- Reaction score
- 25
- Points
- 430
PuckChaser said:
True. Why else would they be hired?
Wikileaks and Julian Assange Mega-thread
- Thread starter 2010newbie
- Start date
True. Why else would they be hired?
The unintended lesson of WikiLeaks
The actions of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange are reckless, amoral, and dangerous. But Assange's bad actions do not invalidate the information contained in his leaks. If the publics of the Western democracies absorb this information, the world will become a better and safer place.
Start, for example, with what we can learn about the Israeli-Palestinian dispute.
Western governments have invested enormous time and money to negotiate an end to that conflict. They have tried to muscle Israel into greater concessions to the Palestinians, and tried to coax the Palestinians to accept those concessions. The peace process has failed because the Palestinians hope that if only they hold out a little longer, they will be offered even more.
We engage in these wearisome and elaborate proceedings because we assume that the Israeli-Palestinian dispute holds the key to regional peace. But now the whole world can see: It's not true. Governments in the region do not in fact care very much about the Israeli-Palestinian dispute. They are transfixed by Iran. They are terrorized by the threat of an Iranian nuclear weapon.
Which raises the question: If the Palestinian issue is so unimportant to the Middle East, why is it so important to us?
WikiLeaks raises the question: Why not say instead to the Palestinians, "You were offered a great deal in 2000 and 2001. You tried to get a better deal by going to war. You lost. So now it's your problem. Here's the telephone. You punch these little buttons when you are ready to talk. You negotiate the best deal you can. If you need a little cash to sweeten the terms, we'll contribute. Otherwise, we're focused on Iran, Pakistan and Turkey. Bye"?
That's the other side of WikiLeaks: Not only are we way over-invested in the Palestinian problem, but we are way under-invested in the problems of these three major countries.
WikiLeaks confirms and underscores the intransigence and belligerence of Iran. Iran has, for example, annexed the Islamic Red Crescent as an arm of Iranian foreign policy.
But you knew that. Here are two things maybe you didn't know: While the U.S. government describes Pakistan as a major non-NATO ally (a legal status that allows Pakistan to purchase sophisticated U.S. weapons), U.S. diplomats worry that Pakistan's nuclear arms are not secure -- and that Pakistan will not co-operate with U.S. efforts to enhance nuclear security.
Meanwhile, Turkey -- a NATO ally, a country that Canada is, by treaty, obliged to go to war to defend -- is allowing Iran to smuggle nuclear components across Turkish territory. This is the same Turkey that closed its bases to the United States during the Iraq war and that enables armed agitators to stage confrontations with the Israeli navy. What exactly does a country have to do to get itself kicked out of the club of Western allies? Has Turkey omitted any of those things? And has anybody noticed that Turkey no longer borders Russia, and so has ceased even to be of much use containing NATO's former adversary?
Meanwhile, of the countries in the Caucasus area that do actually border Russia, one (Georgia) is suffering Russian occupation of big chunks of its national territory, while another (Armenia) has supplied Iran with arms later used against U.S. soldiers in Iraq.
The organizers of Wikileaks say they wanted to blow the whistle on government fictions and expose the ugly realities. In a way they probably never intended, they have done just that. They have revealed that Iran is even more dangerous, Turkey even more hostile, Pakistan even more precarious and the Palestinians even more irrelevant than generally understood.
article link
(Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act)
The actions of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange are reckless, amoral, and dangerous. But Assange's bad actions do not invalidate the information contained in his leaks. If the publics of the Western democracies absorb this information, the world will become a better and safer place.
Start, for example, with what we can learn about the Israeli-Palestinian dispute.
Western governments have invested enormous time and money to negotiate an end to that conflict. They have tried to muscle Israel into greater concessions to the Palestinians, and tried to coax the Palestinians to accept those concessions. The peace process has failed because the Palestinians hope that if only they hold out a little longer, they will be offered even more.
