
WikiLeaks Archive — Cables Uncloak U.S. Diplomacy - davewiner
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/29/world/29cables.html?_r=1
======
zemaj
It seems to me that Wikileaks is disruptive to Governments in the way that
Napster was disruptive to the Music Industry.

While Wikileaks may not survive in the mid term, I believe what it represents
may have far reaching, long term consequences. The internet has democratised
information to the point that an unhappy individual with mid level trust in an
organisation can expose the organisation's "sensitive" information globally
with very little effort and thought.

Before the internet an individual could expose this information, but the
barriers were much higher. To be a whistle blower you could only influence
people immediately near you socially. To reach higher you had to filter your
information through news organisations. While there are cases of this
happening, the information was still continually at risk of being censored.
Would this cable information have been released if a whistle blower took it
directly to the NYT, or even a collection of newspapers?

With our current online structure of Twitter, Blogs and peer file sharing it
makes sensitive information immediately accessible to millions with no chance
of it being censored. To me Wikileaks represents the start of something hugely
disruptive to our way of life. It's not possible to scale an organisation
beyond several people while maintaining complete trust in each of them. When
every piece of information is at risk of being exposed, what position does
this place governments in? Is it possible for the current structure of the us
government with its extensive lobby groups, international secrets and security
through obscurity to continue?

I think its still too hard to see how the bits will fall here, but I do think
we're in for an interesting decade :)

~~~
wslh
I don't think so. WikiLeaks is mainly targetting US because their
infrastructure and their culture enables the society to uncover this kind of
activities.

I am waiting WikiLeaks for the other hundreds of countries around the globe.

~~~
blaines
The front page has articles in various languages from many countries...
<http://mirror.wikileaks.info/>

~~~
wslh
Please, count the number of countries targetted by WikiLeaks...

~~~
foffen
Wikileaks has leaked all sorts of interesting documents like scandals related
to the economic collapse of Iceland etc. It's just that this current affair is
of such a magnitude that it overshadows all other leaks.

It's also a matter of global interest. If these where cables leaked by
Belgians written in German they wouldn't have received the same attention
because no one really cares about Belgium, and Belgium certainly has little to
offer on the matter of global politics that could be of interest and have
implications for all other western nations.

~~~
wslh
I am waiting for a good chinese or north korean leak...

~~~
wslh
Seems like the same person methodically downvoted all my comments. It's better
to have a reply.

------
joshes
When you comment that these cables are mundane in nature, you are assuming
that you yourself are indicative of the audience as a whole. If you do not
believe that millions upon millions of people will read this, you are
mistaken. And many, if not the vast majority, of these readers will have
previously been in the dark as to the information contained therein. So to
them, this is not mundane; it's extraordinary.

Furthermore, all that we are reading right now are redacted and cherry picked
summaries and analyses. Please wait for more data to be released before
passing a quick, premature, unframed _sigh_ against what is happening here.

We're at the beginning of this, not the end.

~~~
cabalamat
> _When you comment that these cables are mundane in nature, you are assuming
> that you yourself are indicative of the audience as a whole._

I don't think they're mundane -- some are quite amusing, such as the Afghan
vice president trousering $52 million.

> _If you do not believe that millions upon millions of people will read this,
> you are mistaken._

I'm sure millions will read them.

> _And many, if not the vast majority, of these readers will have previously
> been in the dark as to the information contained therein._

It's not so much that they're in the dark about the information, it's that
they have an unrealistic view of how world affairs are conducted. This might
be because they're naive, or because their nationalist sentiments cause them
to believe their own country acts more virtuously on the world stage than
countries actually do, or whatever. Or it may just be because most people
don't pay much attention to world affairs.

But for whatever reason, if someone's bubble is pricked and they later
understand world affairs better, that person is more rational. And improving
rationality worldwide is likely to be in the long term interest of the human
species.

> _So to them, this is not mundane; it's extraordinary._

Then hopefully it will cause them to update their worldview.

