Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

WikiLeaks strikes again -- U.S. diplomacy stripped naked

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #81
    Originally posted by nomix View Post
    It's an.. err.. adverb? Help me out people, I don't even know Norwegian grammar, let alone English grammar.
    Adjective: treasonous .
    Good word, no problems with the use made by Mama Grizzly-in-Chief.

    Comment


      #82
      Except it's blatantly untrue. She might as well use it about a Bulgarian journalist writing about leaked Equadorian documents.
      "If you're not getting the picture you want, you're not close enough" - Robert Capa
      "Your first 14000 pictures are your worst" - HCB
      - David Bailey! Who's he?!
      I am one of "the two most level headed and pragmatic regular posters on the politics forum" according to anonymous sources.
      blog
      Bustin' chops since the late 80s

      Comment


        #83
        Originally posted by nomix View Post
        Except it's blatantly untrue. She might as well use it about a Bulgarian journalist writing about leaked Equadorian documents.
        Fair point, I meant gramatically correct.

        Comment


          #84
          It's a word. Adjective.

          DERIVATIVES
          treasonous |?tr?z?n?s| |?trizn=?s| adjective
          If only I could be PhuckingGoose

          Comment


            #85
            Actually, it's a real word. It's an adjective (adverbs end in -ly) and it means having the character of, or characteristic of, a traitor. Synonymous with traitorous.

            I bet her tweet-lackey proofread it first.

            EDIT: ninja'd

            Note to self: check if there are any more pages before replying to a mid-thread post in case there are others who have done so already.


            Final Gear around the world care package
            discussion | photos | spreadsheet | map

            Comment


              #86
              Originally posted by AiR
              So no, it's not okay to spy on the UN.
              Never said it is. And no one is spying on the UN, they're spying on each other at the UN. More or less mincing words, I know.

              Your comment that I was replying to was about US diplomats building dossiers on foreign diplomats. I don't think that's explicitly illegal, though such erm, complete dossiers are probably "frowned upon" (seems to be what the UN thinks anyway). Though it's been awhile since I looked at either the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations or the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations. There's certainly nothing that can be done to prevent it, save having diplomatic corps improve their security.

              The directive to have US diplomats use the UN surveillance to spy on foreign diplomats is something else. That's certainly a violation of the '46 Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the UN ... if there is any proof that the US was successful in doing so. Doesn't seem that there is. Not yet anyway.

              Originally posted by MacGuffin View Post
              I believe this contains at least as many new chances, as dangers. The question is how they handle it.
              I'm surprised at your optimism. As much as I'd love to see international politics conducted in a candid and direct manner, it will surprise me if this changes anything. Then again, only something like .1% of the documents have been released so far. This is going to have much more far reaching effects.

              Originally posted by phuckingduck View Post
              Meh. When you start leaking foreign service reports you're getting awfully close to stepping on the CIA's toes. That under-secretary of inter-agricultural affairs representative to Turkmenistan probably isn't a kind man offering farming advice. And he can probably kill you. In thirty ways. With his pinky. Or so Jason Bourne would have us believe.
              On a more mundane note, I'm sure the breach makes plenty of regular diplomats around the world upset. Whether or not they're named.

              No doubt. I'm actually curious as to the Iran's reaction to this. It's been revealed that several middle eastern leaders would love to see a US war with Iran ... and that Robert Gates thinks a strike on Iranian nuclear facilities would only slow down their process of proliferation by "one to three" years.
              Last edited by tigger; December 1st, 2010, 4:24 AM.
              Saying smaller engines are better is like saying you don't want huge muscles because you wouldn't fit through the door. So what? You can bench 500. Fuck doors. - MadCat360

              Comment


                #87
                An insight into Assange's modus operandi...written by Assange (somehow missed by mass-media):

                http://zunguzungu.wordpress.com/2010...ent%E2%80%9D/#
                Last edited by ViperVX; December 1st, 2010, 5:02 AM.
                Top Gear Rullz 4ever!

