Hard News: Wikileaks: The Cable Guys
790 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 8 9 10 11 12 … 32 Newer→ Last
-
Steve Parks, in reply to
Oh yes, we should start referring to other posters in the third person as if they weren’t here, because it’s not at all what a douchebag would do.
Giovanni makes a great point.
-
The new site is http://wikileaks.ch/
-
I think there's some reasonable evidence that Prince Andrew is corrupt.
Well, the bit where he carpeted the Special Branch to breate them for investigating BAE would rather suggest some of the most extraordinary behaviour by a royal since Edward VIII divided his time between Mrs Simpson and von Ribbentrop; indeed, if anyone could be called a traitor, wouldn't it be someone who was assisting sales to Saudi Arabia, who are documented as funding al-Qaida?
-
Simon Grigg, in reply to
who are documented as funding al-Qaida
I think it's more a case of people in SA, albeit extraordinarily well connected people, funding whatever nebulous thing it is that al-Qaeda is.
A little like Pete King in NY and the IRA.
-
Or, alternatively, Prince Andrew is a proper patriot, and he reckons what's good for British business is absolutely good. (I mean, really, not a difficult proposition, and it is what the actual Britons I know read it as.)
-
This is great: Thomas Freidman in the NYT imagines a Wikileaked Chinese cable on the US political environment.
Thanks for posting that erm..Brown?(!) I enjoyed that Russell, the tone was a risible, the point(s) seem(s) bang on the money (perhaps with the exception of cellphone coverage which is just flat out exaggeration).
-
Joe Wylie, in reply to
. . . it is what the actual Britons I know read it as.
Cos if they don't, they're neither actual nor proper.
Dashed handy method for those occasions where one is unable to find some blighter's credentials in one's well-thumbed copy of Burke's Peerage and Gentry. -
3410,
Edward VIII divided his time between Mrs Simpson and von Ribbentrop
Do you not mean 'Mrs Simpson divided her time between Edward VIII and von Ribbentrop'?
-
The Guardian has archived the live Q&A with readers that Assange did overnight.
It's as interesting as you'd expect, although it's a shame that his response to the only really challenging question is so dickish.
-
The Saudi thing is one of the more interesting matters to arise. It's put a British cabinet minister (Aitken) in jail in the past, and led to the UK Attorney General stopping legal proceedings that would probably have put numerous captains of industry inside.
Basically, in return for selling weapons to Saudi, the regime (who are Best Friends with the royals and the UK/US establishment) expect multi-billion dollar kickbacks. Tthese kickbacks get shared with middlemen, such as Adnan Khashoggi and his sidekick Mark Thatcher.
In order to fund this corruption, the price of the weaponry gets inflated, which also results in the UK taxpayer (and anyone else dumb enough to buy their kit, like NZ) paying a sizeable chunk of the bribe.
One can speculate how high the money trail goes, but most of the last few UK Prime Ministers entered politics as comfortably wealthy lawyers and the like, were paid a salary in the low GBP100k range, and have somehow become vastly wealthy in retirement.
Go figure.
-
Talking Points Memo reporting official ban on US government employees accessing WikiLeaks.
"...classified information, whether or not already posted on public websites or disclosed to the media, remains classified, and must be treated as such by federal employees and contractors, until it is declassified by an appropriate U.S. Government authority."
-
I came to this site expecting enlightening analysis, and instead I find over half of it dedicated to quibbling about the personality of Julian Assange - pathetic! The air is thick with journalist-envy. So he's famous, he has 'groupies' (RB), he's done something that none of the rest you will ever have the skill or the courage to do - get over it! He’s not a public servant, he’s a private citizen who is risking his life in several terrifying ways to do something he believes in and which he passionately believes is for the good of humankind – what you promised yourself you would do too one day when you got around to it, remember? So he exposes your own failings? Reminds you you’re a midget on the world stage with the guts of a jellyfish? Get over it! If you don’t like the way he’s handling things then start up your own LeakySite – IF you have the aforementioned skill, commitment and phenomenal courage, that is.
And if you haven’t, I recommend taking heed of James George’s request – “Instead of this endless dialogue about what a perfect Wikileaks should do, why not accept that this is the only Wikileaks we have and be proud that some people are trying to show the truth.”
Come on girls! A bit of humility and openhearted support, please!
-
I came to this site expecting enlightening analysis . . .
Twatcock! ROFFLNUI.
-
A European Commissioner frets about the disruptive potential of botnets in the wake of the Wikileaks DDoS attacks.
If this actually is a hacktivist job like the attacks on Estonia and Lithuania, it presents a certain symmetry -- as with Wikileaks itself, the internet can extend extraordinary powers to individuals. It's like a war being fought above our heads.
-
And if you haven’t, I recommend taking heed of James George’s request
I'm often deeply touched by the way pseudonymous commenters will use their first comment to recommend paying more attention to another, fairly new, commenter. It's so generous and sincere.
Come on girls!
I take it this is an example of the "enlightening analysis" you were after?
Yeah. It's too hot for socks today.
-
Guardian analyses cables about Copenhagen climate change negotiations and the US pushing of a weaker accord.
Negotiating a climate treaty is a high-stakes game, not just because of the danger warming poses to civilisation but also because re-engineering the global economy to a low-carbon model will see the flow of billions of dollars redirected.
...