~~~
tibbon
I'm curious- how does one actually carry $52mm on your person? In $100 bills I
calculated that as roughly 170 feet deep of bills (at .1mm per $100).

~~~
warp
Using EUR 500 notes would help a bit, though even then you'd have several
suitcases.

------
trotsky
_A global computer hacking effort: China’s Politburo directed the intrusion
into Google’s computer systems in that country, a Chinese contact told the
American Embassy in Beijing in January, one cable reported. The Google hacking
was part of a coordinated campaign of computer sabotage carried out by
government operatives, private security experts and Internet outlaws recruited
by the Chinese government. They have broken into American government computers
and those of Western allies, the Dalai Lama and American businesses since
2002, cables said._

Nothing new per-se for those that followed aurora or watch infosec, but
interesting to see it all itemized together in a state cable instead of a
bunch of assumptions & rumors. Look forward to seeing the details on that one.

~~~
acgourley
There are _so_many_ rumors out there, no matter what was leaked in these
cables, someone would have come out saying, "No news here, I knew it all
along!"

So in so far as they let me know what rumors to choose to believe, they are
useful.

------
steveklabnik
With Google referrer, to get around the wall:
[http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=8&s...](http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=8&sqi=2&ved=0CDsQFjAH&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2010%2F11%2F29%2Fworld%2F29cables.html&rct=j&q=new%20york%20times%20cables&ei=PKPyTOGqDMG78ga94aWLDA&usg=AFQjCNGP61_ELeSsVsUVVOve4iW8mSW8xw)

And one with single page:
[http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&v...](http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CBMQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2010%2F11%2F29%2Fworld%2F29cables.html%3Fpagewanted%3Dall&rct=j&q=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2010%2F11%2F29%2Fworld%2F29cables.html%3Fpagewanted%3Dall&ei=lKPyTOGoJ8P6lwf8h4CrCg&usg=AFQjCNEr12GQmhcb-4o0przJny_CHndbvw&cad=rja)

~~~
ronnier
All pages, one click:
[http://viewtext.org/article?url=http://www.nytimes.com/2010/...](http://viewtext.org/article?url=http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/29/world/29cables.html?_r=2)

~~~
naner
Have we discussed ViewText here? I'm impressed. I think I may start using this
instead of readability.

~~~
ronnier
I don't think so, other than me posting links on HN threads for articles that
need it (such as this NYT article). But thanks! It's mostly based on
readability, not 100% though. I ported Readbility (JavaScript) to C#.

~~~
StavrosK
Is it okay if I link to it from historious for formatting webpages?

~~~
ronnier
Yup! That's really the intended use, for others to provide links to articles
from within their apps. That's what I did for <http://ihackernews.com> (HN for
iPhone/Android).

~~~
vladocar
Nice work! Can I integrate this service with my HN Mobile Front Page Reader?
[http://www.vcarrer.com/2010/11/hacker-news-mobile-front-
page...](http://www.vcarrer.com/2010/11/hacker-news-mobile-front-page-
reader.html)

~~~
ronnier
Sure! I love to see others using it :)

------
Alex3917
"WikiLeaks has put at risk not only the cause of human rights but also the
lives and work of these individuals."

This is ironic since one of the biggest contributing factors behind Manning
allegedly leaking the documents was probably the fact that the government was
kicking him out of the military for being gay. The fact that Obama literally
can't even stop lying during his one sentence soundbite condemning the leak is
pretty symbolic of why we need WikiLeaks in the first place.

~~~
GHFigs
_the fact that the government was kicking him out of the military for being
gay_

If that is a fact, is there a source?

"An Army spokesman, Lt. Col. Eric Bloom, said Manning, who entered the Army as
a private in October 2007, was demoted last month for an assault. He said he
was not facing early discharge."

