Wikileaks and the US State Department

[Shady]

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?

Technically we all have the net at our fingers. But the whole purpose of the quote and link buttons are to provide a source for you posts and/or assertions. Also, the forum isn't like an insurance company or bank. What a ridiculous comparison.

[bloodyminded]

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.

It's a direct challenge to the government.

That's why so many people have exposed their slavish obedience to Power over the issue.

[Shady]

It's a direct challenge to the government.

That's why so many people have exposed their slavish obedience to Power over the issue.

I disagree. I don't think it's an either or situation. Are there documents I think should have been made public? Absolutely. But do I also think WikiLeaks has been very irresponsible, and put many people's lives in danger, and should have taken more time to sift through their material and make the appropriate changes? Even more absolutely.

[dre]

I disagree. I don't think it's an either or situation. Are there documents I think should have been made public? Absolutely. But do I also think WikiLeaks has been very irresponsible, and put many people's lives in danger, and should have taken more time to sift through their material and make the appropriate changes? Even more absolutely.

But do I also think WikiLeaks has been very irresponsible, and put many people's lives in danger, and should have taken more time to sift through their material and make the appropriate changes? Even more absolutely

Wait a second here... WHO was irresponsible? Why arent you pointing your finger at the US government and their appalling lack of information security, instead of shooting the messenger? Once the leaker was able to download those documents the security breach was done. He could have sent them to any media outlet in the world regardless of whether or not wikileaks existed in the first place.

Im wondering why all the anger is focused on this one guy instead of the fact that the US has crappier IT security than a Dennys restaraunt? What if the bumbling retards lose something really important next time?

[bloodyminded]

I disagree. I don't think it's an either or situation. Are there documents I think should have been made public? Absolutely. But do I also think WikiLeaks has been very irresponsible, and put many people's lives in danger, and should have taken more time to sift through their material and make the appropriate changes? Even more absolutely.

I'm willing to believe that a mass outpouring of potentially sensitive material can have an irresponsible component to it. But I think that's the smaller story here.

At any rate, Wikileaks proposed working with US officials to redact material that could be dangerous to specific individuals.

The US refused.

So, it's on them as well. Obviously, saving lives (if they were serious about this matter...which is arguable...which would mean they were lying to us) is not a top priority.

Edited December 2, 2010 by bloodyminded

[M.Dancer]

Wait a second here... WHO was irresponsible? Why arent you pointing your finger at the US government and their appalling lack of information security, instead of shooting the messenger?

Isn't that like blaming the victim?

If somneone gets robbed and their goods end up at the pawn, do you question the victim's lack of security or do you question the pawn and where they got the goods?

In any case, it was an inside job..

[bloodyminded]

Isn't that like blaming the victim?

If somneone gets robbed and their goods end up at the pawn, do you question the victim's lack of security or do you question the pawn and where they got the goods?

When the "victims" are themselves criminals, and those who "steal" from them profit nothing (aside from calls for assassinations from ex-officials and public intellectuals), the analogy takes on a different tenor, doesn't it?

[dre]

Isn't that like blaming the victim?

If somneone gets robbed and their goods end up at the pawn, do you question the victim's lack of security or do you question the pawn and where they got the goods?

In any case, it was an inside job..

If somneone gets robbed and their goods end up at the pawn, do you question the victim's lack of security or do you question the pawn and where they got the goods?

Well... people are probably going to get a little less sympathetic about your claim that your TV was stolen when they find out you accidentally forgot it in a parking lot somewhere.

In any case, it was an inside job..

It was a security flaw. Why was a grunt in Iraq able to download hundreds of thousands of diplomatic documents? Whos in charge of security? Rufus the Stunt Bum?

Edited December 2, 2010 by dre

[ToadBrother]

I'm willing to believe that a mass outpouring of potentially sensitive material can have an irresponsible component to it. But I think that's the smaller story here.

At any rate, Wikileaks proposed working with US officials to redact material that could be dangerous to specific individuals.

The US refused.

