Patreon LogoYour support makes Blue Moon possible (Patreon)

Wikileaks Does It Again

Joined
Dec 2, 2009
This time Wikileaks has leaked US diplomatic cables in what they have called Cablegate. Gotta love it.

Opinions?

Personally, I think this is an amazing view into the structure of how policy is formed, how the politically powerful maneuver and deal with each other. However, I don't think this will have a negative effect. I think it will be a reminder for the State Department to be honest and transparent with their dealings.

Gotta love Wikileaks.
 
It's really just a kick in the balls to the government's security guys. That's it. Let them cry it off.
 
Shoot him in the head. he is putting people I work with in danger when they are down range.
 
I agree! This increases the transparency of those spicy semi-private conversations a lot! Now everybody with nuclear weapons can be totally clear on how much other people with nuclear weapons wish them dead.

Nothing could possibly go wrong with that!
 
Thus far the major "revelations" that have arisen from Wikileaks are -

- China is growing disaffected and frustrated with North Korea (has been releasing public statements to that affect for a year).

- Arab states are urging the US to bomb the fuck out of Iran (no one likes Iran in the Middle East, they're nuts and spy on everyone).

- US policy analysts are concerned that Pakistan's nuclear security is for shit (public knowledge already).

- Disparaging comments about world leaders. Oh boy.

- Yemen privately approved a strike on militants it publicly denounced.

- Russia was referred to as a "virtual mafia state" as well as Chechnya and Belarus (Russians say the exact same thing).

- The US advocates spying on UN officials (duh).

- Hamid Karzai released alleged insurgents due to their personal familial connections (duh, it's called half-of-his-country-is-run-by-drug-lords-and-war-lords).

So far I'm not seeing anything to shit my pants over.
 
Yeah, nothing major for those that pay attention or those in the know. At worse some blushing is done.

What's really interesting though is the reaction of people who didn't know, your average American who should be informed of these things so that we can have a properly functioning democracy and all that we preach so heavily to the rest of the world.
 
I'm all for it, it's the modern age where such things can and should be out there.

Honestly, the only thing that I have against it at the moment is that this latest leak put a some quotes of how they feel about other political and diplomatic leaders/representatives what have you. I could see this having some sort of negative effect just because the Middle East, and Eastern world is build on customs/traditions that shouldn't be part of diplomacy at all. Yet it is, oh well. We don't like your annoying clothing or how you conduct your country; nothing new.

Keep them coming wikileaks!
Can I get a wikileaks T-shirt? Haha.
 
Sorry, I am in the military, people I know are currently in Afghanistan, I wont go into details about where exactly they are stationed or what they are up to

And I am not saying that people don't have the right to know about these sort of things, people do have the right to know, but only once the war is settled and people, our own people are no longer being put in danger

You let the world know about mistakes that are made and people may rise up, citizens who may have been willing to work with us against the Taliban and insurgents now hate every American because of what a few did... if I lose a friend to an insurgent then I think that Wikileaks is going to be at least partially responsible
 
Originally against the military reports that were leaked.
As a member I still think thats a no-no until our people are out of the concerned areas.

However, What U.S diplomats say about everyone, I personally don't see any real big deal about it.
I'm sure that most of the world diplomats secretly think that every other diplomat and leader is retarded.

As ZG and Nihil have said, it's more of a "oops, yeah....I said that when I didn't think anyone was listening" kinda thing. *blush*

hmm.....
 
Of course this leak has given us such wonderful things as this.

WikiLeaks: Texas Company Helped Pimp Little Boys To Stoned Afghan Cops

Another international conflict, another horrific taxpayer-funded sex scandal for DynCorp, the private security contractor tasked with training the Afghan police.

While the company is officially based in the DC area, most of its business is managed on a satellite campus at Alliance Airport north of Fort Worth. And if one of the diplomatic cables from the WikiLeaks archive is to be believed, boy howdy, are their doings in Afghanistan shady.

The Afghanistan cable (dated June 24, 2009) discusses a meeting between Afghan Interior Minister Hanif Atmar and US assistant ambassador Joseph Mussomeli. Prime among Atmar's concerns was a party partially thrown by DynCorp for Afghan police recruits in Kunduz Province.

Many of DynCorp's employees are ex-Green Berets and veterans of other elite units, and the company was commissioned by the US government to provide training for the Afghani police. According to most reports, over 95 percent of its $2 billion annual revenue comes from US taxpayers.

And in Kunduz province, according to the leaked cable, that money was flowing to drug dealers and pimps. Pimps of children, to be more precise. (The exact type of drug was never specified.)

