Hard News: Wikileaks: The Cable Guys
790 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 4 5 6 7 8 … 32 Newer→ Last
-
If we were considering a handful of emails where the authenticity was disputed, then Assange's credibility might be an issue.
But there are a metric fuckkilotonne of messages, the authenticity of which has *not* been denied.
So are we meant to now just forget that we know that the Saudis want to attack Iraq, China is on the verge of cutting North Korea loose or that Pakistan is viewed by the US as a failed state?
-
s/Iraq/Iran
-
Tim Hannah, in reply to
So are we meant to now just forget that we know that the Saudis want to attack Iran, China is on the verge of cutting North Korea loose or that Pakistan is viewed by the US as a failed state?
No, of course not. But neither are two women supposed to forget that they think he sexually assaulted them. Unless they are indulging in a politically motivated smear campaign - but I'm not sure our default assumption should be that they're lying. Access to justice shouldn't depend on how important the accused day job is.
-
Matthew Poole, in reply to
Japan also has Patriot missile batteries and Aegis missile cruisers, and DPRK wasn't throwing an ICBM. So even if DPRK has the capability to fire ballistic objects in Japan's direction they're not objects against which Japan is defenceless.
There is not, however, a defence against incoming artillery fire that doesn't rely on many metres of dirt and concrete between you and the shells. So ROK is very seriously at risk, both its infrastructure and citizens.
-
The content of the cables is, obviously, followed by the question as to how public servants can give advice – and that’s what most of the cables are, advice – if it can never be given in confidence.
No, we can marvel at how public statements of fact often contradict what is being said in private. That’s much more interesting. And maybe we can hold politicians and public servants a little bit more accountable. Lots of public service advice is given in public, far more than you seem to realise. It is good for democracy and for giving accurate advice. Let’s have more of it, please.
Also, looking at the reporting of these cables is interesting. The NYT seems to be cheer leading an attack on Iran (despite the actual content of the cable in question contradicting their basis for this).
The enemies of the US are evil, many people are on the side of Uncle Sam, and the British Royal Family are idiots. No wonder some people see this release as a CIA plot :-)
-
BenWilson, in reply to
Sure, but unless it has a nuclear warhead in it, a rocket isn't really that much of a threat. But massive concentrations of artillery with range of a densely populated city is a very frightening prospect indeed.
Edit: Doh! Matthew already said it all.
-
No one here is saying that we should ignore the content of the leak nor are they doubting its authenticity. All that seems to be happening is that people are saying, with some justification, that Assange is a less than ideal character to be doing what he is doing with Wikileaks.
Also, can we try to avoid claiming the sexual assault allegations are part of a smear campaign? Not only is that a conspiracy theory, but it's also pretty close to rape denial and all that that entails. Even in the glorious social democracy of Sweden it is hard to prove in court the majority of actual sexual assaults committed by men on women. Let's not smear those women with claims that they are part of a smear campaign unless we are utterly convinced of that fact and have the evidence to support such a claim.
Whether or not he is guilty of any crime has not been proven, only alleged. If HORansome is alleged to be a forger or wifebeater, does that invalidate all you’ve said and/or done?
If my behaviour has bearing on what I've claimed, then sure, it will render what I've said less plausible. But, once again, no one (here) is saying "Don't believe anything Assange claims because of..." All that is being claimed is that his behaviour is a) not ideal and b) might have bearing on the work he is doing.
With my own tinfoil hat on, it seems to me that there might have been some “prosecutor shopping” going on, which brings us back to a possible campaign against Assange. Oh, did I say possible? Some American lawmakers want him branded a terrorist, the Australian Government is going over him with a fine tooth comb, etc. I think we can all see there is definitely a campaign going on.
No, we can't. A campaign here suggests an orchestrated and international conspiracy against Assange. What the evidence indicates, at this stage, is something much smaller, more diverse and rather less than conspiratorial. What we're seeing is reactions by individuals within governments who are going "Oh bugger, what are we going to do about this?" We're at the puff and bluster stage, where politicians are saying all kinds of crazy stuff, none of which entails that they are orchestrating some sinister plot in the background. This is perfectly normal political behaviour; the only people alleging "Conspiracy!" at the moment seem to be those who are reading far too much into the rather limited pool of evidence we have. This evidence, as it currently stands, does not warrant an inference to the kind of smear campaign you are talking about.
