Wikileaks

[Kevin S. Assilleekunt 1]

1. I thought we were discussing moral hyprocrisy? You haven't pointed out a war that fits this example yet. Yes i agree that some hypocrisy is inevitable but we know that the US are acting like total cunts. Its a good thing that Wikileaks brings this to our attention if only for its positive impact on the awareness of the reality of war and the facile nature of the propaganda that has kept this one going for nearly 10 years. 10 years at war, ffs. Its just wrong.

 

2. As for our example, the US were not acting like communists during their war in Vietnam, so how does Vietnam translate as an analogy? There was no hypocrisy in that instance in relation to their reasons for being at war. They hated communism and they certainly did not support any form of communism in their own country. Slightly different to Afghanistan's suffering of human rights abuses whilst a war against them is justified in the name of human rights. You still havent addressed this.

 

3. The bottom line here is that you are a deeply unpleasant individual and your world view reflects that. I think you'll find most people reading this agree with that too.

 

1. I don't think you know what you're discussing. You are obviously quite ignorant, and your apparent shock at the Wikileaks documents is a good example of this. As previously discussed in this thread, most of the documents confirm incidents and strategies that were already known or widely suspected to be taking place, as opposed to ground-breaking revelations that no one had any suspicions of whatsoever. The general consensus on the war in Iraq is that it has been a strategic disaster, you act as though this is not the case. The chaos after the initial invasion is well documented and has been widely available in the mainstream media, as an initial example.

 

2. This is not 'our example'. This is a convoluted and frankly stupid exercise that you began, and insisted on continuing. You are implying that the U.S. is supporting a regime within their own country that is comparable to the Baathists. What the fuck are you on about. Then you refer to Afghanistan when we're discussing Iraq, further demonstrating the fact that you're a complete moron incapable of honest discussion. You also state that the war against Afghanistan was justified in the name of human rights when I have explained to you at length - after you asked, citing your lack of time as the reason for your tremendous ignorance - what the justification for that war was, and I quoted the motivations from a NATO document listing the reasons for that intervention.

 

3. The bottom line (again with your wrestling schtick) is that you have recognized that your arguments are not just flawed, they're inherently stupid. As such you are now seeking affirmation from other posters and claiming I have a deeply unpleasant world view, despite having no real knowledge as to what my 'world view' is. This just confirms that in reality you have no real interest in the subjects we are discussing here, and instead of a genuine desire to learn about the subject, you have decided you know it all and want to mouth-off and rant. Anyone who disagrees with anything you say is evil, according to you You also wonder why I keep answering back when you ask me questions It is true that you are not worth the time as you are not interested in proper discussion.

[Park Life 70]

Funny thing about that Dispatches Afg doc was that as soon as the British 'advisors' pull out of a village the Afg army does as well. Really no point in taking them.

[Rob W 0]

Vietnam would serve as a good analogy if the US was secretly organising itself as a communist country. Even if you want to push communism as a moral concept, which it isn't, the US were not hypocritical about it.

 

It was by proxy a war against Russian and partly Chinese influence (both supplied the North with weapons). Later the Korean war was by proxy and later directly a full blown war against the Chinese. These wars war hegenomical in the sense the post 2nd war world had yet to organise itsself with regards to the dominant way of life for the masses in large chunks of the world.

 

 

I think you have these in the wrong order oh ElfMeister - Korea was in the early 50's when it was the French in Indo China - the yanks only came in late 50's

 

And it was definitely that mad Bastard Kim Il Sung who started the Korean war - Stalin couldn't be bothered one way or another and Mao misread the Americans stated plans to build a defence perimeter that had left Korea off the list - KiJ reckoned he could win in 3 weeks (and damn nearly did) so Mao said go ahead. Not say that Rhee wouldn't have started a war later mind

[ChezGiven 0]

"Have wars always been characterised by one side claiming to act in the name of morality yet at the same time, failing themselves to live up to that?"

 

Yes, that has often been the case quite frankly. Every side in combat claims to act in the name of morality, and the nature of combat means immoral acts are inevitable.

 

Do you think the U.S. administration's mandate for war was constructed purely on a moral argument? I missed that one.

 

Your example was Vietnam. How were the US hypocritical with respect to communism? Did they claim on one side to be against it? Yes. Did they act out communist policies and try to cover them up? No.

[Happy Face 29]

Vote for Julian Assange to be the Time person of the year here...

 

http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages...2028734,00.html

 

Lady Gaga is right on his tail ffs.

 

DO IT!

Edited November 11, 2010 by Happy Face

[Happy Face 29]

In July of this year, U.S. citizen Jacob Appelbaum, a researcher and spokesman for WikiLeaks, was detained for several hours at the Newark airport after returning from a trip to Holland, and had his laptop, cellphones and other electronic products seized -- all without a search warrant, without being charged with a crime, and without even being under investigation, at least to his knowledge. He was interrogated at length about WikiLeaks, and was told by the detaining agents that he could expect to be subjected to the same treatment every time he left the country and attempted to return to the U.S. Days later, two FBI agents approached him at a computer conference he was attending in New York and asked to speak with him again. To date, he has never been charged with any crime or even told he's under investigation for anything; this was clearly a thuggish attempt by federal officials to intimidate any American citizen involved with or supporting WikiLeaks.

