wikileaks: the diplomacy dump.
 

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 - 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.

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.

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.

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?"

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?

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

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.

Julian's an American citizen.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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,

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.

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?

I love this....

VOA | Turkey's Foreign Minister Welcomes WikiLeaks Challenge | Europe | English
What a novel idea.

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.

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.

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

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:

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.

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! :D

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.



..

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.

I think Dan Drezner correctly predicts what the fallout will be:And that's what happens when people appoint themselves as arbiters of other people's actions.

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.

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

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.

loquitor---

so wait a minute: if i am argue that in the context of certain political actions it is ok to violate the law, your response is to say that therefore all rule of law is out the window and we'll on a downhill trail toward barbarism?

strange, but the motivation (as i understand it) for leaking alot of these documents--on afghanistan & iraq in particular--was that you have a political regime in the united states that's all sanctimonious about the rule of law except when it restricts the united states itself. as hegemon, the rules that the little people live by don't apply. all that matters is that the violations be kept secret (the procedure for "reporting" torture instituted by rumsfeld springs to mind, but then again alot of the criminal actions of the bush administration spring to mind)....and when documentation comes out that blows the lid off these sanctimonious claims about the "rule of law" you start talking about the "crime" of trafficking in stolen information?

seems absurd to me. like the sort of thing that'd be political/theatrical suicide to try to act on for the united states.

this newest leak is perhaps more easily actionable because the information is, up to now, less explosive because the obama administration seems to actually have a bit less cavalier attitude toward law and other such than did the bush administration.

but the same logic applies.

i would think the damage done to american credibility by trying to prosecute wikileaks would far outweigh any possible advantage.

and you can't get around the point about rhetoric. at the moment, where's the bluster about criminal action and prosecution coming from?
this isn't rocket science.

Indeed, they are over-classifying. That it's to be expected of bureaucracy does not mean that it's admissible, though. State secrets are inherently anti-democratic and historically are often used in the service of injustice. One of my favorite JFK quotes seems to speak to the issue:
In an open and free society (yes, yes, that's a very vague term, but I think you take my meaning), that which is classified should only be done so in the most dire of situations. Much of what was leaked of the classified diplomatic cables is petty and stupid (a.k.a. normal behavior of high ranking government officials) and would never endanger anyone, rather simply bruising a few egos and showing how diplomatic sausage is made.

Let me ask you this: if a job not being done by those tasked to do it is important enough, can it not be argued that someone else not tasked with doing said job is excused, to a certain degree, in doing it? In other words, are there not instances where the question of legality is trumped by the issue of the common good?

I can appreciate somebody trying to fight the good fight against the US govt, striking a blow for the little guy, standing up to the man and all that but we do need to draw lines and their should be penalties for crossing them. If we don't there would be no way any information could ever be classified or made confidential, which for better or worse is a necessity.

I agree that the US government needs to be more transparent and in a way they are bringing this sort of thing on themselves but simply leaking information at random with thought or concern for the fallout or ramifications is just irresponsible. There needs to be some sort of consensus somewhere over what can and can't be released and there does need to be safe guards against potentially dangerous or damaging info falling into the wrong hands.

Perhaps these leaks will get the ball rolling in the direction of more transparency and ultimately wont cause any harm but there is no way we can continue to abide by this sort of thing happening over and over again.

i think this "there ought to be some kinda prosecution" business is funny.

meanwhile, the rules of the game internationally, and the notion of what investigative journalism is and how it's organized, is getting changed by how wikileaks is operating.

WikiLeaks a media game changer - Keach Hagey - POLITICO.com


no wonder fox et al have their panties in a bunch. they loose.

It does make sense that something like wikileaks would come along after it's clear that traditional media is broken in a way that they can't fix themselves.

and notice the cooperation with us government authorities prior to the release in the redacting.

so what's all this nonsense about compromising security and endangering lives exactly?
and the point of calls for prosecution?

And this sort of thing is going to happen more frequently as long as the media continues to ignore its responsibility and the us govt becomes needlessly more secretive. I do however see glaring problems in encouraging random people to dig up dirt on the government and get it out there for the sake of getting it out there, but as long as people are adhering to the law then its no big thing.

