The Wikileaks collection

[JJackson]

My problem is with what I view as relative accountability. In the President and Prime Minister’s cases there is no realistic chance of their being legally held accountable for their actions. Appointing someone who can then tell you that you have an arguable case, which they can help you sell to your public, is rather different to actual risking a ICC trial for illegally invading another country, or ordering someone’s torture, and then having a court weigh that advice and imprison you if they disagree with your legal advisers. If my lawyer tells me he thinks he can get me off any DUI, as long as I keep getting my repeat prescriptions for a medicine that gives false positives on alcohol tests, I need to be very sure because his assertion will be put to the test. Get powerful enough and you only need to be able to spin reasonable doubt not prove it. Even the failure to spin it might loose you re-election but will not land you in jail.

[Steve the Planner]

C'mon, Bob:

Waterboarding has always been considered as torture. The Bush lawyers raised shades of interpretation and causation as a justification for it, but that doesn't change what it is.

Like some of the other posts, I don't disagree that the guy may not be a prick, but you misread the situation to assume that he (and his supporters) do not have a strong moral position which they are striking out for---anti-secrecy.

Whether that conviction is as wrong as an abortion bomber, or one with some reasonable theoretical foundation, there is no doubt that they are driven by a moral conviction---certainly no less than Bush was.

Having said that, I realized from one of last week's cables that the idea of blinking out the names is as absurd as bleeping out a comedian's monologue---everybody in the know gets the joke, just as anyone involved in a meeting with GA Sistani's key spokesmen does not know exactly which one said what---bleeped out or not. The same with all of our local and provincial discourses.

One of the things that really disturbed me about Cidne was the breadth of what was memorialized and its broad internal accessibility (sure to be copied by somebody and passed on to our "allies." The documented knowledge, in a culture with multi-generational knowledge and accountability, that somebody's dad (or grandad) helped a "foreign" government way back in '07, will not earn medals for them....

These leaks will hurt real people, and, to a great extent, as Krauthamer noted last week, substantially limit US access and and free discourse with locals in challenging situations. Maybe it is best, after all, for all parties to understand that in an open architecture world, it is best not to say anything to anyone that you don't expect to read in the Post (or Al-Jazirah) next month?

[Old Eagle]

One of the outcomes of the wikileaks releases to date is that they offer insight to the general public and the rest of the uninitiated into how diplomacy works.

The D of diplomacy is one of the elements of national power. It is the favorite of most of us involved in the M of the DIME rubric. Most of the time, we don't get shot at or blown up when policy makers are using the D instead of the M.

Yes, we try to influence foreign governments and other entities to behave in a manner that supports the U.S. interest. This is occasionally referred to in the press of late as "arm twisting", but I assure you it is usually more subtle and congenial.

Secondly, we report back to Washington on how things look on the ground in a manner direct enough to make our points clear to those in the rear. Decisions that policy makers take require decent input from the "front". Just because you think that your father-in-law is a jerk, you rarely say so to his face, and never in the presence of your spouse. This should really not come as a surprise to anyone who deals with pol-mil issues (or who has a father-in-law).

One of the underlying problems in the current kerfluffle is that the State Department brings a lot of the misunderstanding down on their own heads. Since they don't see themselves as collecting human intelligence, they "file" "reporting cables" that name names and tell tales. Then the Great American Public (GAP) AND the sources get all worked up about something that we have all agreed to make happen.

When one of my sources would tell me that he did not expect his comments to be reported to Washington, I really had to wonder about him.

[91bravojoe]

Bob's World, it's extremely difficult to believe that you, or anybody else, takes the "legal advice" story seriously. Bush didn't order waterboarding because lawyers told him it was legal. He ordered prostitute lawyers to walk the line because he knew he was ordering waterboarding. Of prisoners who had been in custody for many weeks, and who had no fresh data, as a matter of absolute certainty.

The US has prosecuted waterboarding as torture in the past. To pretend that there was a good faith belief that it was legal is merely another example of Bush's war criminal status.

[Fuchs]

Again, waterboarding was a standard training tool for US service members in SERE and deemed as legal by the experts.