                Comment


                  #88
                  I just want to point out what the Australia government wants to do- they have asked the Australian media to "consider a voluntary agreement to censor 'sensitive national security and law enforcement information'". . Fortunately one news group (sucks it had to be News Ltd though) stood up to them and they are giving their readers the chance to vote and choose what they should do. About 78% of people so far voted that it shouldn't be censored.

                  a) Bull-fucking-shite. I am disgusted at my government at the moment. Don't you dare try and restrict what we can and can't know any further than you already do. The attitude of the media at the momenT anyway (as some said upthread I think) is to report on the juicy stuff, yes, but not anything that will endanger people currently in some sort of government service (at least, that's what I've seen). And since 99.9% (estimate, yes!) of people are only going to see the news reports and not sift through the actual wikileaks releases, the only thing happening is that officials are getting embarassed. And that needs to be covertly censored by a nice note to the media. Jeez, why do i still live here? (Yes, probably other countries have tried this, but I know my country has done it, and tried to be subtle and sneaky about it. Eugh)

                  b) I have regained some faith in the Australian public based on the results of that poll- thank god!!!

                  Oh, and thanks to everybody who replied about treasonous. Need to google words before questioning Palin again!
                  Now rocking my Swift 2.0- louder, faster, meaner, but still my little Suzy

                  Comment


                    #89
                    That woman will do anything to sell her book. Told you, she's a grifter.
                    As I grew older, I wanted to become like Jeremy Clarkson. Unfortunately, it appears that I'm turning into James May. On the plus side, I know that at least I can drive better than Richard Hammond.

                    Comment


                      #90
                      You should always question Palin. You'll always be right to disagree with her on concepts and ideas.


                      Final Gear around the world care package
                      discussion | photos | spreadsheet | map

                      Comment


                        #91
                        http://www.npr.org/2010/11/30/131699...-upside-to-u-s

                        Some revelations in WikiLeaks' publication of hundreds of diplomatic cables and documents could ultimately prove useful to U.S. foreign policy objectives, analysts say.

                        U.S. government officials have denounced the release of classified material as reckless and dangerous. But foreign policy experts say in specific instances there may be an upside, such as improving America's image in the Arab world or prompting greater congressional oversight on China policy.

                        "Of the few that I've seen, there are certainly a number of cases where the release may actually assist U.S. efforts," says Jamie Fly, executive director of Foreign Policy Initiative, a conservative think tank.

                        WikiLeaks has published hundreds of diplomatic cables, out of a total cache of a quarter-million. Many were provided in advance to news outlets including The New York Times, which began publishing them on Sunday.

                        The Justice Department is laying the groundwork for possible criminal prosecution of WikiLeaks. Rep. Peter King (R-NY), who will chair the House Homeland Security Committee next year, says that WikiLeaks should be classified as a terrorist organization.

                        Defense Secretary Robert Gates on Tuesday sought to play down the potential impact of the leaks.
                        "Is this embarrassing? Yes. Is it awkward? Yes. Consequences for U.S. foreign policy? I think fairly modest," Gates told reporters at the Pentagon. He called dire predictions about the effect of the release on America's foreign policy as "significantly overwrought."

                        How It Might HelpU.S. Image In The Arab WorldAn Increase In SecrecyTime For A Review?

                        Heritage's Carafano suggests that it will always for be difficult for agency safeguards to stay ahead of rapid changes in information technology. While he is no fan of WikiLeaks, Carafano argues that its latest document dump does not bring to light problems U.S. agencies were not already aware of.

                        "Nobody needs to explain to the U.S. government that we're under constant cyber-assault and that these things happen," Carafano says.

                        David Rothkopf, a visiting scholar at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, believes that prompting "a massive, comprehensive review and reform of how America keeps, shares and thinks about its secrets is one of the few benefits this unfortunate incident could produce."

                        A Fairly Flattering Light

                        Writing in The Financial Times, Rothkopf notes that the WikiLeaks information also shows "the formidable courage and capabilities of many diplomats."

                        Although Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has been forced to do damage control all week, the massive leak shows that her department is on top of its game, says Lawrence J. Korb, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, a progressive think tank in Washington.

