Wikileaks’ leak of State Department cables, like all the other leaks, didn’t do much, if any, real damage:
The damage caused by the WikiLeaks controversy has caused little real and lasting damage to American diplomacy, senior state department officials have concluded.[…]
This is in direct opposition to the official stance of the White House and the US government which has been vocal in condemning the whistle-blowing organisation and seeking to bring its founder, Julian Assange, to trial in the US.
Of course, I had to read that in the Guardian, because neither the Times nor the Post deem it worthy of a report.
dr. bloor
Well, Curveball told Judith Miller that the leaks did too do a lot of damage, so shut up, that’s why.
Nikki
What does this say about the way Bradley Manning is being treated in his detention?
Linda Featheringill
It is irritating to have to go to an European newspaper to get US news.
But perhaps it is good news for Assange. The UK us, after all, the country that is in possession of him. If they [the Guardian, etc. of the British press] can spread the news that he may be a pest, or even a jerk, but hasn’t done real harm, maybe the UK won’t be eager to release him to the folks that are angry at him.
His troubles with the ladies in Sweden are a separate issue.
geg6
But Wikileaks is evil! Evil, I tell you!
Linda Featheringill
Good question about Manning. Can we ease up on him now?
cathyx
I think the difference between those who agree with what Wikileaks is doing and those who don’t is analogous to those who want to know what their cheating spouse is doing and those who want to live in ignorance of it, continuing to believe that their marriage is a good one.
soonergrunt
Which of course has fuck all to do with whether or not the act of stealing the information and giving it to people who weren’t authorized to have it are, you know, crimes.
Or that under the law of every country in the world with something approximating a justice system, enabling somebody to do that is a crime itself.
How many of you were screaming for Dick Cheney’s and Scooter Libby’s heads over the Valerie Plame affair?
I suppose it’s OK when it validates your world view though.
Omnes Omnibus
@Nikki:
@Linda Featheringill:
This has nothing at all to do with how Manning is being treated. If his confinement conditions are harsher than those of other pre-trial prisoner, it is improper and should stop. If his confinement conditions are the same as other pre-trial prisoners, the US has a problem with how it treats prisoners and it should be corrected. I tend to think it is the latter problem. This is a real problem for the US, but it is, at best, tangentially related to Wikileaks.
Elvis Elvisberg
@soonergrunt: Assange isn’t alleged to have stolen any information, I don’t believe. And the concern over Manning is his treatment while incarcerated, not that charges for violating laws are unwarranted.
thomas Levenson
The Guardian is becoming the US newspaper of record. Oh well. (Good science section/blogger network too.)
lawguy
@soonergrunt: Well first of all Chaney and Libby didn’t spend any time, that I recall, in pretrial detention. Nor were they kept isolated. They also, apparently compromised several CIA agents (spys if you will). So far there are no allegations that WikiLeaks has compromised any one. That is if of course you are comparing them to Manning.
As far as Assange and WikiLeaks they have, as far as I can figure out, broken no law. It is not a crime to publish this kind of information as long as they did not materially assist Manning in getting it.
Also, I would have thought that the vice president and an important assistant would be held to a higher standard, but then I guess I’m just old fashioned that way.
ornery curmudgeon
@soonergrunt: Ease up, Soonergrunt. The difference is that people “screaming for Dick Cheney and Scooter Libby’s heads” were asking FOR transparency, as these people were elected US officials with special clearance to classified information who were selectively exposing a live CIA asset due to political reasons. Also, Libby’s orchestrated leak from the highest level of our government DID harm US interests.
In both cases, the position of those “screaming for Dick Cheney and Scooter Libby’s heads” is to seek transparency. You seem to be believing propaganda being used by a corrupt government to shield themselves from people knowing the truth of their actions. The truth is not the enemy.
One might look at the difference in the way Washington has responded: in the case of Cheney/Libby it was busy circling wagons and promoting pardoning (after conviction by a Grand Jury). Now it’s all about killing the messenger.