If laws were broken in the process of getting/publishing this info then prosecute if not then let it be.

Well there is now an Interpol initiative for his arrest... :sad:

The rape charges are childish and even if successful will ultimately only make Assange into an even more powerful personality.

Here's a great interview with Noam Chomsky on this topic. It's worth a read.

Excerpt:

"Noam Chomsky: WikiLeaks Cables Reveal "Profound Hatred for Democracy on the Part of Our Political Leadership"
Chomsky

In a national broadcast exclusive interview, we speak with world-renowned political dissident and linguist Noam Chomsky about the release of more than 250,000 secret U.S. State Department cables by WikiLeaks. In 1971, Chomsky helped government whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg release the Pentagon Papers, a top-secret internal U.S. account of the Vietnam War. Commenting on the revelations that several Arab leaders are urging the United States to attack Iran, Chomsky says, "latest polls show] Arab opinion holds that the major threat in the region is Israel, that’s 80 percent; the second threat is the United States, that’s 77 percent. Iran is listed as a threat by 10 percent," Chomsky says. "This may not be reported in the newspapers, but it’s certainly familiar to the Israeli and U.S. governments and the ambassadors. What this reveals is the profound hatred for democracy on the part of our political leadership." "

The rest of the article can be found here:

Noam Chomsky: WikiLeaks Cables Reveal "Profound Hatred for Democracy on the Part of Our Political Leadership"

So some writer who apparently lives in China, might have written an article or two about politics, and has a blog is a credible expert on the operations and qualifications of the diplomatic corps. Somehow I think Sarah Palin might have more credibility than this guy.

Two questions.
Just who is this 'apparatus' accountable to? Who is she accountable to? Hint: It's not George Bush.

---------- Post added at 08:50 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:02 PM ----------

The report about exposing how the Yemen govt provided cover for a US military operation is one example of what could be a problematic disclosure. One article I read described how this was ammo for Al Queda, telling Yemeni citizens their government lied and couldn't be trusted.

I read another article about how people who had been giving tips to the US, expecting that information to remain secret may no longer be willing to do so because that info might show up on Wikileaks next. So now the US might miss out on useful information.

From the news reports I read, quite a bit of this material is stupid, juvenile commentary. However, if someone is provided enough bits and pieces of seemingly disconnected information, they can draw a complete picture from that info.

Once of the bits of corporate nonsense I get to deal with about once a year is a mandatory information security class where they warn us about stuff like discussing even bits and pieces of confidential info in public because people can start putting the pieces together. I don't think the story is much different with governments, politics and intrigue.

---------- Post added at 08:52 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:50 PM ----------

This guy can dream about how powerful he is while he's spending time in jail. I note with some interest his unwillingness to have his personal info disclosed all over the internet.

Unless they turn out to be true, of course. Swedish cops don't exactly have a reputation for going off half-cocked on things like this, and if the CIA (or God Forbid the FSB, GIGN or Mossad) wanted him dead or discredited, he'd either be dead already or have been caught red-handed with the proverbial "dead girl or live boy."

As for Mr. Chomsky, while I admire his style and verve nobody has ever been able to convince me that Democracy is a -good- thing. As a consequence, I cannot see why a "hatred for Democracy" should perforce be an inherently bad thing. I personally detest Democracy: Democracy gave us the French Revolution, Bill Clinton, George Bush (take your pick) and the current imbecile, with all their attendant lunacies: in return it took Socrates and Lysander Spooner and Henry Thoreau and Ralph Emerson and Hunter S. Thompson, whom it either murdered with glee or buried with false tears and the reward of cultural castration. I don't call that a fair trade.

I read an article about how Wikileaks went to the State dept asking for assistance in redacting this information and got turned down.

The Obama adminiration would be even more of a clown show if they assisted with redacting in light of all the public protesting they have been doing over this.

