For the most part I can understand where you are coming from (especially in regards to the Turkish PM), but the leaked documents detailing US "diplomatic" (spy) observations and trackings of UN members is not in the same ballpark as "Prime minister X likes girls with big boobs and brown hair".

edit: From one I am reading @ present. Is this beneficial to international relations if it goes public?

--------------------------------------------- --
Israeli Preference for USG and UNSC Involvement
--------------------------------------------- --

¶9. (C) In light of their uneasiness with EU-3 efforts, the
Israelis are hoping for robust U.S. involvement and action by
the UNSC. PM Sharon has urged the EU-3 to continue its
efforts, but also stressed the importance of preparing to
take Iran to the UNSC. In a meeting with a CoDel on December
12, DefMin Mofaz pushed for the U.S. to take the lead with
the Europeans and pursue all diplomatic solutions, including
sanctions. President Katsav asked the Secretary not to "wait
for the Europeans."

But I'm talking about that too, not just the fun stuff. Consequences aside, this level of insight into diplomatic chatter does have some value. Remember that this isn't Top Secret stuff.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheGuardian

The state department knew of the leak several months ago and had ample time to alert staff in sensitive locations. Its pre-emptive scaremongering over the weekend stupidly contrived to hint at material not in fact being published. Nor is the material classified top secret, being at a level that more than 3 million US government employees are cleared to see, and available on the defence department's internal Siprnet. Such dissemination of "secrets" might be thought reckless, suggesting a diplomatic outreach that makes the British empire seem minuscule.

The revelations do not have the startling, coldblooded immediacy of the WikiLeaks war logs from Iraq and Afghanistan, with their astonishing insight into the minds of fighting men seemingly detached from the ethics of war. These disclosures are largely of analysis and high-grade gossip. Insofar as they are sensational, it is in showing the corruption and mendacity of those in power, and the mismatch between what they claim and what they do.

This is fantastic! ^__^ Government redfaces and bloopers made public.

as for the qld commercial news stations your reporting sucks and is inaccurately inflammatory, running with the line "wikileaks is a foreign terrorist organisation" is poor form.

yeah...it's all a bit complicated really, isn't it.

Perhaps too complicated to say that all these leaks are either acts of grass roots, freedom fighting democracy or just the work of a "fucking twat" who blindly embraces mantras like "freedom of speech!" with a "fuck yeah" style youthful enthusiasm.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kid A

yeah...it's all a bit complicated really, isn't it.

Perhaps too complicated to say that all these leaks are either acts of grass roots, freedom fighting democracy or just the work of a "fucking twat" who blindly embraces mantras like "freedom of speech!" with a "fuck yeah" style youthful enthusiasm.

really?

can't wait to see what's in the insurance file!

can someone explain what 2^256 encription really means? is it that it's 11579208923731600000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000
characters long?

@P337 I believe Kid A is saying that it's not black or white, which is pretty much where I stand.

I understand that these are only secret level releases, but fun tidbits aside would you say that these releases, in regards to international relations, were for the greater good or for the greater detriment?

That's where I stand; I lean towards detriment.

Cui bono

It all depends on whether you think the ends justify the means.

It also massively undermines legitimacy of US' security; the fact that one bloke can release thousands upon thousands of documents without even having the clearance to access the source files themselves.

If a chap with say a TS NV or a TS PV clearance working for the US government decided to defect and release information would he or she become a resistance superhero also?

Your first mistake (and perhaps your major source of aggression,) is your belief that he is perceived primarily as a "resistance superhero".. He's a fucking turbo nerd with a laptop.

P.S Gruso's clarification of what I was trying to say was right. It's not a black and white, "he's a douche, secrets are secrets for a reason" vs. "he's a freedom fighter, power to the people" issue. Principles of this nature will inevitably be made to look stupid in some way or another in a world so inherently complex and manifestly hostile to staunch ideals.

