Glenn Greenwald On WikiLeaks: "Those Who Expose Secrets Far More Hated Than Who Commit Heinous Acts"

[Hissyspit]

http://www.salon.com/news/wikileaks/index.html?story=/opinion/greenwald/2010/11/30/wikileaks

The other nastiness WikiLeaks exposed

From bloodthirsty pols to kowtowing journalists, the strident reactions to the whistleblower site reveal a lot

TUESDAY, NOV 30, 2010 06:31 ET
GLENN GREENWALD
WikiLeaks reveals more than just government secrets
BY GLENN GREENWALD

The WikiLeaks disclosure has revealed not only numerous government secrets, but also the driving mentality of major factions in our political and media class. Simply put, there are few countries in the world with citizenries and especially media outlets more devoted to serving, protecting and venerating government authorities than the U.S. Indeed, I don't quite recall any entity producing as much bipartisan contempt across the American political spectrum as WikiLeaks has: as usual, for authoritarian minds, those who expose secrets are far more hated than those in power who commit heinous acts using secrecy as their principal weapon.

First we have the group demanding that Julian Assange be murdered without any charges, trial or due process. There was Sarah Palin on on Twitter illiterately accusing WikiLeaks -- a stateless group run by an Australian citizen -- of "treason"; she thereafter took to her Facebook page to object that Julian Assange was "not pursued with the same urgency we pursue al Qaeda and Taliban leaders" (she also lied by stating that he has "blood on his hands": a claim which even the Pentagon admits is untrue). Townhall's John Hawkins has a column this morning entitled "5 Reasons The CIA Should Have Already Killed Julian Assange." That Assange should be treated as a "traitor" and murdered with no due process has been strongly suggested if not outright urged by the likes of Marc Theissen, Seth Lipsky (with Jeffrey Goldberg posting Lipsky's column and also illiterately accusing Assange of "treason"), Jonah Goldberg, Rep. Pete King, and, today, The Wall Street Journal.

- snip -

Then we have the Good Citizens who are furious that WikiLeaks has shown them what their Government is doing and, conversely, prevented the Government from keeping things from them. Joshua Foust -- who says "he’s spent the vast majority of his adult life doing defense and intelligence consulting for the U.S. government" -- has a private Twitter feed for various intelligence officials and reporters, behind which he's been bravely railing against WikiLeaks defenders (including me) and hysterically blaming WikiLeaks disclosures for everything from Chinese cyber warfare to the next terrorist attack. Plenty of other people are reciting anti-WikiLeaks condemnations from the same script.

- snip -

Nonetheless, our government and political culture is so far toward the extreme pole of excessive, improper secrecy that that is clearly the far more significant threat. And few organizations besides WikiLeaks are doing anything to subvert that regime of secrecy, and none is close to its efficacy. It's staggering to watch anyone walk around acting as though the real threat is from excessive disclosures when the impenetrable, always-growing Wall of Secrecy is what has enabled virtually every abuse and transgression of the U.S. government over the last two decades at least.

- snip -

The central goal of WikiLeaks is to prevent the world's most powerful factions -- including the sprawling, imperial U.S. Government -- from continuing to operate in the dark and without restraints. Most of the institutions which are supposed to perform that function -- beginning with the U.S. Congress and the American media -- not only fail to do so, but are active participants in maintaining the veil of secrecy. WikiLeaks, for whatever its flaws, is one of the very few entities shining a vitally needed light on all of this. It's hardly surprising, then, that those factions -- and their hordes of spokespeople, followers and enablers -- see WikiLeaks as a force for evil. That's evidence of how much good they are doing.

MORE

[mmonk]

1. He nailed it.

"Most of the institutions which are supposed to perform that function -- beginning with the U.S. Congress and the American media -- not only fail to do so, but are active participants in maintaining the veil of secrecy."

[Hissyspit]

41. "WikiLeaks Cable Reveals Secret Pledge to Protect U.S. at Iraq Inquiry:"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4635826

[mdmc]

67. 1

[molly77]

80. If we have done nothing wrong

we should not be afraid of illegal search and seizure...spying on our phone conversations and emails..Remember that one for the American people? The same people who were pushing that meme are now crying the blues when the tables are turned. Karma baby. Karma.

[BzaDem]

2. The US government is allowed by law to conduct diplomatic operations in the dark, as is every other

country. Greenwald has no general right to look at secret diplomatic cables just because he "pays for them." We decide things like this through democratic processes, not based on who pays for them.