Boxing is legal as a sport as well, but it's illegal if you do it without consent.
Same with sex.
Or carrying money out of a bank.


The lack of consent is the difference between waterboarding training and waterboarding torture.

[JMA]

Australia blames U.S. over WikiLeaks

Australian Foreign Minister Kevin Rudd said the people who originally leaked the documents, not Assange, were legally liable and the leaks raised questions over the "adequacy" of U.S. security.

"Mr Assange is not himself responsible for the unauthorized release of 250,000 documents from the U.S. diplomatic communications network," Rudd told Reuters in an interview.

"The Americans are responsible for that," said Rudd, who had been described in one leaked U.S. cable as a "control freak."

"Control Freak" or not Rudd is correct. Refreshing honesty.

Go after the guy who actually stole the stuff and the guys responsible for securing the data.

[Steve the Planner]

Back to that same issue---the actual source (s) of the leak (s).

That sure is a lot of stuff from one PFC....

Also, why, if it was known about for months/years, was the response to wait, then cry wolf????

Very strange.

I heard one talking head today explain that since the US sent a letter to Assange warning him (an Aussie with Swedish/EU status?) that publishing the leaks would violate US laws. How exactly do we enforce them against hiM? Rendition?

[JJackson]

Rendition?

Extraordinary?

[J Wolfsberger]

I heard one talking head today explain that since the US sent a letter to Assange warning him (an Aussie with Swedish/EU status?) that publishing the leaks would violate US laws. How exactly do we enforce them against hiM? Rendition?

Realistically? All the talk about prosecution for espionage, treason, etc. seems to overlook the small question of jurisdiction. At best, we might be able to get Sweden to extradite him to the US, and we could prosecute him for receiving stolen property (or something of the like). I don't see how we'd be able to do anything more.

[bourbon]

What is the forum rule regarding linking to cables in relevant threads?

Example: several cables exist regarding Brazilian COIN efforts in Rio’s favela’s - an issue of interest to several forum members. Is it acceptable to post them in the Rio thread?


A fulltext search engine for the cables that have been released, is available at: www.cablesearch.org

[Ken White]

I'll ask. In the meantime, please do not link 'em.

Thanks for asking.

[JMA]

"Torture" is what waterboarding is called now. That is the current legal interp, so fine, I'll go with that. While I attended the Army SERE school at Ft Bragg and did not have to endure waterboarding personally, the Navy school did it as a matter of course to our own people as training to help them prepare for situations where they might have to deal with real torture. When Bush made his decision, waterboarding was a training tool. The lawyers believed it to be legal. A president has to make hard decisions, and I doubt this was really that hard of a decision in the big scheme of things under the perspectives, legal and otherwise, that waterboarding was held in at that time.

Now, after the fact, it has been deemed to be "torture." I'm not a big Bush defender, but I won't bash anyone for not playing by rules that haven't been written yet. Again, waterboarding was a standard training tool for US service members in SERE and deemed as legal by the experts. This is not an issue, this is not news. Now, if the President had been told it was Illegal and gone on and ordered it anyway, then it would be news.

Bob, I introduced the comparison of the actions of Bush. For what its worth I support the use of waterboarding and other "methods" at the right time by the right people. Post 9/11 was one such time... but I don't know who got to do the deeds. (The who in my opinion is important because you don't want the psychopaths to emerge and get their jollies through applying torture (physical duress if you like) to anyone and everyone that crossed their paths).

The new clown in charge of MI6 (Sir John Sawers) has in a recent public address stated:

"If we know or believe action by us will lead to torture taking place, we're required by UK and international law to avoid that action. And we do, even though that allows the terrorist activity to go ahead."

I don't share that view.

Now back to WikiLeaks.

WikiLeaks (not a US organisation) started slowly publishing a selection of redacted classified data which it had allegedly received from a serving US soldier (who it is believed is currently incarcerated in solitary confinement). In addition the New York Times, The Guardian, Der Spiegel, Le Monde and El Pais are receiving data from WikiLeaks and are publishing some of what they receive for public consumption.

