Quote :

"To an ignorant hatchet-man of the establishment, of course it's moonbat nonsense. To the educated and rational it borders on common sense. This is exactly why people like you don't want WikiLeaks gaining momentum; I've known this for years, but now even more people will know it. And people like you will lose influence, and the human race will progress beyond your patent, cave-man nonsense. Atheism's spreading. Tolerance of homosexuality is spreading. Humanity is slowly waking up, but it's waking up; apes like you will get left in the dust and I'm grinning in anticipation. Even though it'll happen hundreds of years after my death I'm happy to know I'm on the right side of history. "Men" like you imprisoned Thomas Paine."

Holy cow. Suffice it to say, I am an atheist who supports homosexual equality and absolutely idolizes Thomas Paine. So, yeah. It is the Taliban's ruthless extermination campaign against intellectuals, feminists, atheists, artists, and homosexuals that provides most the basis for my seeing them as a stain on humanity that needs to be wiped out.

And I'm mostly ambivalent about WikiLeaks. I think a good case could be made that they should be protected by the First Amendment just as the New York Times would be. The actual leakers of this information will be prosecuted, as they must be. But that is what is entailed by any serious effort to affect change through civil disobedience.

Quote :

"People who are reading this and lurking: read WikiLeaks."

I read WikiLeaks for a living. Literally. But there are literally hundreds of leaked cables and I don't claim to have read them all. I mostly read what is published and analyzed by the Times, Guardian, Spiegel, and Foreign Policy magazine, and whatever else I come across. But maybe you know something I don't. Is there a leaked cable, as you suggest there is, that shows that our presence in Afghanistan is motivated by exploitative economic pursuits? I'm open to reading it.

Quote :

"It's common sense. Intelligent people know this."

No, see, "common sense" does not tell you about the motivations, meaning, or practical matters involved in any particular historical event. It is exactly this "every war is the Vietnam War" mentality that causes otherwise intelligent liberals such as yourself to write off Afghanistan as just another imperialist venture without bothering to even study what is actually going on.

[Edited on December 10, 2010 at 12:58 PM. Reason : ]

12/10/2010 12:51:50 PM

We're there setting up another corrupt government. I guess ours wasn't enough. Oh, and killing Osama Bin Laden.

Seriously, what the fuck are we doing there? We're saving face. There's no political will to say, "you know what? We failed to do what we went to do, and we're going to cut our losses." Everyone that has supported these wars has their ego on the line. More than that, they feel morally obligated to keep up the fight, because no one wants to accept that we sent a bunch of troops to their death for no good fucking reason.

12/10/2010 1:00:43 PM

Quote :

"Holy cow. Suffice it to say, I am an atheist who supports homosexual equality and absolutely idolizes Thomas Paine. So, yeah. It is the Taliban's ruthless extermination campaign against intellectuals, feminists, atheists, artists, and homosexuals that provides most the basis for my seeing them as a stain on humanity that needs to be wiped out."

I agree they're assholes and in fact I'm in favor of a lot of the changes that have happened in Afghanistan since our invasion and occupation. This doesn't justify our actions, however. This is just a sign of what could have happened if we fulfilled our duty there; instead, we ran off to Iraq and utterly botched Afghanistan.

We never invaded Afghanistan because the Taliban oppress women; we invaded because of 9/11. Keep that shit straight, otherwise we'll be invading basically everywhere. Even WE don't treat women right.

If you idolized Thomas Paine then you'd realize that foreigners are people too and deserve better treatment from us. You've made it clear time and again that foreign civilians are just chips for American companies to toss about with their friends USG.

Quote :

"And I'm mostly ambivalent about WikiLeaks. I think a good case could be made that they should be protected by the First Amendment just as the New York Times would be. The actual leakers of this information will be prosecuted, as they must be. But that is what is entailed by any serious effort to affect change through civil disobedience."

How could you be ambivalent? Are you likewise ambivalent at the coordinate strikes of USG and US capital to keep WikiLeaks squelched in America?

Quote :

"I read WikiLeaks for a living. Literally. But there are literally hundreds of leaked cables and I don't claim to have read them all. I mostly read what is published and analyzed by the Times, Guardian, Spiegel, and Foreign Policy magazine, and whatever else I come across. But maybe you know something I don't. Is there a leaked cable, as you suggest there is, that shows that our presence in Afghanistan is motivated by exploitative economic pursuits? I'm open to reading it."

There are no "let's do this to pay off these other guys" types of strategy being discussed because they're diplomatic cables. Go back to the 60's though; there's a cable in there realizing that USG and corporations should strategize together.