So, it's on them as well. Obviously, saving lives (if they were serious about this matter...which is arguable...which would mean they were lying to us) is not a top priority.

I don't blame the US. This is the equivalent of hostage negotiations. Essentially Wikileaks got its hand on classified materials, and then said "Look, we'll blank some names out." To actually work with Wikileaks would be to essentially condone, indeed even approve of the leak and the dissemination of those materials.

[M.Dancer]

Well... probably are going to get a little less sympathetic about your claim that your TV was stolen when they find out you accidentally forgot it in a parking lot somewhere.

I would agree. But they did not leave the files at the pub, or in a laptop at the airport. They were stolen by an employee.

[bloodyminded]

I don't blame the US. This is the equivalent of hostage negotiations. Essentially Wikileaks got its hand on classified materials, and then said "Look, we'll blank some names out." To actually work with Wikileaks would be to essentially condone, indeed even approve of the leak and the dissemination of those materials.

It's true that it puts them in a difficult situation, no question.

But if they're serious about "lives being at stake" (and I'm not sure they are; this might be more of the dank little lies we've becoming jaded to) and they have the power to chnage that, I think a strong argument can be made for their responsibility to do so.

It's not as if refusing help in redaction is going to make wikileaks or those who contribute to them rethink their position. So there's little practicality.

Edited December 2, 2010 by bloodyminded

[dre]

I would agree. But they did not leave the files at the pub, or in a laptop at the airport. They were stolen by an employee.

They were stolen by an employee that only had access to them because they have terrible security. A grunt in Iraq shouldnt be able to download hundreds of thousands of dimplomatic cables and letters. Thats exactly what security IS in an organization. Access management. If any soldier can pull a huge dump of classified data down onto their laptop then you HAVE no security.

[M.Dancer]

They were stolen by an employee that only had access to them because they have terrible security. A grunt in Iraq shouldnt be able to download hundreds of thousands of dimplomatic cables and letters.

Unless of course he had credential to work with them...and even if he didn't, it doesn't excuse the crime.

[Shady]

At any rate, Wikileaks proposed working with US officials to redact material that could be dangerous to specific individuals.

The US refused.

That's a lie that continues to be circulated by WikiLeaks and their sycophants. It's an effort to not have to take responsiblity for any unintended consequences of their actions.

[bloodyminded]

That's a lie that continues to be circulated by WikiLeaks and their sycophants. It's an effort to not have to take responsiblity for any unintended consequences of their actions.

Leaving aside that the worshipful devotees of the most powerful nation on earth are calling its critics "sycophants"--a jaw-dropper underlining Orwell's continued relevance--where do you get the notion that it's a lie?

Did you read some ranting blogger claiming it was a lie, and chose to take his denials of objective facts as accurate?

Or are you just inventing it? I'm honestly curious.

The State Department wrote Saturday to the leaders of the self-described whistleblower website WikiLeaks, telling them the U.S. government won't negotiate ahead of the expected release of hundreds of thousands of sensitive documents.

The State Department's top legal advisor Harold Koh wrote Saturday to WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange and his attorney Jennifer Robinson in response to a letter WikiLeaks sent the same day to U.S. Ambassador to the United Kingdom Louis Susman. The State Department rejected WikiLeaks' request for the names of individuals who may be "at significant risk of harm" due to the release of the sensitive documents.

http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/11/28/state_department_refuses_to_negotiate_with_wikileaks

http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/86272/20101128/wikileaks-state-department-us-terror-threats-publication-documents-global-security.htm

Edited December 2, 2010 by bloodyminded

[ToadBrother]

It's true that it puts them in a difficult situation, no question.

But if they're serious about "lives being at stake" (and I'm not sure they are; this might be more of the dank little lies we've becoming jaded to) and they have the power to chnage that, I think a strong argument can be made for their responsibility to do so.

It's not as if refusing help in redaction is going to make wikileaks or those who contribute to them rethink their position. So there's little practicality.