Since this is Afghanistan, you probably already knew this wasn't a kegger. Instead, this DynCorp soiree was a bacha bazi ("boy-play") party, much like the ones uncovered earlier this year by Frontline.

For those that can't or won't click the link, bacha bazi is a pre-Islamic Afghan tradition that was banned by the Taliban. Bacha boys are eight- to 15-years-old. They put on make-up, tie bells to their feet and slip into scanty women's clothing, and then, to the whine of a harmonium and wailing vocals, they dance seductively to smoky roomfuls of leering older men.

After the show is over, their services are auctioned off to the highest bidder, who will sometimes purchase a boy outright. And by services, we mean anal sex: The State Department has called bacha bazi a "widespread, culturally accepted form of male rape." (While it may be culturally accepted, it violates both Sharia law and Afghan civil code.)

For Pashtuns in the South of Afghanistan, there is no shame in having a little boy lover; on the contrary, it is a matter of pride. Those who can afford the most attractive boy are the players in their world, the OG's of places like Kandahar and Khost. On the Frontline video, ridiculously macho warrior guys brag about their young boyfriends utterly without shame.

So perhaps in the evil world of Realpolitik, in which there is apparently no moral compass US private contractors won't smash to smithereens, it made sense for DynCorp to drug up some Pashtun police recruits and turn them loose on a bunch of little boys. But according to the leaked document, Atmar, the Afghani interior minister, was terrified this story would catch a reporter's ear.

He urged the US State Department to shut down a reporter he heard was snooping around, and was horrified that a rumored videotape of the party might surface. He predicted that any story about the party would "endanger lives." He said that his government had arrested two Afghan police and nine Afghan civilians on charges of "purchasing a service from a child" in connection with the party, but that he was worried about the image of their "foreign mentors," by which he apparently meant DynCorp. American diplomats told him to chill. They apparently had a better handle on our media than Atmar, because when a report of the party finally did emerge, it was neutered to the point of near-falsehood.

The UK Guardian picks up the tale:

US diplomats cautioned against an "overreaction" and said that approaching the journalist involved would only make the story worse.

"A widely-anticipated newspaper article on the Kunduz scandal has not appeared but, if there is too much noise that may prompt the journalist to publish," the cable said.
The strategy appeared to work when an article was published in July by the Washington Post about the incident, which made little of the affair, saying it was an incident of "questionable management oversight" in which foreign DynCorp workers "hired a teenage boy to perform a tribal dance at a company farewell party".

A tribal dance? Could illegal strip clubs stateside possibly try that one out? "Naw, those are not full-contact lap-dances, Mr. Vice Cop. Krystal and Lexxis are just performing an ancient Cherokee fertility dance. See those buck-skin thongs on and those feathers in their hair?"

As we mentioned, this isn't DynCorp's first brush with the sex-slavery game. Back in Bosnia in 1999, US policewoman Kathryn Bolkovac was fired from DynCorp after blowing the whistle on a sex-slave ring operating on one of our bases there. DynCorp's employees were accused of raping and peddling girls as young as 12 from countries like Ukraine, Moldova and Romania. The company was forced to settle lawsuits against Bolkovac (whose story was recently told in the feature film The Whistleblower) and another man who informed authorities about DynCorp's sex ring.

There's your tax dollars at work, Joe Six-Pack. Maybe now you won't get so worked up about the fact that KPFT gets about ten percent of its funding from the government and uses some of it to air Al-Jazeera.

Now that's just perfect.
 
I am all for first amendment rights. I am not, however, for risking National Security and putting the ones that fight for this country in more danger than they are already in overseas. Things are "classified" for a reason and though there are scumbags that take advantage of that fact, there are very legitimate reasons that the citizens of this country and more importantly, citizens of other countries, should not have a open door policy on whatever they feel like they should have a right to "know."
 
Yeah, because it's not like Federally-funded child sex slavery actually needs to be known by the taxpaying public or anything. Let's shut the whole operation down, because people could theoretically be hurt by all this blabbing of inconvenient truths.

Question: any actually traceable proof that this site has cost lives? I mean, rather than just reveal that lives were risked or ruined in the past.
 
I didn't say "shut the whole operation" down, my first sentence was "I am all for first amendment rights." I have no problem with, and in fact advocate, transparent public officials. However, showing war "videos" of soldiers killing other human beings and leaking hundreds of thousands of important diplomatic classified documents will hurt international relations and ultimately assist enemies of the state.
 
The military is currently scrambling to make sure that all of our informants and other various locals who have helped in the past, are being protected and secured. No one has any actual numbers on who has died, but more and more attacks are occurring based on what was thought to be secure information. :/f
 
If I recall correctly the Pentagon went and did some research, no one has actually to this date been killed conclusively because of the release of information.
 