J.W. Hamner
Doesn’t the fact that WikiLeaks has released nothing of interest conclusively prove that the Times and Post have been correct in not reporting on it? The lack of anything even remotely surprising in their document dumps basically proves the mainstream press has been serving us well.
cathyx
@soonergrunt: So what part of “whistleblower” don’t you get? The Plame thing was not a whistleblower letting everyone know about illegal activities. What Wikileaks is doing is giving a whistleblower an avenue to let the world know about illegal, immoral and unconscionable activities that shouldn’t be happening. Yes, I totally support the whistleblowers and Wikileaks in all they are doing.
mistermix
@J.W. Hamner: It was of interest, it just didn’t cause irreparable damage. There’s a difference.
And the Times and the Post were very happy to report on the possible terrible damage it could cause, but fail to report that it didnt’.
@soonergrunt – Bradley Manning should be held in humane conditions, charged, tried and punished if he broke the law/UCMJ. Never said he shouldn’t.
geg6
@lawguy:
THIS.
burnspbesq
@Nikki:
Nothing. That was barbaric and arguably illegal from day one, and that hasn’t changed.
He also continues to be the prime suspect in a serious crime. If an arsonist set fire to your house, but the house suffered only minor damage because a competent fire department responded quickly to the alarm, would you advocate leniency?
El Cid
Reports seem to have that it’s been pretty interesting for a number of people in non-US countries. For Tunisians, for example.
JRon
On the other hand, this would be a good way to take focus off the cables. “nothing to see here…move along please…”
There does seem to be important info in there: Tunisia’s ruling elite forced out over info revealed in cables; Nigerian govt basically owned by Shell Oil; records of Pfizer’s illegal experiments on African kids; Chevron’s deals in Iran; knowledge of the BP blowout potential over a year in advance; Monsanto’s retaliation over GM crops; etc.
Downplaying them now could have the effect of making the US look even more like a front for major corporations and a protector of dictators around the world than we already do.
On the other (third?) hand, I’m not sure what else the govt could say now, other than “no big deal, stop talking please.”
General Stuck
@mistermix:
I would suggest you link to the apparent Reuters source stories to The Guardians take. And all of it using anonymous sourcing, which I always take with a grain of salt, whether it supports my own opinions or not. First Reuters story, and updated one.
Considering only a fraction of the cables have been released, it all seems rather premature to make firm conclusions, and the only folks willing to go on the record don’t agree that little “irreparable” damage has been, or will be done. I have no idea what to believe from this thread or story.
Except that The Guardian seems to have left this out, along with a few other details.
burnspbesq
@lawguy:
Actually, it is a crime. Knowingly receiving stolen government property is a violation of 18 USC section 641. That a court may choose to recognize a First Amendment defense (a defense that isn’t in the statute, FWIW) doesn’t mean that DOJ couldn’t (in theory) make its prima facie case.
geg6
@El Cid:
Whereas other reports from Tunisia say that Wikileaks has nothing to do with anything going on there. Until we have any evidence to support problems caused by Wikileaks, I think we should probably accept what even the U.S. government admits, if only in secret apparently: Wikileaks has not caused the U.S. or anyone else harm.
dr. bloor
@J.W. Hamner:
The Times hasn’t been ignoring Assange, Wikileaks and the information as “non-news”–they’ve been running away from him as fast as they possibly can and denying their journalistic identity, even while cheerfully publishing the information that Wikileaks obtained. Hypocrisy, thy name is Old Grey Lady.
soonergrunt
Considering that I don’t see anything inhumane about Manning’s conditions–servicemembers who aren’t charged with, or suspected of any crimes have it worse than him, whether deployed to primitive conditions, war zone or not, or in a training environment, I really don’t see what the complaint is there. There are valid reasons to keep him in Pre Trial Confinement, and within PTC on limited/restricted routine. I would let him keep his books more than he gets to, and I’d give him a radio tuned to NPR, but that’s just me.
