Obama gets pantsed by Wikileaks.

[Yonivore]

I thought conservatives were ing that this administration didn't keep their promise of being open.
Now that you have the information you wanted, you're ing?

We need a Wikileaks for domestic policy not foreign policy.

[CubanMustGo]

So when the leakdude starts doing this sort of thing for China and Russia I'll take him seriously. Right now he just looks like a prick with an axe to grind against the US. Sure, he says he's leaked more than US-centric stuff but all the big crap is about depantsing America.

[MaNuMaNiAc]

So when the leakdude starts doing this sort of thing for China and Russia I'll take him seriously. Right now he just looks like a prick with an axe to grind against the US. Sure, he says he's leaked more than US-centric stuff but all the big crap is about depantsing America.

what's the matter? too embarassing to face all the your government does under everyone's noses?

Personally, I love it. Hopefully, Wikileaks starts focusing on exposing South American nations. They could start with Argieland over here and wouldn't even have to break a sweat finding out. Everything is out in the open, for all to see, and seemingly for everyone to ignore...

... not that anyone would give a crap what goes on down here, but its the principle of the thing you see.

[The Reckoning]

umm, isnt this treason?

[MaNuMaNiAc]

umm, isnt this treason?

hmm not unless you think Australia is America's 51st state

want to declare it an act of war as well?

[The Reckoning]

im talking about the american pfc who disclosed the info, smartass. he doesnt deserve a "lengthy prison sentence," he deserves death.

[MaNuMaNiAc]

im talking about the american pfc who disclosed the info, smartass. he doesnt deserve a "lengthy prison sentence," he deserves death.

aah yes, him

[CubanMustGo]

Unlike some here, I am not a gung-ho "everything the US does is right" type. So, fine, Julian decides his purpose in life is to expose the US at every possibility. Trouble is that there's crap like this going on behind the scenes in every country; where's the balance?

Wikileaks' own about page originally said the following: "Our primary interest is in exposing oppressive regimes in Asia, the former Soviet bloc, Sub-Saharan Africa and the Middle East, but we also expect to be of assistance to people of all regions who wish to reveal unethical behavior in their governments and corporations. We aim for maximum political impact. Our interface is identical to Wikipedia and usable by all types of people. "

Somewhere along the way they decided that 'maximum political impact' was more important than their primary interest. So be it.

[MaNuMaNiAc]

Unlike some here, I am not a gung-ho "everything the US does is right" type. So, fine, Julian decides his purpose in life is to expose the US at every possibility. Trouble is that there's crap like this going on behind the scenes in every country; where's the balance?

Wikileaks' own about page originally said the following: "Our primary interest is in exposing oppressive regimes in Asia, the former Soviet bloc, Sub-Saharan Africa and the Middle East, but we also expect to be of assistance to people of all regions who wish to reveal unethical behavior in their governments and corporations. We aim for maximum political impact. Our interface is identical to Wikipedia and usable by all types of people. "

Somewhere along the way they decided that 'maximum political impact' was more important than their primary interest. So be it.

oh I agree, I think the point here is it seems getting their hands on classified information is easier in the US than say... China, Rusia, etc. Also, quite a bit less dangerous I imagine.

Lets not forget someone gave Wikileaks that information. I imagine if some Chinese insider was willing to risk certain death if caught to out the Chinese government's bull , then they'd publish that too.

[Winehole23]

Somewhere along the way they decided that 'maximum political impact' was more important than their primary interest.

Embarrassing the USA. Is worth the inconvenience as a matter of principle, some have suggested.

Would you tend to agree?

[Winehole23]

im talking about the american pfc who disclosed the info, smartass. he doesnt deserve a "lengthy prison sentence," he deserves death.

For some reason, the authorities don't seem to be stressing the expedience or desirability of that option.

[Winehole23]

Larry Franklin recently avoided charges of treason after passing way more sensitive info to agents of a foreign government.

Lichtblau, Eric. "Pentagon Analyst Admits Sharing Secret Data." New York Times, 6 Oct. 2005.

On 5 October 2005, former senior Defense Department analyst Lawrence A. Franklin "pleaded guilty in federal court" in Alexandria, Virginia, "to three criminal counts for improperly retaining and disclosing classified information.... The offenses carry a maximum of 25 years in prison, but as part of a plea agreement, prosecutors are expected to recommend leniency" in return for Franklin's "cooperation in a continuing investigation in the January trial of ... Steven J. Rosen and Keith Weissman," former lobbyists for the American Israel Public Affairs Committee.

Johnston, David. "Former Military Analyst Gets Prison Term for Passing Information." New York Times, 21 Jan. 2006.