 

That campaign of intimidation is now clearly spreading to supporters of Bradley Manning. Last Wednesday, November 3, David House, a 23-year-old researcher who works at MIT, was returning to the U.S. from a short vacation with his girlfriend in Mexico, and was subjected to similar and even worse treatment. House's crime: he did work in helping set up the Bradley Manning Support Network, an organization created to raise money for Manning's legal defense fund, and he has now visited Manning three times in Quantico, Virginia, where the accused WikiLeaks leaker is currently being detained (all those visits are fully monitored by government agents). Like Appelbaum, House has never been accused of any crime, never been advised that he's under investigation, and was never told by any federal agents that he's suspected of any wrongdoing at all.

 

Last Wednesday, House arrived at Chicago's O'Hare Airport, and his flight was met in the concourse by customs agents, who examined the passports of all deplaning passengers until they saw House's, at which point they stopped. He was then directed to Customs, where his and his girlfriend's bags were extensively searched. After the search was complete, two men identifying themselves as Homeland Security officials told House and his girlfriend they were being detained for questioning and would miss their connecting flight. House was told that he was required to relinquish all of his electronic products, and thus gave them his laptop, cellphone, digital camera and UBS flash drive. The document he received itemizing his seized property is here. He was also told to give the agents all of his passwords and encryption keys, which he refused to do.

 

House was then taken to a detention room by two armed agents and on his way there, he passed by a room in which several individuals were plugging various instruments into his laptop and cellphone. The two agents, Marcial Santiago and Darin Louck, proceeded to question him for 90 minutes about why he was visiting Manning in prison, what work he did to support the Manning campaign, who else was involved in the Manning support group, and what his views were on WikiLeaks. He was told that he would not receive his laptop or camera back, and the agents kept it. To date, he has not received them back and very well may never. When he told them that he had roughly 20 hours of source code work in his laptop and would like to save it or email it to a saved site, they told him he could not do that. He subsequently learned from Agent Santiago that although Agent Louck identified himself as a Homeland Security agent, he is, in fact, with the FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force.

 

What's going on is here obvious. The Federal Government has the authority to conduct border searches of people entering the country that are far broader than for those inside the country, and such searches require no search warrant. The Government has that power in order to prevent security threats from entering the country, but here, they are clearly exploiting and abusing it in order to conduct investigative searches which would ordinarily require a search warrant but for which they have no basis to obtain one (in his effort to justify what he did in turning in Manning, Adrian Lamo -- the least credible person on the planet -- has been attempting to convince federal authorities that WikiLeaks is not merely a publisher of classified information, but an "espionage" ring that affirmatively induces leaks, thus enabling its prosecution; to achieve that, he has repeatedly claimed, without a shred of evidence, that MIT students actively assisted Manning in obtaining and leaking the information; in any event, House is not and never was an MIT student). American citizens who are charged with no crime and not under investigation should not have their laptops permanently seized and searched by law enforcement officials in the absence of reasonable suspicion that they did something wrong.

 

The real purpose of this conduct is to intimidate and deter anyone from being involved in any way with WikiLeaks and Bradley Manning. And it works. I had been invited to go and speak with Manning at Quantico, and still fully intend to do that -- I think Manning, if he did what he's accused of, is the most heroic political figure of the last decade at least -- but of course incidents like these, as intended, implant in your brain the fear that if you do go visit Manning -- or if you donate money to his legal defense fund, donate to WikiLeaks, or otherwise support them in any manner whatsoever -- then you, too, will be put on some list and have your property seized and searched with no search warrant when entering the country, and otherwise harassed and intimidated by the Executive Branch's police agencies. It's bad enough that the Obama administration has escalated attacks on whistle-blowers through vastly increased prosecutions, but this level of intimidation is clearly targeting legitimate political activity. It now goes far beyond prosecuting whistle-blowers and is intended to harass and deter those who are merely supportive of them.

 

 

 

UPDATE: I just want to underscore how abusive this all is. Totally independent of the intimidation aspects -- which are the worst part of this -- just consider what an absolute mockery this makes of the Constitution. If House (or Appelbaum) had been inside the U.S., the Government would have never have been able to search or seize their laptops because the Fourth Amendment prohibits that behavior without a search warrant, which they obviously can't obtain. So instead, the Government just waits for them to leave the country -- which many many people do these days -- and then seizes their belongings and searches all of their communications upon their return, without a shred of judicial review or any basis to establish wrongdoing. What conceivable purpose is there in having a Fourth Amendment if it can be so easily circumvented this way through the blatant abuse of border searching powers?

