Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: el_magnifico on November 29, 2010, 12:02:56 pm
-
I find it quite strange that no one has opened a thread about this yet.
Wikileaks recently published a batch of 250000 documents containing sensitive information regarding USA foreign relations. Apparently, this documents detailed USA questionable interventions in many countries' internal affairs, revealed spying on UN officials, lobbying for American commercial interests, and harshly criticized individuals in the government of allied countries.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/28/wikileaks-us-embassy-cables-documents_n_788893.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/28/wikileaks-us-embassy-cables-documents_n_788893.html)
http://narcosphere.narconews.com/notebook/bill-conroy/2010/11/state-department-secret-cable-lays-out-us-intelligence-gathering-agenda (http://narcosphere.narconews.com/notebook/bill-conroy/2010/11/state-department-secret-cable-lays-out-us-intelligence-gathering-agenda)
http://cfolch.blogspot.com/2010/11/wikileaks-diplomatic-cable-on-paraguay.html (http://cfolch.blogspot.com/2010/11/wikileaks-diplomatic-cable-on-paraguay.html)
http://narcosphere.narconews.com/notebook/erin-rosa/2010/11/memo-reveals-us-state-department-knew-honduras-coup-was-illegal-did-not-f (http://narcosphere.narconews.com/notebook/erin-rosa/2010/11/memo-reveals-us-state-department-knew-honduras-coup-was-illegal-did-not-f)
The USA government has apparently required the local embassy with information about Argentine President Cristina Fernandez's mental health.
http://www.buenosairesherald.com/BreakingNews/View/52501 (http://www.buenosairesherald.com/BreakingNews/View/52501)
I have yet to see the actual documents. They're unavailable to the public as of yet, but it seems they were delivered to many European papers, which will be publishing redacted version in the upcoming days.
Wikileaks also denounced a DoS attack on their servers, although I can imagine the traffic must have been quite high today anyway.
UPDATE: Some of the cables have been released to the public already.
http://cablegate.wikileaks.org/ (http://cablegate.wikileaks.org/)
-
Government acts almost solely in its own short-sighted self-interest.
Story at 11.
Seriously though, this should be an interesting sneak peek into what our officials really do.
-
The USA government has apparently required the local embassy with information about Argentine President Cristina Fernandez's mental health.
http://www.buenosairesherald.com/BreakingNews/View/52501 (http://www.buenosairesherald.com/BreakingNews/View/52501)
wtf??
It's a local newspaper from what I can see, I woudn't buy that right away.
-
The USA government has apparently required the local embassy with information about Argentine President Cristina Fernandez's mental health.
http://www.buenosairesherald.com/BreakingNews/View/52501 (http://www.buenosairesherald.com/BreakingNews/View/52501)
wtf??
It's a local newspaper from what I can see, I woudn't buy that right away.
http://www.elpais.com/articulo/internacional/mayor/filtracion/historia/deja/descubierto/secretos/politica/exterior/EE/UU/elpepuint/20101128elpepuint_25/Tes (http://www.elpais.com/articulo/internacional/mayor/filtracion/historia/deja/descubierto/secretos/politica/exterior/EE/UU/elpepuint/20101128elpepuint_25/Tes)
Mañana EL PAÍS ofrecerá detalles, por ejemplo, sobre las sospechas que la presidenta de Argentina, Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, despierta en Washington, hasta el punto de que la Secretaría de Estado llega a solicitar información sobre su estado de salud mental.
Tomorrow EL PAÍS will reveal details, for example, about the suspicions that the Argentine president, Cristina Fernández, raises in Washington, up to the point that the State Secretariat [Departament of State?] requires [solicits?] information about her mental health.
EL PAÍS is one of the newspapers that received the raw documents.
I didn't wanted to quote something in Spanish, because the last time I said something in Spanish here... well, you all remember that. The Buenos Aires Herald was the only newspaper in English I could find that said something meaningful about this particular incident.
EL PAIS, on the other hand, is not a local newspaper, but an European one.
-
I've been reading some of those, quite interesting..
Thanks for the links :yes:
-
/me yawns
-
tl;dr
apparently Putin and Berlusconi are party animals.
-
So, every country thinks every other country is led by idiots, the mentally insane and bloodthirsty phsychopaths?
Where's the surprise there?
