7 ms·

All officially released cables including content - WikiLeaks

118 points by edo 16y ago

vgurgov 16y ago
Can someone who support this release care to explain this. I seriously don't understand how can publishing someone's conversations be good. 1) How should communication with foreign embassies be done? Publicly via twitter? 2) Do you think that absolutely all information that gov has and exchange should be public? If not who should decide which info can be published? 3) What if somebody from Google get all you gmail conversations and publish it? If you dont like this idea, please explain why you support somebody publishing gov conversations then? Thank you.
- rorrr 16y ago
  Transparency. There's a lot of important shit going on without public's approval. Do you want to live in a world where important things are decided by a bunch of corrupt politicians with no oversight?
  - alnayyir 16y ago
    Of course not, but Wikileaks is an adversary with an agenda, not an independent government oversight organization with the peoples' interests in mind. Certainly not that of residents of the US. We need oversight and transparency concerning policy, prevention of the violation of constitutional and human rights, and any actions that violate the sovereignty of our allies and friends. Not transparency of every communique between our embassies.
    - GFischer 16y ago
      Remember as well that some of us in "foreign countries" want some oversight of the U.S. as well. I sometimes joke that we're second-class citizens, much like in Rome (1) - we're affected by what the U.S. decides (as a kind of "world government"), but we cannot vote on it. 1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_citizenship http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_citizenship
      - alnayyir 16y ago
        The "[don't] violate the sovereignty of our allies and friends." clause covers your concerns. I'm not advocating US unilateralism. Your comment was apropos of nothing in what I said. Your rhetoric is misplaced.
        GFischer 16y ago
        Sorry, I didn't want to sound that way. What I wanted to convey is that Wikileaks is interesting for people outside the U.S. that are not necessarily enemies of the U.S. I don't know which organization should provide some oversight, I guess the United Nations would be the closest (despite it being a bloated bureaucracy, it does manage some useful activities sometimes)
        alnayyir 16y ago
        I'd rather see that kind of oversight facility independent of the United Nations. Interesting is a pretty shallow rationale for what's being done. They have an agenda and I'm not going to pretend Wikileaks is some kind of openness nerd savior. I had hoped they were the counter-balance I was seeking, but it's clear from the manipulation of releases and footage that Wikileaks is hellbent on attacking the US and its allies.
edo 16y ago
Only 219 cables released so far. It is mind-boggling to think how much there still is left, although WikiLeaks presumably started off with some of the most juicy bits to get press coverage.
lionhearted 16y ago
I wonder what happens the first time that there's a credible link to someone dying as a results of Wikileaks leaking a document. You know, if you keep leaking any and all classified information you can, inevitably some informant or logistics route or defensive position is going to get routed or assassinated. It's just a matter of time - while the government does some bad stuff, I'd reckon the majority of classified documents are classified for decent reasons. It's not just a bunch of wild animals running the show. And when an operative or informant or ally or supply team or soldier or law enforcement officer eventually gets killed as a result of a leak, I wonder what the government's response will be. Edit: Knock off the downvoting and make a reply. There's an informant in the Chinese politburo who is risking his life to protect the dissidents that the Chinese government targeted with the Google attacks. His life is at risk now. If you have any credible argument for why releasing any information related to the man, let's hear your argument. Because I think his life is at risk, and that's a bad thing. If you disagree, let's hear your reasoning of why it's okay to do that.
- mattm 16y ago
  > I wonder what happens the first time that there's a credible link to someone dying as a results of Wikileaks leaking a document. I'm really getting sick and tired of the "If it saves one life, it is worth it" argument. No it isn't. Life has risks. I prefer a world that is open and truthful. This informant obviously knows that. What if he believes that risking his life in the name of freedom is more important? That is his prerogative. Just because you place safety and life as a priority over freedom, doesn't necessarily mean that other do.
- CamperBob 16y ago
  Let's say you're a Politburo member who has developed serious moral qualms about what your regime is doing. You have three options: 1) Stick with business as usual. Go along to get along. 2) Quietly retire to "spend more time with your family" or for "health reasons." 3) Use your position to betray your country as a spy, working for what is arguably a greater good. Option 3) is what this Politburo member went with. Just like delivering pizzas, installing roof shingles, or maintaining power lines, espionage and treason comes with certain risks. This is true whether you're working for the good guys or the bad guys. This is one of those risks. He knew, or could reasonably have been expected to know, what he was doing. I agree with the comment from the other thread: Wikileaks is putting the whole US government through a full-body scanner. Frankly, I'm tired of governments having all the illegal search-and-seizure fun. Now we get to play, too.
