Wikileaks

[MinDonner]

Like those lousy Kennedys not wanting to crackdown on the IRA.... It's the gratuitious slaps in the face that are tougher to explain.

Obama's Kenyan heritage is probably enough to excuse the pointless slight of not wanting Churchill's ugly mug as part of his home decor. It's rather trivial compared to the tacit support of, you know, actual terrorists that were in the process of bombing one of your supposed allies. Me, I'd take a slap in the face over a carbomb any day of the week.

[Hereward]

Fifty obsolete WWI destroyers that the Royal Navy didn't want, as it had a shortage of trained men and more obsolete warships of its own than it knew what to do with. Churchill accepted because he was desperate to drag the US in and any symbolic step in that direction was crucial.

I really don't want to get into a discussion of WWII, though. I grew up being told on a practically daily basis that "if it wasn't for us you'd all be speaking German" and my high blood pressure needs no additional help.

PS I can't help but notice that the two gratuitous examples you mention were both under the Democrats. Coincidence? :P

[Hereward]

Stab in the back? You mean when Ike called time on Tony Eden and the Frogs' vainglorious stab at bringing back the 1890s before someone got nuked?

That's the one. I didn't say it wasn't stupid. The humiliation was deliberate, public, economically catastrophic and thoroughly avoidable, though.

[Guest Raidne]

Thank you mods, and thank the gods I didn't download anything or I'd have to report it even though I was on my *home* computer.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Fifty obsolete WWI destroyers that the Royal Navy didn't want, as it had a shortage of trained men and more obsolete warships of its own than it knew what to do with. Churchill accepted because he was desperate to drag the US in and any symbolic step in that direction was crucial.

I really don't want to get into a discussion of WWII, though. I grew up being told on a practically daily basis that "if it wasn't for us you'd all be speaking German" and my high blood pressure needs no additional help.

PS I can't help but notice that the two gratuitous examples you mention were both under the Democrats. Coincidence? :P

I thought I only mnetioned one gratuitous incident -- the Churchill bust. What was the other? The destroyers weren't gratuitous.

Obama's Kenyan heritage is probably enough to excuse the pointless slight of not wanting Churchill's ugly mug as part of his home decor.

IF that is the reason, it's a really crappy one. Churchill was an enormous friend of the U.S., and Obama is President of the U.S., not Kenya.

Hey, back to Wikileaks for a second. Some wags are pointing out the inconsistency between the NYT refusing to publish the Climategate emails on the grounds that they were 1) never intended for public viewing, and 2) obtained illegally, and it's decision to publish the Wikileaks docs.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2010/11/027788.php

[Hereward]

I thought I only mnetioned one gratuitous incident -- the Churchill bust. What was the other? The destroyers weren't gratuitous.

Like those lousy Kennedys not wanting to crackdown on the IRA.... It's the gratuitious slaps in the face that are tougher to explain.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Ah, okay. I mentioned the Kennedys to show that domestic political pressure from a politically powerful groups (and the Kennedys weren't the only politically powerful family of Irish descent) were the reason for the odd U.S. position on the IRA. The Churchill bust thing just came completely out of left-field, though.

[CloudFlare]

the stab in the back at Suez!

Wow.

[Guest Raidne]

They just don't want anyone going directly to the webpage.

[Altherion]

Thank you mods, and thank the gods I didn't download anything or I'd have to report it even though I was on my *home* computer.

I am really surprised by the US government's reaction to this. In addition to what has been said in this thread, there's also this tidbit:

We received a call today from a SIPA alumnus who is working at the State Department. He asked us to pass along the following information to anyone who will be applying for jobs in the federal government, since all would require a background investigation and in some instances a security clearance.

The documents released during the past few months through Wikileaks are still considered classified documents. He recommends that you DO NOT post links to these documents nor make comments on social media sites such as Facebook or through Twitter. Engaging in these activities would call into question your ability to deal with confidential information, which is part of most positions with the federal government.