Are you saying we need an explicit description of the system in order to demonstrate that both the incentives are there and the collusion is happening? How's the sand down there?

Quote :

"No, see, "common sense" does not tell you about the motivations, meaning, or practical matters involved in any particular historical event. It is exactly this "every war is the Vietnam War" mentality that causes otherwise intelligent liberals such as yourself to write off Afghanistan as just another imperialist venture without bothering to even study what is actually going on."

First of all I'm not a liberal. Second of all I'm not viewing these wars as the Vietnam War. I'm viewing them as part of the same system that brought about the Vietnam War; post-WW2 cold warrior bullshit along with aggressive collaboration between US companies and USG abroad/US military abroad. Stuff that does little to further the interests of an individual citizen of this country and a lot to further the needs and whims of our kleptocracy.

12/10/2010 1:04:17 PM

^^

Sadly, I think there probably are a lot of people who take that rather Nixonian position. But there are also those who see success, defined as a stabilized and increasingly liberalized Afghanistan, and a defeated Taliban, as possible. I certainly think it is.

Quote :

"You've made it clear time and again that foreign civilians are just chips for American companies to toss about with their friends USG."

If that's the case, then you should have no problem providing a citation.

And look, our government certainly does cooperate, and too often collude, with corporations, especially with respect to our military. I'm totally with you on that point. I'm just not prepared to concede strategic or moral defeat to fascist groups like the Taliban (and their like-minded cohorts) just because we have corruption issues. By all means, fight this shit. Don't let up. But don't let it cloud your ability to see the bigger picture or to discern big problems from even bigger ones.

[Edited on December 10, 2010 at 1:14 PM. Reason : ]

12/10/2010 1:07:11 PM

since the Chinese and the Russians are the ones ending up with all of the mining rights in Afghanistan, I don't see how you can only blame Americans for the actions in Afghanistan. The whole world is looking to exploit this region of the world, and the Taliban just makes it easy for us.

12/10/2010 1:22:24 PM

Quote :

"If that's the case, then you should have no problem providing a citation. And look, our government certainly does cooperate, and too often collude, with corporations, especially with respect to our military. I'm totally with you on that point. I'm just not prepared to concede strategic or moral defeat to fascist groups like the Taliban (and their like-minded cohorts) just because we have corruption issues. By all means, fight this shit. Don't let up. But don't let it cloud your ability to see the bigger picture or to discern big problems from even bigger ones."

I'm not willing to concede strategic or moral defeat to the Taliban either. We lost these on our own, and admitting that we've failed of our own accord is a step toward fixing our problems.

I'm well aware of paying attention to the bigger picture here. If we do not halt our foreign military tyranny then we will eventually all live with its consequences. People in the WTC already have felt the sting; those of us who didn't die that day have been feeling the noose tighten gradually, as the government used its failure to protect us as an opportunity to flex its totalitarian fantasies.

[Edited on December 10, 2010 at 1:38 PM. Reason : .]

12/10/2010 1:38:06 PM

I see.

12/10/2010 1:40:22 PM

I'm not sure you do. I'm also not sure your ego will ever allow you to revise.

12/10/2010 1:41:13 PM

love people like MickyD here using fear mongering to fear monger. only counts when it's not you, huh?

12/10/2010 2:24:44 PM

You should be scared about what our government is doing with our money, our livelihoods, our labor, our safety, our reputations.

You wouldn't know, being ignorant. This is why you need to get curious, now. Get curious. Read. Find out how you're exploited. Find out how these people also exploit others. Find out. Get angry. Get even. We are being ruined in the mean-time.

Gotta love boiler-plate conservative rhetoric. "You are scared about a real threat being posed in the natural world; this is NO DIFFERENT than conservatives drumming up fear using mysticism and out-right lies."

12/10/2010 2:43:49 PM

lim  (afghanistan)
t --> inf

=

12/10/2010 3:05:45 PM

Quote :

"It's funnier when people don't know they're getting trolled."

Because civilian deaths are hilarious.


On a separate topic of federal employees viewing these files:

I posted a "Confidential" document on page 8 of this thread that I assume no employees are able to view, because it would damage our national security (based on its classification; not based on what I think).

However, the following document is "Unclassified" and therefore viewable to anyone at anytime without consequence:

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/doc1.pdf

This link is apparently less damaging than the one I posted previously, because it has nothing to do with national security (based on the classification descriptions posted on page 12).

12/10/2010 5:25:06 PM

Robert Fisk: Now we know. America really doesn't care about injustice in the Middle East

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/fisk/robert-fisk-now-we-know-america-really-doesnt-care-about-injustice-in-the-middle-east-2146971.html

Mentions many of the cables, but eh, we knew what the title says decades ago.

