handled their empire during the period of neoliberalism, it follows that you should oppose the existence of the rules that enable agents within the state (this in a sociological sense--actors) to think through the grid of raison d'etat.

plus, maximizing exposure maximizes the safety of the folk who are wikileaks. raising their profile makes it far more difficult for any "accidents" to happen. and if they did, there's a very considerable pre-existing network that would make the consequences of the action far far higher than they otherwise would be.

[Willravel]

The next leak is going to be a lot more important. It's going to be a leak of information from a major American bank. This is the kind of leak I've been waiting for. This has been the opportunity many have been waiting for to finally push through legitimate financial reform to reign in corruption.

[Fotzlid]

I spent a good portion of the morning reading a lot of the cables and found it to be fascinating. Like peeking behind the curtain, so to speak.

[SecretMethod70]

Originally Posted by Willravel

The next leak is going to be a lot more important. It's going to be a leak of information from a major American bank. This is the kind of leak I've been waiting for. This has been the opportunity many have been waiting for to finally push through legitimate financial reform to reign in corruption.

Yes. While I appreciate the benefits of focusing on our wars and foreign policy, there are a lot of other issues that might benefit from WikiLeaks exposure. I can only hope this signals a broadening of focus.

[ASU2003]

Originally Posted by roachboy

well first off why should this material not be released internationally? secondly, in the context in which we live, releasing it nationally is releasing it internationally, yes?

i don't blame wikileaks for constructing a de facto consortium of news outlets in different countries to release through either. first, it multiplies the viewpoints that work with the material early on, which makes for a faster and more thorough-going exposure and interpretation. second, i think that one of the motivations behind wikileaks is a disgust with the degenerate political form that is the nation-state and the consequences of the often repellent role that united states plays in the present arrangements of nation-states, which is after all an effect of the post-world war 2 american empire, really---it's still deeply imprinted with it. the united states still acts like the hegemon, an entity outside of the rules that apply to everyone else. and as such it can and should (and ethically has to be) called on it. what better way to do it than to be complicit in hoisting the americans by their own petard? let their own words fuck them.

there's nothing anti-american about it. and there's nothing that endangers nationalsecurity. what there **is** is an undermining of the "sanctity" of raison d'etat--which is exactly the thinking that has resulted in the americans acting hegemon in the first place. so if you politically oppose the way the americans have handled their empire during the period of neoliberalism, it follows that you should oppose the existence of the rules that enable agents within the state (this in a sociological sense--actors) to think through the grid of raison d'etat.

plus, maximizing exposure maximizes the safety of the folk who are wikileaks. raising their profile makes it far more difficult for any "accidents" to happen. and if they did, there's a very considerable pre-existing network that would make the consequences of the action far far higher than they otherwise would be.

So, if you release something on-line, you shouldn't be able to hide behind your 'borders' either. It becomes the One World Government at that point.

What do you think North Korea thinks about our plan on what to do after their leader dies? They probably guessed that we would do something, but now they know what we are thinking and can take steps to prevent it. Possibly by drastic actions... Or how the fencing champion was giving up intel on a nuclear program. I wonder if he got a knock on his door today... I wonder how likely it will be in the future that we get any cooperation from diplomats or insiders...

It's one thing to have an honest media, digging for the truth and using these to figure out the world... It's another to just dump everything and let the angry mob sift through it all and distort things through a prism of what they believe is going on. If there were crimes committed, sure write a story about that. But this is just a bunch of lazy 'journalists' that don't care what happens.

And the Wikileaks guys don't seem like the anarchist type trying to bring down governments and let the people decide their own fate. Then again, maybe the US can bring them into Gitmo as enemy combatants if they are trying to start wars between nations.

[Charlatan]

One must ask why none of these cables used encryption? Perhaps I am missing something.

[ASU2003]

I'm wondering how one person had access to all of this info? Why wasn't it compartmentalized with required approval from other security managers for some info?

It should be encrypted and only readable on 'approved' government computers. Yet, I'm not sure if Windows will allow that.

[Xazy]

While I find some of the information informative not shocking, I disagree with wikileaks.

I think while the information may not have been protected as well as it should have. Which is a huge shame and embarrassment for the government, it does not make it morally or legally correct to steal them. I think anyone who is responsible for the theft should be charged and prosecuted to the full extent of the law. This can only hinder our diplomats from being able to discuss and work with our countries, who may not say things for fear of it becoming public. An example perhaps is Saudi Arabia.