 

 

 

UPDATE II: The aforementioned Appelbaum wrote to me tonight: "I still have not had my equipment returned [after four months]. I will no longer travel internationally with anything except clothes in my carry on." Land of the Free.

 

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_gr...ning/index.html

[Kevin S. Assilleekunt 1]

Vote for Julian Assange to be the Time person of the year here...

 

http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages...2028734,00.html

 

Lady Gaga is right on his tail ffs.

 

DO IT!

 

His rating has gone down a bit now.

[Christ O'Pher 0]

Happy Face, have you ever listened to a podcast called Common Sense by Dan Carlin? It's a fairly interesting fortnightly broadcast on US politics. Considers himself an independent, neither democrat or republican. One of the main agendas he has is to do with the systemic corruption in the US caused by the lobbying of special interest groups but he covers a good number of subjects, such as the loss of liberty associated with the war on terror.

 

I find it thought-provoking and entertaining enough to continue listening. Just thought it might interest you.

[Park Life 70]

Happy Face, have you ever listened to a podcast called Common Sense by Dan Carlin? It's a fairly interesting fortnightly broadcast on US politics. Considers himself an independent, neither democrat or republican. One of the main agendas he has is to do with the systemic corruption in the US caused by the lobbying of special interest groups but he covers a good number of subjects, such as the loss of liberty associated with the war on terror.

 

I find it thought-provoking and entertaining enough to continue listening. Just thought it might interest you.

 

Welcome to two decades ago.

[Park Life 70]

In July of this year, U.S. citizen Jacob Appelbaum, a researcher and spokesman for WikiLeaks, was detained for several hours at the Newark airport after returning from a trip to Holland, and had his laptop, cellphones and other electronic products seized -- all without a search warrant, without being charged with a crime, and without even being under investigation, at least to his knowledge. He was interrogated at length about WikiLeaks, and was told by the detaining agents that he could expect to be subjected to the same treatment every time he left the country and attempted to return to the U.S. Days later, two FBI agents approached him at a computer conference he was attending in New York and asked to speak with him again. To date, he has never been charged with any crime or even told he's under investigation for anything; this was clearly a thuggish attempt by federal officials to intimidate any American citizen involved with or supporting WikiLeaks.

 

That campaign of intimidation is now clearly spreading to supporters of Bradley Manning. Last Wednesday, November 3, David House, a 23-year-old researcher who works at MIT, was returning to the U.S. from a short vacation with his girlfriend in Mexico, and was subjected to similar and even worse treatment. House's crime: he did work in helping set up the Bradley Manning Support Network, an organization created to raise money for Manning's legal defense fund, and he has now visited Manning three times in Quantico, Virginia, where the accused WikiLeaks leaker is currently being detained (all those visits are fully monitored by government agents). Like Appelbaum, House has never been accused of any crime, never been advised that he's under investigation, and was never told by any federal agents that he's suspected of any wrongdoing at all.

 

Last Wednesday, House arrived at Chicago's O'Hare Airport, and his flight was met in the concourse by customs agents, who examined the passports of all deplaning passengers until they saw House's, at which point they stopped. He was then directed to Customs, where his and his girlfriend's bags were extensively searched. After the search was complete, two men identifying themselves as Homeland Security officials told House and his girlfriend they were being detained for questioning and would miss their connecting flight. House was told that he was required to relinquish all of his electronic products, and thus gave them his laptop, cellphone, digital camera and UBS flash drive. The document he received itemizing his seized property is here. He was also told to give the agents all of his passwords and encryption keys, which he refused to do.

 

House was then taken to a detention room by two armed agents and on his way there, he passed by a room in which several individuals were plugging various instruments into his laptop and cellphone. The two agents, Marcial Santiago and Darin Louck, proceeded to question him for 90 minutes about why he was visiting Manning in prison, what work he did to support the Manning campaign, who else was involved in the Manning support group, and what his views were on WikiLeaks. He was told that he would not receive his laptop or camera back, and the agents kept it. To date, he has not received them back and very well may never. When he told them that he had roughly 20 hours of source code work in his laptop and would like to save it or email it to a saved site, they told him he could not do that. He subsequently learned from Agent Santiago that although Agent Louck identified himself as a Homeland Security agent, he is, in fact, with the FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force.

 

What's going on is here obvious. The Federal Government has the authority to conduct border searches of people entering the country that are far broader than for those inside the country, and such searches require no search warrant. The Government has that power in order to prevent security threats from entering the country, but here, they are clearly exploiting and abusing it in order to conduct investigative searches which would ordinarily require a search warrant but for which they have no basis to obtain one (in his effort to justify what he did in turning in Manning, Adrian Lamo -- the least credible person on the planet -- has been attempting to convince federal authorities that WikiLeaks is not merely a publisher of classified information, but an "espionage" ring that affirmatively induces leaks, thus enabling its prosecution; to achieve that, he has repeatedly claimed, without a shred of evidence, that MIT students actively assisted Manning in obtaining and leaking the information; in any event, House is not and never was an MIT student). American citizens who are charged with no crime and not under investigation should not have their laptops permanently seized and searched by law enforcement officials in the absence of reasonable suspicion that they did something wrong.