On 20 January 2006, a federal judge sentenced Lawrence A. Franklin "to 12 years and seven months in prison ... after the analyst admitted passing classified military information about Iran and Iraq to two pro-Israel lobbyists and an Israeli diplomat." The lobbyists, Steven J. Rosen and Keith Weissman, "are scheduled for trial in April."

http://intellit.muskingum.edu/spycas.../franklin.html

[Winehole23]

On Nov. 8, 2010, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) filed a massive 260-page motion [.pdf] in the District of Columbia Superior Court. It asks Judge Erik Christian to dismiss former AIPAC employee Steven J. Rosen's $20 million defamation suit. In October the court dismissed all counts of the March 2009 lawsuit except for Rosen's claim of harm over AIPAC statements to the press that he did not uphold its standards of conduct. Rosen and AIPAC have – until now – abstained from filing damaging information about the internal workings of AIPAC in court. AIPAC's willingness to publicly air some extremely sordid and revealing content to get the remaining count thrown out before an alternative dispute resolution hearing begins in December is a sign that AIPAC is now fighting for its life, or – as one former AIPAC attorney put it – "reason for being." If Rosen proves in court that AIPAC has long handled classified information while lobbying for Israel, the worn public pretense that AIPAC is anything but a stealth extension of the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs – from which it emerged in 1951 – will end forever.

AIPAC is firing its best shot now because it needs to get the case thrown out before Rosen can unleash a return salvo of "about 180" internal AIPAC do ents showing that it routinely gathered "inside" (Rosen's preferred euphemism for classified) information from U.S. government officials.

http://sabbah.biz/mt/archives/2010/1...quash-lawsuit/

[Spurminator]

I'm going to go ahead and guess that 90% of you guys who are calling for death sentences, treason charges, etc., haven't even read about what the do ents reveal. Just a hunch. But by all means, continue.

[The Reckoning]

http://sabbah.biz/mt/archives/2010/1...quash-lawsuit/

[The Reckoning]

I'm going to go ahead and guess that 90% of you guys who are calling for death sentences, treason charges, etc., haven't even read about what the do ents reveal. Just a hunch. But by all means, continue.

i read the posted ny times article. does that count?

when people join the military, they sign their life over to the US government. if you're in the military, download classified do ents and send them to a foreign organization without consent, that is treason in my book. the government has every right to take your life, which you bargained with, away.

[Winehole23]

That ship already sailed, boss. They're charging him for misusing information instead.

[Winehole23]

We need a Wikileaks for domestic policy...

We already have one: retail politics+journalism.

[Winehole23]

Clearly, it is for governments, not journalists, to protect public secrets. Were there some overriding national jeopardy in revealing them, greater restraint might be in order. There is no such overriding jeopardy, except from the policies themselves as revealed. Where it is doing the right thing, a great power should be robust against embarrassment.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...bles-wikileaks

[boutons_deux]

The go-along-to-get-advertizing FCM lied to us about Iraq, with the right-says-leftish but really neo-con and AIPAC-driven NYT and WP leading the charge.

Interesting that people are more concerned, enraged, shocked! about releasing the info rather than what the info is.

The info is the Best Damn News (ie, true) compared to the corporate shoveled at us.

[LnGrrrR]

ing nation-to-nation relationships by airing their dirty laundry in public is pretty ballsy.

I'm curious to hear Assange's pretext/rationale for doing so. I'm not quite sure what I would offer as my own if I were in his position. In fact I haven't come up with a single good one yet.

Can you think of one, Yoni?

Drachen?

Does he need a justification? I mean, apart from "Because I can"? I would argue that if the leaders of said nation didn't want their dirty laundry being aired, they have two options:

1) Don't dirty the laundry.

2) Hide it better.

[LnGrrrR]

Before you get your panties in a bind, lets just kill the one guy and see what happens. Are you ok with that? Can we kill the one guy giving away national secrets? Is that ok with you?

Shouldn't we kill the guy who leaked it in the first place? After all, it's not Assange's job to keep that info secret, is it? It's the job of the people who caused the info to leak.

[LnGrrrR]

We need a Wikileaks for domestic policy not foreign policy.

Why not both? Or do you just inherently trust the government when it comes to foreign policy?

[Wild Cobra]

I will be honest, I don't know. I haven't read all that he has leaked, and therefore don't have an opinion. If I had to go with a gut feeling here, I would say that this is a bad thing. I am sure that the US govt is exaggerating the effects that this could have, but I am sure that some negative would come from it. The question is, who is this putting in danger, and is this worth it. That is why my gut feeling says bad, because if someone is put in danger unnecessarily, I don't want a part of it.

I agree. I have only heard a few topics it deals with, but haven't read any.

You know, as much as I dislike Hillary Clinton, I think the state department suits her. She impressed me today:

I want to take a moment to discuss the recent news reports of classified do ents that were illegally provided from United States government computers.

