Wikileaks - Page 32

On November 30 2010 07:48 Elegy wrote:


The point is that once these statements are made public, it becomes difficult to conduct negotiations with a government you just yesterday called "in bed with organized crime".

If you had spent weeks/months building a relationship with a particular girl to sleep with her and your friend tells her that you said the only thing you want is to screw her brains out, that makes the next conversation slightly awkward, yes? Especially when its on Facebook and everyone and their mother can see exactly what you said, even if pretty much everyone knew it as common knowledge, just without real evidence.

If you had spent weeks/months building a relationship with a particular girl to sleep with her and your friend tells her that you said the only thing you want is to screw her brains out, that makes the next conversation slightly awkward, yes? Especially when its on Facebook and everyone and their mother can see exactly what you said, even if pretty much everyone knew it as common knowledge, just without real evidence.

You're right, there was also a lot of redundant and common sense cables in the group as well. I specifically state that I'm ok with the legitimate pieces, but they will be the extreme minority. There is clearly a difference between the types of cables and simply weeding them all out is my request. They wont, but that alone would pretty much make me be fine with the entire situation.

On July 26 2010 09:01 sung_moon wrote:
jesus christ
huge shit incoming

On November 30 2010 10:11 Half wrote:


First of all, as you yourself stated, just because something is common sense doesn't mean conclusive affirming it is any less potent and needed.

Second, as we've gone over, Wikileaks offered for there leaks to be reviewed by the Pentagon, seeing as they don't have the resources to do so. The pentagon declined, which means we're back to the binary choice between freedom of information and damage to status quo versus preservation of status quo.

On November 30 2010 10:11 Half wrote:


This has to be the single worst example of moral justification I've ever seen in my life.



First of all, as you yourself stated, just because something is common sense doesn't mean conclusive affirming it is any less potent and needed.

Second, as we've gone over, Wikileaks offered for there leaks to be reviewed by the Pentagon, seeing as they don't have the resources to do so. The pentagon declined, which means we're back to the binary choice between freedom of information and damage to status quo versus preservation of status quo.

On November 30 2010 10:39 I_Love_Bacon wrote:


There is a difference between a vague, but understandable feeling or disposition and an actual accusation. I might know somebody doesn't like me, and that is fine... but if I find out they don't like me because I spent time on Teamliquid, I would actually be more offended. These might seem strange, but it's the specifics that bother people. I don't think everybody expects everybody else to like them, but finding out the specific reasons why is a little different. It simply hurts relations WITH NO BENEFIT. I can't stress that point enough. On the internet in this day and age we spend so much time talking about how shitty the mainstream media is and now wikileaks releases glorified gossip.

Also, the 2nd part is something which I think is paramount to negligence. The pentagon might've allowed them to go through without blacking out the information, but that's just because they weren't of the top-secret nature to begin with. Wikileaks is basically saying, "We can't be bothered with taking the time to report relevant information... so here's all of it!" While it seems noble at a first glance, I simply don't see it that way.

As another posted stated that I agree with, he's walking a thin line regarding journalistic ethics.

he's walking a thin line regarding journalistic ethics.

Well I disagree.

Sheikh Khalid Bin Ahmad Al Khalifa, Bahrain’s foreign minister, tweeted that the revelations "weakened diplomacy in general, U.S. diplomacy in particular."
...
“America has done a lot for us; they’ve helped build our army, police forces and institutions. We are grateful for their efforts,” said Karzai. But he added, “It’s going to be harder to talk to them in the future because we don’t know if what we are saying to them privately will be made public."
...
“Big secrets are not the problem, at least not in Germany,” John Kornblum, a former U.S. ambassador to Germany told ZDF. "But if you now speak with an American diplomat, and you have to be worried that it will appear in the newspaper the next day, that is severe.”

On November 30 2010 10:52 lowercase wrote:
Looks like there's more coming.

This time on a major American bank.

God, I love all this airing out of dirty laundry.

And this gap between your publishing resources and your submissions is why the site’s submission function has been down since October?

We have too much.

Before you turned off submissions, how many leaks were you getting a day?

