Taking Stock of WikiLeaks

[Gman]

This is the contradiction at the heart of the WikiLeaks project. Given what I have read Assange saying, he seems to me to be an opponent of war and a supporter of peace. Yet what he did in leaking these documents, if the leaking did anything at all, is make diplomacy more difficult. It is not that it will lead to war by any means; it is simply that one cannot advocate negotiations and then demand that negotiators be denied confidentiality in which to conduct their negotiations. No business could do that, nor could any other institution. Note how vigorously WikiLeaks hides the inner workings of its own organization, from how it is funded to the people it employs.
,
,
,
It is difficult to see what harm the leaks have done, beyond embarrassment. It is also difficult to understand why WikiLeaks thinks it has changed history or why Assange lacks a sufficient sense of irony not to see the contradiction between his position on openness and his willingness to keep secrets when they benefit him. But there is also something important here, which is how this all was leaked in the first place.

http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20101213-taking-stock-wikileaks?utm_source=GWeekly&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=101214&utm_content=readmore&elq=144fbd766b504575827b7f81dc9c791f

Nothing game changing apparently has been leaked. If there are some really REALLY dark secrets out there, and I'm sure there are, they're not in these docs. They apparently don't change anything but make some faces red.

Read the article before commenting, please.

[T Wolf]

1. 1) Julian wisely is keeping his organizations' secrets because of the obvious threat

(now being acted out) to prosecute, destroy financially, jail on trumped-up charges, targeted for assassination, etc. And he/they/it is NOT a governmental agency in the (supposed) service of the population. That analogy does not hold water.

2) My right-wing cousin makes that same argument - the sanctity of "diplomacy" and the need for secrecy as the only way to avoid more wars. Bull. While there needs to be some "discretion" - the idea that the operation, particularly the operations of international relations/wars should be hidden from "we the people" is just wrong. Open, honest negotiations will always be more successful.
It is similar to the bullshit of "diplomatic immunity" that allows the elite to escape justice for their crimes, up to and including murder. It is just another example of the powerful protecting themselves at everyone else's expense.

[Gman]

2. In a world where all parties trust each other full sunshine works

but since the dawn of civilizations, trust is built by, among other things but very importantly, keeping a secret. Once that is breached, you have no more credibility, you cannot be perceived as negotiating in good faith.

[Ichingcarpenter]

3. SOURCEWATCH...Al Giordano , details what he calls "20 Stratfor Lies about Latin America":

Stratfor is one of these snake-oil disinfo sales firms that traffics in "intelligence briefings" for people gullible enough to pay for them. Imagine that: you can get lied to for free all over this great land, but some people actually pay to be deceived!


Stratfor's track record in Latin America is abhorrent (how many years in a row did it predict that Hugo Chavez would not survive that year as Venezuela's president?). It's "spin" is ideological: pro-corporate, which is no surprise, given that it's undisclosed clientele purchases something called "Business Intelligence Services."



In my opinion, Stratfor engages in circulating disinformation into the datasphere through its free and paid email memos in ways that seem aimed to help the agendas of that very same corporate world that contracts its services.



In March 2004, Bart Mongoven from Stratfor's Washington D.C. office appeared on a panel - Strategies for Dealing with Environmental Litigation - at the National Petrochemical and Refiners Association annual meeting in San Antonio, Texas. (Also appearing on the panel were Marc Sisk, Dorsey & Whitney, Washington, DC and Stephen Brown from The Dutko Group LL

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Stratfor

Yeah...... I know his CRAP..... DO YOU?

[Gman]

8. That has nothing to do with the topic and substance of the article

That's why I posted to read the article first before posting. I know Stratfor as well as anyone here. But the unspoken question of this post is did Wikileaks disclosures change the geopolitical landscape? I don't think so. I haven't read the papers knowing that if there was something absolutely earth shattering in them, it would quickly be disclosed. Nothing disclosed so far is highly significant. We already knew of civilians being targeted in Iraq. We've known much of what is in the papers for years now. The only thing new seems to be the embarrassing comments foreign leaders and diplomats make about each other. But that's human nature so it's not surprising.

[Ichingcarpenter]

10. Well... I guess your source is still up at bat

but the have struck out so many times
that I really need to look at the plate now.


I read the article...

Its crap. or should I say misinformation?

