Wikileaks and the Diplomatic Cables of Doom

[swansont]

You can only blackmail someone if they have done something they are ashamed of.

 

What happened to the idea that you should live your life in such a way that you don't have to hide your diary?

 

How many people actually do that, though?

 

However, embarrassment isn't my objection to what wikileaks is doing. The notion that governments should have no secrets is naive to an absurd degree, and from what I can tell little distinction is being made between publishing documents covering up embarrassing activities and other classified material. It's also hypocritical — the identity of people working for and contributing to the site are secret, right? Why aren't they open about it? It's a tacit admission that some secrets are necessary and legitimate. The rest is just haggling about were to draw the line.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

However, embarrassment isn't my objection to what wikileaks is doing. The notion that governments should have no secrets is naive to an absurd degree, and from what I can tell little distinction is being made between publishing documents covering up embarrassing activities and other classified material. It's also hypocritical — the identity of people working for and contributing to the site are secret, right? Why aren't they open about it? It's a tacit admission that some secrets are necessary and legitimate. The rest is just haggling about were to draw the line.

 

This is partially why a new competitor to Wikileaks is emerging:

 

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,732212,00.html#ref=rss

 

Of course, Wikileaks also plans to leak business documents, which brings up the question of whether businesses should have secrets that aren't trade secrets or patents.

[Dak]

Isn't that more like extortion or blackmail?

 

meh, i said it was a stretch, and 'terrorism' is a wishy-washy term.

 

I was thinking 'do what we want or we'll blow shit up' is sort of comparable.

 

Also, apparently I'm allregic to penicillin, so forgive me if i sound drunk and it made no sence.

 

However, embarrassment isn't my objection to what wikileaks is doing. The notion that governments should have no secrets is naive to an absurd degree, and from what I can tell little distinction is being made between publishing documents covering up embarrassing activities and other classified material.

 

Not saying that I disagree, but I think that's kinda the point: draw your own realistic line, or there'll be no line at all? sort of like "censorship: abuse it and you'll lose it"?

[John Cuthber]

How many people actually do that, though?

 

However, embarrassment isn't my objection to what wikileaks is doing. The notion that governments should have no secrets is naive to an absurd degree, and from what I can tell little distinction is being made between publishing documents covering up embarrassing activities and other classified material. It's also hypocritical — the identity of people working for and contributing to the site are secret, right? Why aren't they open about it? It's a tacit admission that some secrets are necessary and legitimate. The rest is just haggling about were to draw the line.

 

I understand that the US military were given the opportunity to draw that like before wikileaks published; they declined.

[swansont]

I understand that the US military were given the opportunity to draw that like before wikileaks published; they declined.

 

It's not that they declined to draw the line. They had already drawn the line when they classified the documents, and they declined to move it.

[John Cuthber]

I thought the line was officially drawn where it would prevent harm to the US. On the other hand, it's not meant to be drawn to prevent legitimate criticism.

If any of the "classified" documents fall into the latter category then the military has shown that it doesn't know where to draw the line. Perhaps someone else should do it. Perhaps someone independent?

[Dave]

It's not that they declined to draw the line. They had already drawn the line when they classified the documents, and they declined to move it.

 

This is fine - assuming that the people in charge of the US military and organisations like it have 100% objectivity, 100% of the time; or perhaps that there is some independent oversight into what should be deemed classified. But they don't. And that's why whistleblowing exists.

 

To be honest, I don't understand your argument here. You're basically saying that sites like Wikileaks shouldn't exist because they might potentially leak information which is classified and perhaps isn't embarrassing; i.e. they're just doing it for the hell of it? I don't believe this is the case. It seems to me like whistleblowers, especially those who are in contact with classified information, take extreme risks when leaking information. They do so because, presumably, they feel morally compelled in the face of something which they see is wrong and perhaps because they feel it is in the national interest to out the information.