We engage in these wearisome and elaborate proceedings because we assume that the Israeli-Palestinian dispute holds the key to regional peace. But now the whole world can see: It's not true. Governments in the region do not in fact care very much about the Israeli-Palestinian dispute. They are transfixed by Iran. They are terrorized by the threat of an Iranian nuclear weapon.
Which raises the question: If the Palestinian issue is so unimportant to the Middle East, why is it so important to us?
WikiLeaks raises the question: Why not say instead to the Palestinians, "You were offered a great deal in 2000 and 2001. You tried to get a better deal by going to war. You lost. So now it's your problem. Here's the telephone. You punch these little buttons when you are ready to talk. You negotiate the best deal you can. If you need a little cash to sweeten the terms, we'll contribute. Otherwise, we're focused on Iran, Pakistan and Turkey. Bye"?
That's the other side of WikiLeaks: Not only are we way over-invested in the Palestinian problem, but we are way under-invested in the problems of these three major countries.
WikiLeaks confirms and underscores the intransigence and belligerence of Iran. Iran has, for example, annexed the Islamic Red Crescent as an arm of Iranian foreign policy.
But you knew that. Here are two things maybe you didn't know: While the U.S. government describes Pakistan as a major non-NATO ally (a legal status that allows Pakistan to purchase sophisticated U.S. weapons), U.S. diplomats worry that Pakistan's nuclear arms are not secure -- and that Pakistan will not co-operate with U.S. efforts to enhance nuclear security.
Meanwhile, Turkey -- a NATO ally, a country that Canada is, by treaty, obliged to go to war to defend -- is allowing Iran to smuggle nuclear components across Turkish territory. This is the same Turkey that closed its bases to the United States during the Iraq war and that enables armed agitators to stage confrontations with the Israeli navy. What exactly does a country have to do to get itself kicked out of the club of Western allies? Has Turkey omitted any of those things? And has anybody noticed that Turkey no longer borders Russia, and so has ceased even to be of much use containing NATO's former adversary?
Meanwhile, of the countries in the Caucasus area that do actually border Russia, one (Georgia) is suffering Russian occupation of big chunks of its national territory, while another (Armenia) has supplied Iran with arms later used against U.S. soldiers in Iraq.
The organizers of Wikileaks say they wanted to blow the whistle on government fictions and expose the ugly realities. In a way they probably never intended, they have done just that. They have revealed that Iran is even more dangerous, Turkey even more hostile, Pakistan even more precarious and the Palestinians even more irrelevant than generally understood.
article link
(Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act)
PayPal cuts WikiLeaks from money flow, making donations more difficult
The Associated Press 4/12/2010
Article Link
BERLIN - Online payment service provider PayPal says in a company blog it has cut off the account used by WikiLeaks to collect donations.
The company said in a blog posting the move was prompted by a violation of its policy, "which states that our payment service cannot be used for any activities that encourage, promote, facilitate or instruct others to engage in illegal activity."
The short notice was dated Friday, and a spokeswoman for PayPal Germany on Saturday declined to elaborate and referred to the official blog posting.
Donating money to WikiLeaks via PayPal on Saturday was not possible anymore, generating an error message saying "this recipient is currently unable to receive money."
PayPal is one of several ways WikiLeaks collects donations.
end
The Associated Press 4/12/2010
Article Link
BERLIN - Online payment service provider PayPal says in a company blog it has cut off the account used by WikiLeaks to collect donations.
The company said in a blog posting the move was prompted by a violation of its policy, "which states that our payment service cannot be used for any activities that encourage, promote, facilitate or instruct others to engage in illegal activity."
The short notice was dated Friday, and a spokeswoman for PayPal Germany on Saturday declined to elaborate and referred to the official blog posting.
Donating money to WikiLeaks via PayPal on Saturday was not possible anymore, generating an error message saying "this recipient is currently unable to receive money."
