Jump to content

Wikileaks and the Diplomatic Cables of Doom


Cap'n Refsmmat

Recommended Posts

It looks like it'll be an interesting week in foreign affairs. Wikileaks, along with its media partners, has begun releasing the first batch of classified diplomatic cables from US embassies and officials. Apparently, releases will be spread out through several months. It'll be fun to watch.

 

So far, among the batch released this afternoon:

 

The documents were released to The Guardian, the New York Times, Der Spiegel, Le Monde, and El Pais. Their analysis:

 

http://www.guardian....-embassy-cables

http://www.nytimes.c...secrets.html?hp

http://www.spiegel.d...lomatic_cables/

 

(I couldn't find the rest, as they're not in English)

 

Wikileaks has just put the first cables online on their own site, which is rather slow at the moment:

 

http://cablegate.wikileaks.org/

 

Today's news coverage is just 219 cables out of the 251,287. I wonder what the next will contain...

 

So. Does the potential for exposing corruption or shady dealings between governments outweigh the scandalous effects of revealing US secrets? And what do you think of the revelations made so far?

Edited by Cap'n Refsmmat
releases will be over months, not weeks
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is the point of having a democratic form of government if the people are not permitted to know what the government that they in theory own and direct is doing in foreign policy? There is no better demonstration of the detachment of the actual apparatus of the state from its supposed foundation in democratic consent than the rage of the Establishment over the Peasantry finding out about its dirty little secrets.

 

But obviously some government business has to be kept secret, so to distinguish what should be released to the general public from the very little which should be hidden there should be a Freedom of Information Act which truly favors the public interest over government secrecy, which we do not yet have and which is the motivation for the Wikileaks activity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm a little ambivalent about leaking other countries' naughty bits (eg the Saudi Arabia one, which is their naughty bit if we didn't accept).

 

Wikileaks would hardly be any fun if it only leaked US secrets, though the democracy argument doesn't stand if you're talking about non-democratic nations. But I hardly think it's surprising that the Saudis want Iran stopped.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder if Wikileaks is going to lose some of its support from the left, given how many Democrats are targeted by this latest release.

 

- The Obama administration offered Slovenia a quid pro quo: A meeting with the President if they'd take a Guantanamo detainee

 

- "Desperate" searches for countries to take detainees, including a plea with Belgium said to offer "a low-cost way for Belgium to attain prominence in Europe" (Is Belgium really THAT poorly thought-of? I know the Douglas Adams bit from Hithhiker's, but wow!)

 

- Hillary Clinton asked that biometric data be gathered on UN and British officials, including credit card and frequent flier data

 

- President Obama "was reported to want to “look East rather than West” while feeling no emotional connection towards Europe"

 

(source)

 

I think Julian Assange is at war with the United States government. He's probably like some of the folks here, who think that even the left isn't far enough to the left.

 

And he's winning.

 

And while that may have some apparent, "feel good" benefits, on the whole that's not a good thing for you and me.

 

 

"Some men aren't looking for anything logical, like money. They can't be bought, bullied, reasoned or negotiated with. Some men just want to watch the world burn."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My primary concern is that countries need to be able to communicate with one another without the intrusion of immediate public attention to everything they say. Diplomats aren't demi-gods, they don't automatically leap to the right answer every time -- they have to feel their way through quagmires and mine fields with incomplete information, without the benefit of hindsight. We WANT them to be able to talk to feel each other out and search for common ground without having to worry about whether their words will be misinterpreted not only by the people they're currently talking to, but by the public in a whole different way.

 

Do I really need to know that internal State Department memos described German Chancellor Merckle as "risk aversive"? That's so out of context -- how do I know it wasn't sitting right next to a memo describing her as "faithful to German political interests"? How do I know it wasn't amended with a post-it note that said that she "was willing to take risks in other areas"?

 

But now that that's been put out there, it's obvious that she's going to be a little more circumspect about dealing with the White House and US State Department. Another layer of meaning will have to be tacked on to every communication, just because some jerk who can't keep his Johnson in his pants around pre-teens thinks that America needs to be taken down a peg, and was lucky enough to get a traitor to send him the data.

 

My two bits anyway. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This exposé causes distrust both within our diplomatic corps and between our diplomats and the rest of the world. It severely curtails the freedom of speech for our diplomats and for those who deal with them.

 

Someone remind me why treason in time of war apparently is not punishable by the death penalty?