 

It is also perfectly clear why Wikileaks operates under a certain guise of anonymity. Their job is obviously unpopular with those high powers in government, and possibly of dubious legality. Were they exposed publicly: (a) their job would become far more difficult; (B) they themselves then face possible risk of prosecution or worse, bodily harm.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

To add to that: it's easy to claim that the leaks so far have been inconsequential or unimportant, and endangered security for little benefit. However, the most recent batch of leaks refutes that:

 

• Cables reveal the extent of corruption in Russia -- at least, that corruption known to the diplomats
• The UK's foreign office conspired to allow the US to keep cluster bombs in UK territory in violation of an anti-cluster-munition treaty, while hiding the action from Parliament
• Diplomats suggest that the murder of Alexander Litvinenko was carried out Russian approval
• Diplomats agree that the Sri Lankan president was responsible for a massacre of Tamil Tigers

Many of these will cause significant controversy. I suspect the news sources with access to the cables saved their best revelations, hoping to stir up the media frenzy before dropping the biggest news in.

 

edit: I should also add that this is with 0.22% of the cables being released so far.

 

---

Unsurprisingly, The Economist has my favorite take on the issue so far:

 

http://www.economist...2/after_secrets

 

Yet the debate over WikiLeaks has proceeded as if the matter might conclude with the eradication of these kinds of data dumps—as if this is a temporary glitch in the system that can be fixed; as if this is a nuisance that can be made to go away with the application of sufficient government gusto. But I don't think the matter can end this way.

Edited December 1, 2010 by Cap'n Refsmmat

[swansont]

This is fine - assuming that the people in charge of the US military and organisations like it have 100% objectivity, 100% of the time; or perhaps that there is some independent oversight into what should be deemed classified. But they don't. And that's why whistleblowing exists.

 

To be honest, I don't understand your argument here. You're basically saying that sites like Wikileaks shouldn't exist because they might potentially leak information which is classified and perhaps isn't embarrassing; i.e. they're just doing it for the hell of it? I don't believe this is the case. It seems to me like whistleblowers, especially those who are in contact with classified information, take extreme risks when leaking information. They do so because, presumably, they feel morally compelled in the face of something which they see is wrong and perhaps because they feel it is in the national interest to out the information.

 

It is also perfectly clear why Wikileaks operates under a certain guise of anonymity. Their job is obviously unpopular with those high powers in government, and possibly of dubious legality. Were they exposed publicly: (a) their job would become far more difficult; (B) they themselves then face possible risk of prosecution or worse, bodily harm.

 

 

That last bit is my objection. Secrecy is required sometimes in order to provide safety and to facilitate work. Why is that true for wikileaks but not governments?

 

I don't have a problem with whistleblowing and I have no doubt that governments tend to classify documents for the sole purpose of preventing embarrassment rather than protecting legitimate national security secrets. But legitimate national security secrets do exist.

[A Tripolation]

But legitimate national security secrets do exist.

 

Exactly. I mean, really, does anyone disagree with this?

While none of the articles are truly endangering national security (thus far), it would be almost treason, IMO, to publish classified articles that reveal national security secrets. Maybe I play too many games and watch too many movies, but I'm ok with not knowing what unsavory situations have happened in the interest of national security.

[Zolar V]

First sorry for my terrible formatting, i tried to copy and paste from a txt document.

 

What does he want?

 

Also, terrorism implies the actions are designed to create fear and panic among the populace. That is not Assange.

Isn't the government included in a populace. he is still bullying people? if we don't consider what he does as "terrorism" we need to reformulate either the word or create a new one.

 

 

He didn't leak the documents himself. He received them. He broke no barriers in doing so. Whoever leaked them did.

 

Though he may have no real contact with the information at it's source, he is still using his means to collect and distribute classified information for use that is not in accordance with the classifiers of the information.

aka espionage

 

What company?

His website is his company, it is his way to garnish classified information and release it to people he sees fit. surely with the amount of traffic visiting his site and the amount of data he has, there needs to be at least a semi sophisticated infrastructure. And that costs money. Where did he get his startup money, who is investing in him so heavily.

 

And it's bad that this is revealed?

yes, because the information he is leaking is use able by other powers against us, or against anyone else.

 

Alternately, you could reveal what's going on in an attempt to limit the corruption and greed.

