Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Wikileaks Latest Document Release
I just love seeing American exceptionalism exposed for the sham it is. Can you imagine a world where people of all sorts, from the common man to the most powerful leader conducted their affairs free from mendacity?
This is a wonderful gift to the world, this latest set of dispatches. It reminds me of turning over a rock to marvel at all the strange creatures that lurk under it. What do you guys think about the leaks?
This is a wonderful gift to the world, this latest set of dispatches. It reminds me of turning over a rock to marvel at all the strange creatures that lurk under it. What do you guys think about the leaks?
0
Comments
i have no idea what a wikileak is.
http://cablegate.wikileaks.org/
For an article on impacts:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/29/wikileaks-update-us-tries_n_789031.html
The cables are fascinating reading. You could spend many hours there.
Whilst I agree that it might be a good thing if everyone were open and honest with each other, the reality of the world and the geo-political situation means that some negotiations need to be kept secret to start with. Had the secret talks between the British government, the IRA and the Ulster Loyalists been conducted in the glare of publicity, I doubt whether a settlement would have been reached. If there are talks going on between all sides in Iraq or Afghanistan, there is little chance for them if details are released.
Diplomacy may require some degree of privacy.
I agree with you on this. If the leaks reveal some sort of coverup or wrongdoing, that's one thing. All we've got so far is a lot of behind the scenes diplomacy that is necessary if anything is to get done on the world stage, along with embarassing details like so-and-so has secret botox injections and some other dignitary is a moron.
On the other hand, yelling about how these leaks are terrorism against the USA and are going to set world peace back? Laughable. Some people with big egos are going to be mighty angry for a while. No lessons will be learned, except a crackdown on security. I used to handle secret information in the military. The morons in charge who allowed people to bring CDs of any type to work, and put them in computers that contained classified information? Heads will have already rolled.
I won't hold my breath.
Doubtful. Most Americans are all too willing to turn a blind eye to this country's misdeeds. Most won't even acknowledge the herding of our own citizens who happen to be of the wrong ethnicity into concentration camps of our very own during WWII. The United States simply can do no wrong in most folks eyes.
A gift? A gift? Are you serious???? Assange is a moron who is more concerned about how much of a power trip he's on than really telling the truth. I'm waiting for him to overstep the mark and start all sorts of trouble. I may be going against all Buddhist teachings, but having worked in certain places, there is a good reason why some things are not disclosed. If (and I truly believe it will happen) he causes a major conflict between two or more countries and we all suffer for it, will you still think Assange is so shit hot. To be perfectly blunt, you poke the lions, you're eventually going to get a retaliation. Of course his rape charges are trumped up but what did he expect going after the governments that he has? They're doing it because they CAN.
And to be perfectly honest with you, if there are major conflicts in the world due to his stupidity in leaking information that is inflammatory, then he deserves any bullets that find their way to him. I'm totally ashamed he's an Aussie.
Simon you've hit the nail squarely on the head. My last post is very angry and while I should delete it, I won't. This issue really infuriates me because people are just SO stupidly stubborn about thinking they automatically have a right to know everything that goes on, that they don't care about the consequences and it really REALLY pisses me off because it's so ignorant.
If you REALLY want to know what goes on in the government, go work for it and maybe along the way you'll get an education as to why there is such a thing as security classifications and what national security actually IS.
Raven
You mean a major conflict like my country started in Iraq or Afghanistan based on lies (just like earlier wars in Vietnam)? Perhaps you mean the chaos in Haiti and Mexico that were the result of inflicting unbalanced "free trade" upon a populace that could not defend themselves from the oligarchs. What else was in the period covered by the cables? Contra rebels in Nicaragua funded by illicit arms sales, the assasination of Allende by CIA operatives, propping up a dictator in Iraq (Oh wait, scratch that-- got rid of him with 100,000 others), supporting Osama bin Laden and the Mujahedeen in Afghanistan against the Russians (Oops, didn't get him yet), the travesty of East Timor, the invasion of Granada, Panama, etc. ad nauseum.
Or perhaps you mean the continued support of the US for totalitarians in places around the world?
The governments are not "of and by the people". They are there to promote the interests of the wealthy, and they will sacrifice the citizenry in their corporate interests. There is *tremendous* information asymmetry right now. The Australian you should really be embarassed about is Rupert Murdoch. Thanks to him and his noise machine, the world is closer to a WWIII than it has been since the Berlin Wall came down.
The world needs to see the duplicity of its governments. This is a healthy thing. There will of course be collateral damage through this process. There is material damage caused by American foreign policy right now-- Assange and his hubris is irrelevant. The content of the cables is what is important.