When one has two conflicting principles at stake, and one is forced to choose one or the other, you have to prioritize. In the harsh reality of the real world, lives are sometimes expendable. It's an ugly reality, but there it is. To bargain with Wikileaks is to set a precedent by which every disseminator of secret information can now view the situation is a bargaining chip. What happens if the next time it isn't Wikileaks, but some third party trying to blackmail the government?

I really am of two minds on all of this. While I appreciate and even to a point agree with the sentiment that the government does the public's business and thus the government has a great obligation to the public to let them know, at the same time my reading of history and politics informs me that some secrecy is needed, that the public's right to know, like any right, has limits. It cannot be absolute, which is what Assange and his cohorts seem to believe. We live in an imperfect and dangerous world, and the reality is that secrets are necessary, and that those who wantonly expose those secrets cannot expect to hide behind some banner of ideological purity.

[guyser]

That's a lie that continues to be circulated by WikiLeaks and their sycophants. It's an effort to not have to take responsiblity for any unintended consequences of their actions.

Really? Hmmm.......

The what is this?

On 26 November, via his lawyer Jennifer Robinson, Assange sent a letter to the US Department of State, asking for information regarding people who could be placed at "significant risk of harm" by the diplomatic cables release.[231][232] Harold Koh, Legal Adviser of the Department of State, refused the proposal, stating, "We will not engage in a negotiation regarding the further release or dissemination of illegally obtained U.S. Government classified materials

or this?

http://www.webcitation.org/5uZqSSqr6

Via Electronic Mail

Ms. Jennifer Robinson

Attorney for Mr. Julian Assange

WikiLeaks

179 Great Portland Street

London WIW 5LS

Dear Ms. Robinson and Mr. Assange:

I am writing in response to your 26 November 2010 letter to U.S. Ambassador Louis B. Susman

regarding your intention to again publish on your WikiLeaks site what you claim to be classified

U.S. Government documents.

As you know, if any of the materials you intend to publish were provided by any government

officials, or any intermediary without proper authorization, they were provided in violation of

U.S. law and without regard for the grave consequences of this action. As long as WikiLeaks

holds such material, the violation of the law is ongoing.

It is our understanding from conversations with representatives from The New York Times, The

Guardian and Der Speigel, that WikiLeaks also has provided approximately 250,000 documents

to each of them for publication, furthering the illegal dissemination of classified documents.

Publication of documents of this nature at a minimum would:

Place at risk the lives of countless innocent individuals from journalists to human rights

activists and bloggers to soldiers to individuals providing information to further peace

and security;

Place at risk on-going military operations....

We will not engage in a negotiation regarding the further release or dissemination of illegally obtained U.S. Government classified materials

Sincerely,

s/ Harold Hongju Koh

Harold Hongju Koh

Legal Adviser

ETA, b loodyminded already embarassed shady, but then again, thats easy.

Edited December 2, 2010 by guyser

[Shady]

Leaving aside that the worshipful devotees of the most powerful nation on earth are calling its critics "sycophants"--a jaw-dropper underlining Orwell's continued relevance--where do you get the notion that it's a lie?

Sycohphant is the right word. It describes perfectly the worshipful devotees of WikiLeaks. And their refusal to admit that WikiLeaks has done anything wrong.

Did you read some ranting blogger claiming it was a lie, and chose to take his denials of objective facts as accurate?

Nope. All one has to do is read the news. The link you cited puts things in perfect perspective. WikiLeaks wanted to negotiate only on their terms. They refused to compromise even a bit. Their idea of a proposed working relationship was for the State Department to hand over more classfied materials.

So what happened? Did WikiLeaks make any effort to blackout names on documents, while still revealing the core of the information? Nope. They decided to dump all the documents, with a disregard for any damage and lives it might cost to individuals on the ground in certain areas of the world. That's a fact. And the fact that you're championing that type of disregard for innocent people's lives, all in an effort to satisfy some deranged "stick it to the government" sexual fantasy is disgusting.

