Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

WikiLeaks Archive — Cables Uncloak U.S. Diplomacy

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 266 posts

Re: WikiLeaks Archive — Cables Uncloak U.S. Diplomacy

#211

Post by guelo »

colinplamondon wrote: post #156
dkl wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> On the other side, the anti-war side uses the "illegal war" argument, as if it has any meaning - the world isn't a modern nation with the UN as supreme court, determining the legality of various wars. The left used this argument because it was the handiest they had. I think your criticism of it is absurd. It's like you're saying the left was right for the wrong reason, as if there is one reason all on the left oppo…

They tried to assassinate an American President, for one. They also gassed their own people and had a history of developing WMDs- that economic sanctions had slowed that development didn't materially change the intent.

After 9/11?

ah, these arguments are giving me fond memories of wanting to pull my hair out back in 2003.

Re: WikiLeaks Archive — Cables Uncloak U.S. Diplomacy

#212

Post by vacri »

hugh3 wrote: post #166
colinplamondon wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They tried to assassinate an American President, for one. They also gassed their own people and had a history of developing WMDs- that economic sanctions had slowed that development didn't materially change the intent.

And don't forget that Saddam wasn't abiding by the conditions of the 1991 ceasefire, which ought to be an immediate justification for resuming fire, since that's how ceasefire agreements work. Lack of legalistic justification was never lacking for the Iraq war. Whether it was morally the right thing to do, or whether it was a worthwhile thing to do from a US-interests standpoint, are genuine questions. (Which I don't…

And don't forget that the US' allies were all saying "Just wait a few months until the weapons inspections agenda is complete, then we'll all go in as planned and sanctioned by the UN". No, the US had to accelerate the timetable, replacing "worthless weapons inspections" with Powell's equally worthless poster project showing "structures".

Re: WikiLeaks Archive — Cables Uncloak U.S. Diplomacy

#213

Post by aneth »

glenstein wrote: post #207
aneth wrote: post #173

The most interesting thing about reading these cables is how the US comes out well - reasonable, rational, and analytical - not the nefarious evil satan that it is portrayed by our enemies and domestic extremists. This snapshot of the inner workings of American diplomacy actually make me feel much better about how things are being managed, and should undermine efforts to portray some nasty plot to dominate the world.…

I don't think telling German officials to "consider the implications" of enforcing an arrest warrant against C.I.A. officers implicated in the kidnapping of a German citizen makes the U.S. look good.

It was an honest mistake and arresting CIA officers for making a mistake in their job, one which they corrected and admitted to, would hardly be without implications.

Re: WikiLeaks Archive — Cables Uncloak U.S. Diplomacy

#214

Post by nitrogen »

ronnier wrote: post #34
steveklabnik wrote: post #3

With Google referrer, to get around the wall: http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=8&s... And one with single page: http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&v...

All pages, one click: http://viewtext.org/article?url=http://www.nytimes.com/2010/...

Is it possible to detect the author credits at the end of each individual page and move them all to the end of the aggregate page?

Re: WikiLeaks Archive — Cables Uncloak U.S. Diplomacy

#215

Post by ENOTTY »

grandalf wrote: post #155
rottencupcakes wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As it should. Terrorists are an affront to freedom. Drugs are not.

Terrorism cannot be stopped (by definition). The affront to freedom is the response to terrorism.

That's just semantics. You can stop terrorists by killing them.

Re: WikiLeaks Archive — Cables Uncloak U.S. Diplomacy

#216

Post by prodigal_erik »

ENOTTY wrote: post #215
grandalf wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Terrorism cannot be stopped (by definition). The affront to freedom is the response to terrorism.

That's just semantics. You can stop terrorists by killing them.

Only if the rate of killing actual terrorists is greater than the rate of motivating people to become terrorists, usually by killing their innocent loved ones.

Re: WikiLeaks Archive — Cables Uncloak U.S. Diplomacy

#217

Post by Aloisius »

gamble wrote: post #149
potatolicious wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He is clearly the leader though. While assassinating him will do nothing about the information WikiLeaks already possesses, it may well throw the organization into disarray and thus irrelevance. Assange is only a viable target if there is no other leader waiting at the wings if he dies. Our impression of WikiLeaks' organization structure is that no such "Assange" exists yet.

Or it might cause a political shit-storm and undermine American credibility, while giving a moral imprimatur to future leaks. Wikileaks is more powerful as an idea than an organization. They've legitimized the idea of web-based distribution of leaks, much like Napster legitimized file-sharing services