WikiLeaks publishes full cache of unredacted cables

[Dietrich]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/sep/02/wikileaks-publishes-cache-unredacted-cables

WikiLeaks has published its full archive of 251,000 secret US diplomatic cables, without redactions, potentially exposing thousands of individuals named in the documents to detention, harm or putting their lives in danger.

The move has been strongly condemned by the five previous media partners – the Guardian, New York Times, El Pais, Der Spiegel and Le Monde – who have worked with WikiLeaks publishing carefully selected and redacted documents.

The newly published archive contains more than 1,000 cables identifying individual activists; several thousand labelled with a tag used by the US to mark sources it believes could be placed in danger; and more than 150 specifically mentioning whistleblowers.

Reporters Without Borders, a press freedom group which had been maintaining a backup version of the WikiLeaks site, revoked its support for the whistleblowing site in the wake of the decision.

"Some of the new cables have reportedly not been redacted and show the names of informants in various countries, including Israel, Jordan, Iran and Afghanistan," it said in a statement. "While it has not been demonstrated that lives have so far been put in danger by these revelations, the repercussions they could have for informants, such as dismissal, physical attacks and other reprisals, cannot be neglected."

[Michael Emrys]

This does not sound good.

Michael

[Magpie_Oz]

I still don't get :

A) What they hope to achieve by releasing all of this stuff

and

Why they think they have a mandate to do it

[Vanir Ausf B]

I read something regarding the files containing the name of an Australian intelligence officer. If true it could open Assange up to prosecution in his home country.

[Michael Emrys]

I still don't get :

A) What they hope to achieve by releasing all of this stuff

and

Why they think they have a mandate to do it

I suppose if you believed that the US is really, really evil, and that their enemies are really, really virtuous and good, it could be seen as an idealistic gesture. But to believe all those things would require having your head in a very odd place indeed.

Michael

[Affentitten]

The curious paradox is that by doing this under the umbrella of whistle blowing, they're actually discouraging people to become whistle blowers. Because their anonymity is no longer safe.

[Magpie_Oz]

While I haven't met the fellow (he is from Townsville which is the next city to mine) I have met a lot of fellows like Assange. Maybe it is a thing from our era ?

One thing they all have in common is they really do harbour this belief that they are somehow deigned a higher purpose because of their skills.

Maybe it comes from too much D&D but they honestly believe that we will be grateful for them exposing the secrets that governments keep.

The thing that really condemned them for me was a series of releases they did earlier in the year that revealed what a number of politicians actually though of each other. I think our PM was quoted as saying the leader of Iran was a tool or something similar and sowe how this was a big revelation.

I think it just shows colossal immaturity to not understand that sometimes within politics and particularly international politics you have to deal politely with people you have a low opinion of.

The retort I have for people who come out in "band wagon" support of Wikileaks is the simple question "What are you going to do when Wikileaks decides your bank account details and PIN are best made public knowledge?"

[JonS]

... but they honestly believe that we will be grateful for them exposing the secrets that governments keep.

I am, and I know plenty of other people are.

The retort I have for people who come out in "band wagon" support of Wikileaks is the simple question "What are you going to do when Wikileaks decides your bank account details and PIN are best made public knowledge?"

I don't know about any bandwagon - when do I get my membership ring? - but my retort would be in two parts. Firstly; you clearly don't know WTF you're talking about. Secondly; you definately don't know WTF you're talking about. WikiLeaks 'mission statement,' or purpose, really isn't that secret. That you choose to remain ignorant says more about you than it does them.

Incidentally, this latest leak is all on the Guardian, not Wikileaks. Well, WL bears some responsibility, but ... publishing the pwd in a book. WTF were they thinking? Obviously, they weren't.

Jon

[Magpie_Oz]

I admire your faith in a self nominated mission statement as safe guarding your private information.

[JonS]

Right

Of course, that statement applies equally to every organisation and every individual on the planet. It's usefulness is extraordinarily inversely proportional to its truthiness.

[Magpie_Oz]

Right

Of course, that statement applies equally to every organisation and every individual on the planet. It's usefulness is extraordinarily inversely proportional to its truthiness.

Which is why governments are regulated by a statutory system of checks and balances and who are subject to a mandate of the population.

[costard]

MagpieOz - No way is Townsville a city - no chance at all. "Infested hole" describes it nicely.

Jon - that link in your sig is mind blowing. Do you know if they did some maths to get the flight line right or was it just a case of having faith in the size of his balls?

Wikileaks? meh - the disinformation game has reached the point where I cannot trust any news service to deliver anything other than a probable and varying value for the truth. Either I'm all grown up or we've rebuilt the Tower of Babel.