 

The real purpose of this conduct is to intimidate and deter anyone from being involved in any way with WikiLeaks and Bradley Manning. And it works. I had been invited to go and speak with Manning at Quantico, and still fully intend to do that -- I think Manning, if he did what he's accused of, is the most heroic political figure of the last decade at least -- but of course incidents like these, as intended, implant in your brain the fear that if you do go visit Manning -- or if you donate money to his legal defense fund, donate to WikiLeaks, or otherwise support them in any manner whatsoever -- then you, too, will be put on some list and have your property seized and searched with no search warrant when entering the country, and otherwise harassed and intimidated by the Executive Branch's police agencies. It's bad enough that the Obama administration has escalated attacks on whistle-blowers through vastly increased prosecutions, but this level of intimidation is clearly targeting legitimate political activity. It now goes far beyond prosecuting whistle-blowers and is intended to harass and deter those who are merely supportive of them.

 

 

 

UPDATE: I just want to underscore how abusive this all is. Totally independent of the intimidation aspects -- which are the worst part of this -- just consider what an absolute mockery this makes of the Constitution. If House (or Appelbaum) had been inside the U.S., the Government would have never have been able to search or seize their laptops because the Fourth Amendment prohibits that behavior without a search warrant, which they obviously can't obtain. So instead, the Government just waits for them to leave the country -- which many many people do these days -- and then seizes their belongings and searches all of their communications upon their return, without a shred of judicial review or any basis to establish wrongdoing. What conceivable purpose is there in having a Fourth Amendment if it can be so easily circumvented this way through the blatant abuse of border searching powers?

 

 

 

UPDATE II: The aforementioned Appelbaum wrote to me tonight: "I still have not had my equipment returned [after four months]. I will no longer travel internationally with anything except clothes in my carry on." Land of the Free.

 

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_gr...ning/index.html

 

Such a big country such a small heart.

[Christ O'Pher 0]

Happy Face, have you ever listened to a podcast called Common Sense by Dan Carlin? It's a fairly interesting fortnightly broadcast on US politics. Considers himself an independent, neither democrat or republican. One of the main agendas he has is to do with the systemic corruption in the US caused by the lobbying of special interest groups but he covers a good number of subjects, such as the loss of liberty associated with the war on terror.

 

I find it thought-provoking and entertaining enough to continue listening. Just thought it might interest you.

 

Welcome to two decades ago.

 

Thanks.

[Happy Face 29]

Happy Face, have you ever listened to a podcast called Common Sense by Dan Carlin? It's a fairly interesting fortnightly broadcast on US politics. Considers himself an independent, neither democrat or republican. One of the main agendas he has is to do with the systemic corruption in the US caused by the lobbying of special interest groups but he covers a good number of subjects, such as the loss of liberty associated with the war on terror.

 

I find it thought-provoking and entertaining enough to continue listening. Just thought it might interest you.

 

 

Cheers, I've subscribed.

 

"George Costanza on Steroids"?

 

[Happy Face 29]

The US has briefed a number of foreign governments, including the UK, about the possible release of diplomatic files by whistleblower site Wikileaks.

 

Reports say Turkey, Israel, Denmark and Norway have also been warned to expect potential embarrassment from the leaks.

 

The state department said the release of diplomatic cables would "create tension" between US diplomats and "friends around the world".

 

Wikileaks has said the US authorities are afraid of being held to account.

 

Analysts say the US and its allies have the potential to be embarrassed by the publication of candid assessments of foreign governments by its officials.

 

Wikileaks has not confirmed exactly when the documents will be made public.

 

The website, founded by Julian Assange, said earlier this week that the release would be nearly seven times larger than the nearly 400,000 Pentagon documents related to the Iraq war it published in October.

 

'Speculation'

 

State department spokesman PJ Crowley warned on Wednesday that the release could weaken trust in the US as a diplomatic partner.

 

The intense activity at the state department over the usually-quiet Thanksgiving holiday indicates that the US government believes a release is imminent.

 

Like Pentagon officials before them, state department spokesmen are warning Wikileaks that the disclosure of classified cables could prove harmful, both to American interests and to individuals. But they clearly expect that warning to fall on deaf ears.

 

Hence, the round of somewhat cringey diplomacy, as the US warns foreign governments of what American officials have said privately about them. The question is: will the revelations be merely embarrassing or something much worse, in terms of concrete disclosures about policy and US sources, possibly from within foreign governments?

 

From the safety of its Twitter page, Wikileaks is clearly relishing Washington's discomfort - tweeting regular updates on the hurried diplomacy. In what feels like a high-stakes poker game, Wikileaks must sooner or later show its hand.