[roachboy]

what looks to be happening so far is that the united states remains in high bluster mode, simultaneously being Shocked and Outraged while poo-pooing the impact, announcing new "security" measures while mentioning the obama administration's "commitment" to greater transparency at the news conferences.

i would think the information would be of interest to the rest of us, those of us who are not by profession obliged to pretend that raison d'etat overrides everything else...you know, like that whole pesky democracy thing. (to be clear, it is self-evidently not the case that the united states invented this tension--its as old as politics)....but i think it is better to know more rather than less about the way that, say, the real problems that pakistan has keeping itself intact as a nation-state generate concerns because they're a nuclear power, and it's kinda funny how if you really want to get the kind of concern for stability that was built into bretton woods for the colonial powers bestowed on you in this sad post-bretton woods days the key is to get nukes. then the international community gets real interested in maintaining whatever regime is in power in power because the alternative becomes simply x+nukes=bad.

i think it's interesting to know more rather than less about the machinations around iran, how it appears that the saudis and others have been trying to get the us to implement their conception of what a good regional balance of power is, figuring dealing with israel is bad enough...in this case, the us comes across looking *better* than it did based on it's own way of prepackaging this situation because in that packaging, particularly under the bush administration, indecision about whether to go after iran resulted in a need to prepare the grounds for an action should it come. plus there's this whole unilateralist ideology of the right that requires reality often be erased. but i think the cables make the obama administration's approach to iran look better.

north korea----not real concerned. i found the information released from china about dear leader to be interesting. i don't see a compromise of anything except perhaps something of the chinese relation with prk. worry is situational....but there's really little New or Scandolous.

the war in yemen could have been inferred, but it's unfortunate that after 8 years of the bush administration finding out that these inferences are correct provokes nothing but a weary "o good...another one..."

the assessments of international figures==so what? everyone does the same thing. it's part of the game. and everyone is still doing the same thing. most of this "security" stuff is bluster aimed at enabling there to be no disruption. this is an aspect of the raw material that shapes state department positions.

the spying on the un is shitty. petty, stupid, shitty. it should be stopped. maybe it will be. do i think the us is the only party engaged in it? probably not. but the us fobs itself off as an embodiment of virtue in the way no other place does. hoisted by its own petard.

[mixedmedia]

Personally, I find this information to be kind of fascinating and I think it's the kind of information that we should be privy to. Since it is about us, our place in the world, what our elected officials and their officers are out there doing in our name. Perhaps not in, uh, colloquial language so much, but I think reading these exchanges between diplomats brings the machinations of 'America' down to earth quite a bit - makes me able to imagine what is happening day by day in manageable terms. It makes me feel, oddly perhaps, more secure. I don't know about anyone else, but I want to know what's going on. Ever work or live in an environment that was full of secrets and intrigue? It is always, without exception, a dysfunctional environment.

[Xazy]

The information is fascinating, how we have been misled on purpose on a number of accounts. We mostly hear about Israel being against Iran nuculear and wanting to remove that thread. We did not hear about Arab nations asking for a ground strike comparing Ahmadinejad to Hitler, Saudi Arabia asking us to remove the snakes head. How Iran used ambulances to smuggle weapons.

To me this is the one thing this shows is how much we have been misled in policy.

Again I think this was obtained illegally and the guy should be charged,

[StanT]

Originally Posted by Xazy

Again I think this was obtained illegally and the guy should be charged,

WikiLeaks, source 'will be held responsible' | The Morning Sentinel, Waterville, ME

Absolutely, The guy that obtained it is in custody and in deep shit. It's going to be a stretch to charge an Australian that published this in Sweden. Espionage is the most likely charge, but it's an old law that isn't going to fit very well with an electronic age.

[roachboy]

why exactly should charges be filed?
what is to be gained by that for the united states? for anybody?
what is the anxiety that this plays upon such that people without any direct interest in the maintenance of "state secret" are interested in seeing people prosecuted?

on what planet is this spying?

[SecretMethod70]

I love this....

VOA | Turkey's Foreign Minister Welcomes WikiLeaks Challenge | Europe | English

"If all the official cables and other documents are being disclosed, we will be very happy," said [Turkey's Foreign Minister] Ahmet Davutoglu. "Really. Turkey will be very happy because we follow a foreign policy of principles. We do not use dual language. We do not say something in Tehran and something different in Washington and something different in New York or in another place."

What a novel idea.

[dogzilla]

Originally Posted by roachboy

what do you think of this leak?