[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
dyn/content/article/2010/06...](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
dyn/content/article/2010/06/09/AR2010060906170_2.html)

~~~
flyt
[http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/09/us/09manning.html?pagewant...](http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/09/us/09manning.html?pagewanted=all)

> friends said his social life was defined by the need to conceal his
> sexuality under “don’t ask, don’t tell”

~~~
GHFigs
I'm not disputing that he is gay, I'm asking for a source for the supposed
"fact" that he was being discharged for it.

~~~
Alex3917
Here is the source: <http://boingboing.net/2010/06/20/was-alleged-
wikileak.html>

We know that the military knew he was LGBT and he was waiting to be
discharged, although the timeline and causation isn't entirely clear. That is,
it's possible that he already leaked the documents first and then it was Lamo
who outed him after the fact. My bad, I should have qualified my original
comment further, though flyt's quote shows that it's a complex issue.

------
d2viant
What surprises me most is that Julian Assange has lasted this long. This isn't
OBL, where he's living in a cave somewhere -- this guy is known to travel
between first world countries. I can understand those countries may not be
willing to hand him over, but the US has lots of experience with rendition and
I'm surprised some three-letter agency hasn't snatched him up yet.

~~~
hugh3
And this actually proves an important point about the various three-letter
agencies: they're not really the nefarious organizations that exist in the
imaginations of people who have seen too many movies.

Jason Bourne's CIA would has assassinated Julian Assange a long time ago. The
real one just grumbles.

~~~
gnosis
What good would assassinating him do? He's not the only one who runs Wikileaks
or has access to the information.

They'd need to "snatch" everyone who has access to it, which might be a very
difficult proposition, not to mention a complete public relations disaster,
considering Wikileaks is in the public spotlight right now.

I very much doubt the CIA is holding back out of the goodness of their hearts.
No. What we are witnessing is simply cold, calculated realpolitik in action.

~~~
potatolicious
He is clearly the leader though. While assassinating him will do nothing about
the information WikiLeaks already possesses, it may well throw the
organization into disarray and thus irrelevance.

Assange is only a viable target if there is no other leader waiting at the
wings if he dies. Our impression of WikiLeaks' organization structure is that
no such "Assange" exists yet.

~~~
gamble
Or it might cause a political shit-storm and undermine American credibility,
while giving a moral imprimatur to future leaks.

Wikileaks is more powerful as an idea than an organization. They've
legitimized the idea of web-based distribution of leaks, much like Napster
legitimized file-sharing services. That genie isn't going back into the
bottle. Shutting down Napster only gave rise to a host of unaccountable,
decentralized services. Shutting down Wikileaks would likewise only lead to
the creation of new decentralized services that facilitate leaks without any
of the human editorial control that Wikileaks currently provides.

~~~
Aloisius
Yes, because I'm sure professionals would find it so very difficult to make it
look like an accident, self-inflicted or frame someone

~~~
badkungfu
Maybe it's in the works. We'll see what the outcome of the rape charges are.
Could give him a good reason to "off himself".

------
moondowner
It's not only NYT releasing info about #cablegate, check out Guardian too:
<http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/the-us-embassy-cables>

~~~
moxiemk1
Could we call it something more descriptive than "cablegate?" Its also not a
scandal in the same way as Watergate - much more in line with the likes of the
"Pentagon Papers". Perhaps a similarly descriptive hashtag, like
#wikileakscables or #wikileaksdiplomaticcables if you're not bound by 140
characters.

But please - let's raise the level of discourse from sensationalist "Action
News" by refusing to use pidgeonhole phrases and instead call things
accurately.

~~~
moondowner
True - Watergate maybe is a scandal of a larger scale, and true - a more
descriptive tag could've been used, but the tag #cablegate was proposed by
Wikileaks via their Twitter profile (
<http://twitter.com/#!/wikileaks/status/8942910410072064> ), and everyone
followed along.

I think that they did it so everyone would't use the tag #wikileaks when they
are referring to the US Embassy cables release but a separate one.

------
matthewsimon
The Guardian has posted headers and metadata, but not the message bodies, as a
Google Fusion Table:

    
    
      http://www.google.com/fusiontables/DataSource?dsrcid=317391
    

Additional data links on the Guardian's site:

    
    
      http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2010/nov/29/wikileaks-cables-data#data

------
philwelch
Earlier WikiLeaks releases seemed to expose atrocities and human rights abuses
by the US military and government, which represents at least a partial
justification. What end does this release serve?

