Source: Antiwar.com
Credits: Justin Raimondo
Dated: 2010-11-29

The Big Dump

The secret history of US diplomacy revealed by WikiLeaks

It will take weeks to trawl through the 250,000-plus diplomatic cables released to the world by WikiLeaks, but one thing we know now: America’s relations with the rest of the world will never be the same.

They won’t be the same because the release speaks volumes about the vulnerability and sheer incompetence of a government that cannot even keep its own internal communications secure. That such an enormous cache has been made public – basically the secret history of American diplomacy for the past decade or so – mocks our inflated view of ourselves as the last superpower, or, as the French put it, the “hyper-power.” The hapless hyper-power is more like it.

There are endless fascinating details to be savored, such as the behavior of a member of the British royal family deemed “inappropriate” by American diplomats, and US-Israeli discussions of dual citizenship and its relation to technology theft, but – so far – the smokiest gun to come out of all this material appears to be held by Hillary Clinton.

The US Secretary of State’s intelligence-gathering diktat to our embassies worldwide, uncovered by WikiLeaks, has shocked the international community with its weird insistence on collecting biometric data – including DNA samples, iris scans and fingerprints – on foreign officials. In a missive sent to US embassies worldwide, Hillary ordered staff to obtain credit card information, computer passwords, personal encryption keys, and details of network upgrades. A part of this was a massive spying operation aimed at UN diplomats, including those of our Western allies, but there was also an order to gather similar dossiers on British MPs.

One has to ask – what is Washington intending to do with the biometrics of, say, UN Secretary General Ban ki Moon? Or some British MP? Why do we need the frequent flier number of Ghana’s UN ambassador?

That Hillary would risk embarrassment to the US of this magnitude – after all, the chances of being caught (as we were) are pretty high – in order to collect this degree of information, is little short of appalling. Yet it is hardly surprising – after all, we’re talking about Hillary Clinton here, the control freak par excellence.

The dossiers were to be collected by US embassy personnel and passed on to the CIA, the FBI, and other intelligence agencies, presumably to be entered into Siprnet, the “secret” US government database to which even newly-recruited low-level intelligence officers such as Bradley Manning – generally believed to be the source of the original leak – have ready access. So when Ban ki Moon’s credit card number and password is lifted by some low-level functionary, and used to pay for a wild weekend in Reno, we’ll know who to blame.

The Italian foreign minister called this “the 9/11 of diplomacy,” and it is indeed a massive strike at the credibility and gravitas of the US government, which is, today, an international laughingstock. Yet it has nothing of 9/11′s deadliness: contrary to the crybaby protests of US government officials, which absurdly claims that “countless” lives have been put in danger by WikiLeaks, the release of this information poses a threat to nothing but the dignity of US officials, who say one thing in public and quite another in private, and whose foibles are now exposed for all the world to see. As in the case of the Iraq war logs and the Afghan communiqués, not a single human being will perish on account of the latest leak.

Leave it to Andrew Sullivan, whose obsequiousness toward the Obama administration surpasses even his adulation of the Bush administration during his “war-blogger” phase, to put a positive spin on how the State Department comes out in all this:

“Overall, I have to say that this brief glimpse into how the government actually works is actually reassuring. The cable extracts are often sharp, smart, candid and penetrating. Who knew the US government had so many talented diplomats?”

Candid the cables certainly are: French President Sarkozy is described as having a “thin-skinned and authoritarian personal style”; Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi is portrayed as a late-night partier who is “feckless, vain and ineffective as a modern European leader”; and former British Prime Minister Gordon Brown is described as “weak” and “unstable.” A particularly facile comment to the effect that Russian President Dmitry Medvedev is “Robin” to Vladimir Putin’s “Batman” underscores Sullivan’s conflation of blog-writing with serious analysis. “Smart” and “smarty-pants” – they aren’t the same thing. Remarks about the First Lady of Azerbaijan’s plastic surgery – apparently her face has achieved near-total immobility – may delight the catty Sullivan, but are as unhelpful as they are juvenile. No wonder they hate us!

We’ll be chewing on this cud for quite a while – there’s a lot of material in this WikiLeaks document dump – but of one thing we can be sure: the US government’s shameless attack on WikiLeaks, and Julian Assange, its founder, will continue and even escalate. Under pressure from the US, the Swedes have reversed their earlier reversal of an indictment for “rape and sexual molestation,” and have issued an international arrest warrant for Assange. They have also denied his previous application to live in Sweden. The whole thing is an obvious set- up, with two women – one with a very dicey political history, and a obsession with “revenge” – taking advantage of Sweden’s crazed “feminist” laws which only require an accusation and little proof to necessitate an indictment. His main accuser, a member of the “Brotherhood Movement,” which has been described as “a fringe group around Sweden’s social democrats with decidedly ‘cultish’ leanings,” is also the author of an article entitled “Seven Steps to Legal Revenge.”