PayPal is one of several ways WikiLeaks collects donations.
end
- Reaction score
- 25
- Points
- 430
I am not sure how seriously this question is being asked, but at least it is being asked. From the front page of the paper version of the Ottawa Citizen:
Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act.
How far does the right to know extend?
WikiLeaks a sign of press freedom, but also a danger
By Randy Boswell, Postmedia news
December 4, 2010
LINK
It has opened a window, in fact thousands of them, large and small on the inner workings of the U.S. government and its relations with Canada and the rest of the world.
The unprecedented posting of a massive WikiLeaks database of some 250,000 secret U.S. diplomatic cables is being hailed by some as the ultimate coup for investigative journalism and the cause of democratic transparency.
But critics, led by the victimized U.S. government itself, have condemned the document deluge as a crime akin to terrorism, one that could risk the lives of spies and their informants, undermine the foreign polices of the U.S. and its allies, or even spark a war.
The controversial disclosures are also raising profound questions about relationships between nations and discrepancies between governments' public positions and the confidential reports underlying them.
The dizzying array of debate topics sparked by the leaks ranges from the legitimacy of governments keeping official secrets at all to the potential criminality of Julian Assange -- WikiLeaks access-to-information maverick (or demon) -- in airing the dirty laundry of diplomats, democrats and despots.
And all the while, the world's mainstream media organizations are hungrily feeding on the revelations served up by Assange's organization, from consular officials' petty, unguarded gossip about their host countries to potential bombshells such as secret Saudi cheerleading for a U.S. military attack on Iran.
"The cables," Assange said when the documents were released last Sunday, "show the U.S. 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 and lobbying for U.S. corporations." But the immediate and potential damage to global diplomacy, says the head of Carleton University's foreign affairs program, is far too high a price to pay for the indiscriminate dump of WikiLeaks documents.
"I think we're beginning to see some of the collateral damage," said Fen Hampson, director of Carleton's Norman Paterson School of International Affairs, referring to leaked U.S. cables in which Canada's ambassador to Afghanistan, William Crosbie, is described slamming the corrupt electoral practices of Afghan President Hamid Karzai's regime.
The leak prompted Crosbie to offer his resignation this week.
"It wasn't that he wasn't doing his job -- he was doing exactly his job, reporting on meetings," Hampson said. "But these aren't the sort of comments that can withstand public scrutiny in the light of day." That makes the exposing of such documents, he argues, "corrosive" to Canada's foreign relations and to international diplomacy in general.
But Hampson says the danger runs deeper because the leaks will likely force governments to tightly restrict the distribution of information within foreign departments and the sharing of intelligence between agencies involved in battling terrorism.
"One of the reasons (the leak) happened was that in a post-9/11 U.S. environment, there was a desire to share information to prevent further attacks," he noted. "Information which, in the old days, would have been kept on a tighter distribution list obviously got on a much wider distribution list." Foreign intelligence sources, he notes, "will be much more careful about what they say" in front of American diplomats and their operatives as a "deep chill" on communication sets in following the WikiLeaks release.
Media outlets such as Britain's Guardian newspaper, which made arrangements with Assange to see the documents ahead of their wider release, have emphasized their efforts to avoid endangering any individual intelligence agents by censoring some details from their reports on the WikiLeaks cables.
Chris Waddell, the director of Carleton's School of Journalism and Communication, objected to the breathless reporting of more superficial or unsurprising details found in the leaked cables, such as one diplomat's unvarnished view of the vain Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi's partying ways.
But other genuine revelations, he says, such as hints that China may be open to the peaceful reunification of the Koreas, will inform analyses of that situation and perhaps even help reshape foreign relations in the region.
"Is it in the public interest to know all these things?" Waddell asks. "Is it in the public interest not to know all these things? I would generally argue that it's in the public interest to know more than to know less." And despite acknowledging some troubling aspects of the WikiLeaks "dump" of the secret U.S. documents, Waddell says responsible reportage of the truly important disclosures should ultimately serve democracy if thoughtful analysis and probing journalism triumph over sensationalism.