This is the Valerie Plame incident, but times 100,000. With the exception that people in these cables actually have their lives at risk. It's pathetic that the same group of people who were so outraged by the outing of one paper pusher at the CIA, are now all of a sudden cheerleading the exact same thing, but on a much grander scale.

[dre]

Unless of course he had credential to work with them...and even if he didn't, it doesn't excuse the crime.

I never said it excused the crime. I said its strange that people are angry at the messenger, and not the root of the problem which is that the US beaurocracy leaks information like a busted sieve out of every orifice. This isnt the first dump... were talking about millions of documents here and multiple different cases.

[Shady]

And by the way, the State Department response was to a letter from WikiLeaks from November 26th. How does that help the names and people involved in their document dump during the summer?

And when it comes to WikiLeaks, and it's CEO rapist Julian Assange, dump is the appropriate description.

[dre]

Sycohphant is the right word. It describes perfectly the worshipful devotees of WikiLeaks. And their refusal to admit that WikiLeaks has done anything wrong.

Nope. All one has to do is read the news. The link you cited puts things in perfect perspective. WikiLeaks wanted to negotiate only on their terms. They refused to compromise even a bit. Their idea of a proposed working relationship was for the State Department to hand over more classfied materials.

So what happened? Did WikiLeaks make any effort to blackout names on documents, while still revealing the core of the information? Nope. They decided to dump all the documents, with a disregard for any damage and lives it might cost to individuals on the ground in certain areas of the world. That's a fact. And the fact that you're championing that type of disregard for innocent people's lives, all in an effort to satisfy some deranged "stick it to the government" sexual fantasy is disgusting.

This is the Valerie Plame incident, but times 100,000. With the exception that people in these cables actually have their lives at risk. It's pathetic that the same group of people who were so outraged by the outing of one paper pusher at the CIA, are now all of a sudden cheerleading the exact same thing, but on a much grander scale.

This is a lot more like the Pentagon Papers than Valerie plame.

[ToadBrother]

I never said it excused the crime. I said its strange that people are angry at the messenger, and not the root of the problem which is that the US beaurocracy leaks information like a busted sieve out of every orifice. This isnt the first dump... were talking about millions of documents here and multiple different cases.

In part it is because the consequences are so much less than they are in other places. Yes, there's the threat of jail time, but one of the big criticisms of Wikileaks is just that; that it picks on Western governments in general and the US in particular because it's far more likely that they can get away with it, that the public won't stand for governments coming down heavy on them. They can skirt the rules, find friendly countries and they know that the most they'll get if they don't get caught is a lot of huffing and puffing from the Secretary of State, or at worst, they'll spend a few years in prison.

If Assange was to authorize the publishing of an equivalent amount of material from China or Russia, then he'd better hide and he'd better hide good, because those guys have no qualms taking someone like Assange out. If he did what he did to the US to Russia, Assange wouldn't be fearful for his liberty, he'd be fearful for his life.

So why the US gets such a bum rap out of this mystifies me to a great extent. Yes, a lot of what was leaked was hardly big-time secret, most of it thus far hasn't been all that earth-shattering, more of the "We think the President of France is a bastard" sort of thing, just like most diplomatic dispatches since the Middle Ages have been. Some, like spying on UN officials is obviously going to get everyone up in arms, but if for one minute you don't think the Russians or the Chinese, or hell the UK, France and probably even Canada (that is if CSIS can spy its way out of a cardboard box) do the same sort of things, you're deluding yourselves. During the Cold War, I'm sure every friggin' office in the UN had multiple bugs in it.

[TimG]

If any soldier can pull a huge dump of classified data down onto their laptop then you HAVE no security.

We was not any soldier. He was an "intelligence analyst" which implies he would have access to systems with secret intelligence information on it.

[guyser]

Nope. All one blah blah blah...grander scale.

For F sakes shady, just say " I was wrong" instead of this 20 page diatribe of dance.

Embarassed again. Not tired yet?

[Jack Weber]

For F sakes shady, just say " I was wrong" instead of this 20 page diatribe of dance.

Embarassed again. Not tired yet?

The Professor is a piece of work,is'nt he?