---------- Post added at 08:59 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:54 PM ----------

Why not? Protection of classified information is the responsibility of the agency that owns it. Every single agency in the executive branch reports to Obama. So it's not George Bush's fault, it's not Bill Clinton's fault. It's the fault of he current president for not insisting this information be protected properly.

Yes, there's more to it than keys. Logged access to protected files, no confidential info on computers with removable media or internet connections, etc, etc. Obama failed.

I'll just leave this here. The Swedish cops aren't really involved beyond an investigation which has lead Sweden's chief prosecutor to state, "I don't think there is reason to suspect that he has committed rape." Not only that, but there are substantial holes in the stories of the accused which have not been reconciled.

This really doesn't explain why the fact that it happened during Obama's administration is so significant. It could have happened anytime during the last few decades. Just saying, 'he's the president, so he takes the blame' doesn't really say anything substantive or unique against the guy. Being that it could have happened to any one of several different presidents. Where's the fun in that?

Bit behind the times, aren't you?

[link]http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/nov/18/interpol-arrest-warrant-julian-assange-wikileaks-rape[/quote]

[link]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/01/julian-assange-rape-inves_n_701578.html[/quote]

But all this is really irrelevant. I should probably set aside this threadjack. Sorry, folks.

Not at all. No charge has been laid against Assange, he's simply wanted for questioning.

righto. the reason it is significant that this is happening under the obama administration is that the ultra-right imagines there's a benefit to be derived from it. that's all there is to it. if it were otherwise we'd be talking about these leaks in context and linking the actions of this administration to the largely criminal actions of the bush administration and finding that the obama administration, while centrist and problematic for that in many ways, is a VAST improvement over the clownshow that was the bush administration. but that discussion would not rebound to the benefit of the right, so they want to impose a different conversation, one based on not remembering things and false premises and, basically, stupidity. but that's how the right rolls. stupid shit for stupid people. like a pie made from stupid.

i'm not going to waste my time on most of dogzilla's nitwit points...the exception is: i think the shangai scrap blog piece is interesting. i think it raises an interesting angle. it's something to consider. *but* i also noted it was a blog piece (duh)...and i also noted that all i know about the writer is the self-identification he provides (duh)...and i posted the piece with the caveat that it is an interpretation (duh) based on information this person has access to anecdotally (duh) that allows for the cables that he specifically cites to be situated and various plausible meanings or implications to be drawn from them. so it's a maybe window onto why state is reacting as they are.

but rather than address the information and/or reasoning, you, dogzilla, attack the source in a one-dimensional way as if that's adequate.

it isn't.

try a bit harder.

sheesh, the intellectual laziness that's acceptable amongst conservatives...amazing....

it's also kinda funny, in a stomach turning kinda way, that the right feels it's ok to attach assange personally as if that takes care of the content of what wikileaks has released. facile, stupid business it seems like to me. like you'd rather believe that he is personally responsible for the information in the way people used to think walter cronkite personally made up the news. because he's the face of delivery.
fucking grow up.
jesus.

there's some speculation that the data dump was deliberate. Do you think the people running State now are that clever?

This whole thing reeks as a mass psyops on our society by government to use as a scapegoat as leverage to censoring the internet. Land of the Free, my ass. Considering Homeland is already seizing domains, guess that's not really news.

it could be. what this does is reframe some central debates. for example, it entirely displaces the center of the debates about iran, which had previously been centered on bush administration dick-waving to the total exclusion of persian gulf countries (israel is not one of those)...it changes the public perception of pakistan in an interesting way as well, making it far more complicated and problematic (assuming that you haven't been looking...) than it may have been perceived as being. it's interesting to think on it that way.

i wouldn't say deliberate...but i would not be surprised to learn that it was known and approved of in a tacit way. tacit in the sense of "dont ask me any questions about those documents that you are releasing officially because i cannot have any position except but to oppose them...o take out that name would you? not good if she's outed...""

I doubt it. Next thing you know you'll be blaming the government for 9/11. And let's just be honest: that's silly. :expressionless:

No computer connected to the internet is secure. There are other secondary networks, but that seems to be encrypted and secure.