~~~
jonknee
Exposure of corruption within our allies. I found things like Afghanistan’s
vice president being caught (and released) in the UAE carrying $52 million in
cash to be quite interesting. Also the part about Saudi donors are still the
driving force in financing terrorism.

~~~
bl4k
the US and Britian have turned a blind eye to the opium trade and the
associated corruption in Afghanistan in order to appease the local anti-
Taliban population.

I watched footage last week of British soldiers fighting to free large opium
fields from Taliban control so that the real owners can get back to farming.
All par for the course.

The war on drugs takes a back seat to the war on terrorism

~~~
rottencupcakes
As it should. Terrorists are an affront to freedom. Drugs are not.

~~~
grandalf
Terrorism cannot be stopped (by definition). The affront to freedom is the
response to terrorism.

~~~
wan23
What part of the definition says that it can't be stopped?

~~~
grandalf
Definition: Terrorism is the creation of fear in a population intended to
achieve a political end.

What does it take to create fear? Certainly not successful terrorist attacks.
Failed ones would work perfectly well too, as evidenced by the underwear
bomber, shoe bomber, etc.

Things as minor as prank phone calls, etc., will still strike fear into the
hearts of the target population.

So unless you can tell me that it's possible to stop failed attacks and prank
phone calls, you must agree that terrorism cannot ever be stopped.

------
d2viant
Perhaps off topic, but what is a cable? Is it just an email? Or is it some
other form of communication specific to the State Department?

~~~
keiferski
I'm assuming it's just the general term for a 'piece of transmitted
information', no matter what the medium.

~~~
ars
They used to actually be cables, i.e. telegraph. (Meaning faster then mail, or
diplomatic pouch.)

They kept the name as communications technology moved on.

------
nir
As someone who grew in the Mideast and spent some time in the US/EU/Aus, I was
often amazed how completely detached Westerners are from the way the rest of
the world works.

Left wingers or conservatives, so many guns & money have been sheltering the
past 2-3 generations from reality that they genuinely believe most people
share their values and goals, and that the world operates similarly to their
own surroundings.

If these documents will cause people to start questioning the utter bullshit
they are fed by Fox News or Reddit, Glenn Beck or Jon Stewart, then Assange is
the most important person alive today. I doubt that would happen, though.

~~~
drusenko
"how completely disconnected Westerners are from the way the world actually
works"

Would you like to explain that, or are you just going to throw a nebulous
assertion out there and expect it to mean something?

~~~
nir
Sure (btw, reworded it a bit, hope it's less inflammatory).

A good example is the Iraq war: the pro-war side just assumed that, given the
option, Iraqis will be happy to adopt the Western liberal democracy model. On
the other hand, the anti-war side uses the "illegal war" argument, as if it
has any meaning - the world isn't a modern nation with the UN as supreme
court, determining the legality of various wars.

Another example: Afghanistan. First we go in. Then we realize Taliban not only
has a completely different notion of values, but of _time itself_ \- they are
perfectly happy to continue fighting for 20 more years if need be. Now we're
thinking, "let's just pull out and forget about it" - as if it's possible to
just start off of a clean slate, no consequence.

Another example, Iran in the Middle East. The documents "reveal" what anyone
should have known - Arab regimes are horrified of the option of a nuclear
Iran. This is because the deepest rivalry in the Middle East, that shed the
most blood, is the Sunni-Shiite (and Arab-Farsi) - see the >1m dead in the
Iraq-Iran war - rather then the Israeli-Arab obsessively covered by
Fox/CNN/Reddit/Beck/Stewart.

Finally, a personal favorite of mine: my wife often tells me how her
(expensive Ivy League) university professors bring up various UN treaties
nearly all nations but the US have signed. They seem to actually believe the
various dictatorships that signed these documents will not ignore them
completely the second they become inconvenient.

I'm not claiming to have a good idea on what to do with
Iraq/Afghanistan/Iran/etc. Just that I think the level of discussion is
ridiculous.

~~~
dkl
> On the other side, the anti-war side uses the "illegal war" argument, as if
> it has any meaning - the world isn't a modern nation with the UN as supreme
> court, determining the legality of various wars.

The left used this argument because it was the handiest they had. I think your
criticism of it is absurd. It's like you're saying the left was right for the
wrong reason, as if there is one reason all on the left opposed the war in
Iraq.

