What's new in Wikileaks?

[mindlight]

I am struggling to find any genuinely new revelations in Wikileaks. Some of the stuff seems obvious to anyone who follows events. Even news like the Saudi Kings desire to nuke Iran is pretty much obvious to anyone who knows about the total incompatibility of Shia and Wahabbi Islam.

So is this whole deluge of information nothing more than political gossip or is there something new or useful in this list of new stuff. I reckon this Julian Assange knows how to tell stories to women to get them interested in him but has he really helped any of the rest of us understand how the world really works?

FOR EXAMPLE
Russia a mafia state - obvious
Turkey drifitng to Islam and a little corrupt - obvious
David Cameron a little political - obvious

 

[bigbadwilf]

David Cameron a little political - obvious

Given that he's a politician, I'd certainly describe that as one of the worst kept secrets of all time.

I think it's safe to say that every country says nasty things (true or otherwise) about every other country in official communications, and if everyone knew what we were saying about each other then there would be distinctly fewer alliances and more cold wars.
The important thing is only one country has been caught with its diplomatic signals down, so that one looks slightly embarrased until the next story comes along.

 

[Received]

Glenn Greenwald listed a few "new" points through the cables:

(1) the U.S. military formally adopted a policy of turning a blind eye to systematic, pervasive torture and other abuses by Iraqi forces;

(2) the State Department threatened Germany not to criminally investigate the CIA's kidnapping of one of its citizens who turned out to be completely innocent;

(3) the State Department under Bush and Obama applied continuous pressure on the Spanish Government to suppress investigations of the CIA's torture of its citizens and the 2003 killing of a Spanish photojournalist when the U.S. military fired on the Palestine Hotel in Baghdad (see The Philadelphia Inquirer's Will Bunch today about this: "The day Barack Obama Lied to me");

(4) the British Government privately promised to shield Bush officials from embarrassment as part of its Iraq War "investigation";

(5) there were at least 15,000 people killed in Iraq that were previously uncounted;

(6) "American leaders lied, knowingly, to the American public, to American troops, and to the world" about the Iraq war as it was prosecuted, a conclusion the Post's own former Baghdad Bureau Chief wrote was proven by the WikiLeaks documents;

(7) the U.S.'s own Ambassador concluded that the July, 2009 removal of the Honduran President was illegal -- a coup -- but the State Department did not want to conclude that and thus ignored it until it was too late to matter;

(8) U.S. and British officials colluded to allow the U.S. to keep cluster bombs on British soil even though Britain had signed the treaty banning such weapons, and,

(9) Hillary Clinton's State Department ordered diplomats to collect passwords, emails, and biometric data on U.N. and other foreign officials, almost certainly in violation of the Vienna Treaty of 1961.

 

[Douger]

To be sure, most of the leaked documents reveal stuff that's already been known, but at least, in some cases, it confirms what used to be strong suspicions.

And then there are the real gems of important, new information, like Recieved posted above. Personally, I think the major story from the latest releases is the one about Hillary Clinton and UN diplomats.

 

[Received]

Which is pretty damn sickening, and shows in brighter colors the US' contempt for the UN.

 

[mindlight]

To be sure, most of the leaked documents reveal stuff that's already been known, but at least, in some cases, it confirms what used to be strong suspicions.

And then there are the real gems of important, new information, like Recieved posted above. Personally, I think the major story from the latest releases is the one about Hillary Clinton and UN diplomats.

I must admit the Hilary Clinton stuff is quite interesting. She asked all sorts of questions about the Argentines president also which raised alarm bells in my head. Argentinas president Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner is apparently extremely easy to offend and emotional. Hilarys questions were about her medication etc. But why is she so keen to get on the good side of the president of Argentina offering arbitration for example on the Falkland island dispute with Britain. She deeply offended the British with that. But given other revelations about Obamas lack of an emotional attachment to Europe I wonder if this is part of a broader strategy that is less interested in preserving Americas European alliance.

In other situations she has been asking for biometric data on people as if they were controlled by their ailments and their genes. With this information and the passwords to their computers she thinks she can manipulate them more easily. What is revealed here is an intensely political woman who is far less charming and in many way far more personally manipulative in a negative way than her husband was as president. Bill played on positive emotions while Hilary seems to be more interested in the dark side of peoples characters and the irresistable features of their drug regimes and genetics which she can use to manipulate them.