But Hampson fears the fallout. While transparency and accountability are important values, he said, democratic countries "also need to keep some of their secrets" to function effectively on the global stage and to exercise influence in "a world that is not filled with democracies." Information may be the oxygen of democracy, he added, "but in an oxygen-rich environment, a spark can ignite a firestorm."
© Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen
Read more: http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/does+right+know+extend/3926868/story.html#ixzz17CKQKYjY
Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act.
How far does the right to know extend?
WikiLeaks a sign of press freedom, but also a danger
By Randy Boswell, Postmedia news
December 4, 2010
LINK
It has opened a window, in fact thousands of them, large and small on the inner workings of the U.S. government and its relations with Canada and the rest of the world.
The unprecedented posting of a massive WikiLeaks database of some 250,000 secret U.S. diplomatic cables is being hailed by some as the ultimate coup for investigative journalism and the cause of democratic transparency.
But critics, led by the victimized U.S. government itself, have condemned the document deluge as a crime akin to terrorism, one that could risk the lives of spies and their informants, undermine the foreign polices of the U.S. and its allies, or even spark a war.
The controversial disclosures are also raising profound questions about relationships between nations and discrepancies between governments' public positions and the confidential reports underlying them.
The dizzying array of debate topics sparked by the leaks ranges from the legitimacy of governments keeping official secrets at all to the potential criminality of Julian Assange -- WikiLeaks access-to-information maverick (or demon) -- in airing the dirty laundry of diplomats, democrats and despots.
And all the while, the world's mainstream media organizations are hungrily feeding on the revelations served up by Assange's organization, from consular officials' petty, unguarded gossip about their host countries to potential bombshells such as secret Saudi cheerleading for a U.S. military attack on Iran.
"The cables," Assange said when the documents were released last Sunday, "show the U.S. 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 and lobbying for U.S. corporations." But the immediate and potential damage to global diplomacy, says the head of Carleton University's foreign affairs program, is far too high a price to pay for the indiscriminate dump of WikiLeaks documents.
"I think we're beginning to see some of the collateral damage," said Fen Hampson, director of Carleton's Norman Paterson School of International Affairs, referring to leaked U.S. cables in which Canada's ambassador to Afghanistan, William Crosbie, is described slamming the corrupt electoral practices of Afghan President Hamid Karzai's regime.
The leak prompted Crosbie to offer his resignation this week.
"It wasn't that he wasn't doing his job -- he was doing exactly his job, reporting on meetings," Hampson said. "But these aren't the sort of comments that can withstand public scrutiny in the light of day." That makes the exposing of such documents, he argues, "corrosive" to Canada's foreign relations and to international diplomacy in general.
But Hampson says the danger runs deeper because the leaks will likely force governments to tightly restrict the distribution of information within foreign departments and the sharing of intelligence between agencies involved in battling terrorism.
"One of the reasons (the leak) happened was that in a post-9/11 U.S. environment, there was a desire to share information to prevent further attacks," he noted. "Information which, in the old days, would have been kept on a tighter distribution list obviously got on a much wider distribution list." Foreign intelligence sources, he notes, "will be much more careful about what they say" in front of American diplomats and their operatives as a "deep chill" on communication sets in following the WikiLeaks release.
Media outlets such as Britain's Guardian newspaper, which made arrangements with Assange to see the documents ahead of their wider release, have emphasized their efforts to avoid endangering any individual intelligence agents by censoring some details from their reports on the WikiLeaks cables.
Chris Waddell, the director of Carleton's School of Journalism and Communication, objected to the breathless reporting of more superficial or unsurprising details found in the leaked cables, such as one diplomat's unvarnished view of the vain Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi's partying ways.
But other genuine revelations, he says, such as hints that China may be open to the peaceful reunification of the Koreas, will inform analyses of that situation and perhaps even help reshape foreign relations in the region.