If you guys really believe that one single private managed to access and disseminate 650,000 clasified files then you deserve to be a US sponsored muppet.


Despite the claims, the US hasn't managed to show a single instance of anyones life being put at risk yet.


This is about the US hiding it's asshole behaviour behind veils of security.

These leaks are coming from a lot higher place than a private in a dorm.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dotDNA

If you guys really believe that one single private managed to access and disseminate 650,000 clasified files then you deserve to be a US sponsored muppet.


Despite the claims, the US hasn't managed to show a single instance of anyones life being put at risk yet.


This is about the US hiding it's asshole behaviour behind veils of security.

These leaks are coming from a lot higher place than a private in a dorm.

Julian Assange is the key figure within Wikileaks and the public spearhead for the release of this sensitive information; hence direct reference to him by myself in my previous posts. As I said in my earlier posts I'm not arguing right and wrong in regards to US actions at all; I was focused purely on international relations.

It's easy to judge when we have access to the information but I ask you this. Is the US alone in "hiding it's asshole behavious behind veils of security" ? Personally I don't think so. This is a case of one particular state (conveniently the most powerful Western state in the world), being caught out and ripped apart by those reading this leaked information.

You state that these leaks are comin from a lot higher place than a private dorm? Elaborate please, I am keen to debate (though it would seem I am against the grain in this thread).

Quote:

Originally Posted by P337

Is the US alone in "hiding it's asshole behavious behind veils of security" ?

Of course not. Is this in any way connected to the subject at hand? Of course not. Should this leak have occured? No, there are systems in place to prevent such a thing. But it has happened, and it represents a critical juncture in the direction of foreign relations and the way that governments express themselves and manage that information. If ever there was a body which by its very nature can only understand the language of force, it's the modern USA. This most asymmetrical of attacks has redefined not just the strategies, tactics and fallout of waging a battle on the USA - but will be remembered most, I fear, for the consequences of a superpower's desparate flailings on suffering a direct hit from an invisible enemy.

While I'm not a great one for fickle conspiracy theories born in the evidentiary vacuum, something is a little NQR about it all. Perhaps the full thrust of this will be felt once the complete compliment of information is available and sifted; and contigent on factoring in of the 'history insurance' angle should that eventuate - the revelations between the lines may prove as vital as those in print. Who may stand to benefit from this we can only know with time.

Interesting response to the Koh letter from Assange, and indeed the fella has a point. The principle of refusal to negotiate with the enemy surely plays second fiddle to the immediate requirement of individual's physical safety, no?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Assange to US Ambassador to London

I understand that the United States government would prefer not to have the information that will be published in the public domain and is not in favour of openness. That said, either there is a risk or there is not. You have chosen to respond in a manner which leads me to conclude that the supposed risks are entirely fanciful and you are instead concerned to suppress evidence of human rights abuse and other criminal behaviour.

http://www.indexoncensorship.org/201...orrespondence/

In the meantime, Onion, Router, Tor...

surprised this one hasn't come up yet

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

"According to a cable from the American Embassy in Kabul, Ahmad Zia Massoud, Vice President of Afghanistan, was found carrying $52 million in cash that he “was ultimately allowed to keep without revealing the money’s origin or destination.” The discovery was made in the United Arab Emirates by local authorites working with the Drug Enforcement Agency.[45]"

How does one carry around $52mil? a bag the size of a bus?

it's pitty the cable doesn't state anything further about it, that's not a small sum of money....

Quote:

Originally Posted by dbb618

... if only wikileaks was around and leaking during the lead up to the second Iraq / Gulf war.

no files from like 1999-2004 have not been leaked yet.... guess what insurance is

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kiron

no files from like 1999-2004 have not been leaked yet.... guess what insurance is

Oh my!

I wonder if insurance is sitting on a conspiracy bomb... september 11, jfk, ufos and shit. Then myabe i'd be interested.