[Affentitten]

Part of the issue here in Australia too was that Wikileaks had pre-released much of the information to the Fairfax media group and they were sitting on a lot of it and releasing it when commercially opportune.

[JonS]

Do you know if they did some maths to get the flight line right or was it just a case of having faith in the size of his balls?

As far as I can tell, he's been squirrel-suiting for many years - maybe a decade? He's done a LOT of flying. And that means that he's very careful and precise about what he does. Otherwise he'd be a red streak on a bridge somewhere.

Nosing about on Youtube, I came across some other videos of his that seem to show the same flight, except that he goes through the gap between the trees and over the guy with the balloons much higher (#32 doesn't dive out of the way, for example). My guess is that he's flown exactly the same route lots, maybe dozens of times, gradually getting lower and lower as works out his technique and the exact flight profile he wants/needs to fly. It wouldn't surprise me at all if he had some kind of telemetry package too, and analysed all his flights.

Still, all that just increases my respect. And the music is an rocking choice to go with the flight. I've lost count of how many times I've watched the video now, but the hairs on the back of my neck still stand up dring the countdown. And, more than any of that ... he really can FLY! Did you notice the graceful, gently curving turn he executes just after the low flyover, while he's flying down the crack? Amazing. And beautiful.

Jon

[JonS]

Which is why governments are regulated by a statutory system of checks and balances and who are subject to a mandate of the informed population.

Fixed that for you. WL provides some small part of that information, information that the govt doesn't want you to know, and which other media can't or won't provide.

[Magpie_Oz]

Without any responsibility, accountability, authority, mandate, regulation or legislation to do so.

I see you have no compunction in changing what some one else has said to fit your own agenda. Common Wikileaks practise ? How would we ever know?

[JonS]

Without any responsibility, accountability, authority, mandate, regulation or legislation to do so.

Unfortunately, yes. That's the way it seems it has to be, becuase the people who should be doing it are asleep at the wheel, or looking the other way.

[Magpie_Oz]

Unfortunately, yes. That's the way it seems it has to be, becuase the people who should be doing it are asleep at the wheel, or looking the other way.

That same thinking is what leads people to justify flying airliners in office blocks, or torturing captives, or committing genocide.

All I know is that I think our current PM is making decisions that effect my families well being but in two years time I will get the opportunity to remove her from office.

On the other hand I live in real fear for the safety of my family because my wife works for the Federal Government in a sensitive area and should one of these "white knight" releases of confidential information contain references to her it could have grave consequences for ME, MY WIFE AND MY CHILDREN, not politicians, not despots, not criminals, not corrupt officials, not anyone important, just ME and the people I love.

I have no opportunity to let them know I do not approve of what they do.They are too far up their own arses to give a toss about REAL people and REAL effects their BS has.

So I have to put up with the arbitrary choices of someone who seeks to place them selves out side of the law just because they think they know what's best.

You show me where that is good and fair and justifiable and I'll give you two words, one of which is Get and the other rhymes with duct.

[dieseltaylor]

Which is why governments are regulated by a statutory system of checks and balances and who are subject to a mandate of the population.

At first I thought it was irony. However on reflection there are some who might believe it is true.

I am sure there are some governements, perhaps a handful where this may be true but in a lot of systems its a matter of choosing between two power blocks, or in others minority parties continually form the government.

Do checks and balances work? The answer in terms of rendition and other illegal acts is no. Unlawful wars, assassinations .......

I am not so daft as to believe that a nation state may need to act in a pragmatic way but that does not mean that I would not prefer a better form of Govt with better checks and balances. Incidentally I am not suggesting a system where power is stymied more than people would be properly judged after the event for being cavalier with their power.

There is no shadow of doubt Tony Blair lied to create the atmosphere to drag the UK to war in Iraq, and that without him the US would not be in the **** it is in terms of wasted money and lives.

SO if Wikileaks is necessary to make rulers become more careful in what they do that is all to the good. That they may cause casualties in the process is hugely regrettable - but then every day acts by governments are killing people anyway and perhaps overall Wikileaks may save more lives than it endangers.

Whichever view you hold it is a dirty world and on balance I think it helpful for the people to realise what really goes on .

[Bigduke6]

While I haven't met the fellow (he is from Townsville which is the next city to mine) I have met a lot of fellows like Assange. Maybe it is a thing from our era ?

One thing they all have in common is they really do harbour this belief that they are somehow deigned a higher purpose because of their skills.