"Is it in the public interest to know all these things?" Waddell asks. "Is it in the public interest not to know all these things? I would generally argue that it's in the public interest to know more than to know less." And despite acknowledging some troubling aspects of the WikiLeaks "dump" of the secret U.S. documents, Waddell says responsible reportage of the truly important disclosures should ultimately serve democracy if thoughtful analysis and probing journalism triumph over sensationalism.
But Hampson fears the fallout. While transparency and accountability are important values, he said, democratic countries "also need to keep some of their secrets" to function effectively on the global stage and to exercise influence in "a world that is not filled with democracies." Information may be the oxygen of democracy, he added, "but in an oxygen-rich environment, a spark can ignite a firestorm."
© Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen
Read more: http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/does+right+know+extend/3926868/story.html#ixzz17CKQKYjY
The "rape" case against Assange is bizarre. Basically his condom broke during consensual sex and Sweden has some really strange new laws. Laws that are being applied retroactively in this case. Anna Ardin claims that his celebrity status denoted an unequal power relationship so her sex was not consensual. He was exceedingly dumb for screwing over a radical feminist who had worked in diplomacy with friends in Washington.
http://resources.statsvet.uu.se/repository/1/polmag/PraktikutvVT05_del2.PDF
(From her blog, translated from Swedish.)
Here are are the women scorned. Wilen on the left, Ardin on the right
With only about 700 cables released so far the US still looks great compared to the megalomaniacs, kleptocrats and fascist wannabes they have to deal with. Much of the information probably should not have been classified in the first place. I was not surprised by anything yet. The leaks have brought some very good information to people who usually don't care about such things (Iran). It also will give future administrations pause before breaking the rule of law.
http://resources.statsvet.uu.se/repository/1/polmag/PraktikutvVT05_del2.PDF
(From her blog, translated from Swedish.)
Here are are the women scorned. Wilen on the left, Ardin on the right
With only about 700 cables released so far the US still looks great compared to the megalomaniacs, kleptocrats and fascist wannabes they have to deal with. Much of the information probably should not have been classified in the first place. I was not surprised by anything yet. The leaks have brought some very good information to people who usually don't care about such things (Iran). It also will give future administrations pause before breaking the rule of law.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
I personally don't find these "gossips" very funny. Not after a buddy of mine's had his name plastered all over the net because of these leaks.
- Reaction score
- 146
- Points
- 710
WikiLeak: “SCENESETTER FOR PRESIDENT BUSH’S VISIT TO CANADA, NOVEMBER 30 – DECEMBER 1, 2004″
http://unambig.com/wikileak-scenesetter-for-president-bushs-visit-to-canada-november-30-december-1-2004/
Mark
http://unambig.com/wikileak-scenesetter-for-president-bushs-visit-to-canada-november-30-december-1-2004/
Mark
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
The state needs to be able to make candid assessments without offending the other state leaders. So, if Im a state, and I dont want constant conflict with another country I cant write down my honest assessment or create contingency plans? Because everyone has a right to know everything? Thats an incredibly irresponsible way for a government to conduct itself.
Its doesnt work at the most basic level for everyday people, having to air out everything, and it wont work for an effective government. More transparency like finances and such sure. State relations? Get bent.
Its doesnt work at the most basic level for everyday people, having to air out everything, and it wont work for an effective government. More transparency like finances and such sure. State relations? Get bent.
- Reaction score
- 25
- Points
- 430
Container said:
We don't have to go very far in this matter to see this demonstrated. Julian Assange doesn't like his dirtly laundry and personal information posted on the internet or in the news. He has been bouncing around the world imposing himself on friends for the last few years trying to avoid being tracked by anyone. He is avoiding Sweden now like the plague.