dotBen 16y ago
I think it's interesting that Wikileaks have been 'late' on actually releasing the cables directly to the public. At the time of writing only 219 cables are available out of what is supposed to be 250k+. Sure, that could be because of the DDOS attack but it looks as though this leak is taking place via a new server at cablegate.wikileaks.org which presumably anyone DDOS'ing wouldn't have had prior knowledge about to route attacks against. It has meant that the newspapers (who were given pre-public access to the dumps) have effectively "leaked" the information as NYTimes and Guardian have started publishing the details before Wikileaks actually does the leaking. I'm wondering if there was an agreed embargo when Wikileaks was supposed to actually "press the button". I further wonder if this will negatively effect the relationship between Wikileaks and the media going forward. Interestingly, Guardian which always prides itself on having data driven processes on stuff like this, has only released the metadata so far [1] -- I guess so that they are not the ones to do a complete leak before Wikileaks. [1] http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2010/nov/29/wikileaks-cables-data http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2010/nov/29/wikileak...
jedbrown 16y ago
View-source: <a href='/classification/1_0.html' title='unclassified'>CONFIDENTIAL</a> <a href='/classification/2_0.html' title='secret'>CONFIDENTIAL//NOFORN</a> <a href='/classification/3_0.html' title='confidential'>SECRET</a> <a href='/classification/4_0.html' title='secret//noforn'>SECRET//NOFORN</a>
- y0ghur7_xxx 16y ago
  care to explain?
  - aptimpropriety 16y ago
    As the NYT explained it - I believe the classifications organize the cables into degrees of secrecy. 'Top secret' is the highest secrecy in the US Gov't, so I would imagine 'secret' is therefore more secret than 'classified'. 'Noforn' apparently means 'this should not be seen by foreign [individuals'.
    - tbrownaw 16y ago
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classified_information_in_the_United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classified_information_in_the_U... The classification levels are "Top Secret", "Secret", and "Confidential". "Classified" just means that it's been assigned to one of those levels.
  - zakhar 16y ago
    This bugged me also. The title text doesn't match what the links actually are.
moon_of_moon 16y ago
Interesting that November 2008 is missing.
- gwern 16y ago
  No kidding. What were the diplomats' reactions to Obama's being really truly elected? What last minute orders came down from the Bushies? What new !orders were issued by Obama's newbies?
Mithrandir 16y ago
http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Special:Support http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Special:Support "Not Found" There's irony for you.
ck2 16y ago
Apparently while we are busy getting fondled by the TSA, this is what the rest of the world was ignoring: North Korea secretly gave Iran 19 powerful missiles with a range of 2,000 miles. The missiles, known as the BM-25, are modified from Russian R-27s, which were submarine-based missiles carrying nuclear weapons How insanely scary is that?
- PostOnce 16y ago
  There's always a worse thing. We can fight multiple injustices/wrongs at once. I don't like it when people say we've been duped into paying attention to the wrong wrong. Don't let all this leaked stuff cause us to forget about the TSA and their (and the government at large's) ridiculousness.
- rorrr 16y ago
  So what? US (and other countries) has much worse missiles. US is the only country who used nuclear weapons in war. Why do you fear Iran so much? US, Russia, China seem much more dangerous from the point of view of the weapons. Iran is being bullied by the US for no real reason. Even if they were building nuclear weapons, it's their right. A bunch of countries have them.
  - AaronI 16y ago
    The issue most likely is not the weapons themselves, but who controls them. A stockpile of weapons are only dangerous in the "wrong" hands. If Iran is being bullied, as you put it, then it's not just by the U.S. Quite a few other countries apparently feel those weapons would essentially be in the "wrong" hands if Iran acquires them.
Mithrandir 16y ago
I think Wikileaks main site is down. "It works! This is the default web page for this server. The web server software is running but no content has been added, yet." Going to their IP 88.80.13.160: We are sorry, WikiLeaks is currently underoing scheduled maintenance. We will be back online as soon as possible. For status updates you can follow our twitter feed. You can still visit our IRC channel: * Using the web interface available here * Using regular IRC client, connect to chat.wikileaks.org SSL port 9999
gcb 16y ago
what is "the cables"?
- gasull 16y ago
  Diplomatic communications.
  - gcb 16y ago
    thanks. but i'm a little more in the dark about their physical representation. Is it email? analog audio via oceanic cables? the wikipedia page is blank now. but it's history show that someone described it simply as "oceanic cable" sometime. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplomatic_cable http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplomatic_cable
    - gasull 16y ago
      It's a transcript, an official record, of a diplomatic communication. The communication itself might have been by email, voice or anything. A cable is its official transcript. http://au.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20101125190143AA6w8IS http://au.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=2010112519014...
ilitirit 16y ago
Why weren't they able to get there hands on Classified content? I bet that would make for good reading.

