Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Wikileaks 3: The Wikining (Apparently we're very gossipy)

MKRMKR Registered User regular
edited December 2010 in Debate and/or Discourse
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-11-24/pentagon-warns-house-senate-defense-panels-of-more-wikileaks-documents.html

tl;dr: Like Candid Camera, but for diplomacy.
The Pentagon warned the U.S. Senate and House Armed Services Committees that the website WikiLeaks.org “intends to release several hundred thousand” classified U.S. State Department cables as soon as Nov. 26.

The documents “touch on an enormous range of very sensitive foreign policy issues,” Assistant Secretary for Legislative Affairs Elizabeth King wrote yesterday in an e-mail to the defense panels.

“We anticipate that the release could negatively impact U.S. foreign relations,” she wrote, telling committee staff members that “we will brief you once we have a better understanding of what documents the WikiLeaks publication contains.”

King said The New York Times, the U.K.’s Guardian and Der Spiegel of Germany “are each currently working with WikiLeaks to coordinate the release of these State Department documents.”

These three publications were given advance access to two earlier WikiLeaks releases of U.S. military documents: almost 400,000 related to the Iraq war dated between 2003 and 2010 and about 75,000 from the same period on the Afghanistan war. The Iraq documents were published on Oct. 22 and the Afghanistan documents on July 25. [...]

So what kind of things are you going to be looking for in these documents?

MKR on
«13456762

Posts

  • MKRMKR Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
  • LoklarLoklar Registered User
    edited November 2010
    MKR wrote: »
    Anyone?

    The government of Canada has been warned that some of the information will be damaging to them. Something a U.S. official told Ottawa.

    Though I'm not clear whether he meant that the documents would be politically damaging to our current government (ie: they put our politicians in a bad light), or damaging to Canada's interests. I guess we'll see. Should be wild.

    *This according to CBC News

  • [Tycho?][Tycho?] Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    Huh, haven't heard about this one yet, I'll do some looking.



    Also: "the wikining" made me laugh out loud at work. Thanks.

    ragesig.jpg

  • HamHamJHamHamJ Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    Not sure, but wikileaks seems to be really taking off.

    While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
  • Alfred J. KwakAlfred J. Kwak Registered User
    edited November 2010
    I heard the government apologized to Canada in advance.

    e: eh yeah what Loklar said.

  • Shepard2000Shepard2000 Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    I look forward to the day when they release the exact information that will allow terrorists to breach our MRAPs with IEDs. Because, you know, the public deserves to know that information.

  • ForarForar #432 Toronto, Ontario, CanadaRegistered User regular
    edited November 2010
    Thirded. Damaging to Canada how?

    That definitely caught my interest.

    Edit: of course, until we get the actual release that question may well remain unanswerable.

    sigtwo.png
  • LoklarLoklar Registered User
    edited November 2010
    I heard the government apologized to Canada in advance.

    e: eh yeah what Loklar said.

    Your words were funnier though. :D

  • Edith_Bagot-DixEdith_Bagot-Dix Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    Most likely, the damage to Canada will be revelations concerning U.S. diplomatic efforts surrounding Guantanamo and the imprisonment of allied citizens (read: Omar Khadr) there.

    steam_sig.png

    Also on PSN: twobadcats
  • Saint MadnessSaint Madness Registered User
    edited November 2010
    Damaging to Harper surely.

    Isn't Assange wanted for rape again?

    Anyway, three cheers for Wikileaks, ideally there would have been a full public inquiry into the invasion of Iraq by the US government but there's no chance of that.

  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    Posted this in the Canada Politics thread:
    Specifically, the documents coming out are rumoured to involve the kind of pressure that Washington was putting on allies to take their Guantanamo Bay detainees back and spare Obama the embarrassment. Canada has been unique as a western ally of the U.S. that has refused to take back its Gitmo resident, Omar Khadr.
    http://www.torontolife.com/daily/informer/the-feds/2010/11/25/national-media-totally-excited-that-canada-might-get-mentioned-on-wikileaks/

  • Salvation122Salvation122 Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    I'd be completely unsurprised if Assange just sort of disappeared pretty soon

    Frankly I wouldn't be terribly opposed to such a move; releasing confidential foreign policy cables has the potential to be incredibly, incredibly destabalizing and negatively effect diplomacy and our government in unpredictable and likely stupid ways

    sig.png
  • ThetherooThetheroo Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    I'd be completely unsurprised if Assange just sort of disappeared pretty soon

    Frankly I wouldn't be terribly opposed to such a move; releasing confidential foreign policy cables has the potential to be incredibly, incredibly destabalizing and negatively effect diplomacy and our government in unpredictable and likely stupid ways

    Really? You'd like it if someone who has been releasing documents that expose the truth in a way that harms the US disappeared? Because that's pretty scary.