-
I think the real topic of interest here isn't the content of the documents themselves, but whether or not Wikileaks has (or should have) the right to release them publicly. I tend to fall on the negative side of that question myself, considering the myriad potential repercussions of their actions that they seem to have given very little thought to.
-
I tend to find it bounces from the sensible to the foolish. It's no surprise whatsoever, for example, that US Politicians requested details of Conservative politicians in the UK when it looked like the Tories were going to get into power, that's not controversial, it's good political practice. On the other hand, releasing details of Saudi Arabia's opinion of Iran was foolish to the point of further destabilising a region that is already wobbling all over the place.
For the main part, I tend to fall on the same side as Mongoose, there's nothing to be gained and plenty to be lost by releasing this information.
-
+1 to that.
-
Biographic and financial information on all leading contenders, and especially on Minister of Education Blanca Ovelar, former Vice President Castiglioni, Lino Oviedo, and Fernando Lugo; and biometric data, to include fingerprints, facial images, iris scans, and DNA, on these individuals. [Emphasis added.]
Information on communications practices of Paraguayan government and military leaders, key foreign officials in country (e.g., Cuban, Venezuelan, Bolivian, Iranian, or Chinese diplomats), and criminal entities or their surrogates, to include telephone and fax numbers and e-mail addresses, call activity (date, time, caller numbers, recipient numbers), phone books, cell phone numbers, telephone and fax user listings, internet protocol (IP) addresses, user accounts, and passwords.
Don't you people think that's a bit like crossing the line? What would have happened if Paraguay would have been caught spying on the personal information of candidates of the USA, including personal emails and other accounts? Is this acceptable because the American government is the one doing the espionage?
And what about the evidence suggesting USA supported the last coup d'etat in Honduras?
And isn't the American government going against the very principles of free market capitalism when it lobbies in favor of private corporations, if that turns out to be true too?
I can't believe you guys think that is normal. I thought the leftists' anti-Americanist rhetoric was just overreaction, that Chavez and his followers were mere clowns, and now it turns out that he was right all the time, and yet nobody cares?
I'm quite confused now.
-
What would have happened if Paraguay would have been caught spying on the personal information of candidates of the USA, including personal emails and other accounts? Is this acceptable because the American government is the one doing the espionage?
To the first, why? To the second, no, and what are you going to do about it?
And isn't the American government going against the very principles of free market capitalism when it lobbies in favor of private corporations, if that turns out to be true too?
I'm not a little hazy about where it says we have to support free market capitalism.
-
I once read a wonderful monologue on how countries that are friends manage to stay friends by spying on each other. After all, the more you know about each other, the less distrust. I don't doubt the UK's secret service have file upon file of information regarding foreign diplomats.
Right or Wrong is a more complex issue, firstly, Wikileaks are mostly publishing the opinions of Ambassadors who are performing a very difficult dance, any Ambassador who is thought to be 'going native' often finds themselves re-assigned to another post, they aren't there to like the country involved, merely to represent the interests of their own country. Secondly, even the acts which are morally questionable do not automatically make themselves required reading for the general public, that can often increase tension and beligerence and make a solution less likely, rather than more, sometimes a little behind-the-scenes work can do far more good than shouting it from the rooftops.
As Mongoose stated, it's not really a question of the morality of what has been said or done, it's about Wikileaks decision to release that data to all and sundry.
-
To the first, why?
That's not the point. The question was if everyone would take it as normal if some other intelligence service from some other country spied on private, personal information of random American citizens.
I can understand spying on other governments. Every single country does that. But I find spying on the personal life of people that aren't even on the government yet, including their emails and their DNA, a repudiable act.
To the second, no, and what are you going to do about it?
Wow, so it's not acceptable, but they can get away with it anyway because they have the economic/military might to shut their opponents' mouths off, and that being the case, that is normal. Way to be civilized.
I'm not a little hazy about where it says we have to support free market capitalism.
First, don't say we. Even if I have something against the acts of your country, I'm not targetting you in the criticism.
Second, rephrase that please, since I'm not sure I fully understand what you mean.
-
sometimes a little behind-the-scenes work can do far more good than shouting it from the rooftops.
"Good"? From whose perspective? Is supporting the removal of a democratic government (even one I disliked) "good"?