If a majority of the country is fine with the US (and every other country) negotiating with other countries in -- gasp -- secrecy, then that's too bad for Greenwald. Cry me a river.

Sure, we have strong and good first amendment protections for those who publish leaks, but that doesn't mean leaks are good or legal or that we shouldn't prosecute those who enable it if they violated our laws.

[mmonk]

3. Diplomacy in secret is not the problem.

A state of secrecy and disinformation for its population is the problem. The end receiver needs to be protected if any of the items are useful to a people that should know about for self preservation. Frankly, I find little of these releases earth shattering but for the one that may be, may its rightful disclosure be allowed as a warning.

[BzaDem]

5. If you don't like secrecy or any other part of our laws, we have Democratic processes for a reason.

I would much rather trust these processes (imperfect as they may be) to unaccountable 3rd party organizations.

[mmonk]

9. Twisting as usual.

[BzaDem]

12. Thank you for your persuasive analysis on exactly what was "twisting."

:rofl:

[mmonk]

26. Thanks for pretending to make it about me and not the issues

raised. That is what I meant about twisting. I gave no indication that I was against all secrecy.

[BzaDem]

37. "You" was the royal you. I did not mean you personally. Imagine it instead saying "one."

[mmonk]

38. If you meant to say one, do not say you.

Otherwise, the only logical deduction was you meant me.

[Goldstein1984]

63. Secrecy and Democracy

How does democracy work with an electorate that doesn't know what's going on?

[John Q. Citizen]

82. We are an empire. Your democratic process is a fairy tale. Used to be so, but that

was before our corporate masters so successfully rigged the game.

Now we have managed democracy.

[EFerrari]

4. Leaks are good when governments lie to the populace.

They are legal to publish because we have the First Amendment.

And prosecuting a free media is anti-democratic.

[BzaDem]

8. I'm not arguing that we should prosecute the media.

Assange is not "the media," and what he is doing is not "reporting." There is a difference between a news organization publishing what they happen to come by, and an organization that seeks out people to violate the law by providing classified information.

You may be right that our current laws do not allow the prosecution of Assange, but that does not inevitably follow from the first amendment.

[sabrina 1]

18. Wikileaks is doing the job our media failed to do.

What do you suggest we do to fix our media? We do NOT get news in this country, we get memos from the government.

Good reporters were fired, like Ashley Banfield eg, for simply reporting what she saw in Afghanistan.

The actions of this country affect millions around the globe. We are responsible for the deaths of untold numbers of citizens of other nations. It is not as if other countries do not have 'national security' interests. America does not rule the world, although they act like they do.

It was predictable that if this country fails to report the corruption within its own government, fails to prosecute its own war criminals, someone else would step in and do it for us.

This has been the case throughout history. When one country kills the citizens of another, backs coups to overthrow their democratically elected governments, they should expect a backlash sooner or later.

'Diplomacy' does not mean plotting to invade countries based on lies.

The American people are mostly responsible for the corruption within this government, for supporting its illegal wars and for remaining virtually silent over its human rights abuses.

Maybe they are so unsulated, such victims of their controlled media, that they do not realize how the rest of the world views human rights abuses eg. Their partners in crime are also being exposed in these documents, Britain and Tony Blair eg.

What do YOU think can be done to turn this country around, to hold our government criminals responsible for their actions? We were told electing Democrats would begin that process, but that was a lie.

Or are you happy to live in a country that is increasingly being viewed around the world as the biggest threat to peace in the world?

We have no right to arrest anyone who provides information to the world, a world that the U.S. and the former Empire which caused so much destruction around the globe, Britain. Whatever gives Americans they right to think they do?

[BzaDem]

22. "We have no right to arrest anyone who provides information to the world"

That's actually not clear. For sure, publishing material you just happen to come by is protected by the first amendment. Soliciting classified material, on the other hand, is not protected.

As for the rest of your post, you are conflating many different issues. It is possible to simultaneously not like all the results of our democratic processes, AND still believe in decisions by democratic processes and not unaccountable third party organizations.

Just because you don't like the direction of the country on a certain issue does not mean the majority agrees with you. Likewise, just because I don't like the direction of the country on a certain issue doesn't mean the majority agrees with me. We have a democracy for a reason. A majority can elect a majority of legislators to change our secrecy laws if it so chooses.