 

Your argument is predicated on the idea that corruption and greed are inevitable, and it is not only futile to fight them, but immoral. Is that what you seriously believe? That government is bad, but trying to make it better is worse?

 

And if governments are as corrupt and dishonest as you claim, what trust is there to be destroyed? If every cynical government is manipulating every other cynical government, which trusting relationships are being ruined?

 

 

No, i don't believe it is worse to try to destroy corruption and make it better. However i do believe that corruption is inevitable. I believe that based upon history.

 

Even if we never find out his true goals, He is still working to unsettle and destroy the credibility the people have in their government. Almost as an inciter would incite a mob to go and riot. From my point of view his goal seems to be to destabilize the government by making the people loose faith in it.

 

Or i could be so wrong.

 

I thought the line was officially drawn where it would prevent harm to the US. On the other hand, it's not meant to be drawn to prevent legitimate criticism.

If any of the "classified" documents fall into the latter category then the military has shown that it doesn't know where to draw the line. Perhaps someone else should do it. Perhaps someone independent?

 

 

Well actually, classified documents aren't really classified by the agency producing it. The classification follows guidance from a independent agency, The NSA i believe. They have many rules and regulations regarding on what and how information is classified. Any agency that has classified information follows those regulations.

 

What if we were to remove Assanage from everything into a totally unbiased point of view. Lets look at him from both ends of the spectrum.

 

Lets say that he is in fact in the employ of an organization, to acquire information for them. Under the guise of a whistle blower he is able to:

A) collect classified information.

B) transmit the information in the clear to his employer without leaving any sort of trail.

C) Do so in a very public manor to keep from being able to be assassinated.

 

Ok now the opposite,

Lets say he is acting of his own accord to leak any classified information he can.

1) Why does he want to leak any classified information

2) What purpose does the leaked information serve

3) What is the reaction he is hoping to garner

Edited December 2, 2010 by Zolar V

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

His website is his company, it is his way to garnish classified information and release it to people he sees fit. surely with the amount of traffic visiting his site and the amount of data he has, there needs to be at least a semi sophisticated infrastructure. And that costs money. Where did he get his startup money, who is investing in him so heavily.

You make it sound like this is a for-profit enterprise, like he's running Wikileaks for a profit. Is that what you mean to imply?

 

yes, because the information he is leaking is use able by other powers against us, or against anyone else.

Is it? Can you give examples?

 

Both the State Department and the Defense Department (i.e. Robert Gates directly) have stated that there will be no major consequences from these leaks, and that business will continue as usual. What information will be used against us?

 

No, i don't believe it is worse to try to destroy corruption and make it better. However i do believe that corruption is inevitable. I believe that based upon history.

 

Even if we never find out his true goals, He is still working to unsettle and destroy the credibility the people have in their government. Almost as an inciter would incite a mob to go and riot. From my point of view his goal seems to be to destabilize the government by making the people loose faith in it.

 

Or i could be so wrong.

If a mob is indeed incited, it is incited by the truth -- by things the government really is doing, but that we didn't know about it. If those things are so terrible that they incite riots, is it really better that we let them remain secret?

 

Either way, you have not addressed my main point. If it is not worse to try to destroy corruption, why is it bad to leak classified information that reveals it?

 

Ok now the opposite,

Lets say he is acting of his own accord to leak any classified information he can.

1) Why does he want to leak any classified information

2) What purpose does the leaked information serve

3) What is the reaction he is hoping to garner

 

http://wikileaks.org/about.html

[Pangloss]

I don't think this is true. I read the Forbes interview with him (which I encourage anyone to read as I thought it was excellent), and in that he classifies the Iraq/Afghan war logs and this as 'megaleaks', saying that because they were so large and on such contentious issues, they warrant special attention. I believe he is right.

 

I simply cannot agree with the notion that he is 'at war' because that phrase itself doesn't make any sense in this context. Wikileaks is designed to hold people, companies and countries accountable should someone in that organisation believe that a particular action is unethical. They are a convenient channel for whistleblowers to publish their leaks and promote them to the general public.