Steve Kingstone

BBC News, Washington

 

"When this confidence is betrayed and ends up on the front pages of newspapers or lead stories on television or radio, it has an impact," he said.

 

A spokesman for UK Prime Minister David Cameron said on Friday: "Obviously, the government has been briefed by US officials, by the US ambassador, as to the likely content of these leaks.

 

"I don't want to speculate about precisely what is going to be leaked before it is leaked."

 

The BBC's Steve Kingstone, in Washington, says the state department is clearly in high gear, contacting embassies around the world.

 

The media does not yet know precisely what Wikileaks has - in what could be up to three million documents - and it is possible that the state department does not know exactly what the site has either, our correspondent says.

 

Newspaper reports indicate the release will include papers suggesting that Turkey helped al-Qaeda militants in Iraq, and that the US helped Iraq-based Kurdish separatists who have been engaged in a long conflict with Turkey.

 

The release is also thought to include cables concerning Israeli-American relations.

 

'Absolutely awful'

 

Washington's ambassador to Iraq, James Jeffrey, is quoted by AFP news agency as saying Wikileaks is an "absolutely awful impediment" to US efforts to build trust with other nations.

 

"I do not understand the motivation for releasing these documents," he told reporters in Baghdad. "They will not help, they will simply hurt our ability to do our work here."

 

The source of the documents potentially involved in the latest Wikileaks release is not known.

 

However, US Army Pfc Bradley Manning, a military analyst who was arrested in June on suspicion of leaking classified data, is currently in custody awaiting trial.

 

He is alleged to have abused access to a secret-level network to obtain tens of thousands of US state department cables, some of them classified.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11847824

 

Could be the juiciest one yet. The papers aren't interested in running with torture and death, people find it too depressing and turn to the I'm A Celebrity Get Me Out of Here page instead....but if Bush was saying what an arselicking puppet Blair was it'd run for weeks.

[Happy Face 29]

Happy Face, have you ever listened to a podcast called Common Sense by Dan Carlin? It's a fairly interesting fortnightly broadcast on US politics. Considers himself an independent, neither democrat or republican. One of the main agendas he has is to do with the systemic corruption in the US caused by the lobbying of special interest groups but he covers a good number of subjects, such as the loss of liberty associated with the war on terror.

 

I find it thought-provoking and entertaining enough to continue listening. Just thought it might interest you.

 

 

Cheers, I've subscribed.

 

"George Costanza on Steroids"?

 

 

Forgot to say, listened to 2 of these now....excellent stuff. Never thought an hour long monologue would grab me so much. Thanks for the nod.

[Park Life 70]

The US has briefed a number of foreign governments, including the UK, about the possible release of diplomatic files by whistleblower site Wikileaks.

 

Reports say Turkey, Israel, Denmark and Norway have also been warned to expect potential embarrassment from the leaks.

 

The state department said the release of diplomatic cables would "create tension" between US diplomats and "friends around the world".

 

Wikileaks has said the US authorities are afraid of being held to account.

 

Analysts say the US and its allies have the potential to be embarrassed by the publication of candid assessments of foreign governments by its officials.

 

Wikileaks has not confirmed exactly when the documents will be made public.

 

The website, founded by Julian Assange, said earlier this week that the release would be nearly seven times larger than the nearly 400,000 Pentagon documents related to the Iraq war it published in October.

 

'Speculation'

 

State department spokesman PJ Crowley warned on Wednesday that the release could weaken trust in the US as a diplomatic partner.

 

The intense activity at the state department over the usually-quiet Thanksgiving holiday indicates that the US government believes a release is imminent.

 

Like Pentagon officials before them, state department spokesmen are warning Wikileaks that the disclosure of classified cables could prove harmful, both to American interests and to individuals. But they clearly expect that warning to fall on deaf ears.

 

Hence, the round of somewhat cringey diplomacy, as the US warns foreign governments of what American officials have said privately about them. The question is: will the revelations be merely embarrassing or something much worse, in terms of concrete disclosures about policy and US sources, possibly from within foreign governments?

 

From the safety of its Twitter page, Wikileaks is clearly relishing Washington's discomfort - tweeting regular updates on the hurried diplomacy. In what feels like a high-stakes poker game, Wikileaks must sooner or later show its hand.

Steve Kingstone

BBC News, Washington

 

"When this confidence is betrayed and ends up on the front pages of newspapers or lead stories on television or radio, it has an impact," he said.

 

A spokesman for UK Prime Minister David Cameron said on Friday: "Obviously, the government has been briefed by US officials, by the US ambassador, as to the likely content of these leaks.

 

"I don't want to speculate about precisely what is going to be leaked before it is leaked."

 

The BBC's Steve Kingstone, in Washington, says the state department is clearly in high gear, contacting embassies around the world.

