4 ms·

"he managed to rip off the mask and expose the unbridled imperialist evil lurking" That's a bit absurd given showed the total opposite: Gigabytes of diplomati

"he managed to rip off the mask and expose the unbridled imperialist evil lurking" That's a bit absurd given showed the total opposite: Gigabytes of diplomatic cables of highly sensitive data revealed a US Diplomatic Corps trying to do a decent job in a world rife with ugly corruption. The 'Arab Street' saw the information and they saw the US trying to assuage and nudge brutally corrupt leaders. The cables didn't unite Arabs against the US - they exposed the ruthless corruption of their own governments and 'united' them against their own governments. I was in Tunisia near the time of the revolts and I can tell you the thing that pissed them off the most was probably the fact that their disgraced PM had Canadian citizenship (i.e. citizen of convenience, as many do) and simply flew to Montreal to enjoy Canadian Constitutional protections and avoid prosecution. It's shocking that someone could read about Arab governments doing 'very bad things', the US government trying to stop them, and then come away with the notion that the US is the bad actor. It speaks to some kind of deeply held ideology or perspective that can make facts that point one way, seem like they point in the other direction. Assange will have to face trial given the fact that he may have explicitly helped Manning break into systems of National Security, which is definitely illegal. I don't think he did, but there's been some evidence made public that indicates that it's possible. Soon we'll have a court case and see the evidence.

pydry 5y ago
>The cables didn't unite Arabs against the US - they exposed the ruthless corruption of their own governments I'm sensing that you believe that this is something you think that should have been concealed from them for their own good. >It's shocking that someone could read about Arab governments doing 'very bad things', the US government trying to stop them, and then come away with the notion that the US is the bad actor. Collateral murder is mostly what people are condemning. Also what this extradition was all about. It's weird that you seem to believe that the war crimes are not relevant to the discussion about whether the US is "the bad actor". Well, perhaps not that weird. Your reply suggests that you may have been part of the institution that committed and covered up the war crimes (unless you were in tunisia for a different reason). >Assange will have to face trial given the fact that he may have explicitly helped Manning break into systems of National Security, which is definitely illegal. Oh yes. Exposing US war crimes IS definitely illegal - more illegal than committing them, apparently. Just like Rosa Parks sitting at the back of a bus - that was illegal too.
- jollybean 5y ago
  "Your reply suggests that you may have been part of the institution that committed and covered up the war crimes " Oh no, you outed me! I'm a CIA plant! How were you able to slyly prove my complicity in war crimes from a mere comment about travelling abroad? A testament to brilliant and rational deductive thinking and logical inference, that must prove 'America is Evil' as well of course ...
- rhino369 5y ago
  To play devil's advocate, there is at least some value in US diplomatic cables being secret. It allows our diplomats to pass around honest impression and sensitive information back to our government. If all diplomatic channels were transparent, diplomats would treat it like a twitter account. If the US's Saudi Ambassador thought the Saudi leadership was unstable, they'd never write that in a cable if it was going to be released publicly. And nobody would tell our diplomats uncomfortable truths.
gonehome 5y ago
This is basically my takeaway, I think Snowden has a lot stronger of an argument frankly. Assange also editorialized his leaks to be damaging towards the US rather than just leak them. IIRC this lead to conflict within the org. The CM video was awful, but as I understand it was a mistake made within the bounds of acceptable ROE? Similar to the recent drone strike mistake in Afghanistan. War sucks and these accidents are awful, but we live in an imperfect universe. These things don’t really say much in isolation. If anything the cables showed the US in a positive light (most on HN probably didn’t actually read them). I found the US’s media response to be stupid as it often is, rather than engage honestly on these issues. Over the years Wikileaks went from something that could have had a genuine media purpose to a way for intelligence agencies hostile to the US to leak hacked materials to the world with plausible deniability. It was no longer a neutral actor (and frankly the editorialization by Assange in the “CM” video wasn’t neutral either). He crossed the line with aiding the hack which gave legal recourse - this is the rule of law bit, we’ll see what happens. I do think the “sex crimes” stuff could have been Intel doing stupid shit (imo) but that’s just speculation on my part.
hekette 5y ago
You won't be able to trust any evidence they present. They've already exposed numerous times to have lied.
AnthonyMouse 5y ago
> revealed a US Diplomatic Corps trying to do a decent job in a world rife with ugly corruption. This, too, is journalism. Showing that the world isn't black and white, that sometimes the US does bad things that we should work against and sometimes they do the right thing, that's important too. Secrecy is harmful to democracy. It's obvious why the state department tries to keep their internal communications secret, but it's also obvious why journalists have a public interest in trying to reveal them. We should let them both make their attempt instead of bringing criminal charges against one side for doing the job we need them to do. Notice that the job is the same regardless of what's in the cables, because you (along with the public) don't know that ahead of time. But to be clear, a strong argument against your point is that he's being prosecuted. All the government insiders who leak classified information to the media in order to advance the government's interests are not sitting next to him in a cell, are they?
- jollybean 5y ago
  It's not 'journalism' to release arbitrary secrets even if the transparency might be beneficial. Secrecy can be harmful in some cases but it's also essential in many ways, it's really not an argument at all. Nobody would be able to do their jobs otherwise.
  - AnthonyMouse 5y ago
    > It's not 'journalism' to release arbitrary secrets even if the transparency might be beneficial. Uncovering and publishing secrets is the core of journalism. > Secrecy can be harmful in some cases but it's also essential in many ways Then they should do a better job of keeping the important things secret. But it's good that they occasionally fail.