This kind of reminds me to the Church trying to hide pedophiles. "It's not about the morality of those acts, they are just humans with sins, it's about the reputation of this Holy institution". Screw that, I want pedophiles disguised as priests in a jail, and I want governments out of people's private lives, especially if such governments claim to do good, and then torture, murder, lobby, and meddle in internal affairs of other countries.
-
Is increasing tension between several countries that already have strained relations any more 'good'? That's the conundrum really, how do we define 'good' and 'bad' in this situation?
Edit: And to clarify, I'm not saying I agree with what was revealed in the leaks, or support those actions, but how has the generalised realease of this information helped the world situation in any way, chances are it's done far more damage than anything else.
-
I have updated my previous post.
-
Interesting post on Slashdot by former military personnel. He basically states that Wikileaks has swung the pendulum and that it'll sway the other way now. Wikileaks will make the public lose access to more government documents in the long term which would have been revealed over time as the government is stimulated to ensure something like this doesn't happen again.
I wrote some of the classified documents on Wikilieaks during my time with the military. I am a civilian now. Much of what I have written is already available to researchers and journalists from the Marine Corps Historical archive in Quantico, Virginia. The Iraq dump contained many significant events from my battalion, but lacked the commanders' comments or the command chronology narrative to tie the events together and put them into perspective. This information is actually available through official sources. What is on Wikileaks has is actually quite limited.
I have two concerns about the fallout to the leak. The first concern is the U.S. may retroactively classify documents currently available to the public, or be less likely to release documents in the future. This will result in a net loss of access to information to the general public. My second concern is the military may become more compartmentalized and soldiers at the small-unit level may no longer have access to the same amount of intelligence information as they previously had. This would be unfortunate because a lot of the young Marines or Soldiers bring a fresh perspective to looking at the raw information and can often connect the dots and find things missed by back-office analysts.
The public has a right to know what the government is doing as long as it doesn't compromise operational security. Within the government there are people pushing to declassify information and make it available. There are others who would like to make everything a secret until the end of time. This latest leak will push the pendulum towards the secret squirrels. I doubt too many service members will want to follow in Pvt. Manning's footsteps, so Mr. Assange probably won't be getting too much new information. Without people sending him leaks, Mr. Assange wouldn't have much of a web site. If the U.S. were smart, they would put up an alternate web site to Wikileaks which would provide declassified versions of government documents and explain why it is important to balance the public's right to know with the need for operational security.
-
I have updated my previous post.
There are corrupt Ambassadors, but these releases aren't about those, there are corrupt Governments (probably the majority), but the fact of the matter is that exposing paedophiles in Churches is far less likely to start people fighting and killing each other than the revealing that Saudi Arabia want America to invade Iran. Most of those paedophiles were revealed in a court of law, through legal prosecution, with solid evidence, not stolen data released a website.
As a counter-example, one paper released a so called 'list' of known paedophiles, which resulted in the persecution of a lot of innocent people, including the attack on a pediatrician by a certain illiterate group of people in the UK. It's all very sensational, and probably well intentioned, but the reaction to the 'revelation' was that of the mob.
-
how do we define 'good' and 'bad' in this situation?
Transparency in diplomacy is a tough issue. There are some things that we should know about when it comes to what our State Department or diplomats are doing (collecting credit card information, the US supporting the PKK)...stuff that we should know are being done in our name.
But there ARE times when diplomacy needs to be conducted in secrecy...it allows for two countries to save face in the eyes of their citizens and the international community, but secretly settle differences between each other. Cuban Missile Crisis is a prime example of that.
All in all, I don't think the Wikileaks dump is going to help or hurt relations in general. It mostly confirmed a lot of what we'd already suspected (Arabs hate Iran? I'M SHOCKED), and exposed some bad things the State Department's done.
-
how do we define 'good' and 'bad' in this situation?
Transparency in diplomacy is a tough issue. There are some things that we should know about when it comes to what our State Department or diplomats are doing (collecting credit card information, the US supporting the PKK)...stuff that we should know are being done in our name.
But there ARE times when diplomacy needs to be conducted in secrecy...it allows for two countries to save face in the eyes of their citizens and the international community, but secretly settle differences between each other. Cuban Missile Crisis is a prime example of that.
All in all, I don't think the Wikileaks dump is going to help or hurt relations in general. It mostly confirmed a lot of what we'd already suspected (Arabs hate Iran? I'M SHOCKED), and exposed some bad things the State Department's done.
