Hard News: Wikileaks: The Cable Guys
790 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 10 11 12 13 14 … 32 Newer→ Last
-
Today’s tranche (well actually 3rd of December but just available) of cable releases includes at least 1 new one relevant to NZ. It is a cable from US Embassy Kabul back to the State Department in Washington. Dated May 9 2009, it attempts to address issues that a member of the US Provincial reconstruction team (PRT) observed during a trip to Afghanistan’s North Eastern region.
It is always worth remembering before reading these cables that just because the cables are genuine; it doesn’t mean they contain either truth or wisdom. As has been noted elsewhere much of the content appears to be little more than “telling the boss what she wants to hear”.
Anyway this particular cable is of interest to NZers because it claims that the force responsible for the Baghlan Province which adjoins Bamiyan where the kiwi PRT is located, is the Hungarian PRT, who operate under a completely different set of principles than the kiwis next door.
For example when anti-colonial forces based in Baglan crossed over into Bamiyan and attacked targets in Bamiyan, the Hungarian PRT did nothing. So the kiwis went into the Baglan region which wasn’t their allotted responsibility and dealt with the issue when the Hungarians wouldn’t. Top little coalition they’ve got going there eh! Anyway here is the relevant piece of the cable (Number 09KABUL1239, SUBJECT: AFGHANISTAN: A SNAPSHOT OF THE NORTHEAST )Province faces a different set of security challenges. As
the head of the UNAMA office for the region tells it, even
though Baghlan generally flies under the national radar, it
actually deserves to be labeled "the wild, wild west."
xxxxxxxxxxxx, behind-the-scenes
contests for power (including on the part of the provincial
chief of police); the influence of local strongmen and former
mujahedeen (particularly in northern Baghlan); unchecked
poppy cultivation in Andarab district; underlying
Tajik-Pashtun tensions; and criminality all combine to
undermine stability. Direct insurgent activity appears
limited, but criminal elements have fashioned links to the
Taliban. Locals have also made themselves available to
execute for-hire insurgent missions. The Hungarian PRT does
little to address any of these problems. They are not
permitted to fire their weapons except in self-defense, do
little more than patrol the main roads and undertake no
counter-narcotics activities. When two Hungarian de-miners
were killed doing their work, Budapest stopped sending mine
clearers to the PRT. When the security situation in
northeastern Bamyan Province was threatened by Baghlan-based
malefactors, it was the New Zealanders who had to cross into
Baghlan to address the problem. The PRT sees itself as
focused on humanitarian assistance and small-scale
development work. Again xxxxxxxxxxxx,
his nation's troops are looking to do their short stints in
Afghanistan and get back home unscathed. -
Simon Grigg, in reply to
but what has Obama actually done to make it better?
You missed a couple: the removal of sanctions on the Indonesian special forces who just this year have been documented torturing separatists in Papua (the video is online but it's too harrowing to post here), and the extension of the policy of executing without trial (mostly just confined before to terror suspects, bad guys in Iraq and Afghanistan - and their families and anyone else who happens to get in the way of the missile) to include US citizens.
-
-
Here is a url for that cable I excerpted
http://213.251.145.96/cable/2009/05/09KABUL1239.html -
nzlemming, in reply to
wikileaks goes viral
Nice quote in the comments:
"Slapping down the waves
Does not calm the water." -
I'm inclined to agree with Seriatim on page 10. The timing alone of the charges leveled against Assange should raise eyebrows, and one should be able to question their authenticity without being labeled a misogynist. There seems to be a great reluctance to question the facts as presented to us by the powers-that-be in this particular case.
-
Joe Wylie, in reply to
Having Obama as president and Assange a rather strange self-promoter is a division of labour in complete agreement with their skills, intelligence and morals.