-
Sacha, in reply to
The NYT seems to be cheer leading an attack on Iran (despite the actual content of the cable in question contradicting their basis for this).
As you'd expect, Noam Chomsky has an opinion - interview transcript:
AMY GOODMAN: The documents’ revelations about Iran come just as the Iranian government has agreed to a new round of nuclear talks beginning next month. On Monday, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said the cables vindicate the Israeli position that Iran poses a nuclear threat. Netanyahu said, "Our region has been hostage to a narrative that is the result of sixty years of propaganda, which paints Israel as the greatest threat. In reality, leaders understand that that view is bankrupt. For the first time in history, there is agreement that Iran is the threat. If leaders start saying openly what they have long been saying behind closed doors, with can make a real breakthrough on the road to peace," Netanyahu said.
...
NOAM CHOMSKY: That essentially reinforces what I said before, that the main significance of the cables that are being released so far is what they tell us about Western leadership. So Hillary Clinton and Benjamin Netanyahu surely know of the careful polls of Arab public opinion. The Brookings Institute just a few months ago released extensive polls of what Arabs think about Iran. The results are rather striking. They show the Arab opinion holds that the major threat in the region is Israel- that’s 80. The second major threat is the United States- that’s 77. Iran is listed as a threat by 10%.
With regard to nuclear weapons, rather remarkably, a majority- in fact, 57- say that the region [sic] would have a positive effect in the region if Iran had nuclear weapons. Now, these are not small numbers. 80, 77, say the U.S. and Israel are the major threat. 10 say Iran is the major threat. This may not be reported in the newspapers here- it is in England- but it’s certainly familiar to the Israeli and U.S. governments, and to the ambassadors. But there is not a word about it anywhere. What that reveals is the profound hatred for democracy on the part of our political leadership and the Israeli political leadership. These things aren’t even to be mentioned. This seeps its way all through the diplomatic service.
When they talk about Arabs, they mean the Arab dictators, not the population, which is overwhelmingly opposed to the conclusions that the analysts here- Clinton and the media- have drawn.
-
nzlemming, in reply to
Also, can we try to avoid claiming the sexual assault allegations are part of a smear campaign? Not only is that a conspiracy theory, but it’s also pretty close to rape denial and all that that entails.
Say what? The “rape” word was used so all standards of proof, common law and whathaveyou must go out the window? Never mind that Assange hasn’t even been charged, let alone convicted. “Innocent until proven guilty” obviously cannot stand against a cry of “rape”. </rant>
For the record, it is not “rape denial” to query why one prosecutor saw fit to re-open an investigation that another senior prosecutor determined there was no evidence on which to lay charges. I haven’t noticed anyone here saying “the women are lying! He obviously didn’t do it!”.
What I have seen are people saying that
a) Assange visits Sweden as he has before to run a seminar
b) while there, he has separate sexual contact with two women
c) one of the women made a complaint of rape, the other of sexual harassment
d) the complaint was not acted on by the Chief Prosecutor due to lack of evidence,
e) the women appealed,
f) their appeal was not upheld,
g) 10 days later, a different, more senior prosecutor (Marianne Ny) reopens the investigation citing, but not elucidating even to Assange’s lawyer, that there is new evidence, after being importuned by the lawyer acting for both women,
h) Ny repeatedly refuses (according to Assange’s lawyer) to charge or meet with Assange but
i) Ny does explicitly allow him to leave the country to conduct his business and then
j) she asks the court to order his detainment so that she can interrogate him and
k) asks Interpol to issue an alert (not an arrest warrant, as some have said and I initially thought as well).As far as I can tell, those are the facts of the matter so far, as taken mainly from the Swedish media but also from Swedish government releases, many of which are in English but sadly, not all. It’s not “rape denial” to question these facts, to ask how and why this is happening and to wonder at the reasons. See the freshhorse post I linked to earlier to look at some very interesting timings.