Wishing harm on someone you disagree with is a bit much, don't you think? If he is killed, you will share in that karma. I don't doubt that you are well meaning, but we have very different viewpoints on the role of the US in the world. Americans are good people, but their government has caused much evil lately.
I completely agree.
Actually my friend, governments ARE of and by the people. If you don't like them, don't vote for them. You may claim that's too simplistic and black and white, but that's the bottom line.
Rupert Murdoch, the man IS an embarrassment, you should see what he did to our national sport out here - he's a total cretin and I abbhor him, sadly for you, he gave up his Aussie citizenship for US citzenship so you have my deepest sympathies. And thanks to his noise machine, the world also knows so much about Wikileaks so yes, your comparison to him instigating WWIII is not far off.
In theory what Assange purportedly stands for is great. However, the man does not think and is releasing stuff that will be detrimental to humankind - you know, the sentient beings we're supposed to love and want to see no harm befall? I also think Assange is in it for himself, he's ego driven otherwise he'd be more astute as to what he leaks.
Yes the US has really f**ked people over, no doubt my govt has too. But that's no reason to turn countries against each other just so one person can massage his ego. Yes I share in the karma if he is killed, I still however hold my stance on that. For the greater good of all sentient beings, the loss of one life is far better than multitudes.
I concur with your view on the "war against terror", so I do not wish to see more innocent blood shed in the possible aftermath of this man.
I don't expect you or anyone else to agree because championing free speech and the expectation of being able to know whatever you want whenever you want is so appealing to the masses. I just think a lot of people are being misled.
Respectfully,
Raven
The current batch of leaks concern the Vatican and reveal the astonishing news that the Pope is Catholic - who would have guessed?
I don't doubt her genuine concern over this. I just disagree with her analysis and conclusions. I have no intention of merely trying to prevail in this argument out of a sense of zealotry. I think that it is important for us to be able to refine our views on issues like this through airing our opinions in a non-threatening forum such as this. If we as buddhists can't discuss these issues here without descending into anger and vituperation, what hope have we of discussing these with the general populace that doesn't necessarily share our concern for all beings?
Here in the US, all of our politicians are corporatists. The entire system is so in the thrall of money to run campaigns that there is no longer a choice between different points of view at a national level. As it is so often quipped, we have the best politicians money can buy. There is NO party that represents the working class. Real wages have been stagnant since the 70s. The only thing that has kept any sense of prosperity in the country was the housing bubble that led to huge personal debt. People borrowed against their homes to keep up a standard of living. With the crash of 2008 and the ongoing loss of home value, that party is over. Jobs have been outsourced to countries without the same environmental and labour standards. The education system is completely unaffordable for the average person, who ends up with 100k in debt for an undergrad degree that is now no guarantee of a job.
With all of this happening, there is no representation for the people. On the contrary, we have a kleptocracy that persists in transferring wealth upwards from the ordinary citizen to banksters and investors through bailouts and the gutting of sustainable income tax policies. Show me the party that one can vote for that is going to change this? As Jesse Ventura once remarked, "In Iraq there is only one party on the ballot. Here we give you one other choice."
A government "of and by the people" does not abrogate its responsibility to its citizenry in the ways that are now entrenched in the US. It does not conduct false flag operations against its own people like 9/11. It does not send its citizens off to die in foreign deserts to preserve access to oil by its corporations. This is corporatism, not democracy.
FOX News has been consistently trumpeting the opinion that Assange should either be killed or tried for treason, exactly the opinion you have been espousing. They have certainly not been distributing information from the cables in the way that the NY Times, Der Spiegel, etc. have. Can you please give me an example of what in the cables that have been released that has been so inflammatory that it would cause WWIII? There have been deeply embarrassing things such as Clinton ordering US diplomats to spy on the UN, but where are the things that you are saying are so irresponsible?
Can you please give me some examples of what he has released that is so detrimental? And if it is so detrimental, don't you think that it should not have been written in the first place? He didn't make this stuff up. He is merely bringing it to public attention. Don't you think that the people of Iran deserve to hear that the King of Saudi Arabia is calling for the US to "cut the head off the snake"? Don't you think that the Russians should hear that at the same time NATO is cozying up to them, they are also making plans to defend former Soviet republics from them? Russians and Iranians are sentient beings too.
Governments should not rely on secrecy to say things and do things that are not honourable. I don't feel comfortable as a buddhist with protecting their right to lie in secret, particularly to protect the interests of just the US and its allies.
