Wikileaks and the US State Department

[M.Dancer]

Obama doesn't rely on State department cables to know what is happening in the world..

Yes he does. Obama can have maybe 8 meaningful conversations a day.

His diplonatic corps could have a few hundred.

Obama for the rest of his life will never have a real true to life meet and greet and talk to ordinary people about ordinary things and get ordinary insights.

His diplomatic corps meets and greets and talks and walks and does it without anyone being over awed by their greatness...and they write back about their experiances and about what is happening in the real world.

[bush_cheney2004]

Who does he rely on then, Wikipedia? One of the reasons diplomats exist is to give Obama a reading on people like Berlusconi before he even picks up the phone. Also to prepare the groundwork of whatever negotiation is going to take place. He can't know every world leader or go cold into every conversation with one.

Right you are...the success of such ongoing relationships and communications are often related to just how much diplomatic investment has been made by State. Agendas must be developed and issues must be prioritized in the context of many competing interests, for allies and foes. State is the velvet glove covering the iron fist (Defense).

[ToadBrother]

Diplomats are not "spymasters," or certainly are not supposed to be.

Let's break down the common arguments that are beginning to boil like unruly maggots on the meat of this story:

1. The leaks "endanger the diplomatic corps and those associated with them."

[Never mind that the United States had full opportunity to work with Wikileaks on security redactions...and refused to do so. Therefore, if indeed there are any lethal repercussions, the United States officially at least shares culpability.]

2. The diplomats are going to have difficulty "doing their work."

3. When the diplomats are charged with performing decidedly undiplomatic spywork--on allies, mind you--we should not only support that; we should also complain when that fact is leaked.

Because that is part of the "diplomatic work" that should remain secret.

We don't want to know what the most powerful government on Earth is doing; and if anyone tells us, he is a dangerous individual putting brave, spying diplomats in danger.

We can simply trust the most powerful country on Earth. They will always behave admirably.

Of chrissakes, spy networks have been run out of embassies for decades.

[ToadBrother]

As far as I'm concerned the Obamas and Berlusconis of the world should be in near constant direct communication with one another on a daily basis. The world is too small and its problems are too large to not be.

The system you describe belongs in a day and age when communications travelled no faster than a horse or a sail boat.

It's not feasible to do this. No person could possibly do all of that a day. We all have representatives, delegates and proxies. You're lawyer serves as your representative in court or in legal matters, your accountant in dealing with the tax department, heck, your wife might even put in a few appearances at get-togethers for you.

No matter how good the technology gets we're all limited by our wetware and by the physical fact that we can only hold one conversation at a time.

[ToadBrother]

In another Brookings poll (not cited here, I don't think, but I will find it) it is pointed out that 80% of Arabs see the United States as a serious threat, and 10% see Iran as a serious threat.

http://www.brookings.edu/reports/2010/0805_arab_opinion_poll_telhami.aspx

And the populaces of Britain, France and the US thought Germany had got a raw deal in 1919, and were against any kind of military interventions, even after the rearming of the Rhineland. Now imagine for a moment if the Brits, French and Americans had ignored their pacifist electorates and had actually stomped on Hitler when he marched troops into the Rhineland.

Just because a whole lot of people believe something doesn't mean it's true or it's good. Sometimes leaders have to take an unpopular path, and if they're wrong, they pay for it, but if they're right, maybe the avoid major catastrophe. A nuclear Iran is a bad thing no matter what way you look at it.

[bloodyminded]

Of chrissakes, spy networks have been run out of embassies for decades.

For chrissakes, the US is legally bound not to spy on UN officials.

Edited December 2, 2010 by bloodyminded

[bloodyminded]

And the populaces of Britain, France and the US thought Germany had got a raw deal in 1919, and were against any kind of military interventions, even after the rearming of the Rhineland. Now imagine for a moment if the Brits, French and Americans had ignored their pacifist electorates and had actually stomped on Hitler when he marched troops into the Rhineland.

Just because a whole lot of people believe something doesn't mean it's true or it's good. Sometimes leaders have to take an unpopular path, and if they're wrong, they pay for it, but if they're right, maybe the avoid major catastrophe. A nuclear Iran is a bad thing no matter what way you look at it.