After the Copenhagen summit, further linking of finance and aid with political support appears. Dutch officials, initially rejecting US overtures to back the accord, make a startling statement on 25 January. According to a cable, the Dutch climate negotiator Sanne Kaasjager "has drafted messages for embassies in capitals receiving Dutch development assistance to solicit support [for the accord]. This is an unprecedented move for the Dutch government, which traditionally recoils at any suggestion to use aid money as political leverage." Later, however, Kaasjager rows back a little, saying: "The Netherlands would find it difficult to make association with the accord a condition to receive climate financing."Wonder if McCully's aligining of NZAID with political objectives has produced any similar linkages?
-
And if you haven’t, I recommend taking heed of James George’s request – “Instead of this endless dialogue about what a perfect Wikileaks should do, why not accept that this is the only Wikileaks we have and be proud that some people are trying to show the truth.”
It's actually far from the only Wikileaks we have. I've been using Cryptome since it launched in 1996 (I actually got leaked some of the some stuff about Mondex as Cryptome did), and it was Cyptome's founder, John Young, that Assange went to for assistance in setting up Wikileaks.
I'm well aware of the value of these services, and the courage required to run them, but I'm also mindful of Young's issues with Assange. And I think Assange will not be greatly injured if he doesn't get my undiluted adulation at all times.
-
But RB it IS the only Wikileaks we have - Cryptome (of whom I've never heard) is clearly a very different animal or Assange wouldn't have sought advice from them to set up his own very different site.
I don't know why Cryptome hasn't had the same exhilarating effect on the world as Wikileaks; why they haven't been on the front page of the world's major newspapers, or why noone has felt sufficiently threatened to advocate assassinating anyone connected with them (at least I presume no one has). I can only presume they weren't prepared to take the same risks.
But as a pleb who unlike you will never have the skills to ferret through the ether for obscure information (like most of the world) I shall always be grateful for what Wikileaks is doing for my sanity. -
Sacha, in reply to
of whom I've never heard) is clearly... I can only presume
Sterling logic there
-
For a bit of context, The Atlantic address official and journalistic attacks on Assange - though I'm reluctant to feed any more of this focus on the man rather than the content. Perhaps those concerned could get on with posting stuff here about the substance of the leaks rather than whinging?
Assange may or may not be grandiose, paranoid and delusional - terms that might be fairly applied at one time or another to most prominent investigative reporters of my acquaintance. But the fact that so many prominent old school journalists are attacking him with such unbridled force is a symptom of the failure of traditional reporting methods to penetrate a culture of official secrecy that has grown by leaps and bounds since 9/11, and threatens the functioning of a free press as a cornerstone of democracy.
-
Boing Boing raises the role of US industry and trade reps in writing Spain's online copyright law?
The first 35 of the 115 cables have been released, and they confirm the widespread suspicion: the Spanish government and the opposition party were led around by the nose by the US representatives who are the real legislative authority in Spain.
-
Simon Grigg, in reply to
rather than the content.
If anything the reaction to the leaks in the US establishment and the way they've assaulted and blocked the site seems to me to underline the need for an assault on the system that generated such. So far the planet hasn't collapsed under the weight of the releases but the attempt to erect The Great Wall Of America to stop their dissemination is telling.
From the Atlantic piece:
It is dispiriting and upsetting for anyone who cares about the American tradition of a free press to see Eric Holder, Hillary Clinton and Robert Gibbs turn into H.R. Haldeman, John Erlichman and John Dean. We can only pray that we won't soon be hit with secret White House tapes of Obama drinking scotch and slurring his words while calling Assange bad names.
This site, Public Address, is now blocked, tagged with an advisory or banned in US government offices, some tertiary institutions which train future diplomats, defence contractors, The Library of Congress and the US military because it mentions the word proscribed word Wikileaks.
Students are advised not to mention W*******ks on Twitter or Facebook as doing so may destroy their future career prospects.
What strikes me as truly odd is that the US government seems to think that blocking the site/s will somehow push the genie back in.
-
QUIS CUSTODIET IPSOS CUSTODES
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
I don’t know why Cryptome hasn’t had the same exhilarating effect on the world as Wikileaks; why they haven’t been on the front page of the world’s major newspapers, or why noone has felt sufficiently threatened to advocate assassinating anyone connected with them (at least I presume no one has). I can only presume they weren’t prepared to take the same risks.
That’s a really interesting question. I think this particular Wikileaks release sets a new standard in structuring leaked information for access, searchability and dissemination. And there’s a sharp sense of marketing about the way they gave it a name – Cablegate – and suggested hashtags.
It also gets more attention because Assange is far more inclined towards the big bang than Young, and that’s one of the things I have mixed feelings about.
On one hand, he’s changed the world this week. One the other, I don’t believe every diplomatic confidence is a conspiracy, especially given that in the majority of cases, the deeds of the US foreign service professionals seem basically in line with the words of their government.
Assange likes to play the philosopher prince, John Perry Barlow is all “the infowars have begun” and in general the language of conspiracy – the assumption that the elites are keeping their words secret from us (rather than from the foreign governments they’re characterising) – seems alluring and exciting. I feel a bit resistant to it.
-
Simon Grigg, in reply to
One the other, I don’t believe every diplomatic confidence is a conspiracy, especially given that in the majority of cases, the deeds of the US foreign service professionals seem basically in line with the words of their government.
I don't think that there was an expectation, at least by most, that some grand conspiracy was about to be exposed, however the cables do seem to provide prima facie evidence of a conflict between the words and actions of some non-US governments, in particular that of the UK, who have been documented telling public porkies, if the cables are accurate, about a litany of things, not least the storage of cluster bombs and Diego Garcia.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.