Maybe it comes from too much D&D but they honestly believe that we will be grateful for them exposing the secrets that governments keep.

The thing that really condemned them for me was a series of releases they did earlier in the year that revealed what a number of politicians actually though of each other. I think our PM was quoted as saying the leader of Iran was a tool or something similar and sowe how this was a big revelation.

I think it just shows colossal immaturity to not understand that sometimes within politics and particularly international politics you have to deal politely with people you have a low opinion of.

The retort I have for people who come out in "band wagon" support of Wikileaks is the simple question "What are you going to do when Wikileaks decides your bank account details and PIN are best made public knowledge?"

I think that the people talked about - for instance the leader of Iran - are perfectly aware said Western politician was insulting them behind their backs. Unless somehow the leader of Iran and people like him really believe what western officials say to their faces - which they most certainly don't - I would say the damage done on the politeness front is somewhere between null and void.

As to the bank account/PIN question, the answer to that is clear, making it possible for some one to steal your property is pretty much amoral behavior in any society.

However, I would argue that evidence of government officials - who are people themselves - in representative democracies lying to their own people is not evidence that should inherently be kept supressed and private like a PIN. I do not think that sort of information should only be made public only if members of the governing class deem fit. Screw that, people are people, the governors are no different than any one else, and if they can use their position to enrich themselves and CYA they certainly will.

Moreover, a great many people working for governments have the opinion that lying to people not in government, and concealing information from people not in government, is not only okay but in the public's best interest. See previous paragraph and add: It is an extremely rare bureaucracy indeed, that is not self-serving. I do not trust, inherently and without reservations, the ability of a government organization staffed by humans to police itself effectively.

So if Julian Assange, one of the governed, is mad at Tony Blair, one of the governors, for lying to all the governed about Iraq and so helping mightily to involve the governed in a war that killed and maimed the governed and cost them plenty of money they might well have spent on education or better roads, what is Julian to do?

What if Julian has evidence that Tony not only lied about the Iraq casus belli, but that a great many of Tony's friends, who are also people in the governing class, benefited personally in careers and arms contracts and what have you, because Tony lied to the governed?

Whom should Julian be loyal to? The governors? Why? Have the governors done right by the governed? Julian has proof positive they have not, indeed, they the governors hae sacrificed the welfare of the many (governed) for the few (governors). The governors have said they are serving society, i.e., the governed, but by their actions they are serving themselves.

If Julian is a human and so responsible to society, which part is it moral to try and help? The governors? Or the governed? Which part of society NEEDS help? Which part of society is suffering more? Which part of society has less tools to defend its interests?

The real problem with Wikileaks is not that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad suddenly has found out that the British ambassor to Tehran doesn't like his choice in suits and is offended by his body odor.

It is rather, that the governors in literally tens of thousands of separate messages can be proved beyond pretty much a shadow of a doubt of betraying the public trust - of lying to the public, of engaging in bureaucratic pettifogging, of wasting taxpayer money, of supporting patently goofy policies rather than challenging them, and generally of acting as if their only loyalties needed to be to their superiors. Who also, of course, were people who are members of the governing class.

Another interesting question would be, did Assange ever at some point have a chance to get the message to Blair: "Look mate, I've got the goods on you, you told whoppers when you shouldn't, but if you do the right thing and fess up your crimes then I'll do the right thing and keep all the other dirt out of the public eye."

But of course that's rhetorical. The governors almost never make deals with the governed, and the more powerful the governor, the more likely he is to use the government to retaliate against his accusers, rather than consider the validity of their accusations.

That is what we have happening now. There is a group of non-government people convinced too many people in the government are abusing the public trust, and further, the government is rigged so that that abuse will continue no matter how the governed vote. Therefore, a small subsection of really angry governed people are trying to change things by other means.

It remains to be seen whether the governors can supress them. In the old days it was possible to shut down newspapers or just brand groups unpatriotic, but what with the internet bouncing information all over the planet it's really hard these days to villify and silence a group of people who are governed, who have a bone to pick with their governors, unless you can corroborate that their claims against the governors are groundless.

These days, the people doing the governing have to prove in the court of the worldwide information flood their really are doing their jobs right, that they haven't abused the public trust.

If they have, actually, that's fair easy to demonstrate. If they did their jobs right then proof of it is actually in their benefit, it demonstrates to the governed that they are lucky to have such responsible governors.

Of course, it would suck to be a person who had done well personally from being a member of the ruling class, but didn't do very much for the people he was ruling. If that information got out, the ruled would have every right to get upset.

And the ruled would as a general thing really appreciate some individual's making that information available to them.

