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

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.
 
Except it's blatantly untrue. She might as well use it about a Bulgarian journalist writing about leaked Equadorian documents.
 
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. :lol:
 
It's a word. Adjective.

treason |?tr?z?n|
noun (also high treason)
the crime of betraying one's country, esp. by attempting to kill the sovereign or overthrow the government : they were convicted of treason.
? the action of betraying someone or something : doubt is the ultimate treason against faith.
? ( petty treason) historical the crime of murdering someone to whom the murderer owed allegiance, such as a master or husband.

DERIVATIVES
treasonous |?tr?z?n?s| |?trizn=?s| adjective


ORIGIN Middle English : from Anglo-Norman French treisoun, from Latin traditio(n-) ?handing over,? from the verb tradere.

USAGE Formerly, there were two types of crime to which the term treason was applied: petty treason (the crime of murdering one's master) and high treason (the crime of betraying one's country). As a classification of offense, the crime of petty treason was abolished in 1828. In modern use, the term high treason is now often simply called treason.
 
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.
 
AiR said:
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. :lol:

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.

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.

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.

I guess if Assange had released a bunch of top secret Iranian documents, S?po (Swedish Security Police) would give him bodyguards in a jiffy, though. That said, he'd probably need them. Never know with the Iranians.
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:
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!!! :D

Oh, and thanks to everybody who replied about treasonous. Need to google words before questioning Palin again!
 
That woman will do anything to sell her book. Told you, she's a grifter.
 
You should always question Palin. You'll always be right to disagree with her on concepts and ideas. ;)
 
http://www.npr.org/2010/11/30/131699096/amid-fears-wikileaks-presents-some-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 Help

Fly stresses that much of the cable traffic between U.S. embassies and the State Department is kept secret for good reason. But a lot of it, he said, is kept under wraps simply owing to "diplomatic niceties."

Bringing more such information to light could be helpful, he says. Details about how China has rebuffed U.S. efforts to hamper North Korea's nuclear program "may increase the pressure on the administration, from Congress and elsewhere, to be more frank with the Chinese, to make it clear that if they don't cooperate with us, there will be repercussions," Fly says.

Other documents make it clear that some Arab nations, including Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, are just as nervous about Iran's nuclear ambitions as the U.S. and Israel ? perhaps even more so.

"I don't think it shocks anybody that countries in the Middle East are urging the U.S. to do something about Iran," says James Jay Carafano, director of foreign policy studies at the Heritage Foundation. "But when you actually see the language it's kind of a wake-up call."

U.S. Image In The Arab World

The strong language used by Iran's neighbors and revealed in the leaked cables could help the U.S., in part by making the Obama administration seem less like an aggressive outlier, suggests Fariborz Ghadar, a distinguished scholar and senior adviser at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a bipartisan policy research organization in Washington.

"The silver lining really is that the U.S. doesn?t come across as a gunslinger, at least in the Middle East," Ghadar says. "If you look at the perceptions and the polls of the Arab street, here we are, this gunslinger, shooting up Afghanistan and Iraq, and now we're going after Iran.

"Now the wording shows that their own leaders are in fact much more jingoistic and it's the U.S. that's been much more thoughtful," he says.

That could cause some problems for U.S. allies in the region, Ghadar notes, if their hostile attitudes toward Iran are seen as out of step with domestic public opinion.

An Increase In Secrecy

Ghadar also worries that the WikiLeaks publication could make diplomats abroad more cautious about what they will put into their reports.

"There will be all kinds of repercussions, with foreign officials being perhaps less willing to be candid about what is going on with their governments," says Fly, the Foreign Policy Initiative executive director.

The Defense Department has already put in place measures ? such as bans on USB drives ? designed to block large-scale document theft. More are certain to follow. Such measures could make it trickier for agencies to share vital information with each other, a key goal of national security efforts since the 2001 terrorist attacks.

Time 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:
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.
 
Never ever write down anything on a computer that you would not want - your worst enemy / WikiLeakes to see. ... :)
 
Last edited:
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!!! :D

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.

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:
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:
Nicolas Sarkozy ,the american.

Nicolas Sarkozy ,the american.

Two articles from the Guardian and from Le Monde about the French president , extracted from the cables :

As no surprise the Guardian article insists more on the Carla Bruni, bling bling , gossip.. side and the Le Monde one on more "serious" subjects.
Here is a sum up?:

American diplomats are as fascinated by Nicolas Sarkozy than Nicolas Sarkozy by America.

He is the most pro-american french president since WW2. They praise his ??lib?ralisme??, his atlantism and his communautarism.

Nicolas Sarkozy and his collaborators are frequent visitors to the US embassy , to the point that
in 2005, he announced to the american diplomats that he will be running for the french presidency of 2007 , sixteen months before he made this public.

A Bush admirer?:

Sarkozy expressed several times his admiration for the president Bush.

On Irak

In 2002 , the then minister of Interior , behind the close doors of the US embassy,criticized harshly the politics of the then president Jacques Chirac and the then prime minister Dominique de Villepin .

After his election in 2007 , american dignitaries are very pleased of the new directions of the new government?:

-The acceptance of the american occupation of Irak?;
-The maintening of french troops in Afghanistan.
-France rejoins the military command of Nato.
-A harder line on Iran?;
-A more pro israel line as opposed to the traditionnal pro arab line of the french diplomacy.

On the negative sides (from a US point of view of course)
-The refusal of the entry of Turkey in the EU?;
-Sarkozy is not as pro capitalist as expected.
-The relations with President Obama are considerably colder than with President Bush.
-The growing impopularity of Sarkozy among french people.

sources :
http://www.lemonde.fr/international/article/2010/11/30/wikileaks-nicolas-sarkozy-l-americain_1447153_3210.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/nov/30/nicolas-sarkozy-personality-embassy-cables
 
WikiLeaks tweeted in response: "WikiLeaks servers at Amazon ousted. Free speech the land of the free ? fine our $ are now spent to employ people in Europe."

Amazon is free, as a private company, to pull any website off their servers. Not really a freedom of speech issue.
 
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:
Top