Vladimir is a twat, berlusconi is a twat, everyone hates Iran and North Korea and the united states spies. Gimme moar.

None of these files are Top Secret, meaning there is no damning evidence of US intentional wrongdoing apart from using diplomats as spies and diplomatic immunity as cover.

It is actually beneficial for US to have these released while strongly condemning it. They show, for example, the US having tremendous restraint for military action against Iran, despite urges from every Arab and Israeli heads of state to do so, not to mention threats from other Arab countries that they too will be looking for nuclear weapons if Iran manages to build a program of their own.

What has been leaked is the State Department files, showing mainly what other nations beg the US to do. What will be damning to the US is the leaking of Pentagon files... and the CIA files.

Quote:

Originally Posted by autumn acid

I wonder if insurance is sitting on a conspiracy bomb... september 11, jfk, ufos and shit. Then myabe i'd be interested.

http://usahitman.com/about-wikileaks-get-more-info/

Quote:

Originally Posted by RunningWithScissors

http://usahitman.com/about-wikileaks-get-more-info/

What the hell. A detective whose secret weapons are whois and archive.org.

In this post they seem to think a site crash (and subsequent realisation that they weren't backed up) was an attack on their freedom: http://usahitman.com/usahitman-was-censored/ wow.

Spoiler:

Aaaah they're killing me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by USAHM

I just seen a group of black SUV’s with strobe lights and sirens driving up my street at a very rate of high speed.. This group was about 4 blacked out they were following each other very closely and no markings on the outside of the trucks…

Later...

Quote:

Originally Posted by USAHM

I did some searching and the President was in New Jersey… So I’m pretty sure it was him..

/hijack

More cables from NZ (1504) than Australia (1031) or UK (109

http://www.spiegel.de/flash/flash-24861.html

I know they have that whole nuclear-free thing that basically fucked up ANZUS but that's still a lot

owNZ

Quote:

Originally Posted by RunningWithScissors

I know they have that whole nuclear-free thing that basically fucked up ANZUS but that's still a lot

owNZ

Stupid kiwi ****'s told the US to f*ck off with their nuclear subs (wouldn't even let them come into kiwi ports). They signed their own death wish by taking the apparent "morally right" option.

Media Player

Australia - Invade New Zealand Tv Ad - YouTube

Spoiler:

ohhhh NZ you f*cking twats

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2...section=justin

hmmm.

The only one who doesn't seem to be protesting is Obama.

He's the leak for sure.

Yep.

Sorted.

Exactly what I have been arguing throughout this thread.

Quote:

Originally Posted by P337

Re: Gruso. Secrets are usually maintained as such by governments for the damaging implications that said secrets may have on international relations should they be released. I'm not going to argue whether the US are good or bad, right or wrong, that would be pointless, however I do see these leaks as inflaming hostility between states. For this reason I think Julian Assange is a fucking twat.

"Freedom of information, fuck yeah!!!!"

At what cost?

Quote:

Originally Posted by P337

For the most part I can understand where you are coming from (especially in regards to the Turkish PM), but the leaked documents detailing US "diplomatic" (spy) observations and trackings of UN members is not in the same ballpark as "Prime minister X likes girls with big boobs and brown hair".

edit: From one I am reading @ present. Is this beneficial to international relations if it goes public?

--------------------------------------------- --
Israeli Preference for USG and UNSC Involvement
--------------------------------------------- --

¶9. (C) In light of their uneasiness with EU-3 efforts, the
Israelis are hoping for robust U.S. involvement and action by
the UNSC. PM Sharon has urged the EU-3 to continue its
efforts, but also stressed the importance of preparing to
take Iran to the UNSC. In a meeting with a CoDel on December
12, DefMin Mofaz pushed for the U.S. to take the lead with
the Europeans and pursue all diplomatic solutions, including
sanctions. President Katsav asked the Secretary not to "wait
for the Europeans."