As I said, it was increasing exponentially. When we get lots of press, we can get a spike of hundreds or thousands.

On November 30 2010 09:40 Nitan wrote:


Really now? You expect the Russians simply to go "YOU GOT US HUR HUR HURRRR?" It's a serious accusation and while Russia may not care what America thinks it does care what America has spread to the world.

Presumably, these countries ask for such communications to be held in confidence for a reason. If such confidences are betrayed, it's hard to imagine this having no diplomatic impact.

Anyway, I think it's a bit naive to think these disclosures will have no impact on diplomacy:

I said an impact on diplomacy, not a "political impact" or the maligning of anyone's prestige, but an actual impact on the flow of communication that diplomacy requires. And what has the public gotten out of this? The ability to gossip about statesmen? In the meantime, the ability of nations to diplomatically resolve potentially lethal issues (Iranian nukes, North Korea) has been significantly hindered.

And what has the public gotten out of this? The ability to gossip about statesmen?

“WikiLeaks is so powerful,” one user wrote. “I finally understand why the Chinese government needs to build so many ports and railways in those “xxstan” countries.”

“This times WikiLeaks not only embarrassed the U.S., but also China,” wrote another. “Whether the Iran issue or the Kyrgyzstan thing, it’s all a lesson that China should be a responsible power and not just sit around watching other countries make fools of themselves.”

On November 30 2010 11:04 Half wrote:


I never said they would have no political impact what so ever. It will certainly hurt America's prestige in the status quo, ever so slightly, which is why the Media is so against him.

As I said, the (nonviolent) disruption of the status quo is worth the gains in terms of information available to the general public, one of the key components of a health democracy.

On November 30 2010 07:38 Mothxal wrote:
That's so ridiculous. Don't you think the Russian government already knew it was "in bed with organised crime". Similarly for China, they attacked Google, they're not surprised by what was in those documents.

On November 30 2010 10:05 The KY wrote:


See, the moral of that story is not that your friend is a traitor. The moral is don't be a dick to this hypothetical girl. You hypothetically deserve to have everyone know you're only trying to get in her hypothetical pants.

On November 30 2010 11:53 Elegy wrote:


No, the point is that overtly stating one's goals is oftentimes a sure-fire way to fuck everything up, especially when it comes to building a relationship. People (and countries) don't like to say flat out what they are thinking, because the hard truth isn't pleasant for people to listen to and, more importantly, acts against achieving policy goals that should be achieved.

Kissinger's visit to China in '71, for example, and the subsequent Nixon visit in '72.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shanghai_Communiqué

Did the US and China come out explicitly and say, "Russia, keep the fuck out of Asia and China is now a de facto ally with the US against you". Hell no. Diplomatic phrasing is an art for a reason and prevents, in many cases, the escalation of common complaints into events that are substantially more serious. Moreover, as history shows us, self-censorship of the media (again, self-imposed, not pressure from the government) has on occasion benefited the greater good much more than full disclosure would have dictated. (Cuban missile crisis, if you haven't caught on).

I have no problems with the disclosure of this style of information, so long as it does not have adverse effects on policy that would have otherwise occurred. If, as a result of these leaks, a particular treaty regarding nuclear proliferation falters, harm has been caused and that is cause for concern. Publishing factoids about Libya's Qadhafi being afraid of stairs and bodies of water...well, that's substantially different than potentially ruining diplomatic advances. If the media hadn't self-censored itself during the Cuban Missile Crisis, who knows how different the outcome could have been? So yes, leaks can be good for transparency, but sometimes transparency can have negative ramifications.

QUITO - Ecuador on Monday offered Julian Assange, the WikiLeaks founder who has enraged Washington by releasing masses of classified U.S. documents, residency with no questions asked.

"We are ready to give him residence in Ecuador, with no problems and no conditions," Deputy Foreign Minister Kintto Lucas told the Internet site Ecuadorinmediato.

"We are going to invite him to come to Ecuador so he can freely present the information he possesses and all the documentation, not just over the Internet but in a variety of public forums," he said.