This problem started 30 years ago when the first desktop computers came on the scene. Papers are very well secured, and you would have to drill out a safe, or just be able to grab a few reports at a time. Now with large capacity USB drives that are pretty small, someone can download hundreds of thousands of documents and not even look for anything or care what they got. If there is a cover-up, a 9-11 inside job (is anything about this in these cables?), corruption, or any abuses of power that is one thing, but this isn't the right way to do it.

The only thing Obama failed at was preventing the release of these documents once he knew they had been released. If Wikileaks 'went away', I think that would send a strong message against doing this in the future. But, at the same time, it is needed because regular news won't do anything like this, the right-wing news is so biased that even if they are right it sounds like they have ulterior motives, and documentary films take years to come out and still don't get to the bigger questions.

And yes the media does have problems, yet I don't want to have to read 250,000 pages to find out what is one possible truth. Yes, media researchers should have an oversight role to keep the government honest and accountable, yet throwing everything out and letting the bad people in the world know what we are planning and thinking isn't the right way to do it.

I learned a long time ago that one of the first things you do is look at the background and credentials of the person posting the article. There's very likely little value in reading say an article on nuclear thermodynamics written by Jessica Simpson.

Similarly, there's little value in reading an article posted by a blogger with little or no interaction with the diplomatic corps describing one or two incidents in China and extrapolating that to the whole State dept.

This isn't the first time I caught you posting a dubious article and claiming it was representative of the whole or that it was the gospel truth.

So much for 'intellectual laziness'

i framed what i said pretty tightly. this is far from the only such information concerning the professional/permanent levels of state being out of touch in problematic ways...and if you think about the Problem that's raised by the release of this material, it originates with and goes back to the middle-to-upper levels of the state department, so to political appointees and the permanent staffs.

in the blog entry, the case is clear cut. in many other situations, it's not so. there are good people who do good work. there are people who lack language skills required to do more than skim over the surface of where they are, to sort out true from false and so forth. it's a problem, but it's a problem for anyone working for any government, really.

i spent a few years living in france. it took quite a while to begin to figure out how folk actually live and the longer i was there the less i knew (because the modes of generalizing i started with no longer works and because i knew actual people instead of types...you know the drill...) so maybe there's a problem with rotating people through assignments.

this is not an everything sucks line of argument btw. it is a speculative line that's aimed at trying to understand something of the chicken little act we've been getting since monday, particularly from those professionals of chicken little on the right.

this link:

http://cryptome.org/0002/ja-conspiracies.pdf

takes you to an essay by julian assange, "state and terrorist conspiracies."

it tells you alot about how the political world operates in assange's view, the role and possibilities of tactical operations like wikileaks etc.

the idea is to disrupt the functioning of an "invisible government" which he talks about using the language of conspiracy (for better or worse) but which could just as easily be described using categories like oligarchy.

an excerpt:

but see for yourself.

this essay:

http://zunguzungu.wordpress.com/2010...y-%E2%80%9Cto-
destroy-this-invisible-government%E2%80%9D/

is pretty good in drawing out the implications of assange's piece and connecting it to wikileaks as a tactic.
and this goes a long way to understanding what's happening with this.

here's another piece:

http://workwithoutdread.blogspot.com...striction.html


i'm far more interested in wikileaks now than i was.
watch and learn, folks. watch and learn.

Thanks for those links. It makes the event(s) much more clearly understood.

I can understand qualms about upsetting the status quo. To an extent. But I think it's important for those folks to know exactly what it is that they are rejecting and, as a consequence, what they are accepting.

Knowledge is fundamental.

there's a footnote in assange's essay (which is garbled btw in the pdf...it looks like there are two copies of the first 5 pages of part one that were confused with the second 5 pages of part two...) concerning complicity. you've heard similar things before, but the gist is: if you witness corrupt actions and do nothing, you become yourself corrupt. the endless boredom that greets revelations of war crimes or "collateral damage" or these cables (which is admirably dissected in the article from "work without dread" in the last paragraph by way of a bolano quote) is the same as acquiescence. and maybe, as the same entry concludes, exposing that boredom is in itself a salutary political action.

here's a good piece that develops another angle from simon jenkins:


US embassy cables: The job of the media is not to protect the powerful from embarrassment | Simon Jenkins | Comment is free | The Guardian

I only read part one of the Assange essay. I thought the 'zunga' analysis written in context of the diplomacy leak to be more relevant.