Lawguy–I understand the law on this. I know, for example, that the New York Times doesn’t give people who bring them information the tools to do so, nor does it pay for or remunerate the act. You (being a lawguy) surely understand better than me that the act of providing Manning with encryption tools and other such, if it can be proven to have happened, would be a violation of the law, don’t you? Cause I get that part pretty easily, and I’m just a dumb grunt who fixes computers for a little extra spending cash. Or if they pledged to help pay for his legal defense, that also fits the term ‘overt act’ with respect to a conspiracy.
And no, the Plame affair wasn’t about transparency. Nothing about it was transparency. If everything was done right and legal, we wouldn’t have any transparency with respect to Valerie Plame’s employment. In fact, Ambassador Wilson’s actions in calling out the administration would’ve only served to have strengthened her cover.
burnspbesq
@cathyx:
Edited for factual accuracy.
dr. bloor
@soonergrunt:
I don’t think anyone here has been arguing otherwise–it’s that “if it can be proven to have happened” thingy that’s missing in the public record so far. You know, proof of the crime. If Assange materially assisted Manning, he’s toast.
dr. bloor
@burnspbesq:
soonergrunt
@dr. bloor:
And silly me, I was looking at all of the lauding and loving Assange gets around these parts and thinking that people here don’t think that at all, nor do they seem to think that it’s the proper role of a jury in a courtroom to decide these things. After all the pulling of hair and gnashing of teeth about a possible extradition going on around here, I think it pretty fair to believe that people here seem to think that the law shouldn’t apply to him.
Ash Can
Who needs diplomacy anyway? Wars are so much easier to understand.
General Stuck
@Ash Can:
LOL, exactly. All you need is a Bush with horns sign and a street corner to stand on.
cathyx
@burnspbesq: Here is Glenn Greenwald’s response to your claim that Wikileaks is in violation to any law.
There are legal theories under the Espionage Act of 1917 which, in some very narrow cases, can make it plausible to prosecute even non-governmental actors for publishing information, but doing so is very difficult. The Bush DOJ tried and failed to invoke those theories to prosecute two AIPAC officials — private American citizens — who were accused of receiving classified information from a DoD official and then transmitting it to the Israeli Government and to various journalists. The Pentagon official who leaked the classified information to AIPAC (Larry Franklin) was rather easily convicted — because the criminal laws clearly applied to him as a government employee. But it was far from clear that the AIPAC officials, as private citizens, had broken any laws.
Indeed, it took an exotic interpretation of the Espionage Act even to prosecute them at all. As The Post put it when the case was finally dismissed: they “were the first civilians not employed by the government charged under the 1917 espionage statute.” Indeed, the very idea of criminalizing the mere receipt and transmission of classified information by non-government-employees is incredibly dangerous, as it would criminalize much of what investigative reporters do, which is why even harsh AIPAC critics — such as myself — found that AIPAC prosecution to be so chilling. There are countries (such as Britain) that criminalize all disclosures of classified information, but the U.S. is not one of them. In sum, anyone (such as Carroll) declaring that WikiLeaks clearly broke U.S. law — as though there is no real dispute about it — reveals that they have no idea what they’re talking about.
THE
I guess I’ve got three reactions to this analysis by “Senior State Department Officials”:
1. Well, they would say that wouldn’t they?
2. Since most of the damage, if any, would be to America’s allies, it would be more interesting to read the allies’ (private) interpretations.
It’s not obvious they’re going to tell Americans what they really think of America’s screw-up – that wouldn’t be diplomatic.
3. I guess we’ll have to wait for the real answer to that question until Wikileaks reveals it.
Elvis Elvisberg
@soonergrunt:
Oh, I see, you just wanted to make shit up. Well, sorry for responding to your earlier comment with actual facts then. Have at it!
dr. bloor
@soonergrunt:
Funny thing about the posters here: Lotsa different opinions, and you can find the whole range with respect to Assange in particular. Perhaps you might want to think about making specific arguments in response to specific posters rather than constructing and knocking down straw men.
lawguy
@burnspbesq: Information as government property? Hmmmm? I’m sure Madison and Jefferson wwould have been proud (although J. Adams may have approved, if he were president, of course).