 

[mindlight]

Glenn Greenwald listed a few "new" points through the cables:

the way those things about the Iraq war are listed sound like part of an antiwar agenda to me and when it comes down to it require interpretation. How you read those things is going to depend a lot on how you regard the outcomes and morality of the war there and also how you assess the stakes. Personally I think a lot of these so called secret decisions were probably the right ones in the circumstances although I see no need to lie about them-

 

[kathaksung]

Wiki-Leaks is another false flag

1. It doesn't leak any important secret of dirty insiders of US government.

2. It provokes Iran and other Arab countries. (News that Saudi king asking US to attack Iran)

3. Feds let Assange go and release un-important documents like what they do to Bin Laden. They won't be arrested until their mission being done.

4. This time the likely purpose is to justify war on Iran.

Quote, "WikiLeaks: Iran 'obtains North Korea missiles which can strike Europe'

Iran has obtained ballistic missiles from North Korea that could be used to strike Western Europe, the leaked files suggest.

By Duncan Gardham, Security Correspondent 29 Nov 2010 "

 

[mindlight]

Wiki-Leaks is another false flag

1. It doesn't leak any important secret of dirty insiders of US government.

2. It provokes Iran and other Arab countries. (News that Saudi king asking US to attack Iran)

3. Feds let Assange go and release un-important documents like what they do to Bin Laden. They won't be arrested until their mission being done.

4. This time the likely purpose is to justify war on Iran.

Quote, "WikiLeaks: Iran 'obtains North Korea missiles which can strike Europe'

Iran has obtained ballistic missiles from North Korea that could be used to strike Western Europe, the leaked files suggest.

By Duncan Gardham, Security Correspondent 29 Nov 2010 "

The cables are from embassies and are really diplomats reports and gossip about their host countries. They also reflect American foreign policy concerns e.g. the war against terror , the problem of Iran etc. Hilary Clinton is portrayed in some as doing illegal acts and impressions of Obama are hardly likely to make him popular with many European leaders. So no completely disagree with this assessment. Embassies are unlikely to know much about what is wrong about US domestic politics. Their brief is in accordance with the goals of American foreign policy and with whats going on in thier host countries and it is these things that determine the content in the reports-

Must admit I started by saying this was just political gossip but the more I read the more I am enjoying reading them as they give insight on American foreign policy and also concerning countries all around the world. cannot wait for the Vatican embassy reports to come out.

 

[William_0]

Reportedly Assange has some huge bombs of information, poison pills if you will, that he's going to release if he's arrested or killed. News outlets are reporting that it's regarding Guantanamo.

 

[Received]

Any sources for this, William?

 

[Sphinx777]

WikiLeaks: Chinese Regime behind Google Computer-Attacks...







​

 

[William_0]

Any sources for this, William?

It's all over CNN.

 

[GQ Chris]

They finally caught the Cyber Terrorist criminal.

 

[GQ Chris]

I don't know why some people actually view this guy as some sort of Robin Hood type hero.

 

[Received]

Perhaps because you believe a democratic population isn't entitled to a transparent government?

I mean, Assange is only doing what Obama promised as he was stepping into office: to his make his administration the most transparent in history.

 

[William_0]

They finally caught the Cyber Terrorist criminal.

Assange is a whistleblower, not a terrorist.

 

[Greenling]

A lot of what's been released is such trivial tittle tattle that I wonder why the authors considered it necessary to hide it from us in the first place. Quite pathetic really. I guess it gives some of them a greater sense of self-importance - knowing something they think the rest of us don't know.

The stuff "revealing secret US facilities in the UK" is information that I and other reasonably well informed campaigners have known for over two decades. The notion that these particular details "could be of use to terrorists" is therefore a joke.

 

[Zoness]

Wikileaks, for better or worse, is not going away. The site has already been cloned 1,600 time across the internet and exists under all kinds of domains. There is a HUGE following for Assange online because we have done 0.5% of the cables, there is still a lot to come.

Also the "insurance" file is available on all major torrent trackers and p2p networks. Its an RSA2048/SHA-1 encrypted file of the size 1.34GB that supposedly has some major, major stuff in it. If anything happens to Assange, the key for the file will go public. The White House cannot make up their mind about it. As first they said the leaks would cause no harm and to just ignore them then they want on some huge tirade about it being a threat to everyone. I think they are just panicking.

 

[mindlight]

These Wikileaks revelations may have been immorally obtained but now that they are out there they are a part of the political conversation and people of good intent need to engage with them to ensure that their meaning is not distorted. Some of the stuff is trivial tittle tattle some is not. I have found them helpful in drawing together diverse strands and therefore helpful in drawing an accurate picture of what they describe.

The files from the vatican embassy are starting to come out now and in my view the Vatican has sustained no damage from these insights thus far. The revelations in this case are afterall only the secularised opinions of US diplomats ´but given that limitation do not succeed in any way in making the Vatican look unreasonable.
There are instances of where the diplomats have a point about the way the vatican handles its PR e.g. over the links with the holocaust deniers.

http://protectthepope.com/