[sabrina 1]

24. When a country doesn't have a press that reports the facts, as

is the case here, there is no chance that the population can make the kind of choices you are speaking about. An uninformed public supported the illegal war in Iraq, and has been convinced for the most part that torture will save us from terrorists. Our media is responsible for this.

It isn't a question of what I or you don't like. It is a question of what is right or wrong, whether the laws we have in place are being violated or not.

As things are now, the U.S. has stated that the rule of law does not apply to us. I am not responsible for that, nor are you. What we are responsible for is our reaction to it.

But the rest of the world, especially those countries who have for so long been adversely affected by U.S. policies are under absolutely no obligation to put U.S. interests before their own. Something this country arrogantly expects.

You are reducing these issues to a matter of likes and dislikes. No, they are for millions of people outside of this country but affected by its policies, are a matter of life or death, of living in poverty as their resources are taken out of their control. South America, the ME, and now Africa. You have forgotten that the world is not centered around the U.S. There are people whose lives are just as important throughout the world, who are not at all happy with what you say are simply not very important policies that we in the U.S. can either like or dislike.

If someone is bombing my country for ten long years, what do you think my issues are going to be? We KNOW what we did about one attack. Do you really think people in other nations place less value on the deaths of their citizens than we do? Are Americans superior in some way to people of other nations? Because this is the attitude the U.S. presents to the world. And the sad thing is, our government doesn't really care about Americans any more than they care about other people. But a lot of Americans believe they do.

[BetsysGhost]

29. in agreement 100%

this says it all.

If someone is bombing my country for ten long years, what do you think my issues are going to be? We KNOW what we did about one attack. Do you really think people in other nations place less value on the deaths of their citizens than we do? Are Americans superior in some way to people of other nations? Because this is the attitude the U.S. presents to the world. And the sad thing is, our government doesn't really care about Americans any more than they care about other people. But a lot of Americans believe they do.



Recommended btw.

[BzaDem]

32. If the country "doesn't have a press that reports the facts," what makes you think they will report

this?

This has little to do with the performance of our press. Either the press sucks, and won't report the leaks, or the press doesn't suck (in which case your justification goes away).

I'm not sure of the remainder of your argument. I obviously support helping those in other countries as much as possible. But are you actually suggesting that other country's citizens have some sort of vote as to what the US does? The President is accountable to the people of the US, not to citizens of foreign countries. Of course the President (and every other human being) is morally accountable for their all of their actions, but the President is only politically accountable to the people of this country.

So far, I don't know of anything that has been released in the latest leaks that is actually illegal. I don't even know anyone who has asserted anything in the leaks released so far is actually illegal. This might very well change as more documents are released and existing documents are analyzed, but you can't possibly assert that all of these diplomatic cables released show some sort of illegal activity.

"You have forgotten that the world is not centered around the U.S."

I'm not saying the world is centered around the U.S. But the actions of our country's leaders are obviously centered around the opinions of the citizens of the US who put them there.

[ProudDad]

85. No they are not!

"the actions of our country's leaders are obviously centered around the opinions of the citizens of the US who put them there."

That's one of the most naive statements ever posted here at DU...

This country is not, has never been and was NOT designed to be a "democracy"...

That's where ALL of your argument breaks down...

70% of the USAmerican public wanted either Single-Payer Health Care or at least a Public Option...

The majority of USAmerican people did NOT want war in Iraq...

The majority of USAmericans did NOT want a bailout of the banksters...

The majority of USAmericans do NOT want continued occupation of Afghanistan...

The majority of USAmericans do NOT want the government to hack up Social Security...

The majority of USAmericans want jobs -- not bailouts for the rich...

I could go on but there's NOT ONE SHRED of evidence that "the actions of our country's leaders are obviously centered around the opinions of the citizens of the US who put them there."

:eyes:

[cpwm17]

62. I couldn't have said it better

Thank you!

[EFerrari]

23. Wikileaks most certainly is a media organization.

Are you trying to say that no one ever leaked information to the New York Times or to the Washington Post?

[ProudDad]

83. Edumacate yourself...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x9657585

[DirkGently]

69. I had always thought this was self-evident. Journalists are SUPPOSED to reveal, not conceal.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

7. "We" decide if it's OK to spy on the UN? Since when?