Based on that I’m sure that the New York Times and the Washington Post will be prosecuted soon. Also, I’m sure that you will be willing to provide a list of all the successful prosecutions by the government of American news media that published information from whistle blowers.
Perry Como
@burnspbesq:
Yes, let’s make journalism a crime. What could possibly go wrong?
Omnes Omnibus
I think, when discussing this issue, it is important to separate Manning’s actions from those of Assange and Wikileaks. It would help if everyone would specify the party whose conduct they are discussing. Both the legal and moral ramifications are different with respect to each of the parties and conflating them only confuses the discussion and ramps up the anger. On the other hand, you can just tell me I am a stupid cudlip and that I should fuck right off.
burnspbesq
@cathyx:
Apparently you have failed to notice how incomplete Greenwald’s analysis is. Everything he has written on this subject has focused exclusively on the Espionage Act, a statute that even it’s fans acknowledge is fraught with problems.
Greenwald has never ever addressed the potential applicability of conspiracy or aiding and abetting the theft of government property. Surely he is not ignorant of the existence of these statutes. One wonders why he steadfastly ignores them.
valdemar
Here in the UK Wikileaks has been out of the headlines for a good few days, but this could be because of a lot of other political stuff in the heavies. (I note the words ‘Blair’, ‘lies’ and ‘Iraq’ seem to feature quite a lot.) Perhaps some are avoiding Assange etc, but this might be due to fears of reader boredom – the extradition case is mired in legal fisticuffs.
OT, today’s Times has this headline:
‘Obama’s Popularity Soars as Tucson shootings turn tide against Palin’
General Stuck
@valdemar:
My name is Obot, and I approve of this headline.
lawguy
@Omnes Omnibus: The legal ramifications may be different, although apparently many here agree with our attorney general that they shouldn’t be.
On the other hand t he moral implications are no different. What Manning did (apparently, he has not confessed or been found guilty yet) and what WikiLeaks did are incredibly brave and moral actions. And deserve only the highest p[raise.
soonergrunt
@Elvis Elvisberg: for that to be the case, it would have to actually be something made up, and not an observation of the various people and personalities here over the several months this thing has played out. Have a nice day.
@dr. bloor: You’re right, there are lots of different posters here, but if you want to be differentiated yourself, that would be on you to point out the difference. And yes, it is also on the reader to try to determine that as well, but when you say
when referring to the group of people here, a large share of whom have argued otherwise (and in fact some are doing so on this very thread) then well, yeah, you risk getting lumped in with those who are arguing otherwise when you don’t distinguish yourself from them.
Omnes Omnibus
@lawguy: I would say that there are very few, if any, actions that do not come with moral arguments that can be made on either side. The actions of Manning, Assange, and Wikileaks are no exception. It seems clear that you have weighed their actions and decided that the actions were justified and praiseworthy. Others have weighed the actions and come to different conclusions. I see both good and bad, and have not yet made up my mind on the balance between them.
Legally, absent proof of conspiracy (which I think would be difficult), Assange and Wikileaks are, and probably should be, in the clear. Manning, whatever his moral justification, appears to have violated a variety of US laws. He is likely to spend a long time in federal custody.
geg6
@soonergrunt:
This is completely assinine and untrue. I have yet to see anyone here make the case that if Wikileaks provided Manning with material support that they shouldn’t face consequences. However, the fact is that there has not yet been any sort of evidence of such material support, despite months and months and months of demonization of Wikileaks. You obviously have some sort of stake in the belief that the government wouldn’t lie and deceive in order to cover up their mistakes, but many of the rest of us don’t and that doesn’t make us traitors or cheering for America to fail as you imply. I support what Wikileaks has done so far because it makes our government and other institutions transparent and thus, hopefully, accountable.
dr. bloor
@soonergrunt:
Well, then find a post that says Assange is still an untouchable hero if evidence emerges that he facilitated the theft of the data.
I’m waiting.
eemom
what a bunch of naive, oversimplified bullshit.
matoko_chan
……..YET.
earlytimes Mr. Mix.
like immediately after 9/11 the real damage was not immediately apparent.