So out of all those who have received this stolen data (WikiLeaks and the 5 newspapers) the great US bully-boy machine chooses to go after the soft target, Julian Assange and his supposedly puny WikiLeaks organisation. Man, they come brave from the State Department and the CIA, don't they?

The New York Times is off Scott-free probably because they didn't steal the stuff, they received it and are making it publicly available. Sounds quite a lot like Assanje and WikiLeaks to me, yes?

The simple fact is that neither the State Department nor the CIA nor in fact the whole USG have the balls to go after the New York Times and the other 4 newspapers. So they strike out at the little guy.

Bad tactics.

When a bully goes after the little guy even if he is "Bonnie and Clyde", or Ned Kelly or Robin Hood or some other not exactly Kosher individual the ground swell is mostly for the little guy and not the bully-boy. Hands up any one who didn't wish David well in his confrontation with Goliath. Think OJs drive down the highway.

We see this ground swell growing. People are siding with the little guys (as they always do).

We all saw the ranting and raving of US government officials and spokesmen and politicians and others whom (we can be forgiven for) having possibly hitherto thought were sane.

We saw quite probably bulls*it accusations against Assange in Sweden where no charges have been laid yet they have sought his arrest through Interpol and extradition from the UK on the basis of a Swedish prosecutor merely wanting to interview Assange. Assange then hands himself over to the Brutish police who drag him before the courts where he is remanded without bail and initially without access to his lawyers. (This is what is called the rule of law and what the US, Britain and Sweden are trying to force down the throats of the third world. - little wonder no one takes them seriously)

Then we see the machine go into action like shades of the biblical 666. Assange and WikiLeaks are now subjected to a hounding and persecution out of Orwell's 1984.

But the machine and its paid flunkies have underestimated that popular groundswell of sympathy for a person being set upon in a fascist style by governments of the so-called free-world. That's unfair they scream. What about due process?

Now we see what the media call cyber insurgency where the running-dogs of the US "regime" in turn get targeted by a growing hacktivist community supported by a growing ground swell of public opinion across the world. (What goes around comes around?)

So why is the State Department so desperate to prevent the publishing of 240,000 documents (15,000 of which are secret)? Because they expose the incompetence of the State Department. Is this what the US budget allocates $40 billion a year towards? The sad fact is that the US State department has become an international laughing stock through the disclosure of what for these clowns passes for an exercise in diplomacy.

Now here's a question. If the data had been from a Russian source and published on the WikiLeaks (non US based) website would you still feel the same?

[Bob's World]

Undoubtedly there will be good that comes from this. Organizations take on little bubble cultures, and State is no exception, with each Embassy being a bubble within a bubble. Having their bubbles pricked a bit and open to external critical review will undoubtedly lead to some positive reform.

This will also undoubtedly, at least in the short term, cause a dip in U.S. influence. Influence is, I believe, our most critical asset. Many factors contribute to the building of influence, and like a reputation, it is harder to build than it is to lose. Containment strategies are expensive in terms of influence (and other forms of national capital as well), and I believe the U.S. has been burning influence throughout the Cold War; and that the burn rate has increased considerably as we entered the post-Cold War / GWOT era. Following the hit associated with the economic crisis, this additional hit is either well timed or poorly timed depending on which side of aisle one is sitting on.

Military power can be an effective substitute for other, more subjective forms of influence when dealing with states; but as we enter deeper into a age where non-state and quasi-state players emerge as more serious challengers, military power lacks much impact. Sledgehammers are great for breaking rocks, but not much for swatting flies.

My cautionary recommendation from all of this is to keep a close eye on the "influence gage." Back away from Ways and Means with high burn rates in pursuit of interests that are truly critical; and back away from Ends that really don't make the same sense today that they did when first adopted.

Here's a little example. In the just released CNAS recommendation on Afghanistan they essentially adopted the same two "vital interests" that the Afghan Studies Group identified in their recommendation released a couple months earlier (A product roundly criticized by Andrew Exum, who also was a key author of the CNAS product, btw)

These two vital interests identified are "AQ inspired terrorism" and "the stability of Pakistan."