Agreed. Thing is, when Wikileaks released the details of casualties in Iraq, I believed we did have a right to know the cost of the war which was funded by our taxes, if we are going to be hated or distrusted by a fair percentage of the planet, we at least have a right to know why, but on the other side of the coin, I also felt that releasing details of intelligence we had gathered on the enemy was another matter entirely, since it put peoples lives in danger in some cases.
-
Well, at least we have China's stance on North Korea.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/11/29/wikileaks.new.documents/index.html?hpt=T2
-
What does make me laugh is stuff like this:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11870581
Prince Andrew was rude. Next week, Prince Phillip 'Can be a bit racist'..... ;)
-
I also felt that releasing details of intelligence we had gathered on the enemy was another matter entirely, since it put peoples lives in danger in some cases.
That was my main criticism of the releases too...we don't really need to know who's informing on who, and it DOES put people's lives at risk. And it makes it more difficult to collect intel in the future when no one wants to come forward.
Well, at least we have China's stance on North Korea.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/11/29/wikileaks.new.documents/index.html?hpt=T2
Not too surprised...China's just tired of having to stand up for NK and tell the world "it's cool, we've got this".
-
Yeah, it ain't a surprise. Too bad we're still not sure whether we can bomb 'em without intervention or not.
-
Man, apparently Kimmy (http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2010/US/11/29/wikileaks.new.documents/t1larg.china.korea.afp.gi.jpg) can't even afford a decent suit. :p
-
I was expecting a more.... passioned reaction from this.
Guess EU people don't really care about how bad this kind of actions make your country look....to outsiders of course, just like me.
-
Actually, most of the releases are statements by US Ambassadors. The EU has been casting derogatory comments at each other since before the 100 year war, it's pretty much water off a ducks back. We used to refer to the Spanish as being barely more civilised than monkeys, we still make jokes about underarm hair and onions with regard to the French, and don't even ask about the average Scottish or Irish opinion of England.
If we took those kinds of statements personally, or allowed ourselves to believe it's anything more than jibing in ignorance of the culture or, in most cases, reality, we'd never get anything done.
Edit: Consider how many Americans look at Florida as being full of ageing nut-cases, or Kansas as being full of 'rednecks', it's amusing, it gives a sense of superiority, but it really doesn't get taken seriously when the chips are down.
-
Edit: Consider how many Americans look at Florida as being full of ageing nut-cases, or Kansas as being full of 'rednecks', it's amusing, it gives a sense of superiority, but it really doesn't get taken seriously when the chips are down.
Florida looks at Florida as being full of aging nut-cases. :p
EDIT: Apparently, Assange's going after the banks next...
http://blogs.forbes.com/andygreenberg/2010/11/29/exclusive-wikileaks-will-unveil-major-bank-scandal/
-
Interesting, that's more the sort of thing I always felt Wikileaks was created for, 'legal and illegal' is kind of a fuzzy area when politics are involved, but evidence of corruption or illegal activities in banks could be far more effective.
-
semi :bump:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-11929034
looks like the Swiss banks are getting worried about him, a little behind the scenes political pressure perhaps
-
This WikiLeaks issue is very sad, and it couldn't have come at a worse time.
It is sad that a certain group of individuals, under the banner of freedom of speech, threaten the foreign affairs of multiple countries and grow international tension. It is short-sighted, irresponsible and self-centered. When the idea of free speech was first put on paper during the Enlightenment, no one could have thought of anything nearly as powerful as the Internet. This is a clear abuse of any interpretation of the phrase freedom of speech. The concept, in its strict sense, is idealogical; you can't have complete freedom to say what you want. You can get people together for a beer and talk about working conditions. You can demonstrate against a tax raise. But you can't incite tensions against <insert social/ethnic/religious minority group name here>. It's hate speech, which is rightly forbidden. You can't use it to threaten alliances that have been so far taken for granted. If it's about revealing some behind-the-scenes conversations from <insert group/individual name here> about <insert domestic issue here>, that's what freedom of speech is for: To inform the population of their government's wrongdoing. But if a future nuclear war, and by association, the lives of billions of people, are put at stake, one must put aside abstract concepts such as "freedom of <anything>," and look at it from a different angle. It's not about philosophy anymore.
