So, wikileaks, then

[ursus arctos]

So, wikileaks, then

I love it when a plan comes together.

[Etienne]

So, wikileaks, then

Craig Murray offers his usual interesting perspective.

[ad hoc]

So, wikileaks, then

Isn't there some encrypted file that people have been urged to download for themselves, and for which they will receive a key in the event of Assange's death? I mean it could be an elaborate bluff, but I'm quite sure they could have killed him by now.

Now the US wants to prosecute him, but I'm not really sure on what grounds? Receiving stolen goods? being a fence?

On Monday (I think) there was something in a Guardian article that the US were sponsoring the PKK in Turkey, and conversely that Turkey were sponsoring Al Qaeda in Iraq. What happened to that revelation? That would seem to be something that at least doesn't fall into the category of completely unsurprising that the rest of the "Arab nations are worried about Iran/Prince Andrew is a boorish cunt" stories fall into.

[Cavalry Trouser Tips]

So, wikileaks, then

This has been around since July.

[ursus arctos]

So, wikileaks, then

More bloodlust from the GOP.

Huckabee, who ran unsuccessfully for the Republican nomination at the last election but is one of the favourites for 2012, joined a growing number of people demanding the severest punishment possible for those behind the leak, which has prompted a global diplomatic crisis.

His fellow potential Republican nominee Sarah Palin had already called for WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange to be "hunted down", and an adviser to the Canadian prime minister has echoed her comments.

[Anton Gramscescu]

So, wikileaks, then

Yeah, but our guy apologized.

[WOM]

So, wikileaks, then

So, what's the general consensus on this whole leak business? Good thing or bad thing?

[Hofzinser]

So, wikileaks, then

Good thing, for sure.

Meanwhile, Amazon bows to political pressure and removes Wikileaks from its servers.

[ursus arctos]

So, wikileaks, then

Agreed, good thing overall.

Much of the US reaction has been beyond hysterical, without ever approaching humourous.

[ad hoc]

So, wikileaks, then

Yes definitely a good thing. May not be earth-shattering revelations but they do expose the way the US deals with other nations, which is I think very revealing.

Seamus Milne in today's Guardian has it pretty much spot on I reckon: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/dec/01/wikileaks-embassy-cables-us-global-power

[E10 Rifle]

So, wikileaks, then

Some financial dirt - as suggested in UA's link - would be great, It might also open up a divide between those who think that all government business should come under more scrutiny (as they should) but that "commercial confidentiality" is sacrosanct.

Bring it all on

[Anton Gramscescu]

So, wikileaks, then

I can see saying that it's "not bad" - because really, very little of this is actually damaging. But "good"?

The only "good" I can think of lies in the very fact that so little of this is surprising. It means that mainstream journalism is already getting 95% of the big global stories right.

As for the rest of it - Look, there's always dissonance between what we think and what we say. What we say among friends and colleagues and what we say to the world. That's normal. It's not a scandal.

What this business does is expose the difference between the two and call it a scandal. Bullshit.

Take my business, for example. I have clients who piss me off, or ask for irrelevant/goofy stuff - I mean, in thie consulting world, who doesn't? When a colleague sends me an email asking what to do about a client's bizarre/unreasonable request, I will occasionally let off some off-colour remark about the client. I do it to let out frustration (and let the colleague know its OK for them to be frustrated, too), I do it to express solidarity with the colleague being asked to do dumb things, and I am doing it to exmplain how a project should be done if the client were smarter. Of course, to the client I am nothing but courteous and diplomatic (or try to be, it doesn't always work).

Would it be "good" if a disgruntled member of staff started posting the emails on wikileaks to show the "cyncism and two-facedness" of Toto Gramsciddu and his business dealings, and "exposing the dark secrets behind the mask of diplomacy"? Because in a lot of ways, that's what this whole thing seems like to me.

How would the Grauniad feel, for instance, if someone started publishing internal staff emails about various political sources. Wouldn't it compromise the paper's ability to do its job properly? Wouldn't that be seen as an act of vandalism rather than a heroic act?

Governments shouldn't withold information about their own actions. But diplomats - public servants - need to be able to speak freely to one another about what they are seeing and learning in the world in order to be able to do their job. To the extent that this event impinges on their ability to do that, it's definitely a "bad thing".

[E10 Rifle]

So, wikileaks, then

It means that mainstream journalism is already getting 95% of the big global stories right.