  • ZombiemamboZombiemambo Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    It's amazing to me how Wikileaks has so many people by the balls. Frightening.

    JKKaAGp.png
  • zeenyzeeny Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    I'd be completely unsurprised if Assange just sort of disappeared pretty soon

    Frankly I wouldn't be terribly opposed to such a move; releasing confidential foreign policy cables has the potential to be incredibly, incredibly destabalizing and negatively effect diplomacy and our government in unpredictable and likely stupid ways

    Seriously? I'd rather support the release of any information exposing corruption and incompetence and would gladly pay the price.

  • Saint MadnessSaint Madness Registered User
    edited November 2010
    Thetheroo wrote: »
    I'd be completely unsurprised if Assange just sort of disappeared pretty soon

    Frankly I wouldn't be terribly opposed to such a move; releasing confidential foreign policy cables has the potential to be incredibly, incredibly destabalizing and negatively effect diplomacy and our government in unpredictable and likely stupid ways

    Really? You'd like it if someone who has been releasing documents that expose the truth in a way that harms the US disappeared? Because that's pretty scary.

    He also hasn't broken any laws.

    Seriously, if the US government just decide to murder/abuct Assange then what exactly is stopping them from doing the same thing to any of their detractors other than the fact that they don't feel like doing it right now?

  • EchoEcho staring is caring Super Moderator, Moderator mod
    edited November 2010
    It's amazing to me how Wikileaks has so many people by the balls. Frightening.

    But if they don't have anything to hide they have nothing to fear!

    Or does that argument only work when the state does it against citizens?

  • Edith_Bagot-DixEdith_Bagot-Dix Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    Thetheroo wrote: »
    I'd be completely unsurprised if Assange just sort of disappeared pretty soon

    Frankly I wouldn't be terribly opposed to such a move; releasing confidential foreign policy cables has the potential to be incredibly, incredibly destabalizing and negatively effect diplomacy and our government in unpredictable and likely stupid ways

    Really? You'd like it if someone who has been releasing documents that expose the truth in a way that harms the US disappeared? Because that's pretty scary.

    He also hasn't broken any laws.

    Seriously, if the US government just decide to murder/abuct Assange then what exactly is stopping them from doing the same thing to any of their detractors other than the fact that they don't feel like doing it right now?

    Well, America wouldn't do that because they're the good guys. It's okay for them to secretly murder bad guys who do bad guy things like making them look bad. Since they're good guys, though, they wouldn't do it to anyone else. Anyone who releases information to the contrary is a bad guy, and we know what happens to them.

    steam_sig.png

    Also on PSN: twobadcats
  • ZombiemamboZombiemambo Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    Echo wrote: »
    It's amazing to me how Wikileaks has so many people by the balls. Frightening.

    But if they don't have anything to hide they have nothing to fear!

    Or does that argument only work when the state does it against citizens?

    it's a website

    and it has governments going after it

    this is like primetime television shit

    JKKaAGp.png
  • ShurakaiShurakai Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    The more truth that is revealed, the better.

    We all want more transparency in government. This is one way to accomplish it.

  • LoklarLoklar Registered User
    edited November 2010
    Thetheroo wrote: »
    I'd be completely unsurprised if Assange just sort of disappeared pretty soon

    Frankly I wouldn't be terribly opposed to such a move; releasing confidential foreign policy cables has the potential to be incredibly, incredibly destabalizing and negatively effect diplomacy and our government in unpredictable and likely stupid ways

    Really? You'd like it if someone who has been releasing documents that expose the truth in a way that harms the US disappeared? Because that's pretty scary.

    Yes. People should know what their government is doing on their behalf.

    I wouldn't trust the government to be able to distinguish between what's a secret and what makes them look bad.

  • zeenyzeeny Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    Echo wrote: »
    It's amazing to me how Wikileaks has so many people by the balls. Frightening.

    But if they don't have anything to hide they have nothing to fear!

    Or does that argument only work when the state does it against citizens?

    Stop spreading FUD! The state has nobody by the balls! They just, like....look at people's balls. Digitally. It's entirely different.

  • EchoEcho staring is caring Super Moderator, Moderator mod
    edited November 2010
    Loklar wrote: »
    I wouldn't trust the government to be able to distinguish between what's a secret and what makes them look bad.

    That's probably the best quote I've heard all day. True for governments all over the world.

  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    Shurakai wrote: »
    The more truth that is revealed, the better.

    We all want more transparency in government. This is one way to accomplish it.

    Yes, but rational people don't want more transparency in government in every area. Some things are secret for a reason.

    Or have we all suddenly decided the Valerie Plame debacle was a good thing?