[Gman]

11. Then it completely escapes me as to how

the geopolitical landscape has changed significantly. Care to enlighten me?

[Ichingcarpenter]

14. The geopolitical landscape

Has changed.... maybe not in his or your world.. but it has

This guy got so much shit wrong and you want to follow him?

The world is watching as are the citizens of the world.


You can live in your world where nothing changes
or you CAN BE THE CHANGE.

[Ichingcarpenter]

15. IT DOES WITH WHO YOU TAKE AS AUTHORITY.

Listen I'm from Austin years ago.






FOLLOW THE MONEY.

[Arctic Dave]

4. Considering only a few of the cables have been released it is premature to state nothing has changed

Sure this guy is giving a biolerplate "nothing to see here, move along" opinion but so is everyone else who doesn't want to see anymore cables released.

In my opinion there has been game changing evidence presented. Now people can say with certainty that our government lacks integrity when it says one thing and does the other , especially when it goes against the very people it is set to work for.

[Gman]

9. I never thought government had integrity to begin with

and these papers if anything, only confirm my previous beliefs. Now I know.

[Ichingcarpenter]

5. Unrecommend... as stated in my post. above.

I gave it enough time and search....

[Ichingcarpenter]

6. well..... no comment from your end? On what I found?

Mr. Gman?

[FormerDittoHead]

7. If nothing else, the ones released so far reveal how up front our foriegn policy is.

Assange holds himself up as some hero (or certainly doesn't deny) when in fact what he's decided to release so far only shows how consistent we've been about our foreign affairs.

But I stand here questioning these leaks (so far) because I think of what might have been going on about 6 years ago...

"Must make up more "evidence" to sell this war to the UN!"

"CIA+G2 reports no way Saddam has any WMDS - we must suppress and destroy these report! Waterboard someone else and get them to say something which supports our story!"

"Hans Blix's reputation must be destroyed! Send memo to Fox News and ClearChannel to keep the pressure up!"


"Good job making up that report about the yellow cake - we're almost ready to lie the American people into a war, tee hee!"

"Some Halliburton retirement packages have gone unclaimed. There's plenty of money for everyone here, but don't go crying when the investigations start and you haven't gotten your share! Sign up for your 'shares' at [e-mail]."

[bemildred]

12. This is ignorant, self-serving drivel.

Mr Assange opposes secrecy and government conspiracies, that is what he says; and he has also said that his goal is to make Wikileaks unnecessary, i.e. to force governments, all governments, to do their business in the light of day, so that secrets and leaks of secrets will no longer be an issue.

[sabrina 1]

13. Out of a quarter of a million documents, only 800 have been released

so far. So, it is a bit precipitous to say that there is nothing in them of any importance.

Actually already, there have been revelations that are actual NEWS. And even more importantly confirmation of facts that up to now many people just suspected.

Eg, in the most recent leaks, it has been confirmed that despite knowing that Karamov of Uzbekistan was a brutal dictator, guilty of torturing (boiling in oil eg) his own people, the U.S. continued to do business with him, and we know have confirmation of the reasons why. He allowed them to build a Military Base in Uzbekistan. He has been paid in U.S. tax dollars. This at a time when the U.S. was claiming to be going after Saddam Hussein for torture etc. The hypocrisy alone is and always was stunning.

One British Diplomat quit his assignment to Uzbekistan in protest of his government supporting this brutal regime, and was the whistle-blower who revealed some of what was going on in that country. This is of particular interest to me because over and over again I questioned rightwingers about why they were not screaming about our support for a regime that was in fact as bad as if not worse, than Iraq's. They always denied it.

Now what will the U.S. government do as it is exposed as liars and hypocrites in just this one case?

It seems the author of this article has not been reading the cables. The above is just the most recent confirmation, justifying all those of us who condemned the U.S. association and rewarding of Karamov, not to mention the principled British diplomat who had the principles to refuse to be a part of it.

We also found out this week that the British police basically fabricated facts about the couple whose child disappeared, as the couple had claimed all along.

I could go on, but people who have been reviled for speaking out, people who were tortured, are being vindicated now, and if nothing else came of these leaks, some justice is being seen for all those who were trying to tell the truth. And the evidence is pretty indisputable, they can no longer call us 'conspiracy theorists' or 'traitors'.