Salient point, but 95 per cent is pushing it a bit. Mainstream journalism has been guilty of some major catastrophic failure in its reporting of this very subject - American foreign policy - in this decade. Mainstream journalism had a collective shocker on Iraq, and still does on Israel/Palestine.

Though the cables don't differ too much in content and calculation from the old Cabinet/Foreign Office and other documents from the olden days what I studied in my history degree.

It's interesting because of the reaction and the methods of journalism. To see Hillary Clinton and Vladimir Putin and even Ahmedinejad all singing from basically the same hymn sheet in denouncing the leaks fair warms the cockles.

But like I said, I'd like to see some serious leakage from the global financial sector.

[WOM]

So, wikileaks, then

You're probably going to get that wish within a day or so, if rumours prove true.

[ursus arctos]

So, wikileaks, then

Governments shouldn't withold information about their own actions. But diplomats - public servants - need to be able to speak freely to one another about what they are seeing and learning in the world in order to be able to do their job. To the extent that this event impinges on their ability to do that, it's definitely a "bad thing".

This is true, but I think that the "degree of impingement" is negligible; less than 1%. As E10 notes, cables have always been written like this (though diplomats were much better stylists back in the day), they have generally become public after 30-50 years, and their substance has often been known to the "other side" well before that.

That's why the outrage is so over the top. People are scrambling now, but this will at most have a de minimis effect on the conduct of US foreign policy from 2011 on

[Anton Gramscescu]

So, wikileaks, then

Yeah, I agree the reaction is over the top. And if doesn't change the way diplomats work, then it's not a bad thing.

Although one argument I have heard is that some of the cables - not ones published in the press, mind you - have named US agents in places like Pakistan and Afghanistan. I don't know if it is true or not, but if it were, that would be problematic in that it would put lives at risk. Certainly it would be more likely to make a treason charge stick against the dude who passed it on to Assange.

The case against Assange totally baffles me - how can they nail him on espionage if they can't prove he was in contact with a foreign power?

[Renart]

So, wikileaks, then

Glenn Greenwald is writing some good articles on the bloodthirsty reaction to Wikileaks on the part of pundits and politicians like Huckabee and Lieberman, and the spineless reaction of our press corps.

Personally, I don't find most of the information released very surprising or shocking, but the authoritarian reactions of our politicians and the cowering power-worship of our press (especially TV news), is more than a little frightening, honestly. I hate being one of those left-wingers who cries "fascism" at the slightest provocation, but the immediate calls for violence and censorship in response to investigative journalism are certainly bringing the word to mind. Can somebody talk me down?

[Etienne]

So, wikileaks, then

It means that mainstream journalism is already getting 95% of the big global stories right.

Well, it means that mainstream journalists agree with what American diplomats tell their superiors 95% of the time, which isn't quite the same thing.

[Anton Gramscescu]

So, wikileaks, then

Or vice-versa.

The point being that US diplomats appear not to have access to a whole lot of information that journalists haven't already put in the public sphere.

[ursus arctos]

So, wikileaks, then

Although one argument I have heard is that some of the cables - not ones published in the press, mind you - have named US agents in places like Pakistan and Afghanistan. I don't know if it is true or not, but if it were, that would be problematic in that it would put lives at risk. Certainly it would be more likely to make a treason charge stick against the dude who passed it on to Assange.

They said the same thing about the Afghan War data dump, where it was much more likely, but no one has been able to identify a single person put in danger.

The case against Assange totally baffles me - how can they nail him on espionage if they can't prove he was in contact with a foreign power?

They can't. They can try to stretch other statutes, though.

[Anton Gramscescu]

So, wikileaks, then

OK, this one about Berlusconi taking Russian bribes is genuinely new, I think. And quite explosive. And totally believable.

[ursus arctos]

So, wikileaks, then

Allegations aren't new at all; have been common currency in Italy for years. And there are nothing but allegations in the cables.

Spogli is a clown, btw.

[Anton Gramscescu]

So, wikileaks, then

Well, that's unfortunate. I was hoping for some fun.

Turns out my Italian citizenship is going to take months to come through. I don't think I'm going to be able to get it before any election to boot out Berlusconi.

[ursus arctos]

So, wikileaks, then

Months is good.

Ms. ursus' Slovene application is taking years.

[Tubby Isaacs]

So, wikileaks, then

I thought she was Slovene, Ursus.