[Vanir Ausf B]

That's as whitewashed a view of Wikileaks as I've ever seen. If Wikileaks was only about exposing governments lying to their own people I think a lot more people would be supportive. But they are not nearly so discriminating. Rather, their true mission appears to be to expose nearly every bit of non-public information they get their hands on, most of which does not appear to represent illegal or immoral action.

SO if Wikileaks is necessary to make rulers become more careful in what they do that is all to the good. That they may cause casualties in the process is hugely regrettable - but then every day acts by governments are killing people anyway and perhaps overall Wikileaks may save more lives than it endangers.

Whichever view you hold it is a dirty world and on balance I think it helpful for the people to realise what really goes on .

I call bullsh1t. How many of Blair's lies has Wikileaks exposed? A lot of the people named in these cables are guilty of nothing more than doing their job. The same is true of their exposure of Afghans working with NATO. What good came of that? The fact is Wikileaks is reckless and unworthy of the faith some persist in having in them.

[JonS]

[WL's] true mission appears to be to expose nearly every bit of non-public information they get their hands on, most of which does not appear to represent illegal or immoral action.

Yeah ... so ... I'm not really seeing an issue here.

Well, no issue apart from all this apparently laubable behaviour being hidden in the first place.

[Vanir Ausf B]

So the logic is that all information should be public? There is no such thing as legitimate secrets?

The issue is that people who have done nothing wrong are being punished, or at least are being put at risk.

[JonS]

The issue is that people who have done nothing wrong are being punished, or at least are being put at risk.

Payback is a biatch, huh?

[Bigduke6]

A web search of with the words "Blair" and "Wikileaks" will give you a pretty fair overview of the case. Essentially, there is plenty of evidence there supporting the argument he was in fact a poodle cheerleader that helped W. push an unjustified war on their respective countries, and further supported fun things like rendition and enhanced interrogation techniques.

As to people in Wikileaks being named, in the first place, pretty much all of these messages are US State department essays where one US State department employee writes something to inform others, and also to make himself and his boss and his station look good. More than anything else, Wikileaks exposes how much time and effort US diplomats put into writing reports pretty much no one will read.

It may be true these people were "just doing their job". But if their job entailed wasting public funds, justifying their existence, and from time to time doing their little bit to create bogus information - The International Terror Threat is Real, The War on Drugs is Succeeding, this State Department Civil Initiative is Really Helping, etc. - then it absolutely is in the public interest that these wasteful activities be exposed.

As to government worker identities being exposed, if that is a fear then the simple way to avoid that is not to work for the government. It's not like the people in the government are really careful about leaving alone the identities of people not in the government. See the FBI, CIA, IRS, etc. etc.

In the second place, being on public business only justifies the acts of a government worker, and should protect him from the retaliation of irate individuals, if the organizaton acts in the public interest.

This behooves government workers to eave organizations not serving the public interest. If that organization is not serving the public interest and at the same time concealing it, then a worker worried about retaliation needs to bail, immediately. If he stays, it's on his look out.

Staying in the organization and hope that, since he was just following orders, he won't ever be targeted by people with an axe to grind with the organization, is a bad strategy. Life very often doesn't work that way.

Perhaps staying in the organization, following orders, and depending on the organization to suppress information about its betrayal of the public interest so as to avoid angering the public, may have been a good strategy in the past.

But this is the 21st century and information is too digital and accessible to too many people, for the most government doing to stay secret like in the past. Never mind Wikileaks, just think of all the blogs out there listing government malfeasance. The days where the government worker could say "Trust me, because you have no way of checking on me" are as dead as Allosauruses.

Hoping government confidentiality will protect one'sself, if one works for the government, assumes the government actually will stay ahead of the curve on information security. That means whatever digital information defense geeks there are inside the government, must both outnumber and be substantially more skilled, than the digital information attack geeks outside the government. Which, in the long run, is impossible. There just are too many hackers out there and the information environment is moving too fast for people inside the government too keep up.

We should not forget that there were hundreds and maybe even thousands of information security people collecting government paychecks, who failed to detect the vulnerability Bradley Manning found, and then failed to prevent him from exploiting it. Sure, they've probably closed that particular hole now. But it is ridiculous to assume that some other whistleblower won't find and exploit another one later.

What has happened is, the people IN the government are now for the first time ever getting a real taste of what it is like, not to be in the government. When any one with a web link and a grudge can out you, and you have no defense, Big Brother can't protect you. All you can do is hope your past acts be squeaky-clean enough to survive a vetting on the web.

Oversight can really ruin your day.