How can "we" decide on policies if they policies are kept secret? How can we decide on who to vote for if what they do is kept secret?

"Democratic processes" my ass.

[BzaDem]

11. Yes, we do decide.

"How can "we" decide on policies if they policies are kept secret?"

In a representative Democracy, you do not decide on policies. You decide on people. If you don't like our secrecy laws, you are free to elect legislators who enact different laws. You do not need to see one classified document to make this decision.

""Democratic processes" my ass."

Yeah, that quote basically sums up your worldview (and that of many other people on this board) as a general matter.

[mmonk]

13. Do you think an uninformed populace is at some risk or not?

[BzaDem]

17. The populace can easily access online our secrecy laws, and is fully able to decide if they like

those laws.

[mmonk]

25. Does that answer the question?

[BzaDem]

35. It rejects the premise of your question.

You say the people are uninformed. This may or may not be true depending on what you mean by uninformed, but it has nothing to do with the implications of the leaks.

If by uninformed you mean disinterested in politics (not looking at information available for them to look at), then sure, plenty of people are uninformed. But this has nothing to do with the leaks.

If by uninformed you mean not having access to enough information to make a voting decision, I reject the veracity of that statement out of hand. Our secrecy laws are public. Anyone can look them up. If they don't like them, they can vote accordingly.

[Mimosa]

30. Not being a US citizen, Assange has not broken 'our' laws. n/t

[BzaDem]

36. Non-citizens break our laws all the time. Your categorical distinction is bogus. n/t

[Mimosa]

39. So, should Assange be hunted down and put in Gitmo? n/t

[sabrina 1]

47. And when 'we decide' to spy on other countries, 'we' are breaking

THEIR laws. So, what should those other countries do when 'we' decide to break their laws? By your logic, 'they' should arrest Americans who broke their laws.

You are not making sense. You are defending the breaking of other countries' laws on our side, while condemning the breaking of our laws by other countries.

We can't have it both ways. Unless we are a rogue state, operating outside International law, and that is basically what we are if what you are claiming is true.

The laws of other countries were broken when the U.S. spied on U.N. member states. Wikileaks docs prove that beyond a doubt. Don't those countries have a right to that information? Should Bolton, Rice et al be arrested for their law-breaking? Or are you really saying that the only time it's okay is when we do it?

[Hissyspit]

50. WikiLeaks has not broken American laws.

Probably. Onus is on you to prove otherwise.

http://www.lasisblog.com/2010/11/12/wikileaks-has-committed-no-crime/

[druidity33]

68. Did Ellsberg break the law?

For that matter, did the NYT break the law by printing the Pentagon Papers?

Nope...

:shrug:

edited to add Wiki quote and link:

"Ellsberg surrendered to authorities in Boston and admitted that he had given the papers to the press. He was later indicted on charges of stealing and holding secret documents by a grand jury in Los Angeles.<8> Federal District Judge Byrne declared a mistrial and dismissed all charges against Ellsberg on May 11, 1973, after several irregularities appeared in the government's case, including its claim that it had lost records of illegal wiretapping against Ellsberg conducted by the White House Plumbers in the contemporaneous Watergate scandal.<3> Byrne ruled: "The totality of the circumstances of this case which I have only briefly sketched offend a sense of justice. The bizarre events have incurably infected the prosecution of this case."

I felt that as an American citizen, as a responsible citizen, I could no longer cooperate in concealing this information from the American public. I did this clearly at my own jeopardy and I am prepared to answer to all the consequences of this decision.
— Ellsberg on why he released the Pentagon Papers to the press.<8>

Times v. United States is generally considered a victory for an extensive reading of the First Amendment, but as the Supreme Court ruled on whether the government had made a successful case for prior restraint, its decision did not void the Espionage Act or give the press unlimited freedom to publish classified documents. A majority of the justices ruled that the government could still prosecute the Times and the Post for violating the Espionage Act by publishing the documents. Ellsberg and Russo were not acquitted of violating the Espionage Act; they were freed due to a mistrial from irregularities in the government's case.<3>"



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_Papers


So, indicted, mistrial, never recharged. NYT and other newspapers never prosecuted...


:shrug: again...

[micraphone]

56. Ding!

Correct. He is Australian. And his servers are most definitely not in the US.

He just wants to expose corruption of governments ("shadow" as well), banks and MNCs.

How can he be a "traitor", to be punished with the full force of <US> law?