It is also not “rape denial” to wonder what any of this has to do with the release of un-denied US cables which, while banal in the main so far, the Defence Department, the State Department and the White House have all condemned. These are not “reactions by individuals within governments” – these are organs of the state and their pronouncements are part of the official policy of the USA. The US hierarchy has been publicly inveighing against Wikileaks and Assange personally since the Afghan War Diary leaks, and before. Given what is publicly known about the way the USG reacts to leaks, from the days of Ellsberg onward, it is not paranoid to suspect a conspiracy or campaign; it is frankly naive to not suspect one.
Nice shibboleth, you raise there, HORansome – I use that word specifically, as “strawman” is not strong enough – but you’re arguing against things that other people haven’t said and from a false moral high ground.
You’re also missing the point that Assange is making no statement that you can question – he is merely making available material that the US government has stated they don’t want anyone to see and that they are considering investigating as espionage. That’s “government”, not individuals within the structure – the President, Secretary of State and Secretary of Defense do not make private statements; every published word is carefully weighed.
If you can’t see a campaign there, however badly organised, that’s your issue.
PS And this just in from freshhorse
-
So, let me get this straight; we shouldn't worry about Assange, his character, possible agendas and suchlike and only focus on the evidence he has provided and worked with. On the other hand, we should worry about Prosecutor Marianne Ny's character, possible agendas and suchlike and not focus on the evidence she has provided and is working with? Because with comments like:
With my own tinfoil hat on, it seems to me that there might have been some “prosecutor shopping” going on, which brings us back to a possible campaign against Assange
it seems you want one standard for Assange and another for Ny.
You seem to think there is a (distinct) possibility that Prosecutor Ny is acting in accordance with some sinister conspiracy against Assange when it is at least just as likely that, as a more senior prosecutor, her expertise and the new evidence warranted the case being reopened and reinvestigated. No conspiracy is needed to explain that chain of events.
If you really think that there is sinister intent to the prosecution and it is being organise by some force operating within the Swedish legal system (which, if it connected with the other groups you suspect are campaigning against Assange, would be a) evidence of a massive and pervasive conspiracy and b) would show that Sweden's independent judiciary has been comprised, which indicates some level of treason going on there), then you are claiming that a charge of sexual assault is being used to smear a man. Now, if you want to make that claim, so be it, but just be aware that some of us are going to assume the simpler explanation is the more likely explanation in this case and that by making such a claim you are downplaying a very serious allegation, a kind of allegation that, traditionally, has been overly hard to prove precisely because people treat sexual assault charges as being the kind of thing that is laid suspiciously or malaciously.
Also:
Given what is publicly known about the way the USG reacts to leaks, from the days of Ellsberg onward, it is not paranoid to suspect a conspiracy or campaign; it is frankly naive to not suspect one.
All claims of "Conspiracy!" must be judged on their own merits. The past incidence of conspiratorial tells us precious little about the chances of a conspiracy occurring here and now.
If we want to say that some conspiratorial activity is the salient cause of an event, then we need to be able to give an argument that there exists (or existed) a conspiracy. It should not matter how open or conspired we think our society is because any claim of specific claim of "Conspiracy!" requires that we accept the following four conditions:
1. There exists a cabal,
2. Some end is/was desired by the cabal,
3. Work has been undertaken by the cabal to achieve this end, and
4. Steps have been taken to minimise public awareness of the cabal and its work.
Even if we live in a world of acknowledged secrecy and intrigue (say, like the Ancien Regime of pre-Revolutionary France) we still need to be able to cite evidence to the extent that, in this particular case, there exists a cabal of co-conspirators who desire some end and is (or has) undertaken work, in secret, towards this end. Whilst we might well have a prima facie suspicion that conspiratorial activity is going on (say, for example, the Ancien Regime) this suspicion in itself does not warrant any individual claim of a conspiracy existing now. General (warranted) suspicions about the likelihood of on-going conspiratorial activity here and now does not, in itself, warrant specific claims of conspiratorial activity; at best it reduces the burden of proof on the conspiracy theorist because, by analogy, they can say "This kind of activity, which is conspiratorial, is in line with all these other incidences of conspiratorial activity." Even if we can say that we live in a largely conspired world, the conspiracy theorist will still need to advance an argument with evidence for their specific conspiracy theory. Such an argument will rest upon offering some inference to the existence of a conspiracy which is not also an inference to any old explanation. This, even in a largely conspired world, is no easy task, which is why I am inclined to say that claims of "Conspiracy!" are difficult to discharge, extraordinary even.