 

The media does not yet know precisely what Wikileaks has - in what could be up to three million documents - and it is possible that the state department does not know exactly what the site has either, our correspondent says.

 

Newspaper reports indicate the release will include papers suggesting that Turkey helped al-Qaeda militants in Iraq, and that the US helped Iraq-based Kurdish separatists who have been engaged in a long conflict with Turkey.

 

The release is also thought to include cables concerning Israeli-American relations.

 

'Absolutely awful'

 

Washington's ambassador to Iraq, James Jeffrey, is quoted by AFP news agency as saying Wikileaks is an "absolutely awful impediment" to US efforts to build trust with other nations.

 

"I do not understand the motivation for releasing these documents," he told reporters in Baghdad. "They will not help, they will simply hurt our ability to do our work here."

 

The source of the documents potentially involved in the latest Wikileaks release is not known.

 

However, US Army Pfc Bradley Manning, a military analyst who was arrested in June on suspicion of leaking classified data, is currently in custody awaiting trial.

 

He is alleged to have abused access to a secret-level network to obtain tens of thousands of US state department cables, some of them classified.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11847824

 

Could be the juiciest one yet. The papers aren't interested in running with torture and death, people find it too depressing and turn to the I'm A Celebrity Get Me Out of Here page instead....but if Bush was saying what an arselicking puppet Blair was it'd run for weeks.

 

Heard about this a couple of weeks ago, waiting with baited breath.

[Happy Face 29]

Could be the juiciest one yet. The papers aren't interested in running with torture and death, people find it too depressing and turn to the I'm A Celebrity Get Me Out of Here page instead....but if Bush was saying what an arselicking puppet Blair was it'd run for weeks.

 

The government realise this as well...they've issued a type 1 and 5 D-notice to newspaper editors...

 

http://twitter.com/#!/wikileaks

 

Edited November 26, 2010 by Happy Face

[Park Life 70]

The U.S. Department of State is working overtime sending messages to ally capitals warning the impending release of classified documents by WikiLeaks could harm relations in what is seen as a pre-emptive move of unprecedented scale to neutralize the impact of the unveiling of embarrassing and compromising details about the inner workings of the government apparatus.

View Full Image

 

After making shattering revelations about the U.S. policy -- and its practice -- in Iraq and Afghanistan, WikiLeaks seems to be targeting this time the core of the U.S. government machinery, especially the subterranean diplomatic channels it employs while cutting deals and enforcing compliance in world capitals.

 

This knowledge has set off a diplomatic counter-offensive of never-before-seen proportion. The U.S. embassies in allied capitals have been forewarned of the release of documents which could potentially destabilize friendly relations.

 

The State Department, in an advance fire-fighting mode, has said the consequences of the WikiLeaks bombshell to American interests could be severe as the whistleblower website could reveal instances of allies breaking ranks secretly to pursue policies harmful to each other and squarely contradicting publicly stated stances.

 

 

"Without getting into specifics, typical cables describe summaries of meetings, analysis of events in other countries and records of confidential conversations with officials of other governments and with members of civil society. ... They are classified for a very good reason. They contain sensitive information and reveal sources of information that impact our national interests and those of other countries," State Department spokesman P.J.Crowley said.

 

Researchers have often pointed out the stark contrast between nation states' declared policies -- and the means to achieve them -- and what actually transpires on the ground. The inner workings, the dark secrets and shady deals never see the light of day until they may be declassified years later, severely undermining democratic values of truth and transparency.

 

Now WikiLeaks is out to run a knife through a mountain of classified documents revealing how the proverbial 'secret government' works its way through cluttered diplomatic channels. And that certainly could be embarrassing to lots of people in many capitals, more so in Washington.

 

The Pentagon has already warned the U.S. Senate and House Armed Services Committees that the leaks will “touch on an enormous range of very sensitive foreign policy issues.” “We anticipate that the release could negatively impact U.S. foreign relations,” Assistant Secretary for Legislative Affairs Elizabeth King said in an e-mail to the defense committees.

 

WHAT COULD BE INSIDE LEAKED DOCUMENTS?

 

Media speculate that the soon-to-be-leaked cables could contain sensitive talks between government functionaries, diplomats, military top brass and politicians which may show top government players in unflattering light.

 

According to Sky News foreign affairs editor Tim Marshall, even heads of government will be the target in the leaked documents. "We think that three leaders might be in the firing line, because we know the Americans have criticized (Afghan president) Hamid Karzai, President Asif Ali Zardari of Pakistan and Prime Minister Vladimir Putin of Russia."

 

President Barack Obama's administration will particularly feel the heat as many of the documents to be published relate to the time since he took office. Experts say there could even be cables related to the government's maneuverings to get allies accept Guantanamo detainees as Obama was pressing ahead with the deadline to close the infamous detention camp.

[Happy Face 29]

The United States was catapulted into a worldwide diplomatic crisis today, with the leaking to the Guardian and other international media of more than 250,000 classified cables from its embassies, many sent as recently as February this year.

