3 ms·

#1 Sounds plausible, but I know nothing of it; 60% confidence seems a little high to me on conspiracy theory # 2, at least with respect to the following leaked

#1 Sounds plausible, but I know nothing of it; 60% confidence seems a little high to me on conspiracy theory # 2, at least with respect to the following leaked items, which are perhaps not especially surprising, but are a little more than "baaarely embarrassing": 1. US pressuring Germany not to pursue criminal investigation of US agents' kidnapping and torture of German national (who happened to be innocent, but that's not especially relevant) http://harpers.org/archive/2010/11/hbc-90007831 http://harpers.org/archive/2010/11/hbc-90007831 2. US allegedly obstructing Spanish investigations of torture of Spanish subjects at Gitmo and use of Spanish facilities for extraordinary rendition program. http://harpers.org/archive/2010/12/hbc-90007836 http://harpers.org/archive/2010/12/hbc-90007836 3. US diplomats spying on foreign diplomats, including the UN Sec. Gen., (although some do seem to think this is all de rigueur). http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/nov/28/us-embassy-cables-spying-un http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/nov/28/us-embassy-cable...

philwelch 16y ago
Number 1 was an open secret even before the leak. The leak was more of a reminder that Khalid el-Masri was extraordinarily rendered to Afghanistan (the matter has been the subject of a Wikipedia article for years), not anything new. Number 2 is pretty much more of the same. Number 3 is pretty much de rigueur.
- wladimir 16y ago
  Plausible, open secret, sure. But there is a big difference between something floating around as a rumor (or conspiracy theory) and having it confirmed in a diplomatic cable. Take, for example, the cable about nuclear weapons in the Netherlands. We always suspected those were there, but neither or government or the US government confirmed it. A lot of Dutch citizens are rightfully enraged now, we deserve to be told those things. We had to help the US find those WMDs in Iraq in their 'war for freedom', but it seems we're sitting on WMDs ourselves without knowing it. This is serious, not just some gossip! And the allegations toward Russia and North Korea are even worse. It is really really unlikely they released this on purpose. I could see a more limited leak used in this way, but the 'big fish' better be really big to warrant releasing all of this.
- pigbucket 16y ago
  Re: 1. The only reference in the Wikipedia entry to the pressuring of the German govt. by the US consists of this line: "On February 6, 2007, U.S. officials warn the German Government not to issue international warrants." This line was added to the article a few days ago. Its cited source is a document leaked by Wikileaks. Re: 2. According to Harpers, and its reading of El Pais and Público, what's newly revealed by the released cables is "a large-scale, closely coordinated effort by the State Department to obstruct ... criminal investigations" Re: 3. Espionage may be expected, even accepted. What is or should be embarrassing for the US is its employment of State Dept. diplomats for the purpose of espionage.

philwelch 16y ago

Number 1 was an open secret even before the leak. The leak was more of a reminder that Khalid el-Masri was extraordinarily rendered to Afghanistan (the matter has been the subject of a Wikipedia article for years), not anything new. Number 2 is pretty much more of the same. Number 3 is pretty much de rigueur.

wladimir 16y ago
Plausible, open secret, sure. But there is a big difference between something floating around as a rumor (or conspiracy theory) and having it confirmed in a diplomatic cable. Take, for example, the cable about nuclear weapons in the Netherlands. We always suspected those were there, but neither or government or the US government confirmed it. A lot of Dutch citizens are rightfully enraged now, we deserve to be told those things. We had to help the US find those WMDs in Iraq in their 'war for freedom', but it seems we're sitting on WMDs ourselves without knowing it. This is serious, not just some gossip! And the allegations toward Russia and North Korea are even worse. It is really really unlikely they released this on purpose. I could see a more limited leak used in this way, but the 'big fish' better be really big to warrant releasing all of this.
pigbucket 16y ago
Re: 1. The only reference in the Wikipedia entry to the pressuring of the German govt. by the US consists of this line: "On February 6, 2007, U.S. officials warn the German Government not to issue international warrants." This line was added to the article a few days ago. Its cited source is a document leaked by Wikileaks. Re: 2. According to Harpers, and its reading of El Pais and Público, what's newly revealed by the released cables is "a large-scale, closely coordinated effort by the State Department to obstruct ... criminal investigations" Re: 3. Espionage may be expected, even accepted. What is or should be embarrassing for the US is its employment of State Dept. diplomats for the purpose of espionage.