I think it's yet another embarrassment for the Obama administration which is looking more and more like it's a bunch of inept clowns. Now they can't even enforce secure data access procedures. At the very least, the information classified secret or higher should have been encrypted with limited access to decryption keys, and strict accounting for who has those keys.

If the information disclosed is detrimental to US security interests, such as the disclosure that the government of Yemen provided cover for a US military operation, then those responsible for disclosing that information should at the least be in jail for a very long time.

[mixedmedia]

This data went back to the year 1966 so obviously it has been kept in the same manner for a long time.

yet another 'blame Obama' fail.

[dogzilla]

Originally Posted by mixedmedia

This data went back to the year 1966 so obviously it has been kept in the same manner for a long time.

yet another 'blame Obama' fail.

I thought Obama promised us change, not more of the same. Doing things the same way they have been done for years is no excuse. Obama's in charge, Obama gets the blame.

Also, you can keep unencrypted data on a computer system if you handle the access properly, setting access controls and again carefully handing out access. For all I know Obama's staff implemented some procedural change to make the illegal access easier.

[mixedmedia]

then why put so much emphasis on it if it's just an arbitrary, or worse, a speculative thing?

[roachboy]

horseshit, dogzilla. as usual.

there are issues here that cut across factions within the oligarchy, that implicate both of the two right wings that jockey for power in this single-party state. this blog entry, by adam minter (who identifies as "an american write in shanghai") is pretty interesting, and provides a glimpse of the kind of interests that are really affected by this release:

A brief note on wikileaks and sheltered State Dept employees.
Filed under:Uncategorized — posted by Adam on November 30, 2010 @ 10:57 am

Earlier today the New Yorker’s Evan Osnos blogged disappointment (shared by many, including me) at the lack of juicy wikileaks about China and the Chinese leadership (ala the Qadaffi “voluptuous nurse” cable). And then, as if it were meant to be, wikileaks released the “Shenyang Cable,” complete with a section entitled “Princelings Behaving Badly.” (for those who don’t follow these things – ‘Princeling‘ is the nickname given to the children of high-ranking Chinese officials). The cable is entertaining/interesting for two reasons. First, it describes how the Princelings secure business deals in North Korea. And second, it describes two Chinese companies competing for sole mining rights to North Korea’s largest copper mine. One of those companies, Wanxiang Group, is described as close to Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao. And then we get this:

Without naming names, XXXXXXXXXX also suggested the strong possibility that someone had made a payment (on the order of USD 10,000) to secure the premier’s support.

That’s right: somebody at the US Consulate in Shenyang reported the “strong possibility” that China’s premier had been bribed for less than the cost of a used Buick in Shanghai. That is to say, somebody at the US Consulate in Shenyang – probably several somebodies – believes that the Premier can be bribed for less than the cost of a used Buick in Shanghai. Now, you don’t need to know anything about graft in China, much less world leaders, or Wen Jiabao, to know that $10,000 not only wouldn’t get the job done, it’d be viewed as an insult and an automatic disqualification from this any other mining contract. So I’m going to go out on a limb here: there’s simply no way that happened. None. Zero. Zilch. Now, is it possible that Wen has a “relationship” with Wanxiang? Sure. But not the one described in the cable.

And this gets to something that I think is going to become increasingly, uncomfortably obvious as more and more of these cables are released: US State Department employees in overseas posts often don’t know very much about the countries in which they’re posted. This is the result of a number of factors, not least of which is that they’re often sheltered – I mean truly isolated – from the countries in which they’re posted, living on upper-middle class wages in secure compounds where they have little to no contact with anyone but officials and employees of major US companies. US Consular employees in Shanghai, for example, live in serviced apartments at the Portman Ritz-Carlton (at US taxpayer expense), and often socialize accordingly. I don’t know the situation in Shenyang, but I feel comfortable suggesting that the person who felt comfortable reporting the alleged $10,000 bribe doesn’t regularly associate with people doing business in Shenyang (expat or otherwise). If s/he did, there’s no way that level of stupidity would have made its way into the cable.

That’s why I’m taking much of what I read in these cables – out of China or elsewhere – with a giant grain of salt (such as yesterday’s ridiculous ‘revelation’ that google’s problems in China are to due to a personal vendetta launched by a Politburo member). In the case of the Shenyang Consulate, at least, there’s now little reason to believe that the employees are equipped with even a budget-grade bullshit detector. If the State Department has anything to be embarrassed about, it’s not that these cables leaked, but that somebody once took them seriously enough to label as secret.