Respectfully, I think you are missing the point. This is not about Assange's ego. I don't disagree with you that he may be doing this for grandiose reasons. I can't really tell, having never met him and preferring to reserve judgement on the motivations of others until I know more. This is entirely about the rights of the citizens of this world to know the lies their governments tell them. Don't you think that citizens of Saudi Arabia should know that at the same time they are being repressed, their royalty are off having parties with moonshine vodka and prostitutes behind closed doors? How is this a bad thing? If countries are turned against each other, it is only because lies have been exposed. Is it our job as buddhists to preserve the lies of others? What of the rights of those that have been lied to? Aren't they entitled to learn the truth so that they can conduct themselves accordingly?
This isn't about free speech. The plutocrats of the world are able to rule because of information asymmetry. The WikiLeak phenomena is a reaction to this. Hopefully over time, this whole model of information distribution will lead to a forewarned, forearmed citizenry able to fight for truly representative democracy. The alternative is greater repression.
Should we really be telling "the masses" what questions they should and should not ask?
What were in the cables? What's going on?
I believe attention has focused on wikileaks rather than Manning for two reasons. Firstly, wikileaks is of intrinsic interest to the mainstream media, because it is a transparent threat to their role as gatekeeper of information of public interest. Secondly, Manning is the face of US anger at the illegitimate plutocracy which is now running the country.
What were in those cables?
"The Fourth Estate is dead," Ray McGovern, of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, told Raw Story in an exclusive interview. "The Fourth Estate in his country has been captured by government and corporations, the military-industrial complex, the intelligence apparatus. Captive! So, there is no Fourth Estate."
McGovern explained that the term the "Fourth Estate," known today as the news media in the US, was first coined by 18th century British statesman Edmund Burke. Burke is said to have pointed to the balcony in Parliament and lauded the print media of his day for being the safeguards of democracy.
"That was very powerful back then," McGovern said. "And just a century later you get Tom Paine, James Madison. You know what Thomas Jefferson said? He said if we have to make a choice between having a government and having a press, I’ll go for the press every time. He understood that any government without a free press will resort to despotism."
McGovern, a CIA analyst for 27 years, whose duties included preparing and briefing the President's Daily Brief and chairing National Intelligence Estimates, said that he preferred to focus on the First Amendment battle of WikiLeaks' founder Julian Assange than on the current "cyber war" in which WikiLeaks is embroiled.
McGovern said that modern people can now become informed through what he termed "The Fifth Estate."
"Luckily, there is a Fifth Estate," he said. "The Fifth Estate exists in the ether. It’s not susceptible of government, of corporations, or advertisers or military control. It’s free. That is very dangerous to people who like to make secrets and to make secret operational things. It’s a huge threat. And the Empire – the Goliath here – is being threatened by a slingshot in the form of a computer and a stone through these emissions thrown into the ether to our own computers."
"It’s quite amazing," he added.
"Will the United States and its slavish allies present in Sweden... succeed in making such an object lesson of what happens to an organization and a person – a demonized person – namely Julian Assange? What happens to them if they defy the Empire if they break the rules which they have?" McGovern asked.
He also questioned Attorney General Eric Holder's handling of the WikiLeaks founder's case in the wake of habeas corpus being thrown "out the window" by the previous administration. Specifically, he wondered what Holder, the highest law enforcement officer in the US government, meant by the federal government using "other tools" to get Assange and shut down WikiLeaks.
Assange's attorney said Friday that he expected his client to be indicted by the US.
"The broad hint is the extra-judiciary tools," he said, referring to the news media. "And yet not one of those stenographer correspondents sitting before him there has the guts to say, “What do you mean ‘other tools?' You going to assassinate the guy?”
McGovern continued, "They’re just letting it hang out there like other stuffed shirts like Jeff Merrell at the Pentagon [who says to the effect,] 'Everything is on the table. We don’t rule anything out.' Well, you know that reflects the state of the defunct Fourth Estate. That’s precisely why you need people to be able to get out of the framework of the Fourth Estate and to the new."
McGovern also noted the demise of the Fourth Estate, with an anecdote about the 30th anniversary of the Pentagon Papers' release in June 2001, months before the 9/11 attacks.
He said that at the reunion, most of those in attendance did not believe the press would publish such information were it made available today.
"They went down the line, two guys from the [New York Times], two guys from the [Washington Post], and they all said, 'I don’t know,'" McGovern said. "I’m looking at that, and I’m thinking, 'Holy shit!'"
He continued, "The amazing thing was that these people still had a lot of self-identification with these newspapers – some were still actively employed by them. And not only did they say this, but there was no hint of embarrassment or remorse. It was just the way it is today."
Even while the Fourth Estate may be dead, WikiLeaks learned one important lesson from Daniel Ellsberg's release of the Pentagon Papers, McGovern admitted. That lesson was to tell the news media that the documents are being given to more than one outlet at the same time.