How about this: Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and therefore there was NO
reason to attack them??

~~~
colinplamondon
They tried to assassinate an American President, for one. They also gassed
their own people and had a history of developing WMDs- that economic sanctions
had slowed that development didn't materially change the intent.

~~~
hugh3
And don't forget that Saddam wasn't abiding by the conditions of the 1991
ceasefire, which ought to be an immediate justification for resuming fire,
since that's how ceasefire agreements work.

Lack of _legalistic_ justification was never lacking for the Iraq war. Whether
it was _morally_ the right thing to do, or whether it was a _worthwhile_ thing
to do from a US-interests standpoint, are genuine questions. (Which I don't
feel like discussing today.)

~~~
vacri
And don't forget that the US' allies were all saying "Just wait a few months
until the weapons inspections agenda is complete, then we'll all go in as
planned and sanctioned by the UN". No, the US had to accelerate the timetable,
replacing "worthless weapons inspections" with Powell's equally worthless
poster project showing "structures".

------
Helianthus16
What is interesting about this is not the damage it does, which will likely be
minimal as it's really just embarrassing.

What's interesting is the look into the hidden minds of countries. I didn't
know, for instance, that so many Arab countries urged US intervention in Iran,
or that Israel has been monitoring Iran's nuclear program so closely--as
indicated by their pressing warning that 2010 specifically is a key year.

Of course, everyone here knew or suspected China's dirty hands, but it's nice
that this calls them out for it.

And it's funny to know exactly how little most countries seem to think of
Europe's importance.

~~~
commandar
>I didn't know, for instance, that so many Arab countries urged US
intervention in Iran

This type of information is what's likely to end up being actually damaging.
There's a good chance nations that may have offered private support while
maintaining public face will be less cooperative in the future.

> or that Israel has been monitoring Iran's nuclear program so closely--as
> indicated by their pressing warning that 2010 specifically is a key year.

This part isn't _that_ surprising, to be honest. The Israelis keep very close
tabs on their neighbors, ad the Mossad has earned their reputation as being
one of the most effective intelligence agencies in the world.

Remember a few years ago when Israeli jets seemingly randomly bombed Syria
with almost no public reaction from Syria? In fact, everyone involved was
strangely quiet about it, with the Syrians claiming the Israelis had just
bombed empty desert. Turns out the Israelis had gotten wind of a clandestine
nuclear reactor supplied by North Korea and taken it down.[1]

[1] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Orchard>

------
Groxx
Single page:
[http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/29/world/29cables.html?_r=1&#...</a>

------
nostrademons
Is there a torrent anywhere with the actual text of the cables? Wikileaks
itself is being DDOSed, and none of the news sites are reprinting anything but
summaries.

~~~
rospaya
"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."

From The Guardian: [http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/nov/28/us-embassy-
cable...](http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/nov/28/us-embassy-cable-leak-
diplomacy-crisis)

~~~
ajays
I wish Wikileaks would just dump the contents, and leave the analysis to the
rest of the world. By doing selective "analysis" and redaction, they're
basically doing exactly what they claim to be fighting.

Either release all the information, or withhold it. Don't play sides.

Oh, and while you're at it, Wikileaks? I'd love to see leaks from Russia,
China, UK, Japan etc. You've been picking on the US for far too long; these
other countries are no angels either.

~~~
BCM43
_Oh, and while you're at it, Wikileaks? I'd love to see leaks from Russia,
China, UK, Japan etc. You've been picking on the US for far too long; these
other countries are no angels either._

Are you offering to leak this information? Remember, they do not break into US
systems to get this information. They need someone to leak it to them.

~~~
yters
Plus, a couple of those countries will wipe Assange and his organization off
the face of the earth. Assange is only picking on the US because we're more
civil. It's like how the anti-religioun crowd tends to pick on Christianity,
instead of one of the actually vicious religions that will kill them.