Now it is hard to find fault with either interest; the difficulty is in logically linking the effective pursuit of either one to US operations in Afghanistan. After all, Pakistan was quite stable prior to being strong-armed into a series of actions counter to their own national interests in order to support US interests regarding AQ. So our very AFPAK strategy has created the concerns to one of the two interests we use to justify our AFPAK strategy.

The vital interest of AQ stands on ground that shakes just as much, but for different reasons. Yes AQ's current base of operations is in the FATA, but like "Facebook" or "Google" they are largely an IDEA. We proved very well in our efforts to contain the idea of communism was futile when so many populaces pursuing liberty were willing to adopt it. I think we will find that efforts to somehow "contain" the ideas of Islamism will fall equally flat when so many populaces pursuing liberty are willing to adopt it as well. If we "contain," "deny" or "defeat" Facebook or Google in the Silicon Valley will we end their influence or take away their market? No, they simply stand up servers elsewhere, go underground for some period of time if necessary, or worst case, are replaced by some more savvy successor. The same applies to AQ and the FATA, and as to AQ ever regaining their old freedom of action in Afghanistan, the odds of that are virtually nil.

How much influence will we have to expend to attempt to serve these interests by continuing actions tied to a specific space and built upon current Ways and Means?? Too much, and even then it is unlikely to produce the desired results because the problem is poorly defined. By looking at the problem itself with fresh eyes we can drop Ends that just don't make sense, and revise Ways and Means to be more "influence-efficient" for those that must be addressed.

Just observations from an interested observer.

[AdamG]

Items in bold verbatim

A certain secretive fellow, currently in custody, attempts to conceal his record:

Julian Assange had a blog. But he deleted it.

Thanks to Peter Risdon, however, we can take a look.

UPDATE. Assange in August:

1,300 people were eventually killed [in Kenya], and 350,000 were displaced. That was a result of our leak.

Assange today:

WikiLeaks has a four-year publishing history. During that time we have changed whole governments, but not a single person, as far as anyone is aware, has been harmed.

Hyperlinks galoure here
http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegr...hival_assange/

[Ken White]

What is the forum rule regarding linking to cables in relevant threads?

Example: several cables exist regarding Brazilian COIN efforts in Rio’s favela’s - an issue of interest to several forum members. Is it acceptable to post them in the Rio thread?

A fulltext search engine for the cables that have been released, is available at: www.cablesearch.org

Please do not link directly to the actual cables. There are many here who operate on .gov or .mil computers and if they inadvertently go to a cable from this site then they and potentially this site could have a major problem.

If there is any question about whether the actual cables are at a site, a flag similar to “CAUTION – possible links to Wikileaks. US Government policy prohibits official users from accessing”, or similar is desirable.

Whatever any of us thinks of the US Government policy on prohibiting the assessing those cables they are apparently serious about it. I personally disagree with it and with the over politicization for US domestic political purposes of the entire issue. It is much wing flapping about very little. Regardless, the US Government and the US Media are at this time in the de rigueur over reaction mode.

Due to that over reaction and the probable sensible policies that generally get settled upon after the initial flurry, it is not possible to establish a specific or firm policy that will foster the free interchange of ideas while not violating the current US Government policy whatever that may be. A site like cablesearch might be safe today but could be on the 'unacceptable' list of the Government policy tomorrow.


...............Please err on the side of caution in deference to those members who visit this site from .gov or .mil computers..............


...

[omarali50]

I visit this site to see what the saner end of the military-industrial complex is thinking and I am rarely disappointed in the quality of the opinions (as a lifelong left-liberal fellow traveller, I will be the first to admit that the quality of debate and data is much higher than that found on "my side" of the fence). But I am a little disappointed that so many good people are hyperventilating about wikileaks. I think the long term trajectory of our civilization (and yes, I said "our")is towards greater transparency and the first large country to get used to it may well be the United States and that is going to be a good thing. The ancient Chinese sages supposedly said that the sight of flowers and the sound of falling water are the only goods without admixture of evil, so expect some evil in this transparency, but all in all, it will be an improvement over the past. I think Julian Assange has done modern civilization a great service.