12/10/2010 6:09:39 PM

Quote :

"unlike WikiLeaks, Openleaks will not publish information it receives on its own, DN.se said. Instead, other organizations will be given access to documents Openleaks obtains and be responsible for publishing that information, the report said. The intent is for Openleaks to become a neutral liaison "without a political agenda except from the dissemination of information to the media, the public, non-profit organizations, trade and union organizations and other participating groups," according to DN.se. "All editorial control and responsibility rests with the publishing organization," an unnamed source told DN.se. "We will, as far as possible, take the role of the messenger between the whistleblower and the organization the whistleblower is trying to cooperate with.""

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/technology/2010/12/openleaks-a-wikileaks-rival-to-launch-monday.html

This is the way WikiLeaks should've been. Instead Assange felt the need to editorialize the leaks, fly around the world making accusations of war crimes, and generally act like a douche. The entire responsibility of deciding what to release fell to 1 very erratic, megalomaniacal former hacker who seems to have an axe to grind with the US.

I'm on board with OpenLeaks as it's described. They don't have an agenda. Their founders won't be ranting and raving about smear campaigns by the US. And classified documents won't be released directly to the public by them, but rather to established media sources with actual journalistic standards. If these newspapers feel fit to take on the liability associated with releasing documents, they will get released. The NY Times did it 40 years ago with the Pentagon Papers. OpenLeaks will simply provide absolute anonymity to those who wish to leak things.

12/10/2010 11:41:41 PM

Hurray, now we can rely on the mainstream media to tell us what's important, just like the good 'ole days.

12/11/2010 12:24:54 AM

With power comes responsibility. Assange, by dumping hundreds of thousands of war transcripts and showing bias in his editorializing of the information, has taken a very irresponsible approach to the leaks. I would prefer the journalistic standards of established media sources. It's not like OpenLeaks will be limited to working with US media sources. They will work with European news sources as well, I'm sure.

The bottom line is that exposing corruption is a noble endeavor and I respect the concept of whistleblower websites, but I do not trust our government's secrets in the hands of a single erratic character who has demonstrated bias against the US. A lot of the leaked information poses no harm and in fact sheds light on international politics, but there is a good amount of information being released that was never intended for public consumption. I support our country's diplomacy efforts, by and large, and Assange has shown with recent releases that he is more interested in generating headlines and embarrassing his enemies than exposing corruption.

[Edited on December 11, 2010 at 12:48 AM. Reason : 2]

12/11/2010 12:45:42 AM

OpenLeaks is a government sting operation.

12/11/2010 1:01:01 AM

FOR THOSE WHO WANT TO READ THE CABLES AND ARTICLES DISCUSSING THEM

These are 2 great interactive sites where you can click on a country's map to see all the cables emanating from there, as well as succinct summaries:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/interactive/2010/nov/28/us-embassy-cables-wikileaks

http://www.spiegel.de/flash/flash-24861.html



These are well worth a click as well:

Key Points at a Glance
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/nov/29/wikileaks-embassy-cables-key-points

The World's Reaction
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/10/wikileaks-reaction-world-reaction

That last one is quite interesting, and at times sadly funny. For example:

Quote :

"Saudi Arabia's only public comment on the revelations was to say "they do not concern us" despite the sensational exposure of comments made by King Abdullah about attacking Iran "to cut off the head of the snake." "

[Edited on December 11, 2010 at 1:34 AM. Reason : See also http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/series/us-embassy-cables-the-documents]

12/11/2010 1:33:19 AM

Quote :

"With power comes responsibility. Assange, by dumping hundreds of thousands of war transcripts and showing bias in his editorializing of the information, has taken a very irresponsible approach to the leaks. I would prefer the journalistic standards of established media sources. It's not like OpenLeaks will be limited to working with US media sources. They will work with European news sources as well, I'm sure. "

How are they being editorialized? The NYT has already colluded with the government once on this issue (trying to back up the governments LIE that they were not contacted by Assange even though they finally had to admit that Assange used them as an intermediary) so why do you feel safe trusting mainstream media.

^Really interesting sites the map is awesome! I wonder why the United States media is failing to do anything like this?

12/11/2010 9:11:32 AM

The US and China apparently worked together to bring down the Copenhagen climate talks in 2009:

Last year's climate summit in Copenhagen was a political disaster. Leaked US diplomatic cables now show why the summit failed so spectacularly. The dispatches reveal that the US and China, the world's top two polluters, joined forces to stymie every attempt by European nations to reach agreement.