pydry 5y ago

>The cables didn't unite Arabs against the US - they exposed the ruthless corruption of their own governments I'm sensing that you believe that this is something you think that should have been concealed from them for their own good. >It's shocking that someone could read about Arab governments doing 'very bad things', the US government trying to stop them, and then come away with the notion that the US is the bad actor. Collateral murder is mostly what people are condemning. Also what this extradition was all about. It's weird that you seem to believe that the war crimes are not relevant to the discussion about whether the US is "the bad actor". Well, perhaps not that weird. Your reply suggests that you may have been part of the institution that committed and covered up the war crimes (unless you were in tunisia for a different reason). >Assange will have to face trial given the fact that he may have explicitly helped Manning break into systems of National Security, which is definitely illegal. Oh yes. Exposing US war crimes IS definitely illegal - more illegal than committing them, apparently. Just like Rosa Parks sitting at the back of a bus - that was illegal too.

jollybean 5y ago
"Your reply suggests that you may have been part of the institution that committed and covered up the war crimes " Oh no, you outed me! I'm a CIA plant! How were you able to slyly prove my complicity in war crimes from a mere comment about travelling abroad? A testament to brilliant and rational deductive thinking and logical inference, that must prove 'America is Evil' as well of course ...
rhino369 5y ago
To play devil's advocate, there is at least some value in US diplomatic cables being secret. It allows our diplomats to pass around honest impression and sensitive information back to our government. If all diplomatic channels were transparent, diplomats would treat it like a twitter account. If the US's Saudi Ambassador thought the Saudi leadership was unstable, they'd never write that in a cable if it was going to be released publicly. And nobody would tell our diplomats uncomfortable truths.

gonehome 5y ago

This is basically my takeaway, I think Snowden has a lot stronger of an argument frankly. Assange also editorialized his leaks to be damaging towards the US rather than just leak them. IIRC this lead to conflict within the org. The CM video was awful, but as I understand it was a mistake made within the bounds of acceptable ROE? Similar to the recent drone strike mistake in Afghanistan. War sucks and these accidents are awful, but we live in an imperfect universe. These things don’t really say much in isolation. If anything the cables showed the US in a positive light (most on HN probably didn’t actually read them). I found the US’s media response to be stupid as it often is, rather than engage honestly on these issues. Over the years Wikileaks went from something that could have had a genuine media purpose to a way for intelligence agencies hostile to the US to leak hacked materials to the world with plausible deniability. It was no longer a neutral actor (and frankly the editorialization by Assange in the “CM” video wasn’t neutral either). He crossed the line with aiding the hack which gave legal recourse - this is the rule of law bit, we’ll see what happens. I do think the “sex crimes” stuff could have been Intel doing stupid shit (imo) but that’s just speculation on my part.

hekette 5y ago

You won't be able to trust any evidence they present. They've already exposed numerous times to have lied.

AnthonyMouse 5y ago

> revealed a US Diplomatic Corps trying to do a decent job in a world rife with ugly corruption. This, too, is journalism. Showing that the world isn't black and white, that sometimes the US does bad things that we should work against and sometimes they do the right thing, that's important too. Secrecy is harmful to democracy. It's obvious why the state department tries to keep their internal communications secret, but it's also obvious why journalists have a public interest in trying to reveal them. We should let them both make their attempt instead of bringing criminal charges against one side for doing the job we need them to do. Notice that the job is the same regardless of what's in the cables, because you (along with the public) don't know that ahead of time. But to be clear, a strong argument against your point is that he's being prosecuted. All the government insiders who leak classified information to the media in order to advance the government's interests are not sitting next to him in a cell, are they?

jollybean 5y ago
It's not 'journalism' to release arbitrary secrets even if the transparency might be beneficial. Secrecy can be harmful in some cases but it's also essential in many ways, it's really not an argument at all. Nobody would be able to do their jobs otherwise.
- AnthonyMouse 5y ago
  > It's not 'journalism' to release arbitrary secrets even if the transparency might be beneficial. Uncovering and publishing secrets is the core of journalism. > Secrecy can be harmful in some cases but it's also essential in many ways Then they should do a better job of keeping the important things secret. But it's good that they occasionally fail.