WikiLeaks addressed that question by making sure that when they gave documents to the Times, they said The Guardian, Der Spiegal, Le Monde, and El Pais also had them, McGovern said.
"These guys are very, very clever," he said. "As you can see, I wish them all the success in the world."
McGovern said that WikiLeaks' benefit is that it gives people the chance to become informed and place a check on government. He added that WikiLeaks' information on the wars is the "ground-truth," in that the data came from the American troops on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan.
McGovern said that WikiLeaks -- or outlets like it -- has the potential to make the world safer to the degree American people get exposed to this information, draw adult conclusions from it, and pressure the US government to change its policies.
"You have no doubt about the authenticity of what these people are reporting, and it’s a new ballgame once these things become accessible to the American people," he said.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/12/former-cia-intelligence-analyst-fourth-estate-is-dead/
http://www.ellsberg.net/archive/public-accuracy-press-release
Another facet of this however is the fact that there are laws. Without laws, we have anarchy. Not all laws are fair, and not all laws are good. But laws are made by people, and people are fallible. But we still have to have laws, perfect or not. If people break the law, they are held to account by the justice system. It's not perfect either, but it's all we've got. Julian Assange and the people who have fed him this information have broken the law. As such, I feel they should stand up and take the consequences.
Many people have made Mr. Assange into some kind of a modern day Robin Hood. I disagree. While I have no qualm with anyone publishing classified material to uncover a misdeed, I think a distinction *has* to be made between someone who is a legitimate journalist with a mission to expose a misdeed, and someone who is willy-nilly leaking classified material of all kinds just to get his face on CNN. Mr. Assange is not a journalist. He has not leaked this material in order to expose a specific misdeed. One of his stated intentions is simply to embarrass the US government - that's not journalism. That's childishness. A journalist may obtain classified material, but it is inherent in the journalistic ethic to analyze, encapsulate, and then publish findings, not just to scan the documents and publish them on a web site and call it journalism. To do so, and for the public to agree degrades responsible journalists everywhere.
Daniel Ellsburg today stated that anyone who is against Mr. Assange is also against him. With all due respect (and I have the greatest respect) to Mr. Ellsburg, he is wrong. When he leaked the Pentagon Papers, he did not simply publish them as-is. He gave them to the New York Times, which published them in a series with analysis and insight. They put them into context that gave body to the content of the papers. Not every single piece of paper that came through his hands was leaked by Mr. Ellsburg, because not all of it was relevant to what he was trying to uncover.
Mr. Assange, on the other hand, seems to think that because a document originates with the US government and happens to be classified, it is worthy of public release without comment or analysis. Just because it's classified means that it covers up something. Well, Mr. Assange is wrong about that. As I say, the government drastically over-classifies, to be sure. But that does not mean that there is no place in government (which is, after all, just people whom we put there) for classified information. Governments couldn't function without it. Like pure communism, 100% transparent government sounds wonderful. But like communism, the reality is much different. Why do I care what a low level diplomat thinks about Muammar Kaddafi's personal habits? What harm is being done by a diplomat doing what diplomats are paid to do, and what they have always done, as long as there have been diplomats? There *are* legitimate reasons to keep certain information confidential.
This can be, and will be argued for years to come. But I think as long as we see it in pure black and pure white, no one will ever agree on anything. Mr. Assange may or may not end up in prison, but I believe that as much harm will come from his actions as good.
On the other hand, you mention that Assange broke the law. Whose law? He is not an American citizen and he does not reside in the US. He is not subject to American jurisprudence. On the other hand, the New York Times operates in the US and is fully subject to American laws. Why has there been no lawsuit agains the NYT?
Again, why does it matter what Assange's interests or motivations are? I could not care less, just as I couldn't care less about who was blowing the President during the Lewinsky scandal. His motivation is not material to the information in the same way that who the President was screwing was not material to his execution of policy. The attacks against Assange seem to be merely ad hominem like the attacks on President Clinton were. One can disagree with what he is doing without impugning his character based on rumour, regardless of how true such analysis of his motivation may prove to be.
Was the attack on Iraq by the Bush administration legal? Were war crimes committed during the execution of that war, such as previous WikiLeaks footage indicated? Do you believe that American politicians and military figures should be subject to war crimes trials for their use of torture at Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo and in the countless camps used for extraordinary rendition? These crimes are far more caustic to the world community than the release of a few redacted diplomatic cables.
You can blame Bush, Obama, Rudd or Gillard or whoever you want for the failures of our Governments, but no single person is responsible for anything that goes on. Everyone is a part of the bigger picture. Assange has as much control over the future of wikileaks as Obama has over the future of America - none.