I recall much the same faith in the natural order being expressed by a commenter at Kiwiblog around five years back, only the anointed one then was Dubya, with an uppity Noam Chomsky as his antichrist. While Chomsky was damned in that instance in rather more scatological terms than are the norm here at PAS, it seems a symptom of a kind of creeping gentility when Assange's main crime is to be "rather strange".
-
I’m inclined to agree with Seriatim on page 10. The timing alone of the charges leveled against Assange should raise eyebrows,
Do you have the wrong person? I can't see where Seriatim mentioned anything about the sexual assault allegations.
and one should be able to question their authenticity without being labeled a misogynist.
And one should be able to question some aspects of WikiLeaks without being accused of "journalist-envy".
-
nzlemming, in reply to
And one should be able to question some aspects of WikiLeaks without being accused of “journalist-envy”
When Wikileaks is questioned on the basis of what it does, there's nothing wrong with that. When it is questioned on the basis of Assange, that's not so good. Too many people are being directed to play the man, in the hopes that the ball will slip unnoticed into touch.
-
chris, in reply to
It's interesting how firmly alongside Google the US government was. Hillary Clinton might wish to revisit her own remarks:
Clinton weighed in heavily on the side of Google, warning that "countries that restrict free access to information or violate the basic rights of internet users risk walling themselves off from the progress of the next century".
That single act prompted a politically inspired assault on Google, forcing it to "walk away from a potential market of 400 million internet users" in January this year,
...
It relocated to Hong Kong, where it was able to run an uncensored version of its website in English and Chinese, ending an awkward attempt to reconcile partial adherence to Chinese requirements with western democratic values.
Google.com.hk. which functions in English, simplified and traditional Chinese script, still has ads for Chinese based companies in Chinese script, still provides search results for Chinese based sites, and questionable searches are still blocked in the mainland. Google didn't walk away from 400 million internet users, they merely moved their office. For the mainland user, nothing actually changed. The awkward attempt to reconcile partial adherence to Chinese requirements with western democratic values was in no way ended, it was cemented by a stance which saw Google basically give up on these principles for the Chinese people while retaining focus on their money.
Which sits pretty comfortably with H.R Clinton's current guerre du jour.
-
I fear my point may have been a little vague.
Despite propaganda to the contrary Hong Kong is part of China, Google has not turned its back on the simplified Chinese language of the mainland and by proxy the material needs of advertisers/ consumers. This amounts to resistance-free tacit support for the censorship modus operandi. As a gmail user I can’t think of much that is significantly less evil than a company upping ship and essentially abandoning it’s clientele to the whims of a Government that is both censoring and hacking the company’s service.
Hillary’s support for Google then was as questionable as everything that’s come to light via wikileaks, and the current US censorship.
Lest we forget China would still be nowhere if it hadn’t been for an outstretched US hand, namely Nixon, whom if I may quote said:
"This was the week that changed the world, as what we have said in that Communique is not nearly as important as what we will do in the years ahead to build a bridge across 16,000 miles and 22 years of hostilities which have divided us in the past. And what we have said today is that we shall build that bridge."
Which brings us back to:
Hillary Clinton might wish to revisit her own remarks
Or perhaps we may need to reconsider how these types of remarks and our interpretations of them are so successful at obscuring the structural integrity of that huge fuck off bridge. The ideological merge is unequivocal from this vantage point.
-
Steve Parks, 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,
That’s a really interesting question.
One John Young may partly answer here: Cryptome opposes news, apparently:
What Wikileaks has done lately is choose to become superficial to raise funds, and is now playing the journalism game to fleece and bamboozle the public by braying overmuch about the quality of its product, its reputation, its reliability, its trustworthiness, as you [the L’Espresso journalist interviewing him] are doing. By doing this Wikileaks, and you, have dimnished your credibility.
I understand that Wikileaks and you are required to do this to earn income. I understand that both of you are required to lie about what you are doing to compete with other liars in the media, in government, in education, in religion, in human affairs.