In May 2009 the Chinese leaders received a very welcome guest. John Kerry, the powerful chairman of the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee, met with Deputy Prime Minister Li Keqiang in Beijing. Kerry told his hosts that Washington could understand "China's resistance to accepting mandatory targets at the United Nations Climate Conference, which will take place in Copenhagen."



According to a cable from the US embassy in the Chinese capital, Kerry outlined "a new basis for 'major cooperation' between the United States and China on climate change." At that time, many Europeans were hoping the delegates at the Copenhagen summit would agree climate-change measures that could save the planet from the cumulative effects of global warming. But that dream died pitifully in mid-December 2009, and the world leaders went their separate ways again without any concrete achievements. Confidential US diplomatic cables published by WikiLeaks now show just how closely the world's biggest polluters -- the United States and China -- colluded in the months leading up to the conference. And they give weight to those who have long suspected that the two countries secretly formed an alliance.

The cooperation began under the last US president, George W. Bush. In 2007 Bush's senior climate negotiator, Harlan Watson, organized a 10-year framework agreement with China on cooperation on energy and the environment. The two countries also agreed to hold a "Strategic and Economic Dialogue" -- backroom talks that neither the Americans nor the Chinese were willing to admit to at first...



Full Article:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,733630,00.html

Apparently those who we assumed were progressives are shown to be in collusion with polluters and special interests. It pretty much is another piece of evidence for how corporate interests rule over conviction.

[Edited on December 11, 2010 at 11:56 AM. Reason : .]

12/11/2010 11:56:22 AM

^I, for one, am happy to find out through wikileaks that the United States is the powerhouse it is because of a collaborated effort to not get fucked over by the rest of the world.

12/11/2010 1:12:17 PM

^^Bullshit. If you really believe that John Kerry, of all people, conspired with the Chinese to "derail" negotiations, you are goddamn stupid.

The US didn't derail negotiations. They live in the real world, unlike Germany, and realized the futility of trying to get China and India to agree to mandatory emissions cuts. They spent an immense amount of political and monetary capital in order to build a draft that could be supported by everyone, not just Europe. Read this much less biased take on the matter:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/dec/03/wikileaks-us-manipulated-climate-accord

In politics is negotiation, horse-trading and compromise. It's unfortunate that Der Speigel felt the need to paint the US as secret saboteurs, but the fact is that they were the driving force behind the scenes in creating the Copenhagen Accord, and talks would've simply collapsed without any agreement at all if not for the US's compromise and backroom dealings.

12/11/2010 2:15:40 PM

Quote :

"but rather to established media sources with actual journalistic standards."

Which ones are those again?

12/11/2010 2:24:38 PM

Quote :

"How are they being editorialized?"

Is this a serious question?

Editing a video and labeling it "Collateral Murder", making countless accusations of war crimes, declaring that Obama should resign if shown to have authorized spying on the UN, etc. Assange makes no pretenses of being a journalist. He is an editorialist who rails against the US government at every chance he gets. He should've allowed the leaks to stand on their own and let others judge / investigate them. But in his frothing-at-the-mouth zeal to discredit the US and become famous in the process, he no has very little credibility on the international stage beyond being an erratic, biased individual who happens to possess a lot of secret information.

[Edited on December 11, 2010 at 2:45 PM. Reason : 2]

12/11/2010 2:44:25 PM

It's not editorializing if it's true.

12/11/2010 2:46:28 PM

Yes, because Assange's opinion that Obama should resign is a "true" opinion

12/11/2010 2:53:42 PM

I wasn't referencing the video footage. I haven't watched nor do I have any desire to watch video tape footage of people getting shot up. I was referencing the Cable leaks which seem to be pretty straight forward releases of information. And you also conveniently ignored the second part of my statement about how the NYT was actively colluding with the US government making false accusations.

I guess according to you every major media outlet should turn over the information that they uncover to another media outlet to avoid "editorializing" or "bias"? Yeah really makes sense.

[Edited on December 11, 2010 at 4:46 PM. Reason : adsfasd]

12/11/2010 4:43:50 PM

Quote :

"I was referencing the Cable leaks which seem to be pretty straight forward releases of information."

Yeah. Right. From wikileaks website:

Quote :

"The cables show the extent of US spying on its allies and the UN; turning a blind eye to corruption and human rights abuse in "client states"; backroom deals with supposedly neutral countries; lobbying for US corporations; and the measures US diplomats take to advance those who have access to them. This document release reveals the contradictions between the US’s public persona and what it says behind closed doors – and shows that if citizens in a democracy want their governments to reflect their wishes, they should ask to see what’s going on behind the scenes. Every American schoolchild is taught that George Washington – the country’s first President – could not tell a lie. If the administrations of his successors lived up to the same principle, today’s document flood would be a mere embarrassment. Instead, the US Government has been warning governments -- even the most corrupt -- around the world about the coming leaks and is bracing itself for the exposures."