Google said:
Sorry, I am in the military, people I know are currently in Afghanistan, I wont go into details about where exactly they are stationed or what they are up to

And I am not saying that people don't have the right to know about these sort of things, people do have the right to know, but only once the war is settled and people, our own people are no longer being put in danger

You let the world know about mistakes that are made and people may rise up, citizens who may have been willing to work with us against the Taliban and insurgents now hate every American because of what a few did... if I lose a friend to an insurgent then I think that Wikileaks is going to be at least partially responsible

You're an idiot. I am in the military. I am COMBAT ARMS, 11-Bang Bang. This, in no way, affected ANY of us. Perhaps you should read these before you make a judgment instead of believing the government isn't lying about lies that have been uncovered.

Bet you didn't expect another soldier in here, did ya?

Holy shit, defending your country isn't about defending the fucking blue-bloods, it's about your country. Your country isn't the politicians and their investments, it's about the PEOPLE and the principles it was founded on. Our government is comprised of a bunch of corrupt blue-bloods that only care about deepening their pockets, not helping the people because uneducated morons voted them on based on smear campaigns and/or simply whatever party they're a part of. And since hardly anyone actually pays attention to politics or even really cares, it's easier for these parties and individuals to get away with lying and extortion.

God, I can't wait for one of these hackers to come up with bribery information (if Wikileaks isn't already sitting on it). Shit, I hope there's enough information to prove the government is corrupt enough to force a revolution. Or multiple in multiple countries. Lord knows most of the countries are overdue. The governments have grown too powerful and too secure in their position of power. The people should not serve the governments, the governments should serve the people, not the businesses.
 
DrivingMissDaisy said:
I am all for first amendment rights. I am not, however, for risking National Security and putting the ones that fight for this country in more danger than they are already in overseas. Things are "classified" for a reason and though there are scumbags that take advantage of that fact, there are very legitimate reasons that the citizens of this country and more importantly, citizens of other countries, should not have a open door policy on whatever they feel like they should have a right to "know."

In this case being "all for first amendment rights" is mutually exclusive with "things are 'classified' for a reason." Would you mind elucidating why citizens of other countries and this one should be kept on the dark on action reports and diplomatic cables where the names of informants are redacted? Also, you know what else I've noticed--a lot of the things that are labeled CONFIDENTIAL and CLASSIFIED/NOFORM are for reasons I cannot comprehend. Really, I look at that information, I look at the time it was transmitted, I look at the issues it's dealing with and I see no reason why the majority of these reports should be considered classified that are labeled as such.

DrivingMissDaisy said:
However, showing war "videos" of soldiers killing other human beings and leaking hundreds of thousands of important diplomatic classified documents will hurt international relations and ultimately assist enemies of the state.

Soooooo, leaking videos of soldiers killing reporters and children before then making blase jokes about it is, what, bad form? Unnecessary? Lacking in journalistic import? Here is an interesting cable that is marked CONFIDENTIAL. Can you explain to me why a cable that reads as a brief on a visit by President Medvedev to Serbia is marked SECRET?
 
Okay, I have to throw my two cents in here. I know I'll probably get some negative feedback, and so be it. I'm sick of seeing people try to hide behind the "First Amendment" to justify this sort of thing. Here is the quote, word for word.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

This gives us the right to voice our opinions, and gives the press the right to air any story that is gained through legal means and resources. However, it does NOT give people the right to publicize information that has not been released as such, as it CAN pose a considerable threat to our military personnel, our government officials, and even our citizens. You want to talk about rights? What about the privacy rights of those known to the people involved? You can sit here and quote logistics to me all day. It doesn't matter that no deaths or incidents have been proven as a result of such leaks. That doesn't mean that they haven't occurred, so stop hiding behind semantics.

The fact is, airing things in such a careless fashion only serves to turn a world against us that is already not very happy with us to begin with. It puts us in danger of losing the few allies we have left. Then what do you think happens? Oh, and for the record, before anyone else decides to start trying to quote freedom of speech and freedom of the press again, let me remind you all of the Espionage Act of 1917. This was primarily meant for anyone who would seek to cause "insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty in the military or naval forces of the United States." Basically this means anti-military propaganda, which is exactly what such sites as Wikileaks can be considered.