…
At the moment you appear to wish that Cryptome do your bidding. To help you produce the vulgar information called news. Cryptome and as once did Wikileaks, opposes news for its superficiality and complicity with advertising to deceive the public.
…
Where the two sites differ is that Wikileaks has chosen to adopt authoritative methodologies to vaunt and protect its secret operation, probably under the spell of journalism and to take advantage of undue legal protection of journalists. -
I’m inclined to agree with Seriatim on page 10. The timing alone of the charges leveled against Assange should raise eyebrows, and one should be able to question their authenticity without being labeled a misogynist. There seems to be a great reluctance to question the facts as presented to us by the powers-that-be in this particular case.
No. This is where not being a misogynist actually really really matters: when it hurts. This is when you actually have to make a fucking choice. It is easy to avoid misogyny when it is Tony Veitch. We don't, after all, like him.
There is not, in actual point of fact, a great reluctance to question the facts of the case here. There is instead an absolute insistence by a great many people that Assange is obviously innocent, because it would be good for the CIA (or the US, or whoever) if he were not. There is a very complete willingness to accept that the complainants are lying, and that the entirety of the charges are trumped up attempts to discredit Assange.
-
Some would call it the presumption of innocence until proven guilty in a court of law, others may call it misogyny. Crazy world...
-
What is crazy is that finally something substantive about NZ's role in Afghanistan has been found in the cables. A passage that shows NZ is being a lot more gung ho in it's dedication to furthering the the expansion of the US empire than other members of the 'Coalition of the Willing', yet people are still gossiping about peripheral issues of no import to us, that are none of our business. As if anyone commenting on this in here is party to 'what really happened' when a condom broke while two people were having sex in Sweden. Yet we all pay taxes in NZ that go to pay the costs of the NZ portion of the Afghani occupation forces.
None of us have skin in the game of let's play Assange not the issues, yet peeps are gossiping about that issue even when something that does need to be debated in NZ surfaces.
-
Do we have skin in the game on let's play the complainants not the issues?
Because by describing the events as being 'when a condom broke' you're presenting a particular version of events. You're pretty much saying it wasn't rape or anything close to it, and you're pretty much saying the complainants are liars. (And you may well be right, but we don't know).
And if you're not saying it wasn't rape, it's only by implicitly extending your statement to something like: "when a condom broke and it is claimed a rape took place".
There's a lot of downplaying of rape claims and playing of complainants here, either they don't matter or they are liars.
If they don't matter, say that - a possible rape or two doesn't matter if it gets in the way of further important leaks of information, and quit whinging about being called misogynists.
If you think the complainants are liars, stop complaining about playing people rather than issues, because your evidence amounts to "Assange is doing good stuff and some powerful people don't like him, so these complaints are false. QED".
I don't think people are 'gossiping about that issue' I think some people are objecting to the downplaying of possible rape and sometimes not very implicit presumption of guilt on the part of the complainants.
What's a little rape when we're talking about important things?
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
And if you’re not saying it wasn’t rape, it’s only by implicitly extending your statement to something like: “when a condom broke and it is claimed a rape took place”.
It’s maddeningly unclear, but I think this comes down to what is defined as an assault under Swedish law. Very early on in the piece, the newspaper Aftonbladet claimed that a leaked statement alleged that Assange deliberately damaged a condom.
Another account says he refused to stop when a condom broke, and subsequently refused a request from the second woman, the photographer, to get checked at a sexual health clinic – which is why she contacted Anna Ardin, Assange’s host and other sexual partner. (They do seem to know each other -- they both accompanied him at a Wikileaks seminar in Switzerland this year.)
The New York Times, apparently quoting the same complaints to police, says it is claimed Assange “did not comply with her appeals to stop when (the condom) was no longer in use.”
The women’s lawyer says there is more to it than revealed in the leaked complaints; Assange’s lawyer says the whole thing is a bad joke.
-
I don’t know enough about Hungarian politics and military doctrine to comment sensibly on what NZ crossing into their area of responsibility to “address a problem” proves about how eager NZ is to increase the US empire in comparison to Hungary.