Really, Assange is merely perpetrating a sophisticated form of bullying.

~~~
archgoon
> It's like how the anti-religioun crowd tends to pick on Christianity,
> instead of one of the actually vicious religions that will kill them.

This would perhaps be a reasonable argument if they _never_ picked on Islam (I
assume that's what you were referring to). This would indicate some actual
fear of reprisals. However, this isn't actually the case. Dawkins, Hitchens,
Myers, and most other figures have all 'picked on' Islam at one time or
another.

PZ Myers:
[http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/11/allah_does_not_ex...](http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/11/allah_does_not_exist_and_moham.php)
[http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/03/islam_hates_women...](http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/03/islam_hates_women.php)

Dawkins: [http://vodpod.com/watch/1959627-richard-dawkins-apostasy-
in-...](http://vodpod.com/watch/1959627-richard-dawkins-apostasy-in-islam-
carries-the-death-penalty)

Hitchens: [http://sacredcanons.com/islam-and-atheism/christopher-
hitche...](http://sacredcanons.com/islam-and-atheism/christopher-hitchens-
about-islam-in-britain-after-77-12)

The first comment on the Hitchen's link shows some of the issues inherent when
you criticize a minority religion (with respect to audience), however. Namely,
you get the nasty anti-(legal)-immigrant crowd thinking you support them, or
at least provide ammunition for them (conveniently ignoring arguments against
their own beliefs).

Granted, they haven't picked on the Aztecs to my knowledge. They might be
afraid of them.

My apologies for going OT.

~~~
yters
Yeah, that's good they sometimes point out the flaws in Islam. But, still most
venom is focused on the least harmful religions because there is the least
reprisal.

And insofar as the atheists' goals are humanitarian they should join forces
with the most humanitarian ideologies, which tend to be certain religions. The
least humanitarian took root in atheistic thought (whether atheism is a direct
cause or merely an enabler is a different debate).

Compared to the Nazis and Communists the radical Islamists are a bunch of
puppy dogs.

~~~
archgoon
>But, still most venom is focused on the least harmful religions because there
is the least reprisal.

You have no evidence that's why they post more about Christianity. I have
already presented several other explanations. To be explicit it could be
because they don't want to feed biases against minority groups, they might
want to target something which is a visible problem (evolution denial in the
states), they might want to target the beliefs of people who have power to
abuse (local officials), they might want to clean up their own house before
they figure out how to deal with other countries and religions which they are
less familiar with, etc.

Furthermore PZ Myers _has_ received death threats from Christians, so the idea
that all Christians are just a bunch of friendly folks who would never hurt a
fly, is absurd (though a lot of Christians do commonly make this argument). If
you're making yourself a target, you expose yourself to every nutcase in the
country.

> Compared to the Nazis and Communists the radical Islamists are a bunch of
> puppy dogs.

What do the Nazi's and Communists have to do with this?

~~~
yters
This sentence: "The least humanitarian took root in atheistic thought (whether
atheism is a direct cause or merely an enabler is a different debate)."

Also, Christianity is the least problematic of all major religions, and most
in line with the agenda of humanist atheists, per its explicit laws about the
best way of living. Those who don't follow the laws are hard pressed to claim
the title "Christian." So, it is disingenuous and ineffective to target
Christians.

Target ideologies that explicitly make anti-humanitarian claims. That is most
in line with the atheists' claim that religion is anti-humanitarian.

------
steve19
It is bizarre that a PFC had access to so much intelligence.

~~~
ismarc
It's all secret or noforn. If he was working as an analyst, he'd likely be
badged for it. It also depends on his particular job responsibilities. My
guess is that he was cleared to access a document archive for his day-to-day
operations and started grabbing random stuff when he figured out a way to
transport the data. There's no rhyme or reason to what was leaked, it's looks
like wholesale whatever could be retrieved so it was likely a fire-sale type
data grabbing.