Quote the First Amendment to your heart's content. The fact is, there are also several clauses attached to it that people seem to forget about meant to protect our military by preventing leaks and making them punishable as crimes. Otherwise any asshole could just tell our enemies every move we make in times of war by posting it in the paper. Would you like to see your friends and family put in harm's way because of someone manipulating the constitution for their own ends? I wouldn't. And I'm sure most people wouldn't. This is not to say that I trust the government and put faith in them. Politicians are politicians, and they work toward their own agendas, not for our benefit. But the fact is they're the ones the world sees when dealing with us, and we're not helping our case by airing our dirty laundry for everyone. If you want the world to stop being anti-American, then stop putting things out there to give them reason to be.

That's not to say, however, there is no validity in the arguments of those who would defend the actions of Wikileaks. As for why things are marked "Secret" or "Confidential", it's not for you or me to know. There is always a reason. I don't condone the crimes against humanity that are committed by either side, don't get me wrong, but there are some things that should be handled behind closed doors. Most wars are truly won by the diplomats. Many of these guys are assholes, and I'm not disputing that. Many of them are crooks who line their own pockets with money bathed in the blood of our soldiers. But the fact is these guys are the ones who put things into perspective for the opposing forces when all is said and done and find the resolution.

Don't think for a moment that I'm undermining the efforts of our military, because I'm not. It's their blood that gets us into a position when fighting a war for the diplomats to make their case, and without their sacrifice, we would never achieve our goals. But what I'm saying is we don't need every anti-American living within our own borders doing all they can to continue to try and turn the rest of the world against us by doing all they can to incriminate the guys in the public eye who are working behind the scenes to try and find a resolution to our conflicts. The fact is, EVERY country has this very same sort of scandal in some form or another. So why do so many focus solely on the US, including its own people? Everyone is guilty of something, but that doesn't make it a good idea to go waving it around in front of the whole world as if holding up a banner that reads "Hey, look at what assholes we are" and in effect making the majority of the world believe that we are ALL of such morally questionable character. You people are not doing the American people any favors with this. Can't you see that?

So my final thoughts are this. Take the time to truly understand the First Amendment before you start quoting it to justify the actions of those who seek to undermine the work our soldiers are committed to simply to get some recognition. There is a point where people stops exercising their rights and start blatantly abusing them to serve their own agendas, and that is exactly what sites like Wikileaks do. Just a bunch of jackasses looking for recognition at the expense of anyone, including their own country. All I can say is enjoy that freedom while it lasts, assholes, because if you continue to act in the manner you do, you weaken our ties, and eventually the world will close in around us. Then you'll be wishing you had those rights, because they'll be nothing but a distant memory. Here's a thought. If you want to improve the situation here in America, then how you stop trying to give the world reasons to hate us, and start trying to give them reasons not to?

P.S. I linked the first mention of the Amendment to the Wikipedia article with the full description for those who would like to take a read and better understand the rights and limitations of it. I will thank people in advance for their feedback, positive or negative, as we are all entitled to our opinions and fully have the right to feel strongly about them as well as voice them. This is simply my opinion, and is not meant to be personally offensive to anyone, nor is it directed at a specific individual.
 
Clinton had gone through a lot of trouble to open up governmental records, declassify a lot of things as much as he could manage. Then W got in, and perhaps you didn't hear about it at the time, but the rate at which documents were suddenly classified at minimum quadrupled. Over time it may have evened out, I haven't heard anything specifically about it since maybe 2003, but they were going back and reclassifying old documents. And not important things, just any old documents. Want to know what the National Journalist's Dinner menu in 1972 was? Sorry, classified.

That's how inconsequential and irrelevant things were that Bush was making top secret. The man (likely at the prompting of his handlers) was a paranoid sonofabitch, and surprise surprise, the "liberal" media never really breathed a word of it, did they? Because they're not, really. Multinational multibillion dollar conglomerates owned by even larger megacorporations who have final editorial say regardless of the actual journalists and line editors, liberal? Sure, I'll buy that for a dollar.

This is why things like Wikileaks are important. Because while Obama is doing a lot to make government more transparent, he's got a decade or more of paranoid crap to try and get through while people are baying for his blood because MY GOD, HE HASN'T FIXED ALL THE SYSTEM-WIDE DEEP-ROOTED PROBLEMS THAT HAVE BEEN BUILDING OVER FIFTY YEARS OF MONEY-GRUBBING CORPORATE/GOVERNMENT MALFEASANCE IN LESS THAN TWO YEARS IN OFFICE!

Plus, he has the gall, the SHEER TEMERITY! To expect Congress to actually act like our civics textbooks used to say it was supposed to act, and limits himself to acting like a President is supposed to act. Where's his cowboying all over the law? Where's his back-ending legislation to get around debate? Where's his appointing cronies and changing the rules that are inconvenient to him? W did it all the fucking time, why isn't Obama? No wonder he's not getting anything done; he's trying to operate the machine like the manual says you're supposed to operate it! The fool.