[Ken White]

But I am a little disappointed that so many good people are hyperventilating about wikileaks. I think the long term trajectory of our civilization (and yes, I said "our")is towards greater transparency and the first large country to get used to it may well be the United States and that is going to be a good thing...I think Julian Assange has done modern civilization a great service.

The hyperventilating is being done by the US Political class who believe (wrongly) that they must be seen as 'Doing something.' They lie so much to get elected that they continue to do that at any opportunity -- what better lie than to fulminate at someone, not an American that we probably cannot touch, deter or harm? You'd think they'd realize that foolishness is not helpful to the nation (on an international basis in particular) but they aren't concerned about that, they are concerned only with domestic politics and their reelection...

They are aided in this charade -- and that's what it is -- by the US Media, most of whom are little more than gossip mongers and to whom Julian A. has given a trove of gossip which they must try to embellish and make into the major story that it is not. So there's a whole lot of sound and fury in Washington and the media but almost none on the ground in the broader US.

This site is heavily populated with people who do or did work for or with the US Government. Most of those people are not particularly concerned with what the leak did to the US and I think a good many disagree with much of the Government's pronouncements and policy on the issue. However, they are totally hacked off at Manning (or whoever...) and Assange because they know those folks just made their jobs much harder.

What should happen is the leaker should be found and shot -- we won't do that, not the American way. We do not punish the guilty. We punish the innocent. What we will do is set more snoopers about, tighten all the bureaucratic rules, forbid the use of thumb drives, CDs or removable media, make it incredibly difficult to exchange information, initiate new and burdensome rules for clearances and more. Much more. Much, much more -- and it's already started.

So the guys are mad at Manning or whoever for stealing the material but they are really mad at Assange for making their jobs difficult.

On your broader philosophical note, two points. Transparency is a good thing, no question, yet there is also a need for discretion. There is and has been a natural tension between those two necessities and the preponderance of value has tilted back and forth. I agree that more transparency is probably a better alternative and that the natural penchant for bureaucracies to attempt to hide their shortfalls needs to be removed. I also agree the trajectory recently has been and is toward more transparency. However, I'm not at all convinced the Wikileaks modus is a good way to speed up or improve on that trajectory.

I'm not sure Assange has done a service. Governments around the world will do the same thing that the US is doing right now -- tighten the rules. I suspect you'll see less rather than more transparency.

The pendulum is likely to reverse its swing as a result of this...

[JMA]

So the guys are mad at Manning or whoever for stealing the material but they are really mad at Assange for making their jobs difficult.

My question is why aren't these strong and brave people at State and the CIA not going after New York Times, The Guardian, Der Spiegel, Le Monde and El Pais as well? After all are they not publishing this information as well?

[JMA]

US looks into cyber attacks on WikiLeaks foes

From the Keystone Cops:

The Justice Department is looking into cyber attacks on opponents of WikiLeaks and companies that have stopped doing business with it, Attorney General Eric Holder said Thursday.

What I am missing here is news about the investigation into the DDoS relating to WikiLeaks related websites?

It may be missed on some but the absolute hypocrisy of the "if I do it its OK but if you do the same its a crime" by another US government department is just one more example of how the actions of the USG make the US a laughing stock in the eyes of the world. Yes, even in the eyes of Micky Mouse third world countries.

[JMA]

Hows this for incompetence leading to a serious risk of a breach of military security in Helmand?

Afghanistan military secrets sold for £18.87 on eBay after army officer dumped laptop in a skip

...Files – none of which required passwords - included troop numbers, patrol details, ammunition stock lists and locations of every police command post in a Helmand town.
The shocked buyer, who handed the laptop to the MoD, also found it contained hundreds of photos, along with names and other details, of locals risking their lives by joined the Afghan National Police and Afghan National Army.
Also stored on the Toshiba Satellite A30 laptop was a copy of the Afghan National Police’s tactical handbook, giving details of every aspect of how to take on and defeat the enemy, including how to identify IED roadside bombs...

So what to do? Shoot the guy? String him up? Boot him out of the army? Slap him on the wrist? Forget about it... its no big deal?