                        "One thing that is helpful is that it shows that the U.S. government is basically trying to put in place good policies, that it has a good idea of what's happening in Afghanistan and Pakistan and has a pretty good analysis of the situation of Russia," Korb says. "The Obama administration has got a pretty realistic view of the world and the world we live in and the things that are helping and hurting our policies."

                        Fly agrees. "From an outsider's perspective, and as someone who has been critical of the administration on different issues, it shows there's not a lot of naivete about the world from this administration," he says. "They're dealing with the real threats that are out there."
                        Last edited by Dogbert; December 1st, 2010, 2:41 PM.
                        No matter how cynical you get, it is impossible to keep up.
                        - Lily Tomlin

                        My cheevos!

                        Comment


                          #92
                          Originally posted by ViperVX View Post
                          An insight into Assange's modus operandi...written by Assange (somehow missed by mass-media):
                          Funny that his whole stated goal is increased transparency and freedom of information, but all he's going to accomplish in the long term is the exact opposite.
                          Saying smaller engines are better is like saying you don't want huge muscles because you wouldn't fit through the door. So what? You can bench 500. Fuck doors. - MadCat360

                          Comment


                            #93
                            Never ever write down anything on a computer that you would not want - your worst enemy /WikiLeakes to see. ...
                            Last edited by Cobol74; December 1st, 2010, 4:48 PM.

                            Comment


                              #94
                              Originally posted by brydie76 View Post
                              I just want to point out what the Australia government wants to do- they have asked the Australian media to "consider a voluntary agreement to censor 'sensitive national security and law enforcement information'". . Fortunately one news group (sucks it had to be News Ltd though) stood up to them and they are giving their readers the chance to vote and choose what they should do. About 78% of people so far voted that it shouldn't be censored.

                              a) Bull-fucking-shite. I am disgusted at my government at the moment. Don't you dare try and restrict what we can and can't know any further than you already do. The attitude of the media at the momenT anyway (as some said upthread I think) is to report on the juicy stuff, yes, but not anything that will endanger people currently in some sort of government service (at least, that's what I've seen). And since 99.9% (estimate, yes!) of people are only going to see the news reports and not sift through the actual wikileaks releases, the only thing happening is that officials are getting embarassed. And that needs to be covertly censored by a nice note to the media. Jeez, why do i still live here? (Yes, probably other countries have tried this, but I know my country has done it, and tried to be subtle and sneaky about it. Eugh)

                              b) I have regained some faith in the Australian public based on the results of that poll- thank god!!!

                              Oh, and thanks to everybody who replied about treasonous. Need to google words before questioning Palin again!
                              Australia has lots of strange ideas about freedom of speech and censoring the internet and what not, I don't understand why. Is it the proximity to China? The government should be afraid of it's people, thats how it has to work in a democratic and open society, censorship leads down the dark path to despotism.

                              Originally posted by tigger View Post
                              Funny that his whole stated goal is increased transparency and freedom of information, but all he's going to accomplish in the long term is the exact opposite.
                              I think it will lead to increased thoughtfulness and transparency in the long run as generations grow up with the expectation that information needs to be free. The politicians currently in power are the ones that are interested in hiding their embarrasment, but they'll retire and die off eventually.
                              Last edited by AiR; December 1st, 2010, 5:32 PM.

                              Comment


                                #95
                                Originally posted by tigger View Post
                                I'm surprised at your optimism. As much as I'd love to see international politics conducted in a candid and direct manner, it will surprise me if this changes anything. Then again, only something like .1% of the documents have been released so far. This is going to have much more far reaching effects.
                                Well, I'm a great fan of kicking over the ant hill from time to time to stir things up a bit. And this could help on the long run. I'm not talking short-term of course.

                                I have to make a remark on the statement that "everyone spies at everyone" and that all countries have more or less turned their embassys into branches of their secret services. That is simply not correct and frankly quite some nonsense.