 

This job used to be done by the general media, but it seems that in recent years they have refrained from doing so, presumably in lieu of losing their access to key political figures. In a day and age where these same individuals abuse the classification system to cover up abuses or power (and in many cases abuses where people are hurt, tortured or unlawfully killed), I see Wikileaks as an absolute necessity.

 

I can empathize with that, but I think you're overlooking one crucial ingredient in journalism: Objectivity. Julian Assange is no impartial observer -- has an agenda. Let's take a look at some specific quotes from the interview in Forbes magazine that you mentioned:

 

What do you want to be the result of this release?

 

[Pauses] I’m not sure.

 

It will give a true and representative insight into how banks behave at the executive level in a way that will stimulate investigations and reforms, I presume.

 

Usually when you get leaks at this level, it’s about one particular case or one particular violation. For this, there’s only one similar example. It’s like the Enron emails. Why were these so valuable? When Enron collapsed, through court processes, thousands and thousands of emails came out that were internal, and it provided a window into how the whole company was managed. It was all the little decisions that supported the flagrant violations.

 

This will be like that. Yes, there will be some flagrant violations, unethical practices that will be revealed, but it will also be all the supporting decision-making structures and the internal executive ethos that cames out, and that’s tremendously valuable. Like the Iraq War Logs, yes there were mass casualty incidents that were very newsworthy, but the great value is seeing the full spectrum of the war.

 

You could call it the ecosystem of corruption. But it’s also all the regular decision making that turns a blind eye to and supports unethical practices: the oversight that’s not done, the priorities of executives, how they think they’re fulfilling their own self-interest. The way they talk about it.

 

... there could be a lot of pain from these scandals, obviously.

 

Pain for the guilty.

 

Do you derive pleasure from these scandals that you expose and the companies you shame?

 

It’s tremendously satisfying work to see reforms being engaged in and stimulating those reforms. To see opportunists and abusers brought to account.

 

IMO He's starting from a belief, and working his way back from there to broadcast whatever supporting evidence he can find to support a pretty radical view about how screwed up our society is. If he were a poster here on our forums most of you would call him a radical free-market libertarian, and most of our members would marginalize his opinions tremendously -- I'd have to defend him constantly against most of our left-leaning, socialistic members on subjects ranging from health care to constitutionalism to market economics. The ONLY thing I think he'd find a lot of support on from this crowd is transparency.

 

But even if I'm wrong, he's clearly not some kind of objective reporter of anything that happens to come his way, no matter who it hurts (which is what he says he is). He's telling a story, and he feels you need to hear that story. Not just random bits of information that everyone should hear because there should be "transparency".

 

Not that I think you're wrong to try and see benefits in what Assange is doing (and maybe there are some). Where I think you're wrong (again, just my opinion) is in applying altruistic intent and objectivity to this person. He's an ideologue, just like any other.

 

I don't know, maybe that's the best we can hope for in this post-impartial, Fox News Channel-driven world. Like I said earlier, I don't have the same reaction to this most recent release that I had to the earlier release because Iraqi civilians aren't being exposed and endangered. Maybe he's learned from his mistakes and takes that problem seriously, which is a good thing.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

IMO He's starting from a belief, and working his way back from there to broadcast whatever supporting evidence he can find to support a pretty radical view about how screwed up our society is.

In what way do you think he's going about this? Leaking only documents that support his view? Soliciting certain kinds of documents? What?

[Mr Skeptic]

I can empathize with that, but I think you're overlooking one crucial ingredient in journalism: Objectivity. Julian Assange is no impartial observer -- has an agenda.

 

Doesn't he have a policy of "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth"? That's about as unbiased as possible, releasing all info -- and don't even pretend there is anyone in the media who comes even close to that level of impartiality. Certainly he does chose the order in which to release things* and add comments of his own, but that is part of his stated mission of maximizing the impact (and a good chunk of the reason why people go to him when they have something to leak). But if this bothers you just wait until all is released and read the stuff without the commentary and in whatever order you wish.