I was only pointing out my agreement with you, Toadbother, in which you said that "Zimbabwe" does not equal "Mugabe"; the subject was on the Chinese alliance.

Same thing here. There has been a lot of talk about "the Saudi Arabians" and "the Egyptians" and how "they" agree with the American and Israeli hawks (who, over the past decade, have been a remarkably untrustworthy pack of gangsters, as even their erstwhile defenders are beginning to recognize).

That was my point.

Actually, I don't see anything positive about a nuclear-armed Iran either.

But if you look at things from the Arab population's point of view, why in hell would they trust the Western democracies? That would be stupid, because plainly, our regimes are not trustworthy.

And now we find that--once again, Toadbrother, and this is an old, old story--our more hawkish policymakers (and their intellectual defenders) support the tyrants over the populations.

They always do, unless there's some convenient politicized expedience to crocodile-tear populism, always to dissipate quickly as it comes.

The Arabs are used to this. That doesn't mean they have to like it.

Nor do they need to adopt our adolescent delusions about Western benevolence.

[Wilber]

As far as I'm concerned the Obamas and Berlusconis of the world should be in near constant direct communication with one another on a daily basis. The world is too small and its problems are too large to not be.

The system you describe belongs in a day and age when communications travelled no faster than a horse or a sail boat.

Right you are a two hundred member conference call every morning with everyone talking at once.

[Oleg Bach]

Right....you reralize who filed the rape charges against him don't you?

He has seen himself as having an immunity to normal law..from his days as a hacker to his days as a sex offender....I would classify him as a deviant sociopath...

There is a quote by a lawyer who assisted in the stealing of my wifes substantial inheritanc..."It is immoral but it is legal" - That has stuck with me in how I percieve so called LAW...This fellow at Wikileak holds the moral high ground..He is not a deviant or a sociopath. BUT - for instance if there are two groups of crimminal families having a feud..the victor becomes a thing called ESTABLISHMENT - the loser then takes on the role of crimminal.

In order to rule society the establishment must be percieved as good in order to garner respect and empowerment from the population...what these leaks have done is to show that the establishment are not respectable people. No matter what measures the establishment take to counter there now released truths will be of no avail - the cat is out of the bag and the revolution has taken place in the blink of an eye.

You can not but the gene back in the bottle...IF the establishment world wide had honour...most of the worlds problems would not exist..apparently they have no honour and are NOT to be respected...once public respect is gone..there power is gone.

[ToadBrother]

They always do, unless there's some convenient politicized expedience to crocodile-tear populism, always to dissipate quickly as it comes.

The Arabs are used to this. That doesn't mean they have to like it.

Nor do they need to adopt our adolescent delusions about Western benevolence.

Right, they're perfectly free to adopt their own adolescent delusions.

[Oleg Bach]

Right, they're perfectly free to adopt their own adolescent delusions.

Yah like being some Arab king who shakes hands with a western oil merchant and with the other hand is handing over cash to take dow the world trade centre...all to amuse his rich sick ass.

[M.Dancer]

Right, they're perfectly free to adopt their own adolescent delusions.

No one wants to adopt an adolescent delusion. Everyone wants to adopt delusions when they are still young, when they are still cute.

I suppose now the arabs will be criticized for adopting infantile delusions....

[ToadBrother]

No one wants to adopt an adolescent delusion. Everyone wants to adopt delusions when they are still young, when they are still cute.

I suppose now the arabs will be criticized for adopting infantile delusions....

They do indeed. Take for instance the widespread anger at those stupid Danish cartoons. Demanding death for some guy in Europe writing some provocative cartoons is as infantile as it gets.

[bloodyminded]

Right, they're perfectly free to adopt their own adolescent delusions.

Oh, and they do, we agree on that absolutely. I'm afraid that doesn't alter my opinion about the West, however (using the term "The West" very loosely and generally, granted).

[Oleg Bach]

They do indeed. Take for instance the widespread anger at those stupid Danish cartoons. Demanding death for some guy in Europe writing some provocative cartoons is as infantile as it gets.