 

And someone explain how a 22-year-old PFC was given the power to partially dismantle our defense and diplomatic system?

 

And why isn't Assange a terrorist who deserves to be sitting in Gitmo or some torture chamber somewhere?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This exposé causes distrust both within our diplomatic corps and between our diplomats and the rest of the world. It severely curtails the freedom of speech for our diplomats and for those who deal with them.

If the diplomats have many secrets that would cause other countries to distrust them, isn't any trust in those diplomats misplaced?

 

And someone explain how a 22-year-old PFC was given the power to partially dismantle our defense and diplomatic system?

In the name of intelligence sharing, apparently, because the government realized that attacks weren't prevented because agencies didn't know what other agencies were doing.

 

And why isn't Assange a terrorist who deserves to be sitting in Gitmo or some torture chamber somewhere?

Generally the definition of "terrorism" requires violence undertaken to instill fear in a population. Assange doesn't seem to meet either of these criteria.

 

The existence of torture chambers is one thing I'd like Assange to blow open.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My primary concern is that countries need to be able to communicate with one another without the intrusion of immediate public attention to everything they say. Diplomats aren't demi-gods, they don't automatically leap to the right answer every time -- they have to feel their way through quagmires and mine fields with incomplete information, without the benefit of hindsight. We WANT them to be able to talk to feel each other out and search for common ground without having to worry about whether their words will be misinterpreted not only by the people they're currently talking to, but by the public in a whole different way.

 

Well how about if official representatives of the US government no longer try to pervert the cause of justice by protecting kidnappers from arrest warrants? Would that be a good thing?

 

from the NY Times

Clashes with Europe over human rights: American officials sharply warned Germany in 2007 not to enforce arrest warrants for Central Intelligence Agency officers involved in a bungled operation in which an innocent German citizen with the same name as a suspected militant was mistakenly kidnapped and held for months in Afghanistan. A senior American diplomat told a German official “that our intention was not to threaten Germany, but rather to urge that the German government weigh carefully at every step of the way the implications for relations with the U.S.”

As a citizen of Europe, I am broadly in favour of kidnappers going to jail, and in general the rule of law. I kind of do not want anyone to be above the law, and especially not the CIA.

What would the USA do about a foreign intelligence service abducting its citizens?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My primary concern is that countries need to be able to communicate with one another without the intrusion of immediate public attention to everything they say. Diplomats aren't demi-gods, they don't automatically leap to the right answer every time -- they have to feel their way through quagmires and mine fields with incomplete information, without the benefit of hindsight. We WANT them to be able to talk to feel each other out and search for common ground without having to worry about whether their words will be misinterpreted not only by the people they're currently talking to, but by the public in a whole different way.

True enough. We want our diplomats to express themselves honestly in their memos, and to deal with others without worrying about what Glenn Beck or Keith Olbermann will say if they hear about it. But it swings both ways; we want our government to be accountable to the people, so some level of "if the public finds out, they'll go bananas" is necessary.

 

Do I really need to know that internal State Department memos described German Chancellor Merckle as "risk aversive"? That's so out of context -- how do I know it wasn't sitting right next to a memo describing her as "faithful to German political interests"? How do I know it wasn't amended with a post-it note that said that she "was willing to take risks in other areas"?

Well, that's why Wikileaks will eventually publish all the cables. You can read the numerous cables and see if there's a trend. I was reading the cables from Ankara earlier and I'm fairly certain additional context would not improve what they said about Erdogan.

 

But now that that's been put out there, it's obvious that she's going to be a little more circumspect about dealing with the White House and US State Department. Another layer of meaning will have to be tacked on to every communication, just because some jerk who can't keep his Johnson in his pants around pre-teens thinks that America needs to be taken down a peg, and was lucky enough to get a traitor to send him the data.

What the hell? This isn't just an ad hominem, this is poisoning the well with something blatantly false. In case you're not aware, there are no allegations that Assange molested any children or anyone under the age of consent. The dispute centers around him not using a condom with some women he met after a press conference, or something like that -- "molestation" in Sweden is much more broad than the American sense of fondling a kid's naughty bits.

 

But bringing in those allegations, true or false, is poisoning the well, and is not relevant to our discussion about the merits of the release.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think the guy belongs in a torture chamber. However, I think he is a security risk for the US and other nations he is exposing. It's good to have transparent government, but war, defense, and diplomacy are dirty games by nature. They're objectives are, respectively: kill the other team, protect our team, and get the upper hand of a deal. This guy has no idea of the possible diplomatic ramifications of releasing these things. Countries spy on each other all the time, it keeps the balance of power.