  • HozHoz Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    Who's going to spend the rest of his life in prison?
    Spoiler:

  • Salvation122Salvation122 Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    zeeny wrote: »
    I'd be completely unsurprised if Assange just sort of disappeared pretty soon

    Frankly I wouldn't be terribly opposed to such a move; releasing confidential foreign policy cables has the potential to be incredibly, incredibly destabalizing and negatively effect diplomacy and our government in unpredictable and likely stupid ways

    Seriously? I'd rather support the release of any information exposing corruption and incompetence and would gladly pay the price.

    This isn't about exposing corruption

    It's about dumping a fuckload of confidential discussions between nations into public view

    I'm not exaggerating when I say that this kind of shit can start wars

    Also, about Assange wanting to swing his dick around and become internet-famous
    Thetheroo wrote:
    Really? You'd like it if someone who has been releasing documents that expose the truth in a way that harms the US disappeared?
    I wouldn't like it. But I think Assange's work is highly destabilizing, not just to the US, but to global diplomacy in general, and I happen to understand that sometimes heads of state have to have conversations that look really really bad when it's dumped on a website without context, and that removing their ability to have those conversations is not a good thing. I wouldn't like it; I pretty much never like it when people die. But I'd understand it.
    Loklar wrote:
    Yes. People should know what their government is doing on their behalf.
    Executive Privledge is constitutionally protected for a very good reason.

    sig.png
  • ShurakaiShurakai Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    I for one hope that they continue to target whats his nuts, because all the while wikileaks is growing and developing an organizational structure that will make it very hard to get rid of.

    Assange is the pink haired flamingo head on the hydra at the moment. Chop his head off (literally or no) and I think the beast will be far from going down.

    Its obvious that Wikileaks will leverage the attention its getting to attract more people willing to leak secrets. I'm not sure we will keep seeing and escalation of hugeness of documents like we seem to be lately, but each release will continue to be important until such a time as something dramatic happens to make them quit.

  • zeenyzeeny Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    zeeny wrote: »
    I'd be completely unsurprised if Assange just sort of disappeared pretty soon

    Frankly I wouldn't be terribly opposed to such a move; releasing confidential foreign policy cables has the potential to be incredibly, incredibly destabalizing and negatively effect diplomacy and our government in unpredictable and likely stupid ways

    Seriously? I'd rather support the release of any information exposing corruption and incompetence and would gladly pay the price.

    This isn't about exposing corruption

    It's about dumping a fuckload of confidential discussions between nations into public view

    And the irregularity of some of those discussions will be, I can only hope, amazing. Saying something is confidential doesn't mean it's anything more than "Shit, people better not know we're such scumbags.".

  • HamHamJHamHamJ Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    zeeny wrote: »
    I'd be completely unsurprised if Assange just sort of disappeared pretty soon

    Frankly I wouldn't be terribly opposed to such a move; releasing confidential foreign policy cables has the potential to be incredibly, incredibly destabalizing and negatively effect diplomacy and our government in unpredictable and likely stupid ways

    Seriously? I'd rather support the release of any information exposing corruption and incompetence and would gladly pay the price.

    This isn't about exposing corruption

    It's about dumping a fuckload of confidential discussions between nations into public view

    I'm not exaggerating when I say that this kind of shit can start wars

    I'm not sure what your example is supposed to prove.

    If the US is making secret deals with Canada to invade Alaska then we probably should know about it.

    While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
  • QuidQuid The Fifth Horseman Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    zeeny wrote: »
    Saying something is confidential doesn't mean it's anything more than "Shit, people better not know we're such scumbags.".

    I don't entirely agree with Sal but this is blatantly untrue as was covered in one of the other wikileaks threads.

    PSN: allenquid
  • HamHamJHamHamJ Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    Shurakai wrote: »
    I for one hope that they continue to target whats his nuts, because all the while wikileaks is growing and developing an organizational structure that will make it very hard to get rid of.

    Assange is the pink haired flamingo head on the hydra at the moment. Chop his head off (literally or no) and I don't think the beast will be far from going down.

    Its obvious that Wikileaks will leverage the attention its getting to attract more people willing to leak secrets. I'm not sure we will keep seeing and escalation of hugeness of documents like we seem to be lately, but each release will continue to be important until such a time as something dramatic happens to make them quit.

    I hope Wikileaks continues to grow until it becomes unstoppable.

    While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
  • zeenyzeeny Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    Quid wrote: »
    zeeny wrote: »
    Saying something is confidential doesn't mean it's anything more than "Shit, people better not know we're such scumbags.".

    I don't entirely agree with Sal but this is blatantly untrue as was covered in one of the other wikileaks threads.

    I'm not sure where it's wrong unless I'm being misunderstood as something == everything?

  • QuidQuid The Fifth Horseman Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    zeeny wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    zeeny wrote: »
    Saying something is confidential doesn't mean it's anything more than "Shit, people better not know we're such scumbags.".

    I don't entirely agree with Sal but this is blatantly untrue as was covered in one of the other wikileaks threads.