With the modern day technology, any nerd, any hacker, any student can develop a new technology that will change the way we exchange information. So, they can shut down the internet if they want, destroy free speech, imprison anyone who opposes, they'll still end up at square one.
This bickering is moot.
I am not sure where you are getting the idea I am saying you are a bad buddhist. I have never once even insinuated it. I have merely said that wishing harm or death on a sentient being is misguided. We can agree to disagree on the above points. I don't see that what your PM said about China is going to trigger a conflict. Do you really think there will be war over such comments? Can you please quantify the risks? The US has been propping up a regime in Pakistan that is the source of most terrorism in the world. They have done so for decades as they tried to balance a Soviet-aligned India. Time and again, the "intelligence" activities (and I do use that term loosely) of the Americans have been the source of their troubles a few years down the road.
As for Ahmadinejad, he is nowhere near as crazy as he is made out to be. He uses ridiculous, incendiary rhetoric to advance his aims and increase his stature in the Muslim world, but he is neither stupid nor crazy. Do you really think that he would launch a strike on a much better armed Israel? What does he gain by that? Beyond that, do you really think that this sort of information is unknown to the security apparati of these countries? Iranians are wonderful people that suffer from a bad government, much like the rest of us but taken to an absurd extreme. Their government will use whatever means to advance its agenda, much as our own will. Calling the democratically elected leader crazy is overly simplistic.
There is real harm coming from these wars of misadventure in Iraq and Afghanistan. Sentient beings are being killed there now senselessly out of lust for empire. Does your concern include them? It's all very well for you to say that people should just suck it up and accept what life hands them, but that is never how I have lived my life. I do not depend solely on the US media for information, nor do I placidly accept the analysis that is handed to me.
You have repeatedly put words in my mouth saying that I want to know things gratuitously, to no useful end. I have repeatedly countered that I think we need to know these things to fight growing oppression, particularly of developed nations against resource areas in the Global South. Your implication aside, the staus quo is intensely violent. Look at all of the conflicts and poverty around the world that are direct results of US imperialism and global capitalism.
We can agree to disagree on this, but we should be able to discuss such an important issue free from anger and belittling of the other side. Don't you think so?
Best regards,
Karma Dorje
I still disagree however. Mr. Assange has stated in so many words that his purpose is to embarrass the US government. If he has evidence of specific wrongdoing, then he should cooperate with a respectable journalist (not publish on a web site) to get the information out just like Mr. Ellsburg did. That's not what he's doing. The majority of what he has released has no evidence of wrongdoing in it. It's just normal day-to-day stuff that was classified. It may be somewhat embarrassing, but that's not wrongdoing.
Let's not forget that while the world considers whether Assange ought to be tried he often tweets his current public whereabouts. Not exactly the actions of a man who should be expected to seek a low-key profile, don't you think? Let's commence building more implied conspiracies. Maybe it's all part of the plan, maybe it's a fluke and the world governments (or government?) are on their toes? All we can do is shut up and watch the show.
Also, political crimes are typically not covered by extradition treaties so even if he was charged with espionage under current extradition treaties with the UK and Sweden he could not be extradited to the US. Does the US really want to bring him where he has 1st Amendment rights? I think not. He has publicized secrets that were given him, he did not actively steal secrets and give them to a foreign power (which is the definition of espionage according to US law).
So what you are saying is that the cables are just normal day-to-day stuff that is "somewhat embarassing"? If so, then why all the furor over its release? You don't think that Clinton asking diplomats to spy on their UN counterparts is illegal? How about attacking citizens with drones in Yemen and then asking their government to cover up for them? How about all of the millions upon billions of dollars that are being stolen from US taxpayers to give to embezzlers in Afghanistan and Pakistan? The detractors of the release of these cables seem to run the gamut from saying that these are insignificant daily operation documents that are merely embarrassing to those who are warning of Armageddon. The truth so far seems to lie somewhere in between.
You have people of the caliber of Ellsburg and former intelligence officers that prepared presidential daily briefings applauding what Assange has done because of the abrogation of responsibility by the corporate-controlled fourth estate over the past 30 years and yet you are irked because of mere personality traits of Assange? Where has he stated that he merely wanted to embarrass the US for the lulz? I haven't managed to find a single quote from an interview where he says that.
http://mirror.wikileaks.info/
Wikileaks is doing nothing more, than exposing the evil. Evil uproots and destroys itself. Any collateral damage is only continuing the process. Compassionate people will help the rest of the way. It is all a sign of a turning point in humanity. I think it's all fucking great