 

It is embarrassing though that all the world's military super powers can't or just won't stop the release of information. Funny how its not like the movies where people who squeal on dirty government business end up in "unfortunate accidents".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's the Guardian's justification for publishing the documents:

 

http://www.guardian....ables-wikileaks

 

They point out that the State Department has been aware of the leak for several months, and that none of the documents are Top Secret -- half are not classified at all, and all were available through Siprnet to something like three million government employees and military officers. The article also hints that there's quite a few unpleasant things yet to be revealed, but I'll refrain from judging until it's all made public.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If anything Government is involved with, contingency planning should be kept private and most of what I've seen read/heard so far are simple opinions, comments or conjecture, possibly setting up possible scenarios of coming events. Not only have I heard many of these same comments between opposing pundits on TV or on this forum, but from high level politicians. I have seen nothing concrete yet, implying or setting up anything considered a plan, in the event of any action.

 

On the so far; The Saudi's to my knowledge have been opening requesting the US in get more involved, as probably many Countries in the middle east. None, including Syria or Lebanon, are interested in an arms race in their area and somehow think Iran getting Nukes will result in exactly that.

 

I seriously doubt "Diplomats" are qualified to spy on anybody, but certainly should advise their seniors of anything suspected as suspect coming from their discussions. I thought China and Google problems were well covered and an actual news story, not subject to conjecture and resolved. Same for Bunker Bombs being offered to (or not) to Israel and I seem to recall a great many comments on this.

 

Frankly, again based on limited time to absorb all that's supposed to be released, all I'm detecting is just how immature some of these people are, that may be involved in setting some very serious policy, from around the world.

 

 

Marat; It would be my opinion, anything related to Defense, Security or items related to "foreign policy" is up to those involved to what should/shouldn't be classified. To any one person, what's seen as trivia, to another might seem as earth shattering evidence of something important, especially where interpretations might be different. As I recall the common European expression of "Little People" caused BP a good many problems.

 

As for the FOIA, listed blow are the exemptions and if you like, the explanations.

 

Freedom of Information Act...Exemptions;

Classified Documents

Internal Personnel Rules and Practices

Information Exempt Under Other Laws

Confidential Business Information

Internal Government Communications

Personal Privacy

Law Enforcement

Financial Institutions

Geological Information[/Quote]

 

http://www.hrsa.gov/foia/foiaexemp.htm

 

Legally, a person or representative must petition the US Government for any Information and can be rejected on these grounds, or the request granted, with lined out items that are subject to the exemptions. What Wikileaks, is doing IMHO, is legal in this Country, since they are publishing what has already been released by somebody, presumable in the Government. What scares me about this entire issue, is that if they (Wikileaks) were operating in the US, they would likely have been indicted, likely without bail (espionage/treason) or at best somehow refrained from publishing released information. This is scary stuff, to me. As for those that actually released the information, that could be even scarier and of greater concern to me and what Wikileaks might already have (not being released) may contain some answers. Most certainly all this did not come from Bradley Manning....

 

 

- Hillary Clinton asked that biometric data be gathered on UN and British officials, including credit card and frequent flier data[/Quote]

 

Pangloss, This is interesting, but apparently Ms. Rice asked for the same stuff. I'm thinking this is an example of a permanent bureaucracy (personnel) in action, illegal (if not requested by the SoS's), an issue I've often argued. Of course there was the 800 lost FBI files during the Clinton Administration, that mysteriously ended up in her possession...

 

A classified directive under the name of Hillary Clinton, US Secretary of State, in July 2009 called for email addresses, phone, fax and pager numbers, credit card details and frequent-flyer numbers for UN personnel.

 

Technical details about the communications systems used by top UN officials, including Ban Ki-moon, the Secretary General, such as passwords and encryption keys involved in UN communications were sought.

 

It also demanded "biographic and biometric information on UN Security Council permanent representatives" from Britain, China, Russia and France. Similar instructions were issued by Condoleezza Rice, Mrs Clinton's predecessor in the Bush administration. [/Quote]

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/8166438/WikiLeaks-US-diplomats-have-been-spying-on-UN-leadership.html

 

- President Obama "was reported to want to “look East rather than West” while feeling no emotional connection towards Europe"[/Quote]

 

Obama in the minds of many people is Anti-British, based on what he had to hear from his Father (based on his Dad or BO's grandfather) and his Step Father, basically British Imperialism. This was all discussed,when Obama returned a Bust of Churchill...(1/21/2009)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another interesting fact is that the US government refused to cooperate when Assange asked if they'd like to specify documents that should be redacted.