[Dak]

That last bit is my objection. Secrecy is required sometimes in order to provide safety and to facilitate work. Why is that true for wikileaks but not governments?

 

I don't have a problem with whistleblowing and I have no doubt that governments tend to classify documents for the sole purpose of preventing embarrassment rather than protecting legitimate national security secrets. But legitimate national security secrets do exist.

 

Whenever WL approaches the gov' for help in redacting the leaks, the gov' refuse. This seems to put WL in a position whereby they could redact it themselves and possibly miss stuff that should be withheld, or just not leak at all.

 

iow, WL isn't necessarily saying that nothing can be secret -- rather, given a choice between possibly declassifying too much or possibly leaving too much classified, they will risk over-declassifying.

 

The gov' could always classify just the bear minimum, in which case i suspect WL would leave them alone; or if certain redactions are so necessary and justified, they could work with WL just prior to leakage, as it's clear now that WL will go ahead anyway (which is where the slight comparison with terrorism comes in imo).

 

however: could the gov' actually keep the bear minimum classified? or does WL prove that any censorship, no matter how justified, is unviable nowadays? Anyone know how China deal with WL?

[Pangloss]

In what way do you think he's going about this? Leaking only documents that support his view? Soliciting certain kinds of documents? What?

 

Well that's what the quote suggests to me. He has specific things that anger him, and he wants to do something about those things.

 

Certainly your mileage may vary.

 

 

Doesn't he have a policy of "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth"? That's about as unbiased as possible, releasing all info

 

He doesn't "release all info". And I posted a quote demonstrating bias.

 

 

and don't even pretend there is anyone in the media who comes even close to that level of impartiality.

 

"Level" is a subjective term, but I read complaints on this forum on a daily basis about lack of impartiality at Fox New Channel. If you have a problem with calling that news, then in my opinion you should have a problem with calling Julian Assange impartial and objective.

 

 

Certainly he does chose the order in which to release things* and add comments of his own, but that is part of his stated mission of maximizing the impact (and a good chunk of the reason why people go to him when they have something to leak).

 

Of course. As you say, he chooses the order in which he releases things, adds comments of his own, and he has a stated mission of maximizing the impact of what he releases.

 

Yup.

 

 

But if this bothers you just wait until all is released and read the stuff without the commentary and in whatever order you wish.

 

Certainly true. Like I said earlier, the whole episode strikes me as a serious indictment of the news industry.

[Dave]

Not that I think you're wrong to try and see benefits in what Assange is doing (and maybe there are some). Where I think you're wrong (again, just my opinion) is in applying altruistic intent and objectivity to this person. He's an ideologue, just like any other.

 

I don't know, maybe that's the best we can hope for in this post-impartial, Fox News Channel-driven world. Like I said earlier, I don't have the same reaction to this most recent release that I had to the earlier release because Iraqi civilians aren't being exposed and endangered. Maybe he's learned from his mistakes and takes that problem seriously, which is a good thing.

 

I gave this quite a bit of thought on my way to work this morning. I can see where you're coming from with this, but ultimately we're probably not going to see eye to eye

 

Personally, I just don't see Assange in this light, and in my mind, impartiality has nothing to do with it. Reporters are not, have never been, and never will be entirely impartial. They will always have their personal opinions on a matter, and this often shines through in both their choice of who they work for and, of course, the wording of their articles. There are fundamental differences between what a journalist does and what Assange/Wikileaks does.

 

A reporter will take a leaked document, write a short story (relative to the size of the leak), and publish it. Maybe he will show extracts of the leaked documents to other journalists/news organisations proving that he has them and his analysis is correct. But essentially, that's it. The public is left to draw conclusions from the article.

 

On the other hand, Wikileaks takes documents and publishes them in full. They draw some basic conclusions from them, and, depending on the size of the leak, attempt to draw the general media's attention to the story. But, at the end of the day, anyone can come along, read the documents and draw their own conclusions, independently of any reporter. In my mind, this is a far better system.