Shanghai Scrap A brief note on wikileaks and sheltered State Dept employees.

the main interpretation is that the functionaries who fashion these messages are often embarrassingly-to-dangerously out of touch with the places where they are posted.

they can't distinguish the plausible from obvious horseshit.

that means that the state department---and by extension the united states---is flying more or less blind.

because the people who work the gears aren't always good at what they're doing. in part because of the arrogance and jingoism built into the educational system in the good ole us of a that considers learning languages other than english to be a dilution of the precious bodily fluids of english-speaking. the parochialism that makes american conservatives possible. but i digress.

this is very bad indeed for a hegemon. bad enough that you've got a bellicose empire. it's **really** bad when that empire is stupid because it staffs it's interactive nodes with the naive and under-educated.

this critique is directed at permanent levels of the bureaucracy, so at the system itself, not just at the rotating political talking-heads who act as if they recreate the whole show every 4 years.

so this is the apparatus itself that's being embarrassed here.

whence alot of the screeching and hand-waving and chicken-little stuff.

[loquitur]

Roachboy, honestly, from you I expect better.

Look, I represent people in legal disputes. Part of what we do is figure out strategies for how best to present our case. That takes a lot of brainstorming. Some of it is with clients (subject to attorney-client privilege) and some of it is with fellow attorneys and experts (subject to work product privilege). When we have these discussions, they range from mad-scientist-like creative ravings to workmanlike plotting -- but if they weren't protected by nondisclosure privilege we couldn't have honest discussions.

It's been awhile since I had a case against the federal govt, but a while ago I was involved in litigation against a federal agency, and they have something called the "deliberative process" privilege -- brainstorming isn't discoverable in lawsuits. It can be infuriating (esp if you think, as I did, that the "brainstorming" wasn't done in good faith but rather with the specific intent of fucking over my client), but I understand why the privilege exists. You can't have good decisionmaking if every crazy thing someone thinks can end up on the public record because then people won't speak their minds.

So I have some sympathy with the idea that not everything should be public, because I understand precisely the need to foster open discussion in certain areas by promising confidentiality. And I think you do, too, roachboy. And I'm well aware of the systemic abuse that this invites, particularly among ass-covering bureaucrats.

But there are remedies for the abuses. It's not Julian Assange's job to make those decisions. He has neither the training nor the disposition to address abuses intelligently. Neither do I (well, I might have the disposition but I don't have the training or, for that matter, the inclination). As I have said before, I'm very much the libertarian but I'm very far from being an anarchist -- and what Assange is doing is anarchic -- no one appointed or elected him to be the decisionmaker about what should and shouldnt be public. I'm very suspicous of self-appointed guardians of the public good. Hell, I'm suspicious of anyone who considers him/herself a guardian of the public good, but at least when such a person is elected or appointed there is a way to get rid of them. The self-appointed guardians answer to no one.

As for the newspapers who publish this stuff - they should consider their own ethics. Trafficking in stolen information is sordid business. I am not in favor of prosecuting media for publicizing things (unless they themselves participate in the theft, which is exceedingly rare), but they do need to act responsibly. And one thing they can do is turn in their source if they know the source acted criminally - they can even do it anonymously!

[RogueGypsy]

I've got to say, the guy has brass balls the size of church bells. Who in their right mind pokes a rabid dog? I hope he keeps going and hits every government in the world.

I've read through a few, no where near all, of the documents and my opinion is; If it's not endangering the lives of innocents, it's probably a good thing.

Government transparency would end a whole lot of world strife in my opinion. These douche bags and others have been fucking with world opinion long enough. It's time for the people, all people, to have the facts and make their own decisions. I believe government, as it stands, is becoming an out dated idea. If and when we ever have a true world peace, it will be because the people come together, not because governments negotiate it. The smaller the representative body of a nation, the louder the voice of the people. Our voices and the voices of the world have been drowned out for too long by ruling bodies.

My hope, is that the continuing release of this information will help to make the world aware, not only of our government's backroom dealings, but those of others as well. Forcing governments to concede to the will of the people and forever give up the warring empire building of our history.

It's probably just a dream, but imagine the day when all the thought, energy and resources now expended on: war, poverty, starvation, repression, lying, conniving, stealing, manipulation and coercion. Were instead focused on science, medicine and the advancement of the human race.

As the government, while fondling my balls, reading my email and listening to my phone calls, is so fond of saying; If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to worry about. For one, I'm glad someone is finally fondling their balls in public and in an unpleasant way.



..