Like you've said, I find myself to be much more interested in Wikileaks now that I've read these articles. It's not about whistle blowing, but about revolution. And a potentially peaceful one at that. I'm afraid I'd have to throw the full weight of my support behind that.

I think everyone should read them. I assume that alot of the concern, at least among reasonable people, is that with these leaks we are heading into unknown territory with unknown consequences. That fear, even if I don't accept it, is something that at least I can understand. But in reality, if we are going along not knowing whether what we see and hear - what we are told - is real or not, is that really so much of a different place to be? Myself, I prefer to know the truth.

Simon is correct. It is the government's responsibility to protect classified information. That includes throwing people like the Wikileaks crowd in jail or in front of a firing squad when they get caught disclosing classified government information.

Also, Julian Assange's attempts to justify why he broke the law, while possibly interesting are irrelevant. If he wants to play anarchist or whatever else he thinks he is, then he should be willing to pay the price.

In what was has Julian Assange broken the law? Wikileaks is a media outlet and thus is legally allowed to publish classified information.
Prosecuting WikiLeaks For Publishing Documents Would Raise Serious Constitutional Concerns, Says ACLU | American Civil Liberties Union

I did not know this about the first amendment, thanks Will.

No problemo. I didn't know until this morning. It makes sense, though, as free speech is in part about an informed public being necessary for a free society. Knowledge is power and only through free speech can knowledge spread unhindered. It's an elegant system we have.

He's divulged classified information. If that has compromised national security or led to the death of anyone who provided that information to the US government then he should be prosecuted for that.

dogzilla: Wrong, the person who gave him the information should be prosecuted for it. There's a difference.

I have a fabulous idea.
Since we're all in our happy place making up laws to be broken so we can trot certain 'bad people' out to be shot, why not think of it this way:

How about whenever a politician stands up in front of us all and lies, tries to make something look like something its not or participates in covering up important information that it is our right to have, why don't we line those guys up in front of a firing squad instead?! are you with me?!

That way all you bloodthirsty types can still get your bang-bangs on and the rest of us can start enjoying the transparent government that we've supposedly had all along (only we haven't) making cocky little non-American types like Julian Assange obsolete.

Everybody wins!
wick, wick, whack.

/naturally, this moment of dripping sarcasm should not be confused with mixedmedia's actual sentiments, ideas, feelings or desires.

interesting. so in this scenario, government has a job and media has a job, but citizens, who are parts of a democratic polity i understand, don't have a job---like to be informed, to make informed decisions---and so have no interest really in accurate information. it's ok to lie to the polity it's ok to manage them. because american democracy really is that paper-thin. and the irony, i suppose (were there even surprise about this) is that it's the conservatives who claim to be all about democracy in america (except when it's politically inconvenient at which point democray becomes mob rule or communism somehow except when it's convenient when it becomes what the united of states stands for) who are in this place yelling: I DONT WANT TO KNOW ALL THIS STUFF I'M NOT LISTENING LA LA LA SHOOT JULIAN ASSANGE.

i dont get it.

There's no laws being made up. The guy who handed over the information broke laws about releasing classified information. Maybe it's PFC Manning, who the military will deal with soon enough, maybe it's somebody else, who should also be dealt with.

The people running wikileaks could have just turned the classified info back to the government, along with the name of the person who gave it to them if they knew that.

Or they could create a second violation of the laws against releasing classified information by releasing the documents themselves.

They chose the second and deserve to be prosecuted out of existence.

If the NY Times somehow obtained a detailed military plan for some action in Afghanistan and published that, I really doubt that free speech laws would protect them form that. I think national security law would take precedence.

---------- Post added at 07:44 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:42 AM ----------

Where's the outrage that wikileaks hasn't published any of Al Queda's classified information?