~~~
krschultz
Which really begs the question why they don't have some automatic monitoring
on who starts accessing _a hundred thousand documents_ not related to their
day to day job.

~~~
drpancake
According to The Guardian:

"There have been suggestions that an alarm system to detect suspicious use of
the network was suspended for US military personnel in Iraq after they
complained it was inconvenient."

[http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/nov/28/siprnet-
america-...](http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/nov/28/siprnet-america-
stores-secret-cables)

~~~
gwern
It would be rather inconvenient if one full-text search on the name of this
old possible insurgent you captured suddenly disabled your computer and led to
your arrest by MPs, I agree.

~~~
ceejayoz
Surely such a system could differentiate between a search match and saving the
entire document to a hard drive.

------
jsz0
The excerpts the NYT is reporting in this story are pretty ho-hum. We'll have
to wait and see what else is in there but it looks like another Wikileaks hype
job to me. No doubt there's going to be some embarrassing sausage making
details in here but it just confirms things we already knew. Pakistan is a
complex situation, Karzai's government is corrupt, etc. Wikileaks would be
better off releasing this material without the hype and grandstanding.

~~~
ars
The rumors were there, but this is concrete evidence that Arab nations
actually want a strike on Iran, but are too scared to say it out loud.

[http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/nov/28/us-embassy-
cable...](http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/nov/28/us-embassy-cables-
saudis-iran) [http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/nov/28/arab-states-
scor...](http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/nov/28/arab-states-scorn-
iranian-evil)

By making this public it could significantly change what happens next with
Iran.

~~~
grandalf
I think it will put in context the silly, local squabbles that are behind all
this. Iran is a western-style Democracy that has a radical faction thanks to
decades of US meddling.

~~~
ars
Meddling? Sure.

But western style democracy?? Did you completely ignore what happened during
the last "election" there?

~~~
grandalf
Ahmadinejad came to power after several years of George W. Bush's anti-Iran
rhetoric had galvanized a conservative coalition in Iran.

Look at Orkut and Twitter: Iran is a pluralistic, wonderful country. Things
like the US dropping bombs next door will tend to radicalize a country's
extremists. Iran had been working to topple Saddam for decades and would have
made a natural ally for the US. But the US goal was not to remove Saddam, it
was to take power in the region, and so Iran (the natural power in the region)
had to be an adversary.

Since then, we've seen more and more power in Iran go to the conservative
faction which was on its way out before George W. Bush.

------
hrq
This may be a silly question, but what is a "cable"? Is this like a telegram
or is it just another name for emails?

I see here: <http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Executive_Order_13526#Part_1> that
there's some structure to these documents, but what transport are they being
sent by?

------
ximeng
Document on what the classifications mean:

<http://www.fas.org/sgp/library/quist2/chap_7.html>

There are apparently no top secret documents in this leak, top secret
documents would include such things as detailed plans for war.

------
greyman
I find this interesting, but we would also need such leaks from other
countries embassies, not just U.S. ones.

This will probably create embarrassment for U.S., but on the other hand, isn't
it a job of a diplomat to truthfully describe the situation in the country
where he is dispatched? In most cases, they probably just did their job,
assuming that the documents will stay secret. I don't think that's immoral.

~~~
mcantelon
Violating UN conventions by spying on, and attempting to steal credit card #s
and biometric info of, UN leaders
([http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/nov/28/us-embassy-
cable...](http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/nov/28/us-embassy-cables-
spying-un)) and attempting to steal DNA of world leaders
([http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-embassy-cables-
documents/...](http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-embassy-cables-
documents/202678)) would be considered, by most, to be immoral.

------
Aloisius
I'm a little confused as to why people think dumping cables from American
embassies would show the US in a negative light or contain some sort of
revelation that the US is engaged in anything illegal.

These are cables from the American point of view of the rest of the world. If
anything, it is going to show foreign leaders/countries far more negatively
than the Americans.

------
aneth
The most interesting thing about reading these cables is how the US comes out
well - reasonable, rational, and analytical - not the nefarious evil satan
that it is portrayed by our enemies and domestic extremists. This snapshot of
the inner workings of American diplomacy actually make me feel much better
about how things are being managed, and should undermine efforts to portray
some nasty plot to dominate the world. I don't expect our government to act in
international affairs with complete transparency or without ulterior motives,
but I do expect that they try to act ultimately for good and that there be
minimal self-enrichment. I so far see little evidence of serious breaches
here.

~~~
glenstein
I don't think telling German officials to "consider the implications" of
enforcing an arrest warrant against C.I.A. officers implicated in the
kidnapping of a German citizen makes the U.S. look good.