12/11/2010 5:47:27 PM

Did you look at the actual cables that were being referenced? If you can get past editorializing in the descriptions I haven't really got anything to say to you. Also yet again you completely ignored the rest of my post. I am assuming it is because you have no response?

12/11/2010 5:51:47 PM

I ignored the rest of your post because it was stupid and not worth responding to. Re-read my original post about journalistic standards if it didn't sink in the first time. Wikileaks has none. Sure, they are a "media organization", but they have an obvious and stated agenda, and Mr. Assange has no business being the sole determinant of what classified information gets released to the general public. I would prefer to see this kind of information in the hands of established journalistic institutions, so that we can be sure that matters relating to US diplomatic interests, national security and the safety of our troops are safeguarded.

If you hate the NY Times so much, perhaps you would prefer the international news sources that OpenLeaks will be sure to work with.

[Edited on December 11, 2010 at 5:57 PM. Reason : 2]

12/11/2010 5:56:13 PM

Openlinks is a great idea in a perfect world. However, they won't get shit as far as information and will disappear. Honestly if you haven't figured out that all media is biased you really are stupid. Also if you are just reading Wikileaks interpretation of the cables you are stupid. However I was assuming that you were capable of viewing the released cables themselves and confirming or dismissing the interpretations offered by Wikileaks and other media outlets. Methinks I gave you too much credit.
Unfortunately SENSATIONALISM SELLS and if you don't offer that you will fail which why openlinks won't work.

12/11/2010 6:12:07 PM

Key word = SELLS

Wikileaks has no moral high ground.

12/12/2010 12:59:31 AM

Alright, let's do several days worth of responses, all at once, in a quote bombing extravaganza!

adder:

[/quote]The problem with this statement is is that a lot of us are afraid that the government of the United States is not in a position to say what is right and what is wrong for other countries. [/quote]

Well, it's not really an issue of position -- either a thing is right or it isn't, regardless of the source. If you're saying the government is wrong about what's right and what's wrong, that's a different issue. I stand by my statement: if a thing is right, I couldn't give two shits what any other country thinks. For that matter, if a thing is right, I couldn't give two shits about what this country thinks. See my position on aiding illegal immigrants.

Sooner or later you are bound to run into a situation, like this one, where one has to weigh the importance of multiple options. Keeping some of these things secret is probably bad, and releasing some of them is probably worse.

McDanger:

Quote :

"This is the problem with invading and occupying a foreign country, and why we should only do so with ridiculous amounts of valid justification and legitimacy. "

There is a country called Afghanistan. It harbored the people that planned a massive assault on the country. They admitted it, gleefully. Iraq is not a blanket argument to be thrown over everything, you know.

adder again:

Quote :

"Most of our major law changes in the field of civil rights stemmed from people actually breaking the laws."

This is a dangerous line to take, my friend. It leads very quickly into law meaning nothing. I know, because I've used the same argument.

Str8Foolish:

Quote :

"This whole "liberation" fable was concocted way after the boots were on the ground."

Bullshit. The world being what it is today, any time you go into a country for any reason, you are expected to help rebuild it. And from the very start with Afghanistan liberation rhetoric was big; recall the schoolkids being asked to donate a dollar and whatnot.

Furthermore, liberation of Afghanistan was largely necessary -- a similarly oppressive regime, left in place, would have further reason to support Osama and his buddies. Whether we wanted to do so or not, "liberation" was key from the start.

McDanger, again

Quote :

"To an ignorant hatchet-man of the establishment, of course it's moonbat nonsense. To the educated and rational it borders on common sense."

Aaaaaaand we see the current McDanger line of "Anyone who disagrees is irrational or stupid." I understand the appeal, since the same line has been targeted at him before. But it is still disappointing.

Quote :

"Even though it'll happen hundreds of years after my death I'm happy to know I'm on the right side of history. "

Thank you, Khrushchev. Please tell me you were banging a shoe on your desk as you typed that.

Quote :

"People who are reading this and lurking: read WikiLeaks. Find out why the assholes I'm arguing against in this thread are your personal enemies. "

You say shit like this a lot, but of course there are many thousands of leaks. Nobody should be expected to read and analyze all of them while still being productive members of society -- that is, being able to feed themselves, certainly not so they can pay more money into the great imperialist maw of the government. What you never seem to say is anything to illuminate us as to the abhorrent crimes to which you obliquely refer.