 

Of course (and this is where my argument falls down somewhat), with a leak this big, it is left to the media organisations to summarise it for us. But at least this way, they all have access to the same material, and therefore we can get a better overview of what is actually contained in the documents. I suspect that this is why we're only seeing a very small selection of memos thus far; something along the lines of "here's some interesting stuff which you can read, have a look first then we'll move onto more", and potentially I think this is where they went wrong with the Iraq/Afghan war logs. But eventually there is no doubt that the entire collection will be released, and anyone can sit down and look through it.

 

That last bit is my objection. Secrecy is required sometimes in order to provide safety and to facilitate work. Why is that true for wikileaks but not governments?

 

I don't have a problem with whistleblowing and I have no doubt that governments tend to classify documents for the sole purpose of preventing embarrassment rather than protecting legitimate national security secrets. But legitimate national security secrets do exist.

 

I'm not arguing with that at all. It's completely necessary for the government to have some secrets. And I would be arguing against wikileaks if its goal in life was to reveal all secrets a government held. But they are nothing more than a vessel: they only publish what they receive from whistleblowers. They exist to expose transgressions which have been covered up, nothing more.

[swansont]

Whenever WL approaches the gov' for help in redacting the leaks, the gov' refuse. This seems to put WL in a position whereby they could redact it themselves and possibly miss stuff that should be withheld, or just not leak at all.

 

iow, WL isn't necessarily saying that nothing can be secret -- rather, given a choice between possibly declassifying too much or possibly leaving too much classified, they will risk over-declassifying.

 

The gov' could always classify just the bear minimum, in which case i suspect WL would leave them alone; or if certain redactions are so necessary and justified, they could work with WL just prior to leakage, as it's clear now that WL will go ahead anyway (which is where the slight comparison with terrorism comes in imo).

 

however: could the gov' actually keep the bear minimum classified? or does WL prove that any censorship, no matter how justified, is unviable nowadays? Anyone know how China deal with WL?

 

The government refuses because classified documents are classified. Their position is that as classified documents, none of them can be released.

 

The wikileaks statement of their mission they cite the US Pentagon Papers Supreme Court ruling: "only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in government." How does a cable saying the French Prime Minister is thin-skinned fall under government deception? My problem is that they are not just exposing government coverups and lies to the people. They have stepped over that line.

[John Cuthber]

 

 

if we don't consider what he does as "terrorism" we need to reformulate either the word or create a new one.

 

Well actually, classified documents aren't really classified by the agency producing it. The classification follows guidance from a independent agency, The NSA i believe. They have many rules and regulations regarding on what and how information is classified. Any agency that has classified information follows those regulations.

 

 

 

 

 

We already have another word for it.

Nelson Mandela was classified ( by Maggie among others) as a terrorist, but is now recognised as a freedom fighter.

 

 

I work for the (UK's) government. I know there are regulations.

My concern is that the leaked documents were "over classified" in order to stop the people who pay for the government finding out about cockups.

That's not within the rules.

As I said, I'm not at all sure that some of these documents should ever have been classified as secret. If I'm right then those who classified them have demonstrated that they cannot do their job properly.

It may be better to have someone independent to look at them.

Wikileaks isn't the best way to do this- but it's the only system we have.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

He doesn't "release all info". And I posted a quote demonstrating bias.

I don't think you can demonstrate that to be true. For one thing, the past three leaks have all been dumped from (presumably) the same source; he has to get these colossal leaks out of the way, and then can leak the rest.

 

It's hard to criticize him for not releasing more when we also criticize him for not carefully redacting each of the hundreds of thousands of documents being released in each War Logs and diplomatic cables dump. He has a finite amount of time, you know.

[Dak]

The government refuses because classified documents are classified. Their position is that as classified documents, none of them can be released.

 

That attitude doesn't make the blindest bit of sense when they're about to be released by WL. At that point, the gov' has the choice between minimizing the leak, or not minimizing the leak.

 

The wikileaks statement of their mission they cite the US Pentagon Papers Supreme Court ruling: "only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in government." How does a cable saying the French Prime Minister is thin-skinned fall under government deception? My problem is that they are not just exposing government coverups and lies to the people. They have stepped over that line.