                                It's a special American thing. It's common knowledge, that the USA ultimately claim that absolutely everything is justified, when American interests are concered -- even violating their own laws and their highest principles. It has happened time and again in the past and will happen again in the future. That's not anti-Americanism, it's just a fact. Everyone in the world knows it an shares that assessment.

                                But even at the peak of the Cold War, when the U.S. embassies were not much more, than branches of the CIA ,the diplomatic corps was always kept out of the business and was often blind to what was going on behind their backs.

                                The local CIA representatives often really run the whole shebang, yes, but without the knowledge of the ambassadors, who regularly complained to the government about how they were kept out of the information flow. Most of them were left in the dark, when the CIA had covered operations going on. And rightly so. The government knew the danger, when an ambassador was caught in an illegal act. So there has always been a clear separation between diplomacy and collecting intelligence.

                                And with most countries in the world this is still the case today. Ambassadors are not spies.

                                However, the publication of these documents on WikiLeaks now shows, that it's no longer only the CIA or other intelligence agencies, who are engaged in spy activities for the USA but also the diplomatic personnell themselves. The documents suggest that they have become a sort of "hobby secret agents" in many cases. Even the ambassadors.

                                That is not only a violation of what is internationally considered polite, it is espionage. When the U.S. ambassador to Germany has an informant within the German government, who reports to him only and feeds him with insider information on what the German government is planning to do, he's actively taking part in espionage and that's criminal behaviour by the law of any country, including the USA.

                                Frankly I'd be surprised if he'd keep his position much longer. And if he does, probably no one will ever talk to him openly again. He's already a lame duck now, because everyone knows he cannot be trusted. For a diplomat that's professional suicide.

                                Most countries are clever enough to keep their representatives out of the dirty business, because it's them how represent their country. If an ambassdor is caught with dirty hands, it means his country looks dirty, too.

                                I can understand the rage of some U.S. politicians over this complete disaster but I cannot feel any sympathy. I also cannot blame WikiLeaks for publishing those documents. The U.S. government can only blame themselves.

                                It's easy to call journalists traitors but they have an obligation to share their knowledge with the public, once they have gained it.

                                I think the Italian newspaper "Corriere de la Serra" put it best:

                                "It's the task of the governments and not the task of the journalists to protect secret information."
                                Last edited by MacGuffin; December 1st, 2010, 6:47 PM.
                                “If Liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear" (George Orwell)

                                Comment


                                  #96
                                  http://www.lemonde.fr/international/...7153_3210.html
                                  http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010...embassy-cables

                                  Comment


                                    #97
                                    Have you guys got this? The BBC was quoting this report about an hour ago.

                                    Comment


                                      #98
                                      Amazon is free, as a private company, to pull any website off their servers. Not really a freedom of speech issue.
                                      "I saw myself founding a new religion, marching
                                      into Asia riding an elephant, a turban on my
                                      head and in my hands the new Koran I would
                                      have written to suit my needs." - Napoléon Bonaparte

                                      "More than 60,000 Germans fell, not beneath the
                                      Roman arms and weapons, but, grander far,
                                      before our delighted eyes. May the tribes, I pray,
                                      ever retain if not love for us, at least hatred for
                                      each other; for while the destinies of empire bear
                                      hard upon us, fortune can give no greater boon
                                      than discord among our foes." - Germania, Tacitus

                                      Comment


                                        #99
                                        I just love how Amazon will publish ebooks for paedophiles under the guise of "free speech" (yes, they did eventually remove it, but only after everybody and their dog lambasted them about it), but when scawwy Wikileaks uses their servers "Censorship... simply because we or others believe their message is objectionable" goes out the window. The only reason I can see for Amazon doing this for a good reason is because of legal consequences, but that didn't seem to bother them too much in the pedo book sagas.
                                        Last edited by brydie76; December 1st, 2010, 11:17 PM. Reason: Fixed link
                                        Now rocking my Swift 2.0- louder, faster, meaner, but still my little Suzy

                                        Comment


                                          Nothing illegal about the pedo books

                                          I guess you just can't trust a German.

                                          Comment

                                          Working...
                                          X