Quote:

Originally Posted by P337

I understand that these are only secret level releases, but fun tidbits aside would you say that these releases, in regards to international relations, were for the greater good or for the greater detriment?

That's where I stand; I lean towards detriment.

Quote:

Originally Posted by P337

It also massively undermines legitimacy of US' security; the fact that one bloke can release thousands upon thousands of documents without even having the clearance to access the source files themselves

Quote:

Originally Posted by P337

As I said in my earlier posts I'm not arguing right and wrong in regards to US actions at all; I was focused purely on international relations.

Also; lol @ my kiwi post above, I may have been drinking

No need to bold all your points man, anyone reasonable knows where you're coming from.

Then why so much opposition to what I was trying to say?

It's the Terriers.

Quote:

Originally Posted by P337

Then why so much opposition to what I was trying to say?

It's either this, or arguing in the 911 thread.

Quote:

Originally Posted by claude glass

It all depends on whether you think the ends justify the means.

What are 'the ends' you're referring to?

In my view, what massively undermines the legtimicacy of US' security is that they spy on just about as many people as they possibly can while entering into illegal wars they can't win on the basis of bogus trumped up falsehoods and proving themselves incapable of securing their own borders, despite bucket loads of intelligence.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dotDNA

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2...section=justin

hmmm.

indeed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by claude glass

In my view, what massively undermines the legtimicacy of US' security is that they spy on just about as many people as they possibly can while entering into illegal wars they can't win on the basis of bogus trumped up falsehoods and proving themselves incapable of securing their own borders, despite bucket loads of intelligence.

The United States in 1 sentence; with claude glass.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vital

What are 'the ends' you're referring to?

I think take your pick.

Either that the need for security justifies the behaviour of the US (and others), or that truth and transparency is an essentially good thing.

Generally, the more transparent relationships are, be they personal, business, or political, the better the outcome. I recognise that we have enemies and that needs covert behaviour, but I don't think covert behaviour should be the normal way of operating, and I think we have fallen into a trap of too much information and a reliance on secrecy.

There is an argument that 9/11 happened because there was so much information that the signal to noise ratio was too low, and became lost in a mire of mutiple US government agencies' intelligence. (If that isn't the case, then there was a conspiracy.)

The problem is spy organisations want to spy. Now our police want to spy. Our governments want to spy, the corporations we work for want to spy on us.

Quote:

Originally Posted by claude glass

Generally, the more transparent relationships are, be they personal, business, or political, the better the outcome. I recognise that we have enemies and that needs covert behaviour, but I don't think covert behaviour should be the normal way of operating, and I think we have fallen into a trap of too much information and a reliance on secrecy.

There's a reason for secrecy and spies. Even friends can be enemies; this was the reason for the shake up of US-Australian intel sharing. The two states used to share far more than they do present day; Australia was a back door into the White House during the Cold War.

edit: in a utopian world spies would be redundant.

Quote:

Originally Posted by claude glass

There is an argument that 9/11 happened because there was so much information that the signal to noise ratio was too low, and became lost in a mire of mutiple US government agencies' intelligence. (If that isn't the case, then there was a conspiracy.)

The primary reasons given for 9/11 were:

a) The amount of Arabic speaking intelligence analysts working for the United States pre 9/11 was literally double digits across all agencies; a void of Arabic perspective.

b) A complete lack of cross-agency intelligence sharing and monitoring in the United States pre 9/11.

I like how you agreed with 95% of what you quoted me saying but made it look like you are arguing with me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by claude glass

I like how you agreed with 95% of what you quoted me saying but made it look like you are arguing with me.