 

http://www.indexoncensorship.org/2010/11/wikileaks-and-state-department-correspondence/

 

Assange took that to mean that the governments claims of massive damage are overstated, and they just want Assange to shut up to hide their unethical dealings.

 

Not sure I buy the second half of that (unless the documents are more damning than they have been so far), but it is interesting. I suppose if the government helped in redacting, they'd be accused of cooperating in releasing their own secret information, so they're screwed either way. But if the diplomatic consequences are so grave, redacting would be the lesser of two evils...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Apparently guidelines (within USGov) for handling this sort of information have changed, and as a result of the Wikileaks releases, so I guess that's a good thing.

 

And I think there's also something to be said for how this might wake up the media, which has been asleep at the switch since the advent of the blogosphere. As Cap'n points out above, many of the documents in this most recent dump weren't even classified. Gee.

 

And in general I'm fine with taking the good with the bad here. I mean it's a far cry from the earlier release that put actual lives in danger. But I think we do have to recognize the bad that comes with this release. Some people actually see Assange as some kind of saintly hero, and I think that's very dangerous thinking. Even if it's true that Assange would release anything, even if it hurt people who shared his ideology, it just sets us up for sanctifying others who might not be so altruistic.

 

 

To address some specific points from above posts:

 

 

Well how about if official representatives of the US government no longer try to pervert the cause of justice by protecting kidnappers from arrest warrants? Would that be a good thing?

 

We already knew they were doing that. The question raised today is whether they performed other policy blunders while pursing that policy. Whether they blundered or not (say by requiring Slovenia to "take a prisoner" if they wanted to have a meeting with President Obama) does not inform us as to whether the prisoner policy is a good or bad one.

 

 

But it swings both ways; we want our government to be accountable to the people, so some level of "if the public finds out, they'll go bananas" is necessary.

 

Fair enough.

 

 

But bringing in those allegations, true or false, is poisoning the well, and is not relevant to our discussion about the merits of the release.

 

Perhaps not, but I think my reply underscores the fact that much of what Assange is doing is little more than tabloid journalism, and if that's the sword he wants to live by then he can hardly complain about my attitude. The fact that State Department officials noted that Qadaffi is bagging some blonde woman is hardly necessary for me to know, but apparently Mr Assange wants me to think that State Department officials are either getting aroused on the job or were thinking about using this information against Qadaffi. Fine, I have no compunction then about bringing up his sexual misconduct charges.

 

But I'll leave them out of further discussion here if you wish.

 

IMO the media is like cthulu -- a terrible, horrifying, directionless beast that may coincidentally run over the right people from time to time. I know Julian Assange is a hero to some people here. My advice: Find better heroes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And in general I'm fine with taking the good with the bad here. I mean it's a far cry from the earlier release that put actual lives in danger. But I think we do have to recognize the bad that comes with this release. Some people actually see Assange as some kind of saintly hero, and I think that's very dangerous thinking. Even if it's true that Assange would release anything, even if it hurt people who shared his ideology, it just sets us up for sanctifying others who might not be so altruistic.

Agreed. I'd like to see Assange release some non-US-centric documents in the future, but he's at the mercy of the leakers. We'll find out, I suppose.

 

Perhaps not, but I think my reply underscores the fact that much of what Assange is doing is little more than tabloid journalism, and if that's the sword he wants to live by then he can hardly complain about my attitude. The fact that State Department officials noted that Qadaffi is bagging some blonde woman is hardly necessary for me to know, but apparently Mr Assange wants me to think that State Department officials are either getting aroused on the job or were thinking about using this information against Qadaffi. Fine, I have no compunction then about bringing up his sexual misconduct charges.

Why do you insinuate that Assange has intent behind each and every document he leaks? There's 250,000. It's quite possible he barely knew of the allegations about Qadaffi, or that he doesn't care. But selectively withholding some of the documents because they're just gossip isn't his job -- he's supposed to release everything he can.

 

Even if he is acting like a tabloid journalist, you don't have to retaliate by descending to his level.

 

(Furthermore -- is Assange the only man in Wikileaks? I'm guessing there's others helping out.)

