Wikileaks: Why Does This Happen & Why is it OK?
Wikileaks is seen on Monday, Nov. 29, 2010.
Document leak an 'attack on America,' Clinton says
U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton says the release of 250,000 secret documents to the Internet represents an attack on America and its allies.
Speaking in Washington, Clinton said the U.S. "strongly condemns the illegal disclosure of classified information," saying the act puts lives in danger, threatens national security and undermines diplomacy.
"Let's be clear, this disclosure is not just an attack on America's foreign policy interest, it is an attack on the international community, the alliances and partnerships, the conversations and negotiations that safeguard global security and advance economic prosperity," Clinton said.
The White House has been scrambling to contain the potential diplomatic disaster spurred by the release of the classified U.S. State Department documents, ordering U.S. agencies to review their safeguards on classified information.
On Monday, U.S. President Barack Obama's administration ordered a government-wide review of how agencies secure sensitive information. Announcing the assessment, the director of the White House's Office of Management and Budget, Jacob Lew, said that the disclosures are unacceptable and will not be tolerated.
Clinton said the documents don't expose wrongdoing, and serve no public purpose.
"There have been examples in history in which official conduct has been made public in the name of exposing wrongdoing or misdeeds," Clinton said.
"This is not one of those cases. In contrast what is being put on display in this cache of documents is that American diplomats are doing the work we expect them to do."
WikiLeaks posted the documents on its website on Sunday, just hours after it claimed a cyber attack had rendered the site inaccessible for much of the day.
The documents were nevertheless published on schedule, as they had been given in advance to The New York Times, Le Monde, the Guardian, Der Spiegel and others.
While they do not appear to reveal security secrets, they undoubtedly expose the rough underbelly of otherwise genteel diplomacy.
Highlights from the leaked documents include:
evidence that Gulf monarchies -- including Saudi Arabia -- lobbied for the U.S. to destroy Iran's nuclear facilities calls for U.S diplomats at the United Nations to collect detailed data about the UN secretary general, his team and foreign diplomats
details that the U.S. and South Korea were "gaming out an eventual collapse of North Korea"
accounts of unsuccessful U.S. efforts to have Pakistani officials remove highly enriched uranium from a reactor out of fear that the material might wind up in an illicit bomb
revelations of the hardline tactics used to compel countries to accept freed Guantanamo Bay detainees
The documents also reveal unusually candid impressions of both allies and foes, including a suggestion Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi "appears increasingly to be the mouthpiece of [[Russian Prime Minister Vladimir) Putin" in Europe. According to the Guardian, Berlusconi was described in two separate cables as "feckless, vain, and ineffective as a modern European leader" whose "frequent late nights and penchant for partying hard mean he does not get sufficient rest."
German Chancellor Angela Merkel is described as risk-averse, while Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi is described as erratic and in the near constant company of a Ukrainian nurse who was described in one cable as "a voluptuous blonde."
Canada is mentioned too, in as many as 2,648 documents covering a range of topics from arms control to provincial affairs. The majority are not expected to be made public, however, until sometime this week at the earliest.
Italy's Foreign Minister Franco Frattini on Sunday called the release the "Sept. 11 of world diplomacy," in that everything that had once been accepted as normal has now changed.
In France, Foreign Ministry spokesperson Bernard Valero said "we strongly deplore the deliberate and irresponsible release of American diplomatic correspondence by the site WikiLeaks."
And in London, a spokesperson for British Prime Minister David Cameron said "it's important that governments are able to operate on the basis of confidentiality of information."
Pakistan's Foreign Ministry said it was an "irresponsible disclosure of sensitive official documents," while Iraq's foreign minister, Hoshyar Zebari, called the document release "unhelpful and untimely."
In Ottawa, Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon said the "deplorable" leak did not serve anyone's interests and "may threaten our national security."
"If our government is found out to not be telling the truth, that could have a major impact. I have no doubt the other political parties will take this to the bank."