Of course, when the media called them on it, they promptly denied that this was official and reversed the recommendation, but the policy regarding existing employees is still in place. The reason I am surprised is that this directly contradicts the spirit of the First Amendment. It's not one of those scenarios where it is debatable whether the First Amendment applies or not, this is practically the reason the part about freedom of speech is in there: we have the right to discuss stuff our government does not want us to discuss without fearing retribution from it. Now, they've only placed the restrictions on federal works so I suppose this falls under employment rules and they're not breaking the letter of the law, but the government is certainly going against its spirit.

[Cantabile]

Why is the US government reacting so strongly this time? Wikileaks has released plenty of things in the past that were damaging to the government, yet they never reacted this strongly. I'm not sure if I really consider the diplomatic cables more significant than their other major releases.

[jurble]

http://213.251.145.96/cable/2009/02/09STATE15113.html#par15

New leak, list of critical infrastructure sites.

Now, what purpose does leaking something like this serve?

A leak like that slides me more towards the negative on my scale of wikileaks ambivalence.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

http://213.251.145.96/cable/2009/02/09STATE15113.html#par15

New leak, list of critical infrastructure sites.

Now, what purpose does leaking something like this serve?

A leak like that slides me more towards the negative on my scale of wikileaks ambivalence.

Suppose rather than dumping this data in public, Assange had just taken the information he received and passed it on to countries/organizations that were hostile to the U.S. I think that's pretty clearly what spies do, right? So is it really any different just because he makes it public? After all, the information still gets to the bad guys, right? And it enables him to profess some degree of "press immunity" simply by making it public.

[ants]

Suppose rather than dumping this data in public, Assange had just taken the information he received and passed it on to countries/organizations that were hostile to the U.S. I think that's pretty clearly what spies do, right? So is it really any different just because he makes it public? After all, the information still gets to the bad guys, right? And it enables him to profess some degree of "press immunity" simply by making it public.

At a level if you believe in Free Speech, there can't be anything wrong with this.

But like the preacher who was going to burn the Korans, he's really being an asshole doing it.

[ants]

Suppose rather than dumping this data in public, Assange had just taken the information he received and passed it on to countries/organizations that were hostile to the U.S. I think that's pretty clearly what spies do, right? So is it really any different just because he makes it public? After all, the information still gets to the bad guys, right? And it enables him to profess some degree of "press immunity" simply by making it public.

More specifically, referring to your point. No it isn't.

A spy attempts to acquire the information, from what I've read he was given it and chose to publish it. There is little difference for the person initially acquiring/leaking the information - they are clearly committing crimes which are synonymous with espionage, and little real difference from handing the files over to terrorists/enemies.

But for Assange himself, I do think its different as he hasn't sought to acquire the information, and although his actions clearly have the potential to cause harm, that isn't actually his purpose (nor is it to hurt the governments the documents belong to). But if he truly worried about lives, I don't see how it he could have released this last lot.

[Old Nan]

http://213.251.145.9...5113.html#par15

New leak, list of critical infrastructure sites.

If our country really considers that much foreign infrastructure "critical", we deserve whatever we get.

It's a pity David Ricardo never got gored by an ox or something.

[Shryke]

If our country really considers that much foreign infrastructure "critical", we deserve whatever we get.

Yeah, damn this interconnected world economy!

[Old Nan]

Precisely.

[generic]

But if he truly worried about lives, I don't see how it he could have released this last lot.

Lives? I really don't see it. Sure if you find yourself fighting a protracted conventional war against the US and for some reason are lacking any kind of intelligence capabilities then this list might be of some use.

A terrorist organization on the other hand doesn't try to damage the US' ability to wage war since it has no hope of doing so.

[Shryke]

From what I saw of it, it's not really that kind of list. It's got nothing to do with conventional warfare, or warfare at all.

It's a list of places that would causes economic/social/political/etc harm if they were to, say, blow the fuck up.