[glinda]

54. The populace is lazy and just repeats what the media tells them for the most part.

[MNBrewer]

76. calling something a representative democracy

doesn't necessarily MAKE it democratic or representative.

[originalpckelly]

95. How can we elect people if we don't know what their real policies are?

Basically, it makes no sense, even from the elected aristocracy point of view.

[midnight]

27. I wonder if these legal secrets might reveal illegal activity?

[liberation]

46. Once again you prove that "democratic" does not mean what you think it does...

... either you were born with such logical dissonance ringing from the get go, or you're training for the doublethink olympics. Either way, you're now way too obvious. Seriously, who do you think you're fooling? (it's a rhetorical question BTW).


LOL

[DirkGently]

70. That's not his thesis. A government which blatantly lies to start wars requires balance.

[MNBrewer]

75. You don't even care what has been done and continues to be done

as long as it can plausibly be called "diplomacy" and you don't have to hear about it. As long as it's secret, it's cool, because the majority has declared it to be so. :sarcasm:

[ProudDad]

81. The consensus of the majority

is that the leaks are good...

and as for legal, in the Ellsberg case the Supreme Court declared it legal...

Get a Brain, Morans! :eyes:

[Major Hogwash]

6. Yup, they even compared it to the Pentagon Papers on Larry King last night.

And Bob Woodward said once again -- "I'll have to take a moderate stance on this leak."

WTF??
Moderate?

You mean, you want to write another fucking book??
That's all it is about for Bob at this stage, making money!!

[JanMichael]

10. If a person wants to keep something a secret there still exists diplomatic pouches.

Other than that only a fool would think that in the 21st century that emails and cables are somehow 100% "private" and confidential. Same with talks in front of groups who have a cell phone in their pocket.

And yes the diplomatic pouches are not 100% foolproof either but they are a hell of a lot more-so than electronic messages. Plus paper messages can be shredded burned or eaten...

[disndat]

77. Exactly what I am thinking.

Any government official who emails anything, must not think it is important enough to safeguard. So therefore government secrecy will go on as ever before.

[ProudDad]

88. Thank goodness the ranks of the functionaries

of the USAmerican Empire...

are filled with fools! :evilgrin:

And that's not likely to change :woohoo:

[Better Believe It]

14. K & R

[Waiting For Everyman]

15. I'm glad he's doing it. Enough with the star chamber mentality.

Far too much is covert now.

[flyarm]

16. Thank you Glen and Julian for being the truthtellers! eom

[nadinbrzezinski]

19. Nailed it

The leaks themselves aren't hat world shattering for those of us who know history, but th reaction is telling.

We ARE a caste society and this is a direct attack on that social order.

Me need to go back...some of those leaks are useful in fiction...and governments spy on each other? Really, I am shocked, shocked I tell you?

[Desertrose]

20. ( Just keep the damned secrets secret already...we don't want to know!)

Amazing....do we LIKE to be kept in the dark?? Easier that way I suppose if you don't want to think.

[TheMadMonk]

78. Your sarcasm flies far, far to close to the truth.

It's the same thing that sends battered wives back to their abusers; gives us "Women for a Patriarchial Society"; drives kids to seek membership, at any cost, in one of the better cliques in school; prompts all sorts to attach themselves to raving nutcases like Jim Jones and L. Ron Hubbard.

It is an absolute deep seated need that far, far too many of us have, for "Someone to take charge."

[sabrina 1]

21. Greenwald once again finds the right words

to nail the hypocrites. He is 100% right. And being right he can too can expect to be attacked by the usual suspects.

[glinda]

55. Too bad he is not getting this out to more of the public though.

[Hissyspit]

28. I think I will kick. nt

[dogday]

31. Bam stick that in your pipe and smoke it...

:thumbsup:

[Uncle Joe]

33. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, Hissyspit.

[kenny blankenship]

34. If you have doubts about this country turning fascist, this episode should end them

and specifically, reading this site should dissolve all doubts.

[Duval]

42. K&R n/t

[laughingliberal]

40. K & R nt

[Poboy]

43. k&r

[puebloknot]

44. K&R Little ray of hope! nt

[felix_numinous]

45. The secret government has created this phenomenon

by keeping Americans in the dark for so long. The fact so many people support a hacker leaking classified documents says more about our hunger for real information than it does about our disloyalty.