 

At the start of a series of daily extracts from the US embassy cables - many of which are designated "secret" – the Guardian can disclose that Arab leaders are privately urging an air strike on Iran and that US officials have been instructed to spy on the UN's leadership.

 

These two revelations alone would be likely to reverberate around the world. But the secret dispatches which were obtained by WikiLeaks, the whistlebowers' website, also reveal Washington's evaluation of many other highly sensitive international issues.

 

These include a major shift in relations between China and North Korea, Pakistan's growing instability and details of clandestine US efforts to combat al-Qaida in Yemen.

 

Among scores of other disclosures that are likely to cause uproar, the cables detail:

 

• Grave fears in Washington and London over the security of Pakistan's nuclear weapons programme

 

• Alleged links between the Russian government and organised crime.

 

• Devastating criticism of the UK's military operations in Afghanistan.

 

• Claims of inappropriate behaviour by a member of the British royal family.

 

The US has particularly intimate dealings with Britain, and some of the dispatches from the London embassy in Grosvenor Square will make uncomfortable reading in Whitehall and Westminster. They range from serious political criticisms of David Cameron to requests for specific intelligence about individual MPs.

 

The cache of cables contains specific allegations of corruption and against foreign leaders, as well as harsh criticism by US embassy staff of their host governments, from tiny islands in the Caribbean to China and Russia.

 

The material includes a reference to Vladimir Putin as an "alpha-dog", Hamid Karzai as being "driven by paranoia" and Angela Merkel allegedly "avoids risk and is rarely creative". There is also a comparison between Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Adolf Hitler.

 

The cables name countries involved in financing terror groups, and describe a near "environmental disaster" last year over a rogue shipment of enriched uranium. They disclose technical details of secret US-Russian nuclear missile negotiations in Geneva, and include a profile of Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, who they say is accompanied everywhere by a "voluptuous blonde" Ukrainian nurse.

 

The cables cover secretary of state Hillary Clinton's activities under the Obama administration, as well as thousands of files from the George Bush presidency. Clinton personally led frantic damage limitation this weekend as Washington prepared foreign governments for the revelations. She contacted leaders in Germany, Saudi Arabia, the Gulf, France and Afghanistan.

 

US ambassadors in other capitals were instructed to brief their hosts in advance of the release of unflattering pen-portraits or nakedly frank accounts of transactions with the US which they had thought would be kept quiet. Washington now faces a difficult task in convincing contacts around the world that any future conversations will remain confidential.

 

"We are all bracing for what may be coming and condemn WikiLeaks for the release of classified material," state department spokesman PJ Crowley said. "It will place lives and interests at risk. It is irresponsible."

 

The state department's legal adviser has written to Wikileaks founder Julian Assange and his London lawyer, warning that the cables were obtained illegally and that publication would place at risk "the lives of countless innocent individuals … ongoing military operations … and cooperation between countries".

 

The electronic archive of embassy dispatches from around the world was allegedly downloaded by a US soldier earlier this year and passed to WikiLeaks. Assange made them available to the Guardian and four other newspapers: the New York Times, Der Spiegel in Germany, Le Monde in France and El País in Spain. All five plan to publish extracts from the most significant cables, but have decided neither to "dump" the entire dataset into the public domain, nor to publish names that would endanger innocent individuals. WikiLeaks says that, contrary to the state department's fears, it also initially intends to post only limited cable extracts, and to redact identities.

 

The cables published today reveal how the US uses its embassies as part of a global espionage network, with diplomats tasked to obtain not just information from the people they meet, but personal details, such as frequent flyer numbers, credit card details and even DNA material.

 

Classified "human intelligence directives" issued in the name of Hillary Clinton or her predecessor, Condoleeza Rice, instruct officials to gather information on military installations, weapons markings, vehicle details of political leaders as well as iris scans, fingerprints and DNA.

 

The most controversial target was the leadership of the United Nations. That directive requested the specification of telecoms and IT systems used by top UN officials and their staff and details of "private VIP networks used for official communication, to include upgrades, security measures, passwords, personal encryption keys".

 

When the Guardian put this allegation to Crowley, the state department spokesman said: "Let me assure you: our diplomats are just that, diplomats. They do not engage in intelligence activities. They represent our country around the world, maintain open and transparent contact with other governments as well as public and private figures, and report home. That's what diplomats have done for hundreds of years."

 

The dispatches also shed light on older diplomatic issues. One cable, for example, reveals, that Nelson Mandela was "furious" when a top adviser stopped him meeting Margaret Thatcher shortly after his release from prison to explain why the ANC objected to her policy of "constructive engagement" with the apartheid regime. "We understand Mandela was keen for a Thatcher meeting but that [appointments secretary Zwelakhe] Sisulu argued successfully against it," according to the cable. It continues: "Mandela has on several occasions expressed his eagerness for an early meeting with Thatcher to express the ANC's objections to her policy. We were consequently surprised when the meeting didn't materialise on his mid-April visit to London and suspected that ANC hardliners had nixed Mandela's plans."