~~~
aneth
It was an honest mistake and arresting CIA officers for making a mistake in
their job, one which they corrected and admitted to, would hardly be without
implications.

~~~
glenstein
Being kidnapped, flown to a prison for five months and possibly tortured,
possibly sodomized is more than a "mistake."

And merely admitting to having committed a human rights violation is not a
substitute for following due process of law. Threatening a country with
"implications" for wanting to bring the people to justice who wrongfully
detained one of their citizens does not make the United States look good.

Plus there are other examples, like Hilary Clinton ordering diplomats to
collect private information on the U.N. Secretary General, which was likely a
violation of international law. This does not make the U.S. look good.

~~~
aneth
As helium said, my point is not that there is a perfect record. What is not
there - a sinister plot to monopolize the world's oil, destroy Muslim society,
or assassinate world leaders - is more important.

That said, a broader point is in order - I don't think anyone expects perfect
adherence to "international law" by the USA. Despite the weight of the phrase
"international law," the actual concept is deeply ambiguous. There is no fully
baked world government, so "international law" is not a direct moral parallel
to domestic law in a sovereign state. As much as the UN can do for the world,
it is not a proper law making body, it's not accountable to it's constituents
or fairly representative of the world, and some of its most powerful members
don't even represent their own constituents. It's a rough hack at providing a
venue for diplomacy and world order - not a supremely powerful entity as many
people would wish it to be. The phrase "violation of international law" tastes
meaty, but it's just tofu.

~~~
jwhite
> I don't think anyone expects perfect adherence to "international law" by the
> USA.

> The phrase "violation of international law" tastes meaty, but it's just
> tofu.

Good and valid points, but mildly tongue-in-cheek my response to your first
assertion is "I do!"

I'm not an American, but I deeply appreciate what America has done to move the
whole world towards a system that values innate human rights, the rule of law,
and representative democracy [1], so when America behaves in a way that
contravenes its own publicly stated values I am genuinely disappointed -- even
though America owes me nothing. I agree that "international law" can't be
easily defined (and therefore can't be adhered to), and it is not always easy
to judge the moral value of an act, particularly without the benefit of
hindsight (one of the best known examples being the decision to use nuclear
weapons on Japan), but there are other cases where it is clear. If America
clearly acts against its values, it weakens its credibility when it tries to
promote them to the rest of the world.

We can of course distinguish between America and Americans -- admitting
mistakes and punishing those who commit them is the way that America can deal
with them and keep its credibility with respect to its values in tact.

The case of the abduction of the German citizen seems on the surface to be a
fairly clear case where America should allow due process in a friendly
democracy to take its course. But perhaps there are other considerations that
I don't know about... either way I'm grateful to wikileaks.

[1] However imperfect our democracies are, the current alternatives are a lot
worse, and I'd prefer to be optimistic that we'll discover even better methods
to govern people in future.

~~~
bh42
Christopher Reeve delivering the line "Truth, Justice and the American Way" as
Super Man is one of the defining memories of my childhood.

I worry that once Americans become cynical and scared enough to stop aspiring
to that line, it will then be a short trip to a fascist or pseudo-fascist
state.

Naive? Perhaps, but if you don't have high and lofty ideals, then what is to
be the counter weight to doing everything and anything in the name of safety?

~~~
anamax
> I worry that once Americans become cynical and scared enough to stop
> aspiring to that line, it will then be a short trip to a fascist or pseudo-
> fascist state.

Ah yes, "fascism is falling on America"

> Naive? Perhaps, but if you don't have high and lofty ideals, then what is to
> be the counter weight to doing everything and anything in the name of
> safety?

but it always seems to land somewhere else (typically Europe).

Fascism lands where it is like what has been before and the US hasn't been
govt-authoritarian (yet).

------
bl4k
today it was confirmed that the US knows about everything, everywhere, in
every corner of the world

~~~
foffen
wrong. If that was true then the cables would have included reports on alien
activity and the US connections with the aliens walking amongst us.

Now, where did I put my tin foil hat.