118 points by edo 16y ago

Can someone who support this release care to explain this. I seriously don't understand how can publishing someone's conversations be good. 1) How should communication with foreign embassies be done? Publicly via twitter? 2) Do you think that absolutely all information that gov has and exchange should be public? If not who should decide which info can be published? 3) What if somebody from Google get all you gmail conversations and publish it? If you dont like this idea, please explain why you support somebody publishing gov conversations then? Thank you.

rorrr 16y ago
Transparency. There's a lot of important shit going on without public's approval. Do you want to live in a world where important things are decided by a bunch of corrupt politicians with no oversight?
- alnayyir 16y ago
  Of course not, but Wikileaks is an adversary with an agenda, not an independent government oversight organization with the peoples' interests in mind. Certainly not that of residents of the US. We need oversight and transparency concerning policy, prevention of the violation of constitutional and human rights, and any actions that violate the sovereignty of our allies and friends. Not transparency of every communique between our embassies.
  - GFischer 16y ago
    Remember as well that some of us in "foreign countries" want some oversight of the U.S. as well. I sometimes joke that we're second-class citizens, much like in Rome (1) - we're affected by what the U.S. decides (as a kind of "world government"), but we cannot vote on it. 1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_citizenship http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_citizenship
    - alnayyir 16y ago
      The "[don't] violate the sovereignty of our allies and friends." clause covers your concerns. I'm not advocating US unilateralism. Your comment was apropos of nothing in what I said. Your rhetoric is misplaced.
      - GFischer 16y ago
        Sorry, I didn't want to sound that way. What I wanted to convey is that Wikileaks is interesting for people outside the U.S. that are not necessarily enemies of the U.S. I don't know which organization should provide some oversight, I guess the United Nations would be the closest (despite it being a bloated bureaucracy, it does manage some useful activities sometimes)
        alnayyir 16y ago
        I'd rather see that kind of oversight facility independent of the United Nations. Interesting is a pretty shallow rationale for what's being done. They have an agenda and I'm not going to pretend Wikileaks is some kind of openness nerd savior. I had hoped they were the counter-balance I was seeking, but it's clear from the manipulation of releases and footage that Wikileaks is hellbent on attacking the US and its allies.

edo 16y ago

Only 219 cables released so far. It is mind-boggling to think how much there still is left, although WikiLeaks presumably started off with some of the most juicy bits to get press coverage.

lionhearted 16y ago

I wonder what happens the first time that there's a credible link to someone dying as a results of Wikileaks leaking a document. You know, if you keep leaking any and all classified information you can, inevitably some informant or logistics route or defensive position is going to get routed or assassinated. It's just a matter of time - while the government does some bad stuff, I'd reckon the majority of classified documents are classified for decent reasons. It's not just a bunch of wild animals running the show. And when an operative or informant or ally or supply team or soldier or law enforcement officer eventually gets killed as a result of a leak, I wonder what the government's response will be. Edit: Knock off the downvoting and make a reply. There's an informant in the Chinese politburo who is risking his life to protect the dissidents that the Chinese government targeted with the Google attacks. His life is at risk now. If you have any credible argument for why releasing any information related to the man, let's hear your argument. Because I think his life is at risk, and that's a bad thing. If you disagree, let's hear your reasoning of why it's okay to do that.

mattm 16y ago
> I wonder what happens the first time that there's a credible link to someone dying as a results of Wikileaks leaking a document. I'm really getting sick and tired of the "If it saves one life, it is worth it" argument. No it isn't. Life has risks. I prefer a world that is open and truthful. This informant obviously knows that. What if he believes that risking his life in the name of freedom is more important? That is his prerogative. Just because you place safety and life as a priority over freedom, doesn't necessarily mean that other do.
CamperBob 16y ago
Let's say you're a Politburo member who has developed serious moral qualms about what your regime is doing. You have three options: 1) Stick with business as usual. Go along to get along. 2) Quietly retire to "spend more time with your family" or for "health reasons." 3) Use your position to betray your country as a spy, working for what is arguably a greater good. Option 3) is what this Politburo member went with. Just like delivering pizzas, installing roof shingles, or maintaining power lines, espionage and treason comes with certain risks. This is true whether you're working for the good guys or the bad guys. This is one of those risks. He knew, or could reasonably have been expected to know, what he was doing. I agree with the comment from the other thread: Wikileaks is putting the whole US government through a full-body scanner. Frankly, I'm tired of governments having all the illegal search-and-seizure fun. Now we get to play, too.