That the US government would even try to discredit someone in this pathetically transparent manner, and brazenly manipulate the Swedish “legal” system to serve its own misguided ends, isn’t just morally reprehensible – it’s evidence of an astonishing incompetence. Who do they think they’re fooling?

Over the coming weeks, as more of the tragedy and absurdity of American foreign policy is exposed in the WikiLeaks document dump, we should take a moment to give thanks to the man who made it all possible, and who sits in a jail cell, alone and bearing the tremendous burden of knowing he’ll not be free for quite some time. Bradley Manning is an American hero, whose hatred of government corruption and duplicity led him to give us this great gift, which is the real story of how and why American foreign policy is such a complete disaster on every level.

Indolent allies pressuring us for war on every side (the Israelis, of course, and the Arabs, too, apparently agitate for war with Iran 24/7), corrupt “leaders” on the take, and the limitless arrogance of US officials, who barge around the world collecting “intelligence” and promises of fealty while trash-talking foreign leaders behind their backs – the portrait of American foreign policy in the making revealed to us by Private Manning isn’t a pretty picture. Nor is it reassuring. What it demonstrates, most of all, is the complete inability of the US to keep a lid on its rapidly-declining overseas empire, which is continually threatening to come apart at the seams – and the vast incompetence of a national security bureaucracy that is riding a tiger and barely holding on for dear life.

Source: Antiwar.com
Credits: Jason Ditz
Dated: 2010-11-29

WikiLeaks Cablegate: An Overview

Hundreds of Leaks the Tip of the Iceberg, WikiLeaks Insists

The first indications of today’s WikiLeaks release came early in the morning Sunday, when certain newstands in rural Germany released early copies of Monday’s Der Spiegel centering around the leaks. In short order The Guardian and the New York Times jumped in with their own releases, followed a bit later (owing to problems with their site coming under attack) by WikiLeaks themselves.

The releases spilled a number of major stories, but they are also only the tip of the iceberg, incredibly, as the leaks on cover 220 specific cables out of 251,287 that WikiLeaks says it will release in the weeks and months to come.

Primary Sources for WikiLeaks coverage:

• The Guardian
• Guardian: Browse the Database
• Der Spiegel
• New York Times
• WikiLeaks Cablegate Page

Original News.Antiwar.com coverage

• Hillary Clinton Ordered Diplomats to Steal UN Officials’ Credit Card Numbers
• US ‘Warned’ Germany Over Bungled El-Masri Kidnapping
• Saudi King Pressing for US War Against Iran
• Slovenia Agreed to Accept Gitmo Detainees in ‘Trade’ for Obama Meeting
• The Truth Hurts: US Says New WikiLeaks Release ‘Most Damaging’ Yet
• State Dept: FDP Makes Germany a ‘Difficult Partner’ in Terror War
• US Warned Turkey Not to Publicly Question Allegations on Iran
• Yemeni President Pledged to Help US Cover Up Attacks
• Senators: Prosecute WikiLeakers
• Israeli DM Gave US Until End of 2010 to ‘Resolve’ Iran Nuclear Program
• Buying Influence: US Cash Key to Keeping Kyrgyzstan Base

Primary Source: Antiwar.com
Secondary Sources: In-line
Dated: 2010-11-29 (Will be updated to track sources)

[ Emilie says : Given the disparity in offensive capability, we are (like most sensible people) far less terrified by wikileaks than we are by the USA, its government and in particular its members of Congress (Not forgetting that a "member" is another term for "Dick") . Given that the US Senate is calling for Wikileaks to be classified as a "Foreign Terrorist Organization", doesn't that mean that we should classify the US Senate as a "Domestic Terrorist Organization" first? ]

WikiLeaks Cablegate: An Overview

US Embassy Cables: Browse the Interactive Database

How 250,000 US Embassy Cables Were Leaked

US Embassy Cables Leak Sparks Global Diplomacy Crisis

US Tries to Contain Damage From WikiLeaks

Will WikiLeaks Unravel the American 'Secret Government'?

Cables Obtained by WikiLeaks Shine Light Into Secret Diplomatic Channels

White House Condemns WikiLeaks Dump as First Nuggets Surface

Text of White House Statement on WikiLeaks Release

Mullen: WikiLeaks Sets a 'Dangerous Precedent'

US Rejected Talks With WikiLeaks

Text of State Department Letter to WikiLeaks

Mixing Diplomacy With Spying

Reps: Classify WikiLeaks as 'Foreign Terrorist Organization'

Guardian Defends Publishing WikiLeaks Memos

WikiLeaks Says Its Site Is Under Attack

Pentagon Tightens Info Controls

Siprnet: Where America Stores Its Secret Cables

Source: The Guardian
Credits: Simon Jenkins
Dated: 2010-11-29

US embassy cables: The job of the media is not to protect the powerful from embarrassment

It is for governments – not journalists – to guard public secrets, and there is no national jeopardy in WikiLeaks' revelations

Is it justified? Should a newspaper disclose virtually all a nation's secret diplomatic communication, illegally downloaded by one of its citizens? The reporting in the Guardian of the first of a selection of 250,000 US state department cables marks a recasting of modern diplomacy. Clearly, there is no longer such a thing as a safe electronic archive, whatever computing's snake-oil salesmen claim. No organisation can treat digitised communication as confidential. An electronic secret is a contradiction in terms.