- Reaction score
- 3,835
- Points
- 1,160
Wikileaks isn't doing this alone, the Mainstream Media is heavily involved trying to get the best ratings out of each release:
Respected media outlets collaborate with WikiLeaks
Respected media outlets collaborate with WikiLeaks
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 110
George Wallace said:
I would avoid Sweden too, if they had bent the law as ridiculously as they have with Assange:
WikiLeaks cables portray Saudi Arabia as a cash machine for terrorists
Hillary Clinton memo highlights Gulf states' failure to block funding for groups like al-Qaida, Taliban and Lashkar-e-Taiba
Declan Walsh in Islamabad guardian.co.uk, Sunday 5 December 2010
Article Link
Saudi Arabia is the world's largest source of funds for Islamist militant groups such as the Afghan Taliban and Lashkar-e-Taiba – but the Saudi government is reluctant to stem the flow of money, according to Hillary Clinton.
"More needs to be done since Saudi Arabia remains a critical financial support base for al-Qaida, the Taliban, LeT and other terrorist groups," says a secret December 2009 paper signed by the US secretary of state. Her memo urged US diplomats to redouble their efforts to stop Gulf money reaching extremists in Pakistan and Afghanistan.
"Donors in Saudi Arabia constitute the most significant source of funding to Sunni terrorist groups worldwide," she said.
Three other Arab countries are listed as sources of militant money: Qatar, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates.
The cables highlight an often ignored factor in the Pakistani and Afghan conflicts: that the violence is partly bankrolled by rich, conservative donors across the Arabian Sea whose governments do little to stop them.
The problem is particularly acute in Saudi Arabia, where militants soliciting funds slip into the country disguised as holy pilgrims, set up front companies to launder funds and receive money from government-sanctioned charities.
One cable details how the Pakistani militant outfit Lashkar-e-Taiba, which carried out the 2008 Mumbai attacks, used a Saudi-based front company to fund its activities in 2005.
Meanwhile officials with the LeT's charity wing, Jamaat-ud-Dawa, travelled to Saudi Arabia seeking donations for new schools at vastly inflated costs – then siphoned off the excess money to fund militant operations.
Militants seeking donations often come during the hajj pilgrimage – "a major security loophole since pilgrims often travel with large amounts of cash and the Saudis cannot refuse them entry into Saudi Arabia". Even a small donation can go far: LeT operates on a budget of just $5.25m (£3.25m) a year, according to American estimates.
Saudi officials are often painted as reluctant partners. Clinton complained of the "ongoing challenge to persuade Saudi officials to treat terrorist funds emanating from Saudi Arabia as a strategic priority".
More on link
Hillary Clinton memo highlights Gulf states' failure to block funding for groups like al-Qaida, Taliban and Lashkar-e-Taiba
Declan Walsh in Islamabad guardian.co.uk, Sunday 5 December 2010
Article Link
Saudi Arabia is the world's largest source of funds for Islamist militant groups such as the Afghan Taliban and Lashkar-e-Taiba – but the Saudi government is reluctant to stem the flow of money, according to Hillary Clinton.
"More needs to be done since Saudi Arabia remains a critical financial support base for al-Qaida, the Taliban, LeT and other terrorist groups," says a secret December 2009 paper signed by the US secretary of state. Her memo urged US diplomats to redouble their efforts to stop Gulf money reaching extremists in Pakistan and Afghanistan.
"Donors in Saudi Arabia constitute the most significant source of funding to Sunni terrorist groups worldwide," she said.
Three other Arab countries are listed as sources of militant money: Qatar, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates.
The cables highlight an often ignored factor in the Pakistani and Afghan conflicts: that the violence is partly bankrolled by rich, conservative donors across the Arabian Sea whose governments do little to stop them.
The problem is particularly acute in Saudi Arabia, where militants soliciting funds slip into the country disguised as holy pilgrims, set up front companies to launder funds and receive money from government-sanctioned charities.
One cable details how the Pakistani militant outfit Lashkar-e-Taiba, which carried out the 2008 Mumbai attacks, used a Saudi-based front company to fund its activities in 2005.
Meanwhile officials with the LeT's charity wing, Jamaat-ud-Dawa, travelled to Saudi Arabia seeking donations for new schools at vastly inflated costs – then siphoned off the excess money to fund militant operations.