 

IMO the media is like cthulu -- a terrible, horrifying, directionless beast that may coincidentally run over the right people from time to time. I know Julian Assange is a hero to some people here. My advice: Find better heroes.

Certainly. I'll refrain from calling him a hero until we see the real ramifications of this release, whether it truly reveals corruption and shady deals, and whether he'll release material from other nations and corporations in the future.

 

I think we can only truly judge these leaks in retrospect, once their effects are made clear. This is only the beginning of the process.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see why Julian Assange and whatever his personal politics may or may not be needs to be a part of this discussion. What's at issue is pro vs. con on this degree of transparency. Do you think that's a right vs. left issue, Pangloss?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"And why isn't Assange a terrorist who deserves to be sitting in Gitmo or some torture chamber somewhere? "

It's called free speech.

 

Anyway,

I'm interested to see that these leaks "put lives at risk".

If a government's agents do things that are not reasonable then people will get pissed off with them (when they find out). As the saying goes "truth will out" - you can't expect to keep everything secret.

 

Perhaps it would be better if the government realised that, one way or another, their dirty laundry will end up in the public eye and behaved in a way they could justify if called on to do so.

 

What actually puts lives in danger is to mistreat a bunch of people until they feel that their only recourse is a terrorist attack. For example, if there are two sides in a dispute, giving aid to one side will, obviously, piss off the other side. No matter what the pros and cons of the original dispute were, acting in this way will put you at risk from those who see you supporting their enemies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What's interesting is that the Fox News articles I've seen so far emphasize the illegal nature of the leak, but also...

 

4.20pm: A quick survey of the US cable news networks this morning suggests that Fox News is giving Wikileaks the most airtime, especially over the revelations involving Iran and North Korea, which appears to be red meat to several of its commentators.

 

http://www.guardian....es-live-updates

 

Also, it's worth noting that Assange's ideology is independent of what was published yesterday: the newspapers were allowed to publish whatever they wished based on the documents, and the articles published yesterday were their choices, not Assange's. They picked the first documents to be released, and there'll be much more coming.

 


 

Interesting. Fox apparently disapproves of the leaks, even though they're embarrassing to the Democratic government:

 

Screen shot 2010-11-29 at 11.13.44 AM.png

 

http://www.foxnews.c...e-terror-group/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A Guardian editor suggests that the news organizations involved have arranged a schedule for releasing the rest of the documents, focusing on a specific geographic region for each release:

 

The schedule for which order we would cover specific regions was drawn up between the news organisations and then shared with WL. I guess we mianly used "news values". Korea started as a week two issue and moved up the scale after last week's events.

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/nov/29/us-embassy-cables-rusbridger-wikileaks?showallcomments=true#comment-fold (in the comments)

 

I have asked for a comment regarding the usual response to Wikileaks releases, "oh, that's nothing new," and asked whether the Guardian thinks there's shocking or revelatory material that has yet to be released. They haven't gotten around to answering me yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Julian Assange is at war with the United States government.

 

I have to disagree with this. If you go look on Wikileaks (when it's not being hammered by traffic), there are plenty of documents that do not relate to the US at all. It just happens that the biggest leaks in recent times have come from the US. I mean, one of their major victories was publishing documents that probably tipped the vote against a corrupt Kenyan government - I'd say that was far more along the lines of 'war' than a few embarrassing cables from diplomats, and yet it garnered very little attention from anyone in the press.

 

Also remember that it's not just Julian Assange here. Wikileaks is pretty big and they have volunteers all over the world responsible for vetting leaks and going through the process. It just so happens that he has a big enough ego (and frankly, balls the size of freaking coconuts) to be their public face.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to disagree with this. If you go look on Wikileaks (when it's not being hammered by traffic), there are plenty of documents that do not relate to the US at all. It just happens that the biggest leaks in recent times have come from the US. I mean, one of their major victories was publishing documents that probably tipped the vote against a corrupt Kenyan government - I'd say that was far more along the lines of 'war' than a few embarrassing cables from diplomats, and yet it garnered very little attention from anyone in the press.

 

Also remember that it's not just Julian Assange here. Wikileaks is pretty big and they have volunteers all over the world responsible for vetting leaks and going through the process. It just so happens that he has a big enough ego (and frankly, balls the size of freaking coconuts) to be their public face.

 

I agree. Wikileaks publishes whatever is leaked to it. When criticized for "not leaking documents from the Taliban," their response was basically to say by all means, give us some legitimate documents and we'll gladly publish them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.