Wikileaks needs to expose more. There's crap that needs to fucking end right now, because it's getting in the way of how we're supposed to work, which is: by the people, of the people, for the people. There's folks in power that get that, but precious few, and even they are compromised by what they have to do to actually try and get things done, working with the people who DON'T get it. The more ammunition we have against those people, the better.

Note: I had the misfortune to have Scotty post his excellently written point while I was writing mine, so mine was in direct response to ZG and his musings on classified documents. Also, I may have wandered in my topic a bit. Mea Culpa.
 
No worries, MM. Thanks for the clarification, and for the compliment, even if our view are different. I got a little carried away myself. The fact that you can make a point, be it similar or opposing, and still take the time to dish out a compliment as well speaks volumes about you as an individual.

So as far as I'm concerned about wandering a bit in your topic, agere sequitur credere, and I can find no fault in that, and am sure no one else can either, agree or disagree.
 
In actually the press has full right to disclose information given to them regardless of whether or not it was attained legally or illegally by a third party.

There is case law on this issue already.

What I find most amusing is that when wikileaks posted the emails from the climate change scientist the conservatives cheered it, now they turn their backs. What's more amusing is that the diplomatic cables released has provided evidence that China and America worked together to destroy whatever chance at enacting global warming concious policy because it hurts their bottom line.

Great job America, yeah, we should be proud of ourselves for being such rotten bastards when we set ourselves up as the golden beacon of the world.
 
Nihilistic_Impact said:
In actually the press has full right to disclose information given to them regardless of whether or not it was attained legally or illegally by a third party.

There is case law on this issue already.

What I find most amusing is that when wikileaks posted the emails from the climate change scientist the conservatives cheered it, now they turn their backs. What's more amusing is that the diplomatic cables released has provided evidence that China and America worked together to destroy whatever chance at enacting global warming concious policy because it hurts their bottom line.

Great job America, yeah, we should be proud of ourselves for being such rotten bastards when we set ourselves up as the golden beacon of the world.

What kind of case law are you referencing here? Federal? The press does not have the full right to report illegally obtained information (by themselves or by third parties). In fact, quite the opposite. The press is subject to both civil and criminal liability, see Cohen v. Cowles Media Co., 501 U.S. 663.
 
DrivingMissDaisy said:
Nihilistic_Impact said:
In actually the press has full right to disclose information given to them regardless of whether or not it was attained legally or illegally by a third party.

There is case law on this issue already.

What I find most amusing is that when wikileaks posted the emails from the climate change scientist the conservatives cheered it, now they turn their backs. What's more amusing is that the diplomatic cables released has provided evidence that China and America worked together to destroy whatever chance at enacting global warming concious policy because it hurts their bottom line.

Great job America, yeah, we should be proud of ourselves for being such rotten bastards when we set ourselves up as the golden beacon of the world.

What kind of case law are you referencing here? Federal? The press does not have the full right to report illegally obtained information (by themselves or by third parties). In fact, quite the opposite. The press is subject to both civil and criminal liability, see Cohen v. Cowles Media Co., 501 U.S. 663.

Great! Let's indict Robert Novak then. Because Valerie Plame was a serving CIA agent, and that leak really DID fuck operations up.

No? Well, why the hell not?
Scotty Rage said:
No worries, MM. Thanks for the clarification, and for the compliment, even if our view are different. I got a little carried away myself. The fact that you can make a point, be it similar or opposing, and still take the time to dish out a compliment as well speaks volumes about you as an individual.

So as far as I'm concerned about wandering a bit in your topic, agere sequitur credere, and I can find no fault in that, and am sure no one else can either, agree or disagree.

Well, you know, respect for others' differing opinions is supposed to be part of civil discourse. It's a bit glib to say that we've forgotten that recently (as the truth is, people have been forgetting that fact regularly throughout recorded history), but it's certainly true to say that actual "civil discourse" has not been exactly encouraged in modern discourse, political or in media.

So thanks for the compliments, but I like to think I'm just making points here in the Academy forum more or less how you're supposed to make them. I mean, I get snarky from time to time when presenting a point, but I don't intend to direct that snark at my specific opponents, it's more of a generalized entertaining-the-reader sort of snark.

All the same, your kind words are appreciated.
 
You may want to check on New York Times Co v United States 403 U.S. 713 about the Pentagon Papers in 1971 when the New York Times attained information that the American government had bombed Cambodia and Laos during the Vietnam War. These papers were classified and the stealing of them was technically illegal; but the publishing of them by the Times was within the first amendment rights.

So there is case on hand that supports this type of action.
 
Back
Top Bottom