Militants seeking donations often come during the hajj pilgrimage – "a major security loophole since pilgrims often travel with large amounts of cash and the Saudis cannot refuse them entry into Saudi Arabia". Even a small donation can go far: LeT operates on a budget of just $5.25m (£3.25m) a year, according to American estimates.
Saudi officials are often painted as reluctant partners. Clinton complained of the "ongoing challenge to persuade Saudi officials to treat terrorist funds emanating from Saudi Arabia as a strategic priority".
More on link
- Reaction score
- 25
- Points
- 430
About time someone in the media took notice.
Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act.
Al-Qaida combing WikiLeaks notes for extermination list
By MERCEDES STEPHENSON, QMI Agency
Last Updated: December 5, 2010 2:00am
LINK
WikiLeaks proved one thing: The world works pretty much how you assumed it did.
People in the foreign service posted abroad write classified memos back to their government that provide information and situational awareness about what's going on overseas.
They pose and answer a variety of questions including: Where are the missiles? Is the president corrupt? And even, why do they spend so much time stereotyping us on TV?
The only surprising thing in the WikiLeaks cables is how witty some of the authors are.
Laid bare are the relationships, strains and politics of international affairs. It's not pretty, but it's to be expected. Human relations are complicated at the one-on-one level.
Imagine magnifying the egos, hissy fits and personality conflicts in your next office meeting with weapons, billions of dollars and, well, not quite world domination, but substantial power, and you have international politics.
The cables make it clear that diplomats frequently say things behind closed doors that they don't say to foreign governments' faces.
Telling a dictator you think he's a psycho, or has the nation-building capabilities of your cat, doesn’t help to advance one's cause or bring about change.
International affairs are full of intrigue, and there's a little James Bond in us all. WikiLeaks is appealing because it's a salacious glimpse into a highly complex and secretive world.
The problem is that indiscriminate release of these classified cables have very real consequences. Emboldening and empowering Iran is one them.
Duplicity exposed
While Saudi Arabia is publicly expressing concern about U.S. presence in the Middle East, they’ve been privately beseeching the Americans to bomb Iran. It's amusing to see the duplicity exposed, but the reality is it will seriously compromise upcoming nuclear negotiations with Iran.
Suzanne Malone, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institute, argues that Tehran now has the inside track and will exploit it to undermine vital nuclear non-proliferation negotiations.
Then there's the helping hand WikiLeaks has provided al-Qaida in Yemen - where the last few attempted attacks on North America have been directed from, including the underwear bomber and recent cargo bombs.
Leaked cables reveal strikes against al-Qaida in Yemen were sometimes the work of the U.S., and not the Yemeni military.
The Yemeni military, concluding it couldn't handle the volatile situation alone, requested American assistance.
These revelations risk inflaming extremist sentiment in Yemen and will provide ammunition to al-Qaida to appeal to anti-Americanism to boost recruiting and sanctuary.
Most appalling is WikiLeaks' apparent disregard for those brave people who stand up to tyranny, dictatorship, genocide and oppression.
Amnesty International and other human rights groups have begged WikiLeaks to show responsibility and compassion and simply stop dumping information that exposes people.
'Wanted' list
The Taliban has announced a "wanted" list containing the names of Afghans known to be collaborating with NATO, drawn from names and license plates revealed in the last WikiLeak.
Repressive regimes, armed militias, and dictators are combing documents, identifying their enemies who dared to speak out against them.
They will round up and imprison, torture or execute people who reported unthinkable human rights abuses and stood up to tyranny.
Julian Assange is the ultimate hypocrite.
He derides U.S. forces for "collateral damage," civilian casualties accidentally incurred during strikes on military targets.
Yet Assange absolves himself of collateral damage WikiLeaks will be responsible for - the silencing and murder of people around the world who stood up for the very principles he claims to espouse - transparency, democracy and freedom.