Or are maybe the wikileaks people a bunch of cowards who are afraid something bad will happen to them if they do that?

PFC Manning doesn't work for Wikileaks anymore than Deep Throat worked for the Washington Post. From what I've seen, the popular legal consensus seems to be that there's not a damn thing they can do about Wikileaks other than try to squash them out of existence by intimidating service providers from giving them server space. There's a lot of talk about this and that propelled by a lot of bluster, but talk is cheap. Especially in America, it seems. Which for some reason you seem to be totally comfortable with.

and there's apparently a split happening within the wikileaks group between assange, who decided to pursue a us-centered approach for tactical reasons, and the others who see the mission of wikileaks as transnational. so there are folk within wikileaks who think that megaleaks should be administered widely. so i don't see your point.

meanwhile:
American Psychosis: What happens to a society that cannot distinguish between reality and illusion?… | Project World Awareness

Assange would like to expose secrets from China and Russia as well, of course none of that matters if no one gives Wikileaks any data.

dogzilla: If Wikileaks HAD info on Al Qaeda, I'd wonder why they're not exposing it. Since there's no reason to think they do, why should I be upset about this.

You should be upset because it will change foreign relations and foreign conflicts for years to come.

Cost-benefit analysis here doesn't quite work out. Now we know, or more importantly, Iran knows, that Saudi-Arabia was egging the U.S. on, to bomb Iran.

How does this help the general public make more informed decisions?

Frankly, I'm not seeing the redeeming value in this case. Cost = major damage to foreign relations, benefit = a more transparent government? What is likely to happen, is the government will institute stronger controls on their information--so in essence, the benefit is in reality, another cost.

What information? al Qaeda is incredibly decentralized. Most members of al Qaeda have never had contact with any central leadership (seriously, ask a solider).
Oh yeah, al Qaeda is much more scary than the most powerful and most technically advanced military in the history of our species that has a track record of kidnapping and torture.

You didn't answer my question before, dogzilla. In what way did Julian Assange break the law?

I should be upset that WikiLeaks isn't releasing something they don't have because if they had it it would change foreign relations and foreign conflicts for years to come? This makes no sense.

I'm sure top level Al Queda has plans for their activities. I kind of doubt that they just happen to be driving around randomly looking for things to blow up.

Al Queda and the other terrorist groups have a history of being pretty vicious. You might read up about Daniel Pearl or some other people who have been kidnapped, tortured and killed by those groups. They make the US look like a bunch of pussycats.

[/quote]

Disclosing classified information. The Weekly World News has more credibility as a news outlet/media source than his wikileaks group does.

This may shock you dogzilla, but disclosing classified information is not a crime unless you are someone who has a duty to protect said information (which would be anyone with express access to that information... which is not WikiLeaks).

That's true, ultimately the responsibility for classified information falls at the feet of the folks who are supposed to be protecting it and they are really 100% at fault for the leak. You could charge somebody for breaking and entering, hacking, theft, espionage or whatever but those in charge of keeping the info secret needed to be more vigilant.

Although I do have to wonder if you can prosecute somebody for knowingly publishing classified information. It doesn't seem right that if I came across classified documents about nuclear launch codes I wouldn't be held to some responsibility if I posted them on the Internet.

No, they released American intel and it will effect the way foreign countries (both friendly and not) will deal with us. It also gives the bad ones insight into how we are gathering info on their weapons programs.

---------- Post added at 06:52 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:49 PM ----------


I think it would be a problem if a random person published them, but somebody else was able to use them to launch the ICBM and kill millions.

What exactly does a US government classification mean to an Australian guy with a server in Sweden? He has no reason to accommodate US law. If these were Chinese documents, we'd be snickering and making sarcastic jokes about the Chinese ... pretty much what the rest of the world is doing now.

It seems the US shut down a mirror on Amazon that was running in the US, that would seem to be the limit of what the government can do to Assange, personally.

This is exactly what I was about to say. And for that matter, how many times have we been informed of leaked information from other countries on our own news programs and not batted an eye about it? Nor has the world come crashing to a halt.