That's probably sufficient for now.

12/12/2010 5:07:33 AM

Quote :

"I'm also not sure your ego will ever allow you to revise."

For irony.

12/12/2010 5:59:37 AM

Quote :

"Key word = SELLS Wikileaks has no moral high ground."

I am not trying to claim that Wikileaks is anything other than a media source. Given the fact that there is access to a lot of government documents allows for most rational people to read and draw their own conclusions. So far I am not hearing much information out there that realistically shows that Assange is making all this information up. Claiming "journalistic ethics" for the mass media sources is pretty laughable especially considering US mass media sources have shown how willing they are to collude with the government.

Quote :

" This is a dangerous line to take, my friend. It leads very quickly into law meaning nothing. I know, because I've used the same argument."

Slippery slope be damned IT IS TRUE. If it wasn't for those damn "law breakers" we could very easily be living in a segregated society. This was primarily for the militaristic robots who thought that everyone should just follow the laws and our friends the politicians would take care of us all.

[Edited on December 12, 2010 at 9:09 AM. Reason : asdf]

12/12/2010 9:06:52 AM

Quote :

"If these newspapers feel fit to take on the liability associated with releasing documents, they will get released. The NY Times did it 40 years ago with the Pentagon Papers."

Ellsberg, fwiw, has put his complete support behind Wikileaks and Assange.

12/12/2010 10:13:05 AM

Ahmadinejad blames U.S. 'mischief' for WikiLeaks dump and insists Arab nations are Iran's friends

Quote :

"Iran's president dismissed reports that Arab leaders wanted the U.S. to attack his country and insisted the neighboring countries were all friends. At a Monday press conference President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad called the latest WikiLeaks document dump of diplomatic memos a waste of time engineered by the U.S. government to cause 'mischief'. According to the memos, King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia repeatedly urged the United States to attack Iran, destroy its nuclear programme and stop Tehran from developing a nuclear weapon. 'We don't give any value to these documents,' Ahmadinejad told the news conference. 'It's without legal value. Iran and regional states are friends. Such acts of mischief have no impact on relations between nations.' Ahmadinejad alleged the leaks were an 'organized' effort by the U.S. to stir trouble between Iran and Arab neighbors. 'We don't think this information was leaked. We think it was organised to be released on a regular basis and they are pursuing political goals.' Ahmadinejad accused the American government of pursuing a strategy resembling 'an intelligence and psychological war game.' 'Nations are aware. Such a game will have no effect. It's so worthless that it isn't worth someone referring to them or wasting time to refer to them.' But according to the leaked documents, Saudi Arabia 'frequently exhorted' Washington to launch an air strike against the regime in Tehran. In a report of a 2008 meeting with U.S. General David Petraeus, the Saudi ambassador to Washington said King Abdullah wanted the White House 'to cut the head off the snake' before Iran developed nuclear weapons and threatened its neighbours in the Middle East."

Hahaha... he can fool himself all he wants, and he knows it, but [Sunni] Gulf kings have a fierce hatred and fear of Shias, and that's no secret. Shias in Gulf kingdoms are 2nd class citizens. Heck, they form a majority in Bahrain, but the authoritarian ruler is Sunni, as was the case with Iraq with Saddam in power.

12/12/2010 11:43:55 AM

Interesting article on the potential ramifications of prosecuting Assange:

Quote :

"This is about as good as it gets for the United States of America. Backed by the righteous anger of lawmakers and commentators, hundreds -- perhaps thousands -- of the nation's brightest brains are working toward the goal of making Julian Assange answer for his alleged crimes in a US court. Those engaged in this effort should enjoy the thrill of the chase. If Assange is successfully extradited to the US, a sobering experience will follow. Prosecuting the founder of WikiLeaks could very easily turn into a nightmare. In formal terms, Julian Assange will be the man standing trial. But the participant with the most to lose will be the US government. Victory, if it arrives in any formal sense, will feel pyrrhic. The US government's position is weak because it possesses relatively few reliable legal tools. Prosecuting Assange under The Espionage Act of 1917, America's version of Britain's Official Secrets Act, still looks like the best option."

http://readersupportednews.org/off-site-opinion-section/369-wikileaks/4257-the-us-governments-pursuit-of-wikileaks-could-be-its-undoing

12/14/2010 7:51:14 AM

Quote :

"Sit back and add it all up: if the founder of WikiLeaks enters a US courtroom, his options will multiply. The government's will diminish."

from above article. It makes a lot of sense though. When you take away the bullying, the intimidation, the corporate pressure, all the other weight throwing from Washington, and play ball according to the rules of the court, this case is over quicker than it started. That would be a bad move for Washington.