'Not an expression of policy'
But in its statement released Sunday, the White House downplayed the importance of whatever secret opinions the leaked cables may reveal.
"By its very nature, field reporting to Washington is candid and often incomplete information. It is not an expression of policy, nor does it always shape final policy decisions," the White House said.
"Nevertheless, these cables could compromise private discussions with foreign governments and opposition leaders, and when the substance of private conversations is printed on the front pages of newspapers across the world, it can deeply impact not only U.S. foreign policy interests, but those of our allies and friends around the world."
WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange stood behind the release, charging that the White House was attempting to hide alleged proof of "human rights abuse and other criminal behavior" by Washington.
In Australia, Assange's home country, Attorney General Robert McClelland has said law enforcement officials are investigating whether WikiLeaks broke any laws.
U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton is also expected to address the diplomatic repercussions later Monday, just as she is set to embark on a four-nation tour of Central Asia and the Middle East.
Clinton's first stop in Astana, Kazakhstan, will feature a summit of officials from the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, a diplomatic grouping that includes many officials from countries cited in the leaked cables.
Ron Paul puts it nicely again!
As usual, the extreme left and right want this man put in jail or even killed when the attention should be on our FAILED US foreign policy.
Ron Paul hits the nail on the head...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eM1Hl...layer_embedded
Quote:
TRANSCRIPT
We may never know the whole story behind the recent publication of sensitive U.S. government documents by the Wikileaks organization, but we certainly can draw some important conclusions from the reaction of so many in government and media.
At its core, the Wikileaks controversy serves as a diversion from the real issue of what our foreign policy should be. But the mainstream media, along with neoconservatives from both political parties, insist on asking the wrong question. When presented with embarrassing disclosures about U.S. spying and meddling, the policy that requires so much spying and meddling is not questioned. Instead, the media focus on how so much sensitive information could have been leaked, or how authorities might prosecute the publishers of such information.
No one questions the status quo or suggests a wholesale rethinking of our foreign policy. No one suggests that the White House or the State Department should be embarrassed that the U.S. engages in spying and meddling. The only embarrassment is that it was made public. This allows ordinary people to actually know and talk about what the government does. But state secrecy is anathema to a free society. Why exactly should Americans be prevented from knowing what their government is doing in their name?
In a free society, we are supposed to know the truth. In a society where truth becomes treason, however, we are in big trouble. The truth is that our foreign spying, meddling, and outright military intervention in the post-World War II era has made us less secure, not more. And we have lost countless lives and spent trillions of dollars for our trouble. Too often “official” government lies have provided justification for endless, illegal wars and hundreds of thousands of resulting deaths and casualties.
Take the recent hostilities in Korea as only one example. More than fifty years after the end of the Korean War, American taxpayers continue to spend billions for the U.S. military to defend a modern and wealthy South Korea. The continued presence of the U.S. military places American lives between the two factions. The U.S. presence only serves to prolong the conflict, further drain our empty treasury, and place our military at risk.
The neoconservative ethos, steeped in the teaching of Leo Strauss, cannot abide an America where individuals simply pursue their own happy, peaceful, prosperous lives. It cannot abide an America where society centers around family, religion, or civic and social institutions rather than an all powerful central state. There is always an enemy to slay, whether communist or terrorist. In the neoconservative vision, a constant state of alarm must be fostered among the people to keep them focused on something greater than themselves — namely their great protector, the state. This is why the neoconservative reaction to the Wikileaks revelations is so predictable: “See, we told you the world was a dangerous place,” goes the story. They claim we must prosecute — or even assassinate — those responsible for publishing the leaks. And we must redouble our efforts to police the world by spying and meddling better, with no more leaks.
We should view the Wikileaks controversy in the larger context of American foreign policy. Rather than worry about the disclosure of embarrassing secrets, we should focus on our delusional foreign policy. We are kidding ourselves when we believe spying, intrigue, and outright military intervention can maintain our international status as a superpower while our domestic economy crumbles in an orgy of debt and monetary debasement.