I don’t think that cable sheds much clarity, though if you hold it up at a certain angle I guess it does show that we are perhaps more eager minions than the Hungarians, for what that's worth.
Then again, according to that cable we’ve lost fewer members of our PRT than they have, so maybe both countries are simply trying to minimise casualties until such time as we’ve paid our dues to the US, and we’re doing it more succesfully by being proactive than they are by hunkering down.
-
The conspiracy theories are really rolling out now. Some numpty at Firedoglake “proves” that Anna Ardin must be a plant by noting that she “worked” with a “CIA-Tied Anti-Castro Group.”
That’s the Ladies in White, whose sons and husbands – journalists and intellectuals – were imprisoned in 2003 in a purge by the Cuban regime. Some received sentences of up to 25 years.
The group was awarded the Sakharov Prize (other recipients include Nelson Mandela and Reporters Without Borders) but were forbidden to travel to Europe to collect it.
Defending free speech by smearing the families of 75 men imprisoned for criticising their government isn’t really a good look.
-
giovanni tiso, in reply to
Defending free speech by smearing the families of 75 men imprisoned for criticising their government isn’t really a good look.
Pity it wasn't Assange who did the smearing, eh?
I'm really struggling to see the relevance of any of this to be honest.
-
vangam, in reply to
There is a very complete willingness to accept that the complainants are lying, and that the entirety of the charges are trumped up attempts to discredit Assange.
You would agree, I presume, that there is a possibility - however remote - that the charges are 'trumped-up'? That being the case, doesn't the politics surrounding this issue make this scenario more likely? All I am saying is that there's a foul stench in the state of Denmark (or should that be Sweden?) and I, for one, are not prepared to discount that possibility until all the facts are on the table.
-
Pity it wasn’t Assange who did the smearing, eh?
And, to be fair, apart from a couple of initial blurts, neither he or his lawyers have gone in that direction.
I’m really struggling to see the relevance of any of this to be honest.
Talk to FDL et al about that. They're the ones tying it all to the CIA.
-
giovanni tiso, in reply to
Talk to FDL et al about that. They're the ones tying it all to the CIA.
Yes, but who cares? I mean globally. Why do we keep going back on whether Assange is guilty of whatever it is that he might be guilty of? He stuck around for a month during the first investigation, and accusations were dropped. Now there is a second prosecutor on the case - and suspicions that this may be the result of political pressures or the high profile of the accused are quite legitimate I think - but the evidence still isn't enough to enable them to issue an actual arrest warrant. It would seem that he is quite entitled not to go back to Sweden, seeing as he wasn't exactly a fugitive in the first place. But beyond that, who gives a shit? Even if (and it's a *huge* if) he was using his role as Wikileaks editor to shield himself from prosecution, how would it impact on what WikiLeaks is or does?
-
If all that happened was that a condom broke, she said stop and he didn't, then the lesson that seems to be being driven home by his defenders is that that's ok or not something to worry about. It doesn't matter or can't be proven to be criminal (which the initial dropping of charges may reflect), or the women took too long to consider the situation and make a complaint, or they were sluts who braggged about bagging him before conspiring to bring a good man down out of loyalty to the hegemon, or something.
I'm not sure that that's a line 'the left' should seem to be quite so comfortable pushing. And I think that so many seem to be very comfortable pushing it is something to give a shit about.
Though sure, saying it doesn't matter globally is a long way removed from saying they're evil skanks who work for the CIA
But no, doesn't impact directly on wikileaks. [And to the extent that the line the prosecution may be pushing is that it's ok to use a non-winnable rape charge to further a political or career goal, that sucks too.]
-
nzlemming, in reply to
I’m really struggling to see the relevance of any of this to be honest.
Sadly, it's the consequence of focussing on Assange (as certain parties would like us to do) rather than the content of the cables.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.