Wikileaks

[Guest Raidne]

Hmmm... I tried to directly contact an active mod and posted in this thread & don't have any access to any other means of communicating with mods as far as I can tell from the iPhone & I'm sure as hell not opening up this thread at work...anyone want to report my post for me? I find the 5 hour lapse kind of unusual.

[Galactus]

Really, the US needs to stop dating it's ex. I mean, yeah, they had a good thing going and then there was the acrimonious break-up, and then when the UK ran into troubles the US came back and helped, but really, you know it wasn't going to be permanent.

And anyway, everyone knows the UK and France needs to stop all their games and just get married already, this faux-hostility isn't fooling anyone.

[MinDonner]

edit: duh

[Hereward]

I'm curious -- what are those more "substantive" clues? The reason I ask is because in an odd way, it's the less substantive ones that seem more telling sometimes. At least on substantive issues, you might have a clash of national interests so that even thought the U.S. likes Britain, it is still going to put it's own interests above Britain's if push comes to shove.

But there is just no "self-interest" explanation for something like the Churchill bust. There was no tangible benefit to the U.S. at all to return it. Just a gratuitious insult, really.

Just for starters: the unequal extradition treaty, the Rumsfeld comment on the eve of the Iraq War that he didn't care if Britain joined in or not, the initial "neutral mediator" position over the Falklands conflict, the attitude to terrorist fund-raising in the US when the perpetrators weren't brown, the unequal intelligence-sharing arrangements, and don't even get me started on the nicking of the Manhattan Project, the soaking of British financial interests and acquisition of British assets in WWII or the stab in the back at Suez!

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Just for starters: the unequal extradition treaty, the Rumsfeld comment on the eve of the Iraq War that he didn't care if Britain joined in or not, the initial "neutral mediator" position over the Falklands conflict, the attitude to terrorist fund-raising in the US when the perpetrators weren't brown, the unequal intelligence-sharing arrangements, and don't even get me started on the nicking of the Manhattan Project, the soaking of British financial interests and acquisition of British assets in WWII or the stab in the back at Suez!

Hey, we did slip you some favors during the Falklands, you know. We just had to lie about that publicly. And there was the whole thing with the 50 destroyers....

But anyway, even friends can have divergent interests sometimes, which I don't think actually invalidates the friendship as long as one nation isn't being a bigger asshole that required by circumstances. Like those lousy Kennedys not wanting to crackdown on the IRA.... It's the gratuitious slaps in the face that are tougher to explain.

Eh, the Churchill bust thing just irked me. I read his WWII memoirs when I was about 12, and have been a huge fan ever since. For all his flaws, he was a great man whose memory should have been honored in the States. And I strongly suspect on the first actions of the next GOP President will be to give the British Ambassador a call and ask for that bust back....

[Horza]

Just for starters: the unequal extradition treaty, the Rumsfeld comment on the eve of the Iraq War that he didn't care if Britain joined in or not, the initial "neutral mediator" position over the Falklands conflict, the attitude to terrorist fund-raising in the US when the perpetrators weren't brown, the unequal intelligence-sharing arrangements, and don't even get me started on the nicking of the Manhattan Project, the soaking of British financial interests and acquisition of British assets in WWII or the stab in the back at Suez!

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?

[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.

[Cocomaan]

I'm not sure that the claims of Wikileaks not revealing anything substantial really rings true.

I haven't seen this much international cooperation in a long time.

The Swiss post office's bank, PostFinance, has frozen the accounts of Wikileaks founder Julian Assange.

The whistle-blowing website says the freeze includes a defence fund and personal assets worth 31,000 euros.

Wikileaks has published hundreds of secret US diplomatic cables, angering the US government and triggering moves by several companies including PayPal and Amazon to end their services.

Meanwhile, a warrant for Mr Assange's arrest has reached the UK authorities.

Sources have told the BBC that the European Arrest Warrant for Mr Assange arrived on Monday afternoon.

Swedish prosecutors want to question Mr Assange in connection with allegations of rape, sexual molestation and unlawful coercion, which he denies.

He is believed to be in hiding somewhere in south-east England. Once the police have located him, he would be expected to appear at a magistrate's court within 24 hours, pending extradition to Sweden, says the BBC's security correspondent Frank Gardner.

[Guest Raidne]

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

[Cocomaan]

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

Well, I know who I'm never working for.

[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.