I remain unconvinced of the dire nature of these leaks. In fact, most of what I has read has stated the exact opposite that none of this information was, indeed, critical or revelatory. What alarms people is the audacity of the action in concert with a fear of the unknown. But I will assert again that in a society where it becomes more and more apparent every year that we do not know what is real and what is not, the 'comfort of knowing' is an illusion.

Quite frankly, this is what our mainstream media should be doing. The fact that they aren't digging for this sort of information and sources is troubling.

I think the only reason the media grousing about this (if they are) is because they are jealous.

I agree that the media focuses too much on polls, opinions, and rumors now. However, the media doesn't have the budget to create secret investigative units that could get access to places to find the truth. They are supposed to report on what has happened.

And when the media does create documentary films about issues they are seen as one sided or having an agenda.

update: wikileaks site closed down and authorities are closing in on Assange in the UK.

WikiLeaks offline after domain 'killed' | News.com.au

Sounds like a witch hunt to me. Authorities would rather see us blinded by their spin than see the truth of the matter.

Killing the truth at whatever cost is against everything democracy stands for. Today I am ashamed to be a part of the free world. Free my fucking ass.

Something else worth noting: Those "rape" charges? They stem from a broken condom, and apparently in Sweden you can be charged for rape even when sex is consensual. Add to that one of his accusers wrote a treatise on how to take revenge against men.

'Sex by Surprise' at Heart of Julian Assange Criminal Probe

lol, maybe we should have this law, too. :p

WikiLeaks website disconnected as US company withdraws support - Telegraph

the comment that accompanied this link: the privatization of censorship in the united states.

I like how they chose to run an ominous looking picture of Assange in sunglasses. :rolleyes:

Apparently they are back up and running in Switzerland.

WikiLeaks Strikes Back and Moves to Switzerland - TIME NewsFeed

so the transnational politico-financial oligarchy continues to ratchet up pressure on wikileaks, trying to "deal with" problems of incoherence and incompetence by shutting down the messenger who brings news of it

WikiLeaks: France adds to US pressure to ban website | Media | guardian.co.uk


earlier today, assange answered reader questions in quasi-realtime on the guardian's site. here's the playback:

Julian Assange answers your questions | World news | guardian.co.uk

there are a couple interesting statements, i think. the main one, which is not new, is:


so speech is "free" in the states to the extent that it's politically irrelevant. this we know.

public speech is monopolized by corporate mediations, and so the space of public speech is mostly commodified. this we know. operations like wikileaks undermine that to some extent. and the push-back can be seen as an expression of financial concern more than anything else, concern over maintaining the monopolies of information distribution mediated by corporate interests over the "mainstream"....

public speech is managed. it is not free to the extent that access to the channels has a price. this is a model that is in some danger of falling apart in the print sector--in the one-dimensional infotainment streams that are television, things are pretty good for them. pretty pretty good. wikileaks makes television largely irrelevant. this is not a meme-show. it is at best the direct object in statements about something outside television. so it is a problem for television. no wonder fox et al have made assange into the bogeyman of the week.

corporate monopoly of information channels works symbiotically with state information controls. pigs in a blanket. the mainstream press is typically as critical of the state apparatus as the pastry is of the hot dog it's rolled around.

bad hot dog i am wrapped around. bad bad.

this symbiotic relation is significantly undermined by actions like wikileaks.
this threatens the established politics of information control, which is a matter of choking off access to channels.
the response---attempts to choke off access to channels.

of course, speech is free like a bat or badger so long as it's irrelevant.
without access to channels that distribute your speech, what you say is of no consequence at all.
no-one need take responsibility because it's all just about cash, man.
the absolute universalization of the commodity form. welcome to the world of neoliberal capitalism.
no-one has to take responsibility for anything.

and when something comes along that disrupts that illusion of universal market values and fake freedom that comes along with it, the oligarchy as one says:

off with his head!

and tells us we're better off sleeping. reality is scary. make it go away.

we're free like that. that's what the wikileaks theater shows us.