In my conversations with counterparts from around the world over the past few days, and in my meeting earlier today with Foreign Minister Davutoglu of Turkey, I’ve had very productive discussions on this issue.

The United States strongly condemns the illegal disclosure of classified information. It puts people’s lives in danger, threatens our national security and undermines our efforts to work with other countries to solve shared problems.

This administration is advancing a robust foreign policy that is focused on advancing America’s national interests and leading the world in solving the most complex challenges of our time, from fixing the global economy to thwarting international terrorism to stopping the spread of catastrophic weapons to advancing human right and universal values. In every country and in every region of the world, we are working with partners to pursue these aims.

So let’s be clear. This disclosure is not just an attack on America’s foreign-policy interests. It is an attack on the international community, the alliances and partnerships, the conversations and negotiations that safeguard global security and advance economic prosperity.

I am confident that the partnerships that the Obama administration has worked so hard to build will withstand this challenge. The president and I have made these partnerships a priority, and we are proud of the progress that they have helped achieve. And they will remain at the center of our efforts.

I will not comment on or confirm what are alleged to be stolen State Department cables. But I can say that the United States deeply regrets the disclosure of any information that was intended to be confidential, including private discussions between counterparts or our diplomats’ personal assessments and observations.

I want to make clear that our official foreign policy is not set through these messages, but here in Washington. Our policy is a matter of public record, as reflected in our statements and our actions around the world.

I would also add that, to the American people and to our friends and partners, I want you to know that we are taking aggressive steps to hold responsible those who stole this information. I have directed that specific actions be taken at the State Department, in addition to new security safeguards at the Department of Defense and elsewhere, to protect State Department information so that this kind of breach cannot and does not ever happen again.

Relations between governments aren’t the only concern created by the publication of this material. U.S. diplomats meet with local human rights workers, journalists, religious leaders and others outside of government who offer their own candid insights.

These conversations also depend on trust and confidence. For example, if an anti-corruption activist shares information about official misconduct, or a social worker passes along do entation of sexual violence, revealing that person’s iden y could have serious repercussions — imprisonment, torture, even death.

So whatever are the motives in disseminating these do ents, it is clear that releasing them poses real risks to real people, and often to the very people who have dedicated their own lives to protecting others.

Now, I’m aware that some may mistakenly applaud those responsible, so I want to set the record straight. There is nothing laudable about endangering innocent people and there is nothing brave about sabotaging the peaceful relations between nations on which our common security depends. There have been examples in history in which official conduct has been made public, in the name of exposing wrongdoings or misdeeds. This is not one of those cases.

In contrast, what is being put on display in this cache of do ents is the fact that American diplomats are doing the work we expect them to do. They are helping identify and prevent conflicts before they start, they are working hard everyday to solve serious practical problems, to secure dangerous materials, to fight international crime, to assist human rights defenders, to restore our alliances, to ensure global economic stability.

This is the role that America plays in the world. This is the role our diplomats play in serving America. And it should make every one of us proud. The work of our diplomats doesn’t just benefit Americans, but also billions of others around the globe.

In addition to endangering particular individuals, disclosures like these tear at the fabric of the proper function of responsible government. People of good faith understand the need for sensitive diplomatic communication, both to protect the national interest and the global common interest. Every country, including the United States, must be able to have candid conversations about the people and nations with whom they deal. And every country, including the United States, must be able to have honest, private dialogue with other countries about issues of common concern.

I know that diplomats around the world share this view. But this is not unique to diplomacy. In almost every profession, whether it’s law or journalism, finance or medicine or academia or running a small business, people rely on confidential communications to do their jobs. We count on the space of trust that confidentiality provides. When someone breaches that trust, we are all worse off for it. And so despite some of the rhetoric we’ve heard these past few days, confidential communications do not run counter to the public interest; they are fundamental to our ability to serve the public interest.

In America, we welcome genuine debate about pressing questions of public policy. We have elections about them. That is one of the greatest strengths of our democracy. It is part of who we are, and it is a priority for this administration. But stealing confidential do ents and then releasing them without regard for the consequences does not serve the public good, and it is not the way to engage in a healthy debate.

In the past few days, I’ve spoken with many of my counterparts around the world, and we have all agreed that we will continue to focus on the issues and tasks at hand. In that spirit, President Obama and I remain committed to productive cooperation with our partners as we seek to build a better, more prosperous world for all.

[LnGrrrR]

Ha! Hilary on one hand saying that these do ents show America is doing the right thing, then denouncing their disclosure. Then she talks about the "breach of trust" this displays... I'm sorry, but America has no "trusting" relationship with Wikileaks.

Now, she might have a point if America was confidentially speaking to another country's diplomat, and then that diploment went public. But Wikileaks as a third party doesn't have that same situation.