Can't wait to see what happens today.

12/14/2010 9:18:28 AM

Quote :

"QUESTION: Some of the governments that have been mentioned in these cables are heavily censoring press in terms of releasing some of this information. How do you feel about that? (Laughter.) MR. CROWLEY: The official position of the United States Government and the State Department has not changed. We value a vibrant, active, aggressive media. It is important to the development of civil society in this country and around the world. Our views have not changed, even if occasionally there are activities which we think are unhelpful and potentially harmful. QUESTION: Do you know if the State Department regards WikiLeaks as a media organization? MR. CROWLEY: No. We do not. QUESTION: And why not? MR. CROWLEY: WikiLeaks is not a media organization. That is our view. QUESTION: So P.J., going back to the answer to your last question, have you contacted governments that have been censoring this to protest that – or sites that they have -- MR. CROWLEY: I’m not in a position to say what governments have done or what conversations have occurred between governments and media. There’s – certainly, there are countries around the world that do not have as robust a focus on these issues as ours does. That’s probably not a surprise to us, and when we do meet with these governments, we talk about media issues among key human rights issues. Our dialogue is not going to change over this. QUESTION: P.J., on that subject of WikiLeaks, Amazon, as we know, did have them on their server for a time and then stopped doing that. And there’s a human rights group that says that Amazon was directed by the U.S. Government to stop that relationship. Do you know anything – MR. CROWLEY: All I can say is I’m not aware of any contacts between the Department of State and Amazon. QUESTION: Or the U.S. Government or just State? MR. CROWLEY: I’m not in a position on this particular issue to talk about the entire government. I’m just not aware of any contacts directly. QUESTION: From your perspective, what is WikiLeaks? How do you define them, if it is not a media organization, then? MR. CROWLEY: Well, as the Secretary said earlier this week, it is – one might infer it has many characteristics of some internet sites. Not every internet site you would call a media organization or a news organization. We’re focused on WikiLeaks’s behavior, and I have had personally conversations with media outlets that are reporting on this, and we have had the opportunity to express our specific concerns about intelligence sources and methods and other interests that could put real lives at risk. Mr. Assange, in a letter to our Ambassador in the United Kingdom over the weekend, after documents had been released to news organizations, made what we thought was a halfhearted gesture to have some sort of conversation, but that was after he released the documents and after he knew that they were going to emerge publicly. So I think there’s been a very different approach. And Mr. Assange obviously has a particular political objective behind his activities, and I think that, among other things, disqualifies him as being considered a journalist. QUESTION: What is his political objective? QUESTION: The same letter -- MR. CROWLEY: Hmm? QUESTION: What is his political objective? MR. CROWLEY: Well, his – I mean he could be considered a political actor. I think he’s an anarchist, but he’s not a journalist. QUESTION: So his objective is to sow chaos, you mean? MR. CROWLEY: Well, I mean, you all come here prepared to objectively report the activities of the United States Government. I think that Mr. Assange doesn’t meet that particular standard. QUESTION: But just so I understand, P.J., what – I mean you just said the – that you thought he was -- MR. CROWLEY: Well, but I mean – let me – he’s not a journalist. He’s not a whistleblower. And there – he is a political actor. He has a political agenda. He is trying to undermine the international system of -- that enables us to cooperate and collaborate with other governments and to work in multilateral settings and on a bilateral basis to help solve regional and international issues. What he’s doing is damaging to our efforts and the efforts of other governments. They are putting at risk our national interest and the interests of other governments around the world. He is not an objective observer of anything. He is an active player. He has an agenda. He’s trying to pursue that agenda, and I don’t think he can – he can’t qualify as either a journalist on the one hand or a whistleblower on the other. QUESTION: Sorry. What is that agenda, that political agenda? Can you be more -- MR. CROWLEY: I’ll leave it for Mr. Assange to define his agenda. He has been interviewed by some of your news organizations. He has the ability to talk for himself. But you asked -- I was asked a specific question, “Do we consider him a journalist?” The answer is no. QUESTION: In the same letter, he said that U.S. is trying to suppress the whole thing about human rights abuses. And do you agree with his contention that the U.S. is -- MR. CROWLEY: I found very little that Mr. Assange has said that we agree with."