We have not only been lied to but our opinions are not even considered in these often deadly international events. We used to learn the truth about covert operations decades after the events, often when participants wrote their memoirs, but now the internet offers us a chance to keep up with their asses. They don't like that.

[katty]

48. the ethers are mightier than the sword-don't shoot the messenger

[pmorlan1]

49. Falling through the looking glass

As usual, Greenwald is right on target. How crazy have things become when Wikileaks is considered the enemy instead of the people who hide behind walls of secrecy to do evil deeds? We have truly lost our minds.

[bread_and_roses]

51. K & R (n/t)

[ProSense]

52. It's human nature

doesn't make it right, but that's how it is.

"I don't quite recall any entity producing as much bipartisan contempt across the American political spectrum "

Republicans, including many now identified as teabaggers, supported Bush regardless of torture.

The overwhelming majority of Democrats despised Bush for those same policies.

But both groups hate people who betray secrets just for the sake of betraying them. That doesn't mean that both groups support heinous crimes.

I've said it before, I don't agree with these leaks.

Diplomacy is important work and it requires confidentiality and relationship building. People who can respect lawyer-client confidentiality, which is airtight, should be able to understand the difference between whistleblowing as a means of exposing crime and corruption for the greater good and simply revealing confidential information.

Embarrassment (or a political vendetta) is a very low bar for compromising foreign policy. It's also a very low bar for transparency.

Transparency is a good thing, but diplomatic negotiations requires some level of confidentiality. Diplomacy is not being conducted in an environment in which all parties value Democracy and transparency. If people believe they can't speak freely, that is not condusive to diplomacy. The world is not paradise, and there are people in it who don't trust each other and those who would do others harm.

[micraphone]

58. "those who would do others harm"

Unfortunately a lot of these people are in the US. Read: bankers, big pharma, "health" insurance death panels, MNCs like Halliburton, arms mfrs etc etc etc.

These are all in his sights.

Thank your deity that SOMEONE is doing something.

[ProudDad]

89. Edumacate yourself...

There's a FINE explanation of Wikileaks' strategy and methods here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x9657585

[ProudDad]

93. hordes of ... followers and enablers...

"It's hardly surprising, then, that those factions -- and their hordes of spokespeople, followers and enablers -- see WikiLeaks as a force for evil. That's evidence of how much good they are doing."

[TheMadMonk]

96. If you truly believe that this is solely about exposing secrets for the sake...

...of nothing more than exposure then WTF are you doing in this place?

All this talk of "embarrassment" is a complete red herring. Everyone knows that everyone else in the game has nicknames for each other and that those names run the gammut from admiring and/or witty to utterly contemptuous. And if you're a diplomat of any intelligence you will be fully aware of every name you are called. The only embarrassment here is that the public might, if they bothered to pay any attention at all, realise what sort of cleverdicks are standing in for them on the world stage. I might note, that what several US politians have said on the open record about any number of foreign heads of State, goes far beyond a few disparaging monikers in private(ish) communiques. The vast majority of what has been revealed here is common knowledge to those who move in diplomatic circles. FFS the juciest bits are nothing more than confirmation of what has been bruited about here by a bunch of people very much not in the official know for years.

What is being called "embarrassment", but is not: Is the outing of active complicity of people in matters those same people swore black and blue they knew nothing about; Is in the revelation that the USA was at the very least passively complicit in multiple crimes of genocide and mass murder; Further confirmation that it baldly lied to start a blatantly illegal war in Iraq; and that it continues to lie and forment in order to justify ongoing occupation.

What is being called "embarrassing" is the public revelation of US involvement in any number of shady matter, that has long been known about , but politely secreted behind a diplomatic "Chinese wall" of sham ignorance. There are a lot of countries (Euro in particular) that will now have to officially "take notice" of matters they were able to politely pretend they knew nothing about. And, explain all those years of pretence at ignorance to their populaces, into the bargain.

Whats is being called "embarrassing" is the revelation that two of your major "partners" have privately stated positions entirely contrary to ones the US publically ascibes to those nations. Israel in its adamant private refusal to allow any real form of Palestinian autonomy, even as it allows the US to talk up as the sticking point, Palestinian militancy. Pakistan in its continuing support of terrorist organisations perfectly happy to split their attention between the India AND the USA. Isreal redux, in its offer to let Egypt annex whatever it thought it could handle and to look the other way if Fatah staged an internal coupe.