I agree...but someone had to tell the infantile ones that they were insulted..because infants really are hard to manipulate...so you lie to them...most Muslims if left on their own would not give a damn about some cartoon...It is the trouble makers seeking self importance that stimulate the stupid mass. That is the part that irritates me...are Islamics...that speak for God...No one has a direct line to the other dimension...other than the founders of the faiths..and they are no longer with us..so it's all hear say.

[Shady]

As for calling for his assassination--it should amaze me (but doesn't) that officials are calling for first-degree murder.

Which officials have called for his assassination?

[GostHacked]

Which officials have called for his assassination?

You got the net at your fingers...... do some walking.

[Shady]

You got the net at your fingers...... do some walking.

Isn't it the responsiblity of the person who makes the accusation to answer the question?

[bloodyminded]

Which officials have called for his assassination?

I was thinking of Flanagan. And yes, "ex" would have been more accurate.

I was also thinking of Huckabee, but it turns out he had been unfairly misquoted. He didn't call for Assange's assassination, but for the actual leaker's death sentence by legal means.

To be fair to the principles of justice, however, the US officials who refused to help with redactions--to "save lives" as Huckabee would put it--should also then face criminal charges. I wonder what Huckabee has to say about that?

Edited December 2, 2010 by bloodyminded

[waldo]

I was thinking of Flanagan. And yes, "ex" would have been more accurate.

perhaps as in 'ex/quitter' Governor Sarah Palin refudiating: Hunt WikiLeaks chief down like Osama bin Laden: Sarah Palin demands Assange is treated like Al Qaeda terrorist

or... the always, uhhh... "rational" Bill Kristol writing in the Weekly Standard: Whack WikiLeaks ... "Why can't we act forcefully against WikiLeaks? Why can't we use our various assets to harass, snatch or neutralize Julian Assange and his collaborators, wherever they are? Why can't we disrupt and destroy WikiLeaks in both cyberspace and physical space, to the extent possible? Why can't we warn others of repercussions from assisting this criminal enterprise hostile to the United States?"

[bloodyminded]

perhaps as in 'ex/quitter' Governor Sarah Palin refudiating: Hunt WikiLeaks chief down like Osama bin Laden: Sarah Palin demands Assange is treated like Al Qaeda terrorist

Palin doesn't say smart things.

or... the always, uhhh... "rational" Bill Kristol writing in the Weekly Standard: Whack WikiLeaks ... "Why can't we act forcefully against WikiLeaks? Why can't we use our various assets to harass, snatch or neutralize Julian Assange and his collaborators, wherever they are? Why can't we disrupt and destroy WikiLeaks in both cyberspace and physical space, to the extent possible? Why can't we warn others of repercussions from assisting this criminal enterprise hostile to the United States?"

Christ on his Throne. These are the words of an Imperial Commissar.

[dre]

Palin doesn't say smart things.

Christ on his Throne. These are the words of an Imperial Commissar.

Truly surreal... the absolute rage towards those who dare challenge the supremecy of government and their ability to assert privilege. Its a bizzaro world.

[Shady]

I was thinking of Flanagan. And yes, "ex" would have been more accurate.

I was also thinking of Huckabee, but it turns out he had been unfairly misquoted. He didn't call for Assange's assassination, but for the actual leaker's death sentence by legal means.

To be fair to the principles of justice, however, the US officials who refused to help with redactions--to "save lives" as Huckabee would put it--should also then face criminal charges. I wonder what Huckabee has to say about that?

So ultimately the answer is that no officials have called for his assassination.

[GostHacked]

Isn't it the responsiblity of the person who makes the accusation to answer the question?

When your insurance company or bank tells you something, do you verify it or take their word for it? You are one that loves to throw the right information in peoples faces all the time, it would server you well to do a little research and make them look dumb, or are you afraid you'd find a different answer?

[Shady]

Truly surreal... the absolute rage towards those who dare challenge the supremecy of government and their ability to assert privilege. Its a bizzaro world.

This isn't about challenging the government, etc. It's about one gay soldier who didn't like DADT. So he decided to steal and share semi-secret information with a James Bond villian look-a-like.