-
quisnam vigilo qui vigilo custodis?
Who watches those who watch the Watchmen?
-
In general I'll concede Wikileaks' actions have been harmful.
But I wonder, philosophically, if the blind ideal behind it is valuable...this notion of an utterly transparent society. What would happen? Could we handle it?
-
I think it depends on the approach.
Currently we are dealing with a system that didn't expect to be transparent and therefore acted in a manner that mirrored that, but a society that was aware that transparency was required? That might be interesting, it would certainly have an impact on International relations if everyone had to expect to be held accountable for their opinions.
-
Which I think is the real goal behind wikileaks. Create a world where governments, through forced disclosure of their dirty laundry, can be held accountable by the public. It's a measure of control that democracy really, really needs to be worthy of the name democracy.
Now, personally, I find nothing wrong with wikileaks and its conduct. It's just an application of the old-school hacker ethos and I applaud that.
-
I just finished going over a data review that explains that democracy, at least in America, is basically a system by which elites cue the uninformed public to agree with them.
I can see a little more transparency being a good thing.
-
I just wish they'd dump a little more docs on other countries.
-
I still can't understand all the uproar about wikileaks.
Their entire purpose is to leak documents. Are we supposed to be shocked when they actually do it?
-
I just finished going over a data review that explains that democracy, at least in America, is basically a system by which elites cue the uninformed public to agree with them.
I can see a little more transparency being a good thing.
Assuming it even makes a difference. Having the data published only matters if people read it. And most of the "uninformed public" won't.
-
I just finished going over a data review that explains that democracy, at least in America, is basically a system by which elites cue the uninformed public to agree with them.
I can see a little more transparency being a good thing.
Assuming it even makes a difference. Having the data published only matters if people read it. And most of the "uninformed public" won't.
This is true.
Elite cueing may actually be a pretty good technique. It's unclear.
-
I still can't understand all the uproar about wikileaks.
Their entire purpose is to leak documents. Are we supposed to be shocked when they actually do it?
No. They're shocked when doing so gets people killed, and the guy who runs it doesn't give a **** because he's getting "the truth" out.
-
Who actually got killed as a result of the last leak?
I ask cause that is what everyone seems to be so upset about but I've not seen any data.
-
I still can't understand all the uproar about wikileaks.
Their entire purpose is to leak documents. Are we supposed to be shocked when they actually do it?
No. They're shocked when doing so gets people killed, and the guy who runs it doesn't give a **** because he's getting "the truth" out.
But it's an interesting quandary. What is the acceptable price of truth? We just fought an enormous war that destroyed our fiscal policy and killed tens of thousands, and the entire war was based on a lie repeated so long it became the truth and then became forgotten.
Is it possible that going to extremes for the truth could save lives in the long run? If Wikileaks had undermined the lies that were used to justify the Iraq War (which might well have been morally justified on other grounds, but not the ones that were deployed), how would things have been different?
-
Who actually got killed as a result of the last leak?
I ask cause that is what everyone seems to be so upset about but I've not seen any data.
I doubt we'll find out. The fact that informants live or die isn't something I find likely to air on the six o'clock news.
I also agree with the 'blind idea' behind what Wikileaks does, but I tend to side more with Scotty on this one. This is not exactly a great time to start leaking information that includes a few nations that aren't exactly stable at the moment. I've never been a huge follower of Wikileaks, nor will I claim to know everything about them, but as a layperson, I think some tact would've helped here.
-
wikileaks needs a rival site that will leak reports of informants dieing as a result of wikileaks.
-
wikileaks needs a rival site that will leak reports of informants dieing as a result of wikileaks.
Yes, That way we can have watchdogs in our watch dogs for our watchdogs.
-
I doubt we'll find out. The fact that informants live or die isn't something I find likely to air on the six o'clock news.
I saw a lot of stuff that would be inconvenient in the latest set, but nothing that would actually result in heads rolling. Some of it was open secrets; that China directly supports hacking efforts against governments and businesses is something people have known for at least a decade.
The cables show the State Department has apparently actually been doing its job in a shocking turn of events. The people who could really be hurt by them aren't in the US.
Of course, this is the WikiLeaks that claimed they had video of Afghan civilians being massacred over six months ago. And stuff from inside BP. Funny how that all never turned up.