Suspicion of "Conspiracy!" is not enough.
-
The existence of the US National Security State isn’t a ‘conspiracy theory’. It’s beyond dispute that (a) this is the most powerful group of people in the world and (b) it routinely kidnaps, tortures and murders people it considers its enemy and (c) it coerces foreign governments to do its bidding.
Is Assange its victim? I have no idea. But it’s certainly not an unreasonable suggestion to throw out there and falls far short of being a conspiracy theory or ‘rape denial’.
-
Something went flying over a logic shark somewhere there...
-
If everyone is in agreement that the case against Assange has zero impact on the legitimacy of the cables released, then surely we can do what would be appropriate in any ongoing criminal case - leave it to the various and ever-growing number of courts involved.
It is a bit depressing that despite the repeated statements by everyone that Assange is not even the third most important aspect of the cable affair*, we're only talking about Assange.
Meanwhile, because I'm a sucker for an argument despite rational reasons for avoiding it - if there is no co-ordinated plan to silence wikileaks (via Assange or otherwise), whats up with the DDOS on their sites (reportedly now up to 10gigabits a second)?
Of course, given who runs most botnets, that implies the russian gangs are more upset than the US :)*fvck 'gates.
-
It is a bit depressing that despite the repeated statements by everyone that Assange is not even the third most important aspect of the cable affair*, we’re only talking about Assange.
I confess to starting it by remarking that Assange needed to go back to Sweden and sort it out. This remains my view.
Meanwhile, because I’m a sucker for an argument despite rational reasons for avoiding it – if there is no co-ordinated plan to silence wikileaks (via Assange or otherwise), whats up with the DDOS on their sites (reportedly now up to 10gigabits a second)?
A solo "hacktivist" called The Jester has claimed credit, and even if it it's not him, I gather this kind of attack could easily be the work of an individual.
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
Is Assange its victim? I have no idea. But it’s certainly not an unreasonable suggestion to throw out there and falls far short of being a conspiracy theory or ‘rape denial’.
It becomes considerably less reasonable as a theory if you look at the actual people involved. But perhaps we can move on now that everyone's done their speculating.
-
Yeah, let's not forget that things that look conspiratorial sometimes are not conspiratorial at all.
Is Assange its victim? I have no idea. But it’s certainly not an unreasonable suggestion to throw out there and falls far short of being a conspiracy theory or ‘rape denial’.
So, the claims are "We have good reason to believe that the US Security State is up to bad stuff" and "Assange is suffering bad stuff." We can even say "Assange is kind of person the US Security State will do bad stuff to."
Nothing, however, about those claims, even if we accept them all as being true, gives us the smoking gun that says "It is likely that the US Security State is doing bad stuff to Assange." There's suggestion, sure, but it's not clear just how strong that suggestion is, especially when a lot of the bad stuff that is happening can be explained by far more prosaic explanations.
So, unless you have evidence to the contrary, I would say it is unreasonable (to whit, an irrational act ) to bandy about claims of massive smear campaigns and the like when there are other, more plausible, explanations to hand.
This is what irritates me (as someone who studies conspiracy theories); there seems to be a dialectic that goes "If it's possible that there is a conspiracy in existence, then we should admit it to the pool of candidate explanations for the event we are trying to explain and treat it seriously," which ignores the fact that only some candidate explanations (of the infinite number to hand) ever to get to be considered as credible candidates.