[ASU2003]

Originally Posted by dogzilla

I think it's yet another embarrassment for the Obama administration which is looking more and more like it's a bunch of inept clowns. Now they can't even enforce secure data access procedures. At the very least, the information classified secret or higher should have been encrypted with limited access to decryption keys, and strict accounting for who has those keys.

If the information disclosed is detrimental to US security interests, such as the disclosure that the government of Yemen provided cover for a US military operation, then those responsible for disclosing that information should at the least be in jail for a very long time.

Access to classified info is the same now as it was under Bush. There are major flaws in the system, but you can't blame the Obama administration for this. Unless it was the leaker that wanted to see Obama fail and would do something like this in order for us to have problems with world relations (since they have been getting better in the past 2 years)

It isn't just creating keys, it is only having classified documents accessible and readable from secure systems that is the biggest flaw. Having USB ports is flaw #2.

[loquitur]

I think Dan Drezner correctly predicts what the fallout will be:

It is worth thinking through the long-term implications of this data dump, however. Rob Farley observes:

I'm also pretty skeptical that this release will incline the United States government to make more information publicly available in the future. Bureaucracies don't seem to react to attacks in that manner; I suspect that the State Department will rather act to radically reduce access to such material in order to prevent future leaks.

Rob is correct, which means that the chances of an intelligence failure just shot up. As the Guardian explains here (and in further detail here):

Asked why such sensitive material was posted on a network accessible to thousands of government employees, the state department spokesman told the Guardian: "The 9/11 attacks and their aftermath revealed gaps in intra-governmental information sharing. Since the attacks of 9/11, the US government has taken significant steps to facilitate information sharing. These efforts were focused on giving diplomatic, military, law enforcement and intelligence specialists quicker and easier access to more data to more effectively do their jobs."

Well, I think it's safe to say that compartmentalization will be back in vogue real soon -- which means, in the long run, both less transparency and less effective policy coordination. It's not the job of WikiLeaks to care about the second problem, but they should care about the first.

And that's what happens when people appoint themselves as arbiters of other people's actions.

[roachboy]

loquitor: you act as though this release of material vaporizes the deliberative privilege. were that what was happening, i'd likely be arguing something much closer to your position, actually.
but that's not what's happening. there's been a leak, it was made public and there we are. there's handwaving and some attempts to shore up the appearances of closedness of this information stream and that's about the extent of it. a few patch-up phonecalls or meeting where appropriate.
that's it.

personally, i'm far closer to anarchism than i am to libertarian. and i approve of direct action from time to time. i don't buy the idea that it's revolutionary, but in some cases it can have a salutary effect. this particular leak is one of them.

i do think that the problem pointed out in the shanghai scrap piece i posted above is real, however. and i think that exposing it is worth the embarrassment it causes both the people involved and those who think in system terms about those people.

i should also say that so far anyway, there's been little real damage done because so far the leak does not reveal anything terribly untoward---this is quite different from what would have been the case under the bush administration.

so i see little harm in this. i see an interesting political action.

and i don't really care about the "trafficking in stolen information" line because i view this as a political action. the entire rhetoric of "trafficking in stolen information" is an attempt to strip out the politics from it and transform it into some criminal action.

but that's just conservative rhetoric.

should i say something snippy-seeming here? vaguely disapproving? i feel like i should.

maybe that'll be another disappointment.

[Willravel]

Originally Posted by loquitur

It's not Julian Assange's job to make those decisions. He has neither the training nor the disposition to address abuses intelligently. Neither do I (well, I might have the disposition but I don't have the training or, for that matter, the inclination).

Who's job is it? Federal prosecutors? The CIA? I ask because the decisions clearly aren't being made.

[loquitur]

you did say something snippy, rb, so go right ahead and add to it.

My one observation is that the rule of law is not a conservative position and thinking it indispensable is not conservative rhetoric. It's the underpinning of civilization, and certainly the underpinning of a democratic society. You can say you don't like certain laws, but then you have to deal with Sartre's view, which is that you have to be willing to grant others the right to live by the rules you set for yourself - so if you want to take matters into your own hands on matters you deem important, then you have to let others do it on matters they deem important. And you might not like the results when that happens because those others might not agree with you.

That's not conservative rhetoric. That's plain old civilized behavior in an open society.

Will, I don't know who in the State Dept is responsible for (de)classification decisions. Clearly they are over-classifying, but that's to be expected in a bureaucracy. Overclassifying satisfies two imperatives: it covers the bureaucrat's ass and increases his/her power. So it's a twofer. Welcome to the iron law of big organizations. It does not follow, however, that therefore someone self-appointed gets to make the decision. It means State needs better procedures.