10 years after……we are broke, our economics are trashed, and our global hegemony is in ruins.
only 2k of 250k cables have been released?
because that is Assanges’ system killer design…the slow drip of classified data is DESIGNED to induce paranoia reflex and cause NLS collapse.
He has been pretty vocal about this…i have linked a lot of it here.
Assange believes 10 years from now….America will either be a police state or a third world country post NSL collapse.
So far, his system killer seems to be working as intended.
And it cant be turned off. The US gov is trying desperately to increase the COST of leaking…..that is all they can do. they cant stop the drip drip drip of paranoia induction from the data that has been “liberated.”
OBL junk punched America in the economic junk in meatspace.
10 years later just look at us.
Assange JUST DID THE SAME FUCKING IN CYBERSPACE.
you guys need new bifocals i guess, u arent gettin the message here– Assange is not just some punk with a website.
He is the harbinger of a New Paradigm– information accountabilty fueled by Hacktivism.
matoko_chan
SAME FUCKING THING.
/yawn
matoko_chan
@geg6: sooner just wants to get back to crotchsniffing Assange on the fake-rape charges.
matoko_chan
@soonergrunt: are u nutz? the VALUE and AMOUNT of classified data is non-comparable here.
Every one on the DC cocktail circuit knew where Plame worked– shoot, it was in Who’s Who– it was the Bush admin’s act of outing her to discredit Wilson that people were screaming about.
matoko_chan
@soonergrunt: are u nutz? the VALUE and AMOUNT of classified data is non-comparable here.
Every one on the DC cocktail circuit knew where Plame worked– shoot, it was in Who’s Who– it was the Bush admin’s act of outing her to discredit Wilson that people were screaming about.
matoko_chan
i think Mr. Mix should retitle his post to Apocalypse Denied.
because its coming.
matoko_chan
still getting double comments.
call the webmistress, stat.
morzer
@matoko_chan:
So what did mommy put in your HelloKitty lunchbox today?
THE
Seriously matoko. There was a worldwide real estate bubble you know; credit blew out. In the United States, the bulk of the credit bubble was in the private sector.
The credit bubble has been building since 1980 at least.
Notice how much higher the credit bubble is than the “Great Depression” one in the 1930s.
matoko_chan
@morzer: i dont have a Hellokitty lunchbox, but i do have a cherished plastic Little Mermaid backpack that i still USE.
Ariel is one of my totems from my childhood.
:)
morzer
@matoko_chan:
Yes, that far distant childhood.
lawguy
@soonergrunt: “Many believe,” but “some” are unsure. There I think that I’ve covered about everybody.
THE
@morzer:
She’s been denying the “hello kitty” connection for years,
but I’ve suspected for ages that this is her Ferrari.
Omnes Omnibus
@THE: That thing is obscene.
matoko_chan
yeah, yeah, and this is my Warhammer character.
Hellokitty and the Sisters of Battle FTW!
morzer
@matoko_chan:
So in fact you are a generic, slightly pudgy male gamer geek aged about 30 with pimples and fairly serious identity issues? Is this the great revelation you wish us to take onboard?
morzer
@THE:
Dear God, I was eating when I looked at that monstrosity. Have you no shame?
THE
BTW matoko. OT.
Edge has a new annual question, and it’s a very good one.
THE
@Omnes Omnibus:
@morzer:
Don’t worry, it’s Photoshopped.
This is the original with a link to a larger image .
geg6
Heh. Guess the Swiss aren’t all that concerned about their vaunted banking secrecy after all:
http://www.salon.com/news/wikileaks/index.html?story=/news/2011/01/19/wikileaks_swiss_banker_guilty
dollared
Gang, I’m going to repeat my point from yesterday. Julian Assange and Martin Luther King. They both broke laws. They both made people very, very uncomfortable. They both wanted government and the national culture to change.
IMHO, your real response is based on your need for order and security. Negroes marching in the streets and moving into your neighborhoods were terrifying things in 1964, and by the time Detroit and Watts had burned, they were threatening to a majority of Americans, thus Nixon.