Anything said or done in the name of a democracy is, prima facie, of public interest. When that democracy purports to be "world policeman" – an assumption that runs ghostlike through these cables – that interest is global. Nonetheless, the Guardian had to consider two things in abetting disclosure, irrespective of what is anyway published by WikiLeaks. It could not be party to putting the lives of individuals or sources at risk, nor reveal material that might compromise ongoing military operations or the location of special forces.

In this light, two backup checks were applied. The US government was told in advance the areas or themes covered, and "representations" were invited in return. These were considered. Details of "redactions" were then shared with the other four media recipients of the material and sent to WikiLeaks itself, to establish, albeit voluntarily, some common standard.

The state department knew of the leak several months ago and had ample time to alert staff in sensitive locations. Its pre-emptive scaremongering over the weekend stupidly contrived to hint at material not in fact being published. Nor is the material classified top secret, being at a level that more than 3 million US government employees are cleared to see, and available on the defence department's internal Siprnet. Such dissemination of "secrets" might be thought reckless, suggesting a diplomatic outreach that makes the British empire seem minuscule.

The revelations do not have the startling, coldblooded immediacy of the WikiLeaks war logs from Iraq and Afghanistan, with their astonishing insight into the minds of fighting men seemingly detached from the ethics of war. The's disclosures are largely of analysis and high-grade gossip. Insofar as they are sensational, it is in showing the corruption and mendacity of those in power, and the mismatch between what they claim and what they do.

Few will be surprised to know that Vladimir Putin runs the world's most sensational kleptocracy, that the Saudis wanted the Americans to bomb Iran, or that Pakistan's ISI is hopelessly involved with Taliban groups of fiendish complexity. We now know that Washington knows too. The full extent of American dealings with Yemen might upset that country's government, but is hardly surprising. If it is true that the Pentagon targeted refugee camps for bombing, it should be of general concern. American congressmen might also be interested in the sums of money given to certain foreign generals supposedly to pay for military equipment.

The job of the media is not to protect power from embarrassment. If American spies are breaking United Nations rules by seeking the DNA biometrics of the UN director general, he is entitled to hear of it. British voters should know what Afghan leaders thought of British troops. American (and British) taxpayers might question, too, how most of the billions of dollars going in aid to Afghanistan simply exits the country at Kabul airport.

No harm is done by high-class chatter about President Nicolas Sarkozy's vulgarity and lack of house-training, or about the British royal family. What the American embassy in London thinks about the coalition suggests not an alliance at risk but an embassy with a talent problem.

Some stars shine through the banality such as the heroic envoy in Islamabad, Anne Patterson. She pleads that Washington's whole policy is counterproductive: it "risks destabilising the Pakistani state, alienating both the civilian government and the military leadership, and provoking a broader governance crisis without finally achieving the goal". Nor is any amount of money going to bribe the Taliban to our side. Patterson's cables are like missives from the Titanic as it already heads for the bottom.

The money‑wasting is staggering. Aid payments are never followed, never audited, never evaluated. The impression is of the world's superpower roaming helpless in a world in which nobody behaves as bidden. Iran, Russia, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Yemen, the United Nations, are all perpetually off script. Washington reacts like a wounded bear, its instincts imperial but its power projection unproductive.

America's foreign policy is revealed as a slave to rightwing drift, terrified of a bomb exploding abroad or of a pro-Israeli congressman at home. If the cables tell of the progress to war over Iran or Pakistan or Gaza or Yemen, their revelation might help debate the inanity of policies which, as Patterson says, seem to be leading in just that direction. Perhaps we can now see how catastrophe unfolds when there is time to avert it, rather than having to await a Chilcot report after the event. If that is not in the public's interest, I fail to see what is.

Clearly, it is for governments, not journalists, to protect public secrets. Were there some overriding national jeopardy in revealing them, greater restraint might be in order. There is no such overriding jeopardy, except from the policies themselves as revealed. Where it is doing the right thing, a great power should be robust against embarrassment.

What this saga must do is alter the basis of diplomatic reporting. If WikiLeaks can gain access to secret material, by whatever means, so presumably can a foreign power. Words on paper can be made secure, electronic archives not. The leaks have blown a hole in the framework by which states guard their secrets. The Guardian material must be a breach of the official secrets acts. But coupled with the penetration already allowed under freedom of information, the walls round policy formation and documentation are all but gone. All barriers are permeable. In future the only secrets will be spoken ones. Whether that is a good thing should be a topic for public debate.