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2010/12/152291.htm

This sounds a lot like what I said before. And no, I don't expect the US Government to be impartial on the matter, considering that they are getting the brunt of the criticism, but it's a valid point. Based on the way WikiLeaks has chosen to editorilize it's leaks and the way Assange has chosen to drum up the sensationalism of the cables and transcripts in his possession, you cannot consider them a media orgainization in the vein of others who try to report "just the facts" in their news section, and make their editorials obvious. With wikileaks, the editorializing starts with what they choose to release.

Actually, this whole flap smacks of the time when Obama and his administration tried to declare that Fox News is not a "news organization" in the vein of CNN and shouldn't be treated as such.

[Edited on December 14, 2010 at 9:31 AM. Reason : 2]

12/14/2010 9:24:13 AM

Journalistic publications are under no legal obligation to be unbiased.

12/14/2010 9:30:04 AM

No, they are not. Only an ethical one.

Quote :

"...public enlightenment is the forerunner of justice and the foundation of democracy. The duty of the journalist is to further those ends by seeking truth and providing a fair and comprehensive account of events and issues. Conscientious journalists from all media and specialties strive to serve the public with thoroughness and honesty. Professional integrity is the cornerstone of a journalist's credibility."

News organizations attempt to keep a clear divide between news reporting and opinion writing. Assange has blurred those lines with WikiLeaks, and his site reads more like a partisan hack site than anything else.


[Edited on December 14, 2010 at 9:39 AM. Reason : 2]

12/14/2010 9:33:19 AM

I was referring to arguments that say WikiLeaks should be treated by our government as if it were something other than a journalistic publication. That it is biased does not strengthen this argument at all.

As for it being unethical, I don't see why. I don't see anything inherently unethical about the way the Guardian or the Economist reports its news, which certainly isn't neutral.

12/14/2010 9:44:20 AM

Well, lets flip this around. Do you think that Assange is a journalist, a whistle-blower, or a political actor? All of the above?

I am having a tough time classifying him, but he's obviously not a journalist in the vein of Brokaw or, IDK, Wolf Blitzer or Anderson Cooper. He is not interested in an unbiased reporting of the facts. He is interested in maximizing embarrassment to the organizations that he views as corrupt. I don't think Wikileaks falls under the same category as some of the respected journalistic organizations, and I understand the division Crowley is trying to make. But please tell me more about how Assange should be considered a journalist, and how Wikileaks is a journalistic publication.

12/14/2010 9:56:56 AM

Haha the American myth that reporting, at some golden age, was "unbiased" and has been distorted by the political process ever since

12/14/2010 10:00:58 AM

WikiLeaks is an online publisher. It's part of "the press," and its editorial positions are not relevant to its classification as such. I'm sympathetic to State's position, but they have no case, in my opinion.

[Edited on December 14, 2010 at 10:04 AM. Reason : ]

12/14/2010 10:03:37 AM

Oh, i think it's common knowledge that there is and always has been bias in reporting, most of it without conscious intent. However, I lament the current system of blatantly partisan programming and websites that produces and empowers abominations like the Tea Party.

12/14/2010 10:10:28 AM

^^ "Online Publisher" is different from Journalist, and Wikileaks is more than just Assange. So you have shifted your position a bit.

I, for one, can see the administration's distinction. Assange is no more a member of the press than a random blogger.

12/14/2010 10:18:36 AM

Quote :

"I don't see anything inherently unethical about the way the Guardian or the Economist reports its news"

Agreed. I feel like there is an ethical obligation for a paper to establish the difference between fact and opinion, such as the Economist's, "it is the opinion of this paper," but they are under no obligation to strike a strict (and impossible) neutrality.

Quote :

"I don't think Wikileaks falls under the same category as some of the respected journalistic organizations, and I understand the division Crowley is trying to make. But please tell me more about how Assange should be considered a journalist, and how Wikileaks is a journalistic publication."

WRT the 1A, I'm not sure how it matters.

The illegality here was Bradley Mannings actions and he will undoubtledly spend much of the rest of his life in prision. Whether you feel that is right or wrong, it is not unconstitutional.

Whether or not you feel Assange was right or was wrong, the question is one of legal prosecution. Regardless of the final end to the Assange saga, his end would not be the end of WikiLeaks or WikiLeaks-esque websites.

12/14/2010 10:36:05 AM

A random blogger is a member of the press. That said, I don't think the distinction between journalists and publishers is relevant to the discussion. Blogs, newspapers, academic journals, newsletters, online publishers, the Yellow Pages, etc., are all part of the press and, at least in this country, are afforded the same First Amendment protections. And there are certainly many journalists, academics, and legal scholars who argue that any exercise of editorial control over the dissemination of information by definition makes one a journalist.

[Edited on December 14, 2010 at 10:41 AM. Reason : ]

12/14/2010 10:39:12 AM