dotBen 16y ago

I think it's interesting that Wikileaks have been 'late' on actually releasing the cables directly to the public. At the time of writing only 219 cables are available out of what is supposed to be 250k+. Sure, that could be because of the DDOS attack but it looks as though this leak is taking place via a new server at cablegate.wikileaks.org which presumably anyone DDOS'ing wouldn't have had prior knowledge about to route attacks against. It has meant that the newspapers (who were given pre-public access to the dumps) have effectively "leaked" the information as NYTimes and Guardian have started publishing the details before Wikileaks actually does the leaking. I'm wondering if there was an agreed embargo when Wikileaks was supposed to actually "press the button". I further wonder if this will negatively effect the relationship between Wikileaks and the media going forward. Interestingly, Guardian which always prides itself on having data driven processes on stuff like this, has only released the metadata so far [1] -- I guess so that they are not the ones to do a complete leak before Wikileaks. [1] http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2010/nov/29/wikileaks-cables-data http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2010/nov/29/wikileak...

jedbrown 16y ago

View-source: <a href='/classification/1_0.html' title='unclassified'>CONFIDENTIAL</a> <a href='/classification/2_0.html' title='secret'>CONFIDENTIAL//NOFORN</a> <a href='/classification/3_0.html' title='confidential'>SECRET</a> <a href='/classification/4_0.html' title='secret//noforn'>SECRET//NOFORN</a>

y0ghur7_xxx 16y ago
care to explain?
- aptimpropriety 16y ago
  As the NYT explained it - I believe the classifications organize the cables into degrees of secrecy. 'Top secret' is the highest secrecy in the US Gov't, so I would imagine 'secret' is therefore more secret than 'classified'. 'Noforn' apparently means 'this should not be seen by foreign [individuals'.
  - tbrownaw 16y ago
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classified_information_in_the_United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classified_information_in_the_U... The classification levels are "Top Secret", "Secret", and "Confidential". "Classified" just means that it's been assigned to one of those levels.
- zakhar 16y ago
  This bugged me also. The title text doesn't match what the links actually are.

moon_of_moon 16y ago

Interesting that November 2008 is missing.

gwern 16y ago
No kidding. What were the diplomats' reactions to Obama's being really truly elected? What last minute orders came down from the Bushies? What new !orders were issued by Obama's newbies?

Mithrandir 16y ago

http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Special:Support http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Special:Support "Not Found" There's irony for you.

ck2 16y ago

Apparently while we are busy getting fondled by the TSA, this is what the rest of the world was ignoring: North Korea secretly gave Iran 19 powerful missiles with a range of 2,000 miles. The missiles, known as the BM-25, are modified from Russian R-27s, which were submarine-based missiles carrying nuclear weapons How insanely scary is that?

PostOnce 16y ago
There's always a worse thing. We can fight multiple injustices/wrongs at once. I don't like it when people say we've been duped into paying attention to the wrong wrong. Don't let all this leaked stuff cause us to forget about the TSA and their (and the government at large's) ridiculousness.
rorrr 16y ago
So what? US (and other countries) has much worse missiles. US is the only country who used nuclear weapons in war. Why do you fear Iran so much? US, Russia, China seem much more dangerous from the point of view of the weapons. Iran is being bullied by the US for no real reason. Even if they were building nuclear weapons, it's their right. A bunch of countries have them.
- AaronI 16y ago
  The issue most likely is not the weapons themselves, but who controls them. A stockpile of weapons are only dangerous in the "wrong" hands. If Iran is being bullied, as you put it, then it's not just by the U.S. Quite a few other countries apparently feel those weapons would essentially be in the "wrong" hands if Iran acquires them.

Mithrandir 16y ago

I think Wikileaks main site is down. "It works! This is the default web page for this server. The web server software is running but no content has been added, yet." Going to their IP 88.80.13.160: We are sorry, WikiLeaks is currently underoing scheduled maintenance. We will be back online as soon as possible. For status updates you can follow our twitter feed. You can still visit our IRC channel: * Using the web interface available here * Using regular IRC client, connect to chat.wikileaks.org SSL port 9999

gcb 16y ago

what is "the cables"?

gasull 16y ago
Diplomatic communications.
- gcb 16y ago
  thanks. but i'm a little more in the dark about their physical representation. Is it email? analog audio via oceanic cables? the wikipedia page is blank now. but it's history show that someone described it simply as "oceanic cable" sometime. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplomatic_cable http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplomatic_cable
  - gasull 16y ago
    It's a transcript, an official record, of a diplomatic communication. The communication itself might have been by email, voice or anything. A cable is its official transcript. http://au.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20101125190143AA6w8IS http://au.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=2010112519014...

ilitirit 16y ago

Why weren't they able to get there hands on Classified content? I bet that would make for good reading.