 

The US embassy cables are marked "Sipdis" – secret internet protocol distribution. They were compiled as part of a programme under which selected dispatches, considered moderately secret but suitable for sharing with other agencies, would be automatically loaded on to secure embassy websites, and linked with the military's Siprnet internet system.

 

They are classified at various levels up to "SECRET NOFORN" [no foreigners]. More than 11,000 are marked secret, while around 9,000 of the cables are marked noforn. The embassies which sent most cables were Ankara, Baghdad, Amman, Kuwait and Tokyo.

 

More than 3 million US government personnel and soldiers, many extremely junior, are cleared to have potential access to this material, even though the cables contain the identities of foreign informants, often sensitive contacts in dictatorial regimes. Some are marked "protect" or "strictly protect".

 

Last spring, 22-year-old intelligence analyst Bradley Manning was charged with leaking many of these cables, along with a gun-camera video of an Apache helicopter crew mistakenly killing two Reuters news agency employees in Baghdad in 2007, which was subsequently posted by WikiLeaks. Manning is facing a court martial.

 

In July and October WikiLeaks also published thousands of leaked military reports from Afghanistan and Iraq. These were made available for analysis beforehand to the Guardian, along with Der Spiegel and the New York Times.

 

A former hacker, Adrian Lamo, who reported Manning to the US authorities, said the soldier had told him in chat messages that the cables revealed "how the first world exploits the third, in detail".

 

He also said, according to Lamo, that Clinton "and several thousand diplomats around the world are going to have a heart attack when they wake up one morning and find an entire repository of classified foreign policy is available in searchable format to the public … everywhere there's a US post … there's a diplomatic scandal that will be revealed".

 

Asked why such sensitive material was posted on a network accessible to thousands of government employees, the state department spokesman told the Guardian: "The 9/11 attacks and their aftermath revealed gaps in intra-governmental information sharing. Since the attacks of 9/11, the US government has taken significant steps to facilitate information sharing. These efforts were focused on giving diplomatic, military, law enforcement and intelligence specialists quicker and easier access to more data to more effectively do their jobs."

 

He added: "We have been taking aggressive action in recent weeks and months to enhance the security of our systems and to prevent the leak of information."

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/nov/2...iplomacy-crisis

[Happy Face 29]

Whistle-blowing website Wikileaks says it has come under attack from a computer-hacking operation, ahead of a release of secret US documents.

 

"We are currently under a mass distributed denial of service attack," it said on its Twitter feed earlier.

 

It added that several newspapers will go ahead and publish the documents released to them by Wikileaks even if the site goes down.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11858637

[Park Life 70]

Any of it online anywhere yet Nicos? Haven't been able to get on their main site.

Edited November 28, 2010 by Park Life

[Happy Face 29]

Any of it online anywhere yet Nicos? Haven't been able to get on their main site.

 

 

The guardian has broad coverage with a nice interactive map...

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/the-us-embassy-cables

[Happy Face 29]

Israel chomping at the bit to get into Iran

[Happy Face 29]

US referred to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as 'Hitler'

 

Nicolas Sarkozy of France is called a "naked emperor"

 

North Korean leader Kim Jong -il suffers from epilepsy

 

Libyan leader Muammar Gaddhafi's full-time nurse is a "hot blond"

 

The German Chancellor is referred to as Angela "Teflon" Merkel

 

Afghan President Hamid Karzai is "driven by paranoia"

 

[Park Life 70]

Israel chomping at the bit to get into Iran

 

No idea what they're waiting for. Maybe a distraction somewhere else...

[Happy Face 29]

revelations include:

 

Iran attempting to adapt North Korean rockets for use as long-range missiles

 

Corruption within the Afghan government, with concerns heightened when a senior official was found to be carrying more than $50m in cash on a foreign trip

 

Bargaining to empty the Guantanamo Bay prison camp - including Slovenian diplomats being told to take in a freed prisoner if they wanted to secure a meeting with President Barack Obama

 

Germany being warned in 2007 not to enforce arrest warrants for US Central Intelligence Agency officers involved in an operation in which an innocent German citizen with the same name as a suspected militant was abducted and held in Afghanistan

 

US officials being instructed to spy on the UN's leadership by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton

 

The very close relationship between Russian PM Vladimir Putin and his Italian counterpart Silvio Berlusconi

 

Alleged links between the Russian government and organised crime

 

Yemen's president talking to then US Mid-East commander General David Petraeus about attacks on Yemeni al-Qaeda bases and saying: "We'll continue saying the bombs are ours, not yours"

 

Criticism of UK politicians including Prime Minister David Cameron

 

Faltering US attempts to prevent Syria from supplying arms to Hezbollah in Lebanon