[I am going to say here that I am being a little bit of a Devil's Advocate here; I, for one, think it is quite possible the CIA want to get Assange. However, that's just a suspicion on my part and the evidence that would warrant such a suspicion is not, as far as I have been able to ascertain, there. It's quite possible that such evidence will emerge and thus change the relative warrant of such a claim, but, at the moment, well, I think we should assume simpler, non-conspiratorial explanations.]
-
Another brief mention of New Zealand.
This time, in a cable in the wake of the Mumbai terror attacks:
¶2. (C) At a 2 December meeting with counterparts from the Australian, British, Canadian, and New Zealand High Commissions, these diplomats communicated details of the controlled approach their respective missions in Delhi have taken in their responses to India’s reaction to the Mumbai attacks. They concluded that any offers of assistance should be made carefully to avoid being interpreted by the Indians as politically motivated or attempts to monitor their actions. Delhi-based missions are taking extra care at this stage to not get sucked into the blame game Pakistan and India are currently playing.
Advice offered in confidence, etc.
-
Greg Dawson, in reply to
A solo “hacktivist” called The Jester has claimed credit, and even if it it’s not him, I gather this kind of attack could easily be the work of an individual.
Interesting, cheers for the link.
There are pleasing parallels between that and the cable dump itself, in that both are evidence of the internet's capabilities as a force-multiplier for individual or small-group activism. -
giovanni tiso, in reply to
but, at the moment, well, I think we should assume simpler, non-conspiratorial explanations
After the pentagon has said that wikileaks must be stopped, and republicans have called it a terrorist organization, I think you may want to consider the possibility that the CIA is in fact one of the simple explanations.
-
After the pentagon has said that wikileaks must be stopped, and republicans have called it a terrorist organization, I think you may want to consider the possibility that the CIA is in fact one of the simple explanations.
Only if you regard turning two key supporters, a MP/lawyer from a party not unsympathetic to Wikileaks, and a senior prosecutor as simple. It seems fairly complicated to me.
But anyway, about those cables ...
-
After the pentagon has said that wikileaks must be stopped, and republicans have called it a terrorist organization, I think you may want to consider the possibility that the CIA is in fact one of the simple explanations.
Yeah. The sequence of events is pretty clear. Assange embarrases the most powerful people in the world, immediately afterwards Interpol puts him on their global most wanted list. Now compare him to, say, Roman Polanski, who confessed to the anal rape of a minor and was allowed to travel around Europe for forty years without harrasement.
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
Now compare him to, say, Roman Polanski, who confessed to the anal rape of a minor and was allowed to travel around Europe for forty years without harrasement.
That's a rather poor comparison, given that Polanski was not being investigated for a crime committed in any of the countries in which he was permitted to travel. In the end a Swiss court refused the US application for extradition and set him free.
-
giovanni tiso, in reply to
But anyway, about those cables ...
I'm not terribly interested in the contents of the cables to be honest. There is nothing that jumps at me as a revelation of great import - what matters is that they were released. I thought the Bady post I linked to yesterday covered it pretty well. "...the practical strategy for combating that conspiracy is to degrade its ability to conspire, to hinder its ability to “think” as a conspiratorial mind". Mission well on its way of being accomplished, it seems to me.
-
Today's Guardian lead: US diplomats speak bluntly about Putin's kleptocracy, quoting the research of a Spanish prosector.
Putin is sorely pissed:
The allegations come hours before Putin was due to address Fifa's executive committee in Zurich in support of Russia's bid to host the 2018 World Cup. Putin last night abruptly cancelled his trip, complaining of a smear campaign to "discredit" Fifa members. In an angry interview with CNN's Larry King Live, recorded before the latest disclosures, Putin also denounced the cables and warned the US not to stick its nose in Russia's affairs.
One can understand why the original briefings were delivered in confidence.
-
I thought the Bady post I linked to yesterday covered it pretty well. “…the practical strategy for combating that conspiracy is to degrade its ability to conspire, to hinder its ability to “think” as a conspiratorial mind”. Mission well on its way of being accomplished, it seems to me.
And as that excellent post noted, Assange apparently doesn't care too much about individual stories either. By his own account, he has a utopian goal in mind for all of us. That's probably worth talking about.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.