If silencing dissidents, empowering dictatorial and aggressive regimes and casting a chill on the ability of diplomats to provide frank and honest assessments is what WikiLeaks intended to do, then it's accomplished its goal.
Otherwise Assange's definition of "freedom" is positively Orwellian.
mercedes.stephenson@suntv.canoe.ca
Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act.
Al-Qaida combing WikiLeaks notes for extermination list
By MERCEDES STEPHENSON, QMI Agency
Last Updated: December 5, 2010 2:00am
LINK
WikiLeaks proved one thing: The world works pretty much how you assumed it did.
People in the foreign service posted abroad write classified memos back to their government that provide information and situational awareness about what's going on overseas.
They pose and answer a variety of questions including: Where are the missiles? Is the president corrupt? And even, why do they spend so much time stereotyping us on TV?
The only surprising thing in the WikiLeaks cables is how witty some of the authors are.
Laid bare are the relationships, strains and politics of international affairs. It's not pretty, but it's to be expected. Human relations are complicated at the one-on-one level.
Imagine magnifying the egos, hissy fits and personality conflicts in your next office meeting with weapons, billions of dollars and, well, not quite world domination, but substantial power, and you have international politics.
The cables make it clear that diplomats frequently say things behind closed doors that they don't say to foreign governments' faces.
Telling a dictator you think he's a psycho, or has the nation-building capabilities of your cat, doesn’t help to advance one's cause or bring about change.
International affairs are full of intrigue, and there's a little James Bond in us all. WikiLeaks is appealing because it's a salacious glimpse into a highly complex and secretive world.
The problem is that indiscriminate release of these classified cables have very real consequences. Emboldening and empowering Iran is one them.
Duplicity exposed
While Saudi Arabia is publicly expressing concern about U.S. presence in the Middle East, they’ve been privately beseeching the Americans to bomb Iran. It's amusing to see the duplicity exposed, but the reality is it will seriously compromise upcoming nuclear negotiations with Iran.
Suzanne Malone, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institute, argues that Tehran now has the inside track and will exploit it to undermine vital nuclear non-proliferation negotiations.
Then there's the helping hand WikiLeaks has provided al-Qaida in Yemen - where the last few attempted attacks on North America have been directed from, including the underwear bomber and recent cargo bombs.
Leaked cables reveal strikes against al-Qaida in Yemen were sometimes the work of the U.S., and not the Yemeni military.
The Yemeni military, concluding it couldn't handle the volatile situation alone, requested American assistance.
These revelations risk inflaming extremist sentiment in Yemen and will provide ammunition to al-Qaida to appeal to anti-Americanism to boost recruiting and sanctuary.
Most appalling is WikiLeaks' apparent disregard for those brave people who stand up to tyranny, dictatorship, genocide and oppression.
Amnesty International and other human rights groups have begged WikiLeaks to show responsibility and compassion and simply stop dumping information that exposes people.
'Wanted' list
The Taliban has announced a "wanted" list containing the names of Afghans known to be collaborating with NATO, drawn from names and license plates revealed in the last WikiLeak.
Repressive regimes, armed militias, and dictators are combing documents, identifying their enemies who dared to speak out against them.
They will round up and imprison, torture or execute people who reported unthinkable human rights abuses and stood up to tyranny.
Julian Assange is the ultimate hypocrite.
He derides U.S. forces for "collateral damage," civilian casualties accidentally incurred during strikes on military targets.
Yet Assange absolves himself of collateral damage WikiLeaks will be responsible for - the silencing and murder of people around the world who stood up for the very principles he claims to espouse - transparency, democracy and freedom.
If silencing dissidents, empowering dictatorial and aggressive regimes and casting a chill on the ability of diplomats to provide frank and honest assessments is what WikiLeaks intended to do, then it's accomplished its goal.
Otherwise Assange's definition of "freedom" is positively Orwellian.
mercedes.stephenson@suntv.canoe.ca
Similar threads