All terribly important secrets, that ONLY REQUIRE SECRECY, because, entirely apart from the need to keep the enemy in the dark, is greater need to keep the populace blissfully (or at least legally) ignorant of ANYTHING which might strike a chord of conscience.




Yes there is one hell of a lot of perfectly legitmate diplomatic(military) traffic, pointless chatter, and irrelevancies in these leaks. There has to be. Documents cherry picked for relevancy and "value" would quickly become "fabricated documents" in talk and reporting. By releasing the whole sorry, petty mess, Wikileaks allows a thousand small parties, each with their own little piece of the puzzle to compare what they know to the released documents. When individually and collectively none of them can put the lie to the parts they know about, the credibility of those parts not subject to casual checks rises enormously. And more importantly, whenever an offical denial runs afoul of one of those crosschecks, every other official denial becomes that much more suspect.


The attacks on Wikileaks are being carefully crafted to draw all attention away from the content of the material released and focusing it on outrage at an outsider daring to meddle in sacrosanct American Matters. And there are many here guilty of near absolute belief in American Exceptionalism as an overriding consideration in global matters, even as they manage to "get it" where they themselves are concerned at home.

[Mosaic]

53. Shining the light of truth on a dark past

I haven't been this hopeful since Obama was elected president. K&R!!

[saras]

57. Ignorant and unaware of it.

"So far, I don't know of anything that has been released in the latest leaks that is actually illegal."

Then either you haven't read them or you genuinely believe that imperial edicts like the Patriot act trump all constitutional and international law.

What a ludicrous claim.

[pam4water]

59. K&R

[defendandprotect]

60. The upside down world we live in .... punish the messenger ... forget the wars/crimes....

[Swamp Rat]

61. k&r

[inna]

64. thank God for Glenn (and others like him). really. nt

[malaise]

65. Freaking perfect

Rec

[indimuse]

66. Good post!

knr!

[Beacool]

71. Ahhh, the naivete of the left..........

So, some are outraged because the US is spying on other nations and their diplomats? What exactly does anyone think that other nations are doing? Exactly the same thing, it's standard operating procedure and has been so for centuries.

No one told our diplomats directly to spy. Those cables are standard and are the wish lists of several intelligence agencies. They basically are saying to our diplomats that if they happen to come across x items, that they (these agencies) are interested in them. They are not suggesting that the diplomats break into someone's room and get their credit card number, for example.

BTW, the traditional sign off line on thousands of daily cables from State Department headquarters is always the Secretary of State (when he/she is in DC) and the Ambassador for cables from overseas. It is the equivalent of a letterhead. The Secretary only sees a tiny fraction of cables that go out over his/her signature and personally signs off on even fewer.

:eyes:

[Hissyspit]

73. What are you talking about?

Who here has acted shocked that spying is going on?

There is MUCH more in these thousands of cables than spying.

[Beacool]

87. There are several other threads bringing this up.

Even suggesting that Hillary should resign over this.

[JBoy]

86. I must have missed where the article said anything about that.

[Beacool]

90. I know, but most of the the hoopla seems to have been over the State Dept.'s cables.

I disagree that every nation's state secrets should be revealed. It is naive to think that there aren't forces who wish us harm as a people and as a nation.

[ProudDad]

91. You need to read this...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x9657585

:eyes:

[blackspade]

72. K&R!

Awesome piece.

[obxhead]

74. self delete

[fatbuckel]

79. Hated by those exposed by the leaks.

[paparush]

84. Did people cry "TREASON!" when the book, "Confessions of an Economic Hitman" was published?

Perkin's book is pretty damning in its accounting of US trade, finance, and policies toward the 3rd world.

[ProudDad]

92. I did!

And most of my friends did...

But, unfortunately, since we have a dumbed down population of sheeple and an Empire disguising itself as a pretend "democracy", nobody heard us...


The S.F. Mime Troup even did their annual play on this subject... :)

[Name removed]

94. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Anakin Skywalker]

97. Rightwingers Are So Fucking Stupid!

How is Assange a "traitor" or be tried for "treason" when he's not even a fucking American?!

Sorry for the F word. I normally use an asterisk, but the rightwing blowhards are too ridiculous this time!

[HCE SuiGeneris]

98. Goebbel, goebbel

It's amazing how we are manipulated. K&R