 

Along with that, the leaks contain stuff like discussing how the US can deliver GBU-28 bunker busting bombs to Israel while avoiding "any allegations that the US government is helping Israel prepare for a strike against Iran.". Unless that's out-of-context, that sounds like the US is helping Israel prepare for a strike against Iran...

 

There's a quarter-million documents. I guess they just chucked them to the media, who are now printing whatever they think is interesting, be it public interest (spying on UN) or public tittilation/trolling (French PM is thin-skinned).

 

I still think this counts as trying to bully the gov' into being more open about, e.g., arms deals, or loosing all secrecy.

[Zolar V]

In what way do you think he's going about this? Leaking only documents that support his view? Soliciting certain kinds of documents? What?

 

Certainly, if he was actually only going after transparency and anti-corruption. Then he would be leaking documents regarding everything. Oil companies, banks, senators, legislators, car companies, the department of energy, diplomacy, military, everything. It wouldn't matter what country the documents are from. He would publish them all.

 

But instead he has so far proven to be pursuing a very specific goal on very specific institutions.

Personally i am somewhat surprised he has not yet attacked the House, legislator, and lobbyists.

Considering that these three do more with the decision making than the military or diplomats do. Hell, they are the ones that tell us what to do. Also being the decision makers, that is the most likely place you will find the deepest seat of corruption. War logs, diplomacy cables, and bank memos would mean nothing in comparison.

 

 

Along with that, the leaks contain stuff like discussing how the US can deliver GBU-28 bunker busting bombs to Israel while avoiding "any allegations that the US government is helping Israel prepare for a strike against Iran.". Unless that's out-of-context, that sounds like the US is helping Israel prepare for a strike against Iran...

 

There's a quarter-million documents. I guess they just chucked them to the media, who are now printing whatever they think is interesting, be it public interest (spying on UN) or public tittilation/trolling (French PM is thin-skinned).

 

I still think this counts as trying to bully the gov' into being more open about, e.g., arms deals, or loosing all secrecy.

 

Israel is our ally, Iran not so much. I'm not surprised that we have plans on how to deliver such things to them. Also i wouldn't be surprised if we have war plans with many countries against many countries. To me it seem logical to prepare for anything, especially if i was in control of a this country in the current times, with the current world/political opinion of us.

 

Personally i am biased against WL and Assanage. What if he publishes some classified intel? some classified documents that directly impact what i do. WL then puts my life in danger and the lives of 100's of others. I don't stand for what he does, because he does it in such a haphazard and sloppy way.

[swansont]

 

Along with that, the leaks contain stuff like discussing how the US can deliver GBU-28 bunker busting bombs to Israel while avoiding "any allegations that the US government is helping Israel prepare for a strike against Iran.". Unless that's out-of-context, that sounds like the US is helping Israel prepare for a strike against Iran...

 

Good example. The US is helping an ally, but we would also like to move toward peace with a country like Iran. By letting this information out do we move the world closer to peace or war? Negotiating positions and strategies are discussed. Does releasing that information help or hinder the negotiation process with Iran?

[John Cuthber]

Is it legitimate for a country to help an ally?

If it is then there's no reason to keep it secret*; if not then they shouldn't be doing it.

 

 

* the fact of doing it needn't be secret- the exact means might be legitimately classified)

 

"Certainly, if he was actually only going after transparency and anti-corruption. Then he would be leaking documents regarding everything. Oil companies, banks, senators, legislators, car companies, the department of energy, diplomacy, military, everything. It wouldn't matter what country the documents are from. He would publish them all."

Have you had a look at the wikileaks site?

http://wikileaks.org/about.html

 

They do leak stuff about banks, corruption etc,

Here's their list

 

2.2 Some of the stories we have broken

 

War, killings, torture and detention

Government, trade and corporate transparency

Suppression of free speech and a free press

Diplomacy, spying and (counter-)intelligence

Ecology, climate, nature and sciences

Corruption, finance, taxes, trading

Censorship technology and internet filtering

Cults and other religious organizations

Abuse, violence, violation