    I'm not sure where it's wrong unless I'm being misunderstood as something == everything?

    That's how it's coming off as, yes. Since going by the statement above were I to say I couldn't talk about something because it's confidential it's because I'm covering up some scumbag dickery.

    PSN: allenquid
  • Al_watAl_wat Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    All I know is I'm probably not going to like whatever it is that I'm not supposed to like.

  • EgoEgo Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    I know it's terrible, but I'm kind of excited about what the secret will be.

    And, again, it's terrible, but I just can't help but hope it makes the CPC look horrible.

    I'm conservative in a lot of ways, but I just despise how Harper and the CPC are running the country right now.

    Erik
  • HamHamJHamHamJ Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    Given that the previous leaks were not actually all that revelatory, AFAIK, we should probably not get our hopes up.

    While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
  • Salvation122Salvation122 Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    zeeny wrote: »
    I'd be completely unsurprised if Assange just sort of disappeared pretty soon

    Frankly I wouldn't be terribly opposed to such a move; releasing confidential foreign policy cables has the potential to be incredibly, incredibly destabalizing and negatively effect diplomacy and our government in unpredictable and likely stupid ways

    Seriously? I'd rather support the release of any information exposing corruption and incompetence and would gladly pay the price.

    This isn't about exposing corruption

    It's about dumping a fuckload of confidential discussions between nations into public view

    I'm not exaggerating when I say that this kind of shit can start wars

    I'm not sure what your example is supposed to prove.

    If the US is making secret deals with Canada to invade Alaska then we probably should know about it.

    Let me paint you a picture

    Let us say that Israel has been talking with us over secure channels about the Iranian nuke program. Let's say that they've told us that they are extraordinarily concerned about the Iranian nuke program, and that Netanyahu is being pressured to take military action to prevent the Iranians from getting the bomb. Hell, let's even say that they've given us well-sourced information proving that the Iranians are in the final stages of fabrication of their first test device.

    In response, Obama tells Israel to knock it the fuck off and let him handle the Iranians diplomatically, and that if the Israelis shoot at the goddamn Iranians we'll leave them to their fate because we're not in a position to kick the fuck out of the Iranians right now.

    Finally, Netanyahu sends back a message saying "Motherfucker. Okay, I'll deal with shit on my end, but you have to keep Iran contained or there's nothing I can do."

    Now let's say all of this goes public! All of a sudden, Netanyahu loses a confidence vote, because the hard-right Israelis are suddenly seen as less kooky because Jesus Christ Iran is a couple months from having a nuclear weapon. A newly Republican-dominated Congress demands US military action in Iran, but can't muster the votes to get a declaration of war; Obama declines to unilaterally intervene, but all of a sudden anything he's ever even dreamed about doing is an absolute electoral death sentence in Congress, so he's not a lame duck but an amputated, flightless fowl.

    Meanwhile, the Iranians, (quite justifiably) worried and pissed off about Israeli plans to start a war, come rolling up. The Israelis are out numbered, out gunned, scared out of their fucking minds, and their government is being run by the equivalent of Rapture nuts, and so - like they almost certainly planned on in 72 - they drop the fucking Bomb.

    Because foreign diplomatic cables were released to the public.

    I'm aware that this reads like a goddamn Tom Clancy novel, and I don't think it'll actually go down that way, but it's plausible. I'd like to avoid such things from becoming plausible.

    sig.png
  • zeenyzeeny Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    Quid wrote: »
    zeeny wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    zeeny wrote: »
    Saying something is confidential doesn't mean it's anything more than "Shit, people better not know we're such scumbags.".

    I don't entirely agree with Sal but this is blatantly untrue as was covered in one of the other wikileaks threads.

    I'm not sure where it's wrong unless I'm being misunderstood as something == everything?

    That's how it's coming off as, yes. Since going by the statement above were I to say I couldn't talk about something because it's confidential it's because I'm covering up some scumbag dickery.

    Not how I meant it, sorry for butchering the sentence.
    The confidential label certainly has its uses and there is no reason to assume confidentiality is automatically a cover up.

  • QuidQuid The Fifth Horseman Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    zeeny wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    zeeny wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    zeeny wrote: »
    Saying something is confidential doesn't mean it's anything more than "Shit, people better not know we're such scumbags.".

    I don't entirely agree with Sal but this is blatantly untrue as was covered in one of the other wikileaks threads.

    I'm not sure where it's wrong unless I'm being misunderstood as something == everything?

    That's how it's coming off as, yes. Since going by the statement above were I to say I couldn't talk about something because it's confidential it's because I'm covering up some scumbag dickery.

    Not how I meant it, sorry for butchering the sentence.
    The confidential label certainly has its uses and there is no reason to assume confidentiality is automatically a cover up.

    :^::^::^:

    PSN: allenquid
«13456762
Sign In or Register to comment.