So I would argue that Julian Assange is the election of 1968 all over again. Who are you? Humphrey or Nixon? Or McCarthy or Wallace? Julian Assange is a pretty good litmus test.
And one more thing: of course he’s an odd, prickly fellow. Do normal people throw away their lives to prove a point? Most of us would have thought Patrick Henry was a melodramatic, self-centered asshole.
dollared
@geg6: Heh. Don’t you love how judges tell us what they really think? “Gosh, you broke our sacred bank secrecy laws that were sheltering 2,000 fabulously wealthy people from paying their taxes? Well, shame on you. You pay an $8,000 fine and please promise to never do it again. You may go free now.”
matoko_chan
All. Assange is ON RECORD for what he is trying to do. There is video, interviews, a well-formed mission statement.
Why are you cluelessly speculating?
So far, the powerless hyperpower CANT TURN ASSANGES MACHINE OFF.
So far, the machine is WAI.
Big media is DOING ASSANGES BIDDING and dribbling out the cables.
Only 2k out of 250k so far…..why?
the media outlets HAVE all the cables. they are COORDINATING with Assange.
because if they dont, they get cut off for the next distribution.
Big Media is convinced Assange is here to stay.
what is wrong with you people?
matoko_chan
@THE: oh tyvm. that is a good question..but they always are.
i havent read responses yet….but….my answer is…..
how would you answer, Spock?
General Stuck
@matoko_chan:
So glad that work release from Clown Prison is working out for you.
geg6
@matoko_chan:
Chill, girl. I agree with you. I, too, believe that the media are coordinating with Wikileaks and that Wikileaks (and, hopefully, other similar organizations) is here to stay. I just wish you had better social skills because there are people who might just also agree but are put off by your lack of communication skills. I like Wikileaks. I support Wikileaks. I want Wikileaks out there doing what they do. Many others could be convinced, but you are not the person to do that.
THE
@matoko_chan:
I have an answer to the Edge question that is specially meant for you, matoko.
It would help you a lot if you could learn to think in a more nuanced way.
Unlike mathematics, scientific reasoning is probablistic, not black/white, true/false.
Reason is Bayesian, Logic is Boolean.
dollared
@matoko_chan:
OK, I give up. Is it that they waste time reading this blog instead of working?
DougW
@geg6: As evil as your great aunt Griselda?
DougW
@soonergrunt: The fact that IOKIYAR is one thing, but Julian Assange isn’t an American citizen, and as long as he didn’t conspire with Manning to receive the data, he’s immune. That’s why the Feds are trying so hard to find SOMETHING on him. The fact that the
State Department is backtracking on the amount of damage makes it even clearer that this is a witch hunt.
matoko_chan
@geg6: well tell me WHY people here are speculating about Assanges methodology and motivation?
its all written down.
i have linked it and linked it.
Why do people still comment on EDK’s threads?
Its pretty obvious what hes all about after not changing his ideology a nanowafer in like 50 posts.
this stuff is GOBSMACKINGLY obvious, and anyone with an IQ over room temp should be able to assimilate it.
matoko_chan
the reason i get SO MAD, geg6, is that balloonjuice is now isomorphic with the Village, and has become the low rent Atlantic circle jerk, right down to EDK stunt doubling for the McMegan/Douchebag stealthy glibertarian conservative shills.
Assange has been FUCKING EXPLICIT about his mission and his theories. Wikileaks, the application he DESIGNED and IMPLEMENTED…. the FUCKING scifi BETA TEST IS RUNNING RIGHT NOW and cannot, apparently, be turned off.
And you guys are babbling about what his motives were?
HE HAS BEEN FUCKING CLEAR ABOUT WHAT HE BELIEVES.
THE
BTW matoko, when I referred above to the Bayesian, probablistic nature of scientific (empirical) reason,
among other things, I meant that it is OK to have multiple hypothesis in your mind at the same time,
and assign to each of them its own subjective prior probability.
A Bayesian rationalist doesn’t have to commit themselves to just one theory – unless the evidence definitely supports that interpretation.