Clarifying, not arguing
Well the second half at least. first half; whilst we are completely and utterly reliant on secrecy the world kinda wouldn't operate without it.

edit: bbl in a few hours. More wikileaks less 9/11!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gotti

surprised this one hasn't come up yet

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

"According to a cable from the American Embassy in Kabul, Ahmad Zia Massoud, Vice President of Afghanistan, was found carrying $52 million in cash that he “was ultimately allowed to keep without revealing the money’s origin or destination.” The discovery was made in the United Arab Emirates by local authorites working with the Drug Enforcement Agency.[45]"

How does one carry around $52mil? a bag the size of a bus?

it's pitty the cable doesn't state anything further about it, that's not a small sum of money....

massive oversized cheque

Quote:

Originally Posted by claude glass

I think take your pick.

Either that the need for security justifies the behaviour of the US (and others), or that truth and transparency is an essentially good thing.

Generally, the more transparent relationships are, be they personal, business, or political, the better the outcome. I recognise that we have enemies and that needs covert behaviour, but I don't think covert behaviour should be the normal way of operating, and I think we have fallen into a trap of too much information and a reliance on secrecy.

There is an argument that 9/11 happened because there was so much information that the signal to noise ratio was too low, and became lost in a mire of mutiple US government agencies' intelligence. (If that isn't the case, then there was a conspiracy.)

The problem is spy organisations want to spy. Now our police want to spy. Our governments want to spy, the corporations we work for want to spy on us.

I can agree with some of what you're saying but I don't think transparancy = good is a blanket rule, particularly in the case of diplomatic relations. A very loose analogy would be doctor patient confidentiality. Publically voicing particular concerns in volatile regions such as the middle east, may do more harm than good because it will necessarily elicit a response from governments which panders to its citizens. Nobody needs more posturing from Iran or Isreal. Diplomacy behind closed doors provides a forum where goverments can freely express their concerns and I don't think is necessarily a bad thing. If the middle east peace process was left up to popular opinion in the region I doubt there would be any peace process at all (not that it's going so well anyway).

anyone else find it ironic that a lot of this stuff labelled as 'intelligence' sounds more like the petty gossip of a bunch of bored housewives

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vital

I can agree with some of what you're saying but I don't think transparancy = good is a blanket rule, particularly in the case of diplomatic relations. A very loose analogy would be doctor patient confidentiality. Publically voicing particular concerns in volatile regions such as the middle east, may do more harm than good because it will necessarily elicit a response from governments which panders to its citizens. Nobody needs more posturing from Iran or Isreal. Diplomacy behind closed doors provides a forum where goverments can freely express their concerns and I don't think is necessarily a bad thing. If the middle east peace process was left up to popular opinion in the region I doubt there would be any peace process at all (not that it's going so well anyway).

Yeah I think all that you say is true.

I don't think we are ever, ever, going to see peace in the middle east.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/...-organization/

Gotta love Fox News Polls.

Think Wikileaks is a Terrorist organization? (all answers are variations of yes)

Fuck you Murdoch.

Quote:

South Korea's vice-foreign minister said he was told by two named senior Chinese officials that they believed Korea should be reunified under Seoul's control, and that this view was gaining ground with the leadership in Beijing.

China's vice-foreign minister told US officials that Pyongyang was behaving like a "spoiled child" to get Washington's attention in April 2009 by carrying out missile tests.

A Chinese ambassador warned that North Korean nuclear activity was "a threat to the whole world's security".

Chinese officials assessed that it could cope with an influx of 300,000 North Koreans in the event of serious instability, according to a representative of an international agency, but might need to use the military to seal the border.

I think it may be time too give our final farewells to DPRK.

http://cablegate.wikileaks.org/cable...0SEOUL272.html

lol panty stocking

so has anyone snatched the torrent?

There's a torrent?

I'm just looking at the stuff as it is released on cablegate.wikileaks

Quote:

Early next year, Julian Assange says, a major American bank will suddenly find itself turned inside out. Tens of thousands of its internal documents will be exposed on Wikileaks.org with no polite requests for executives’ response or other forewarnings. The data dump will lay bare the finance firm’s secrets on the Web for every customer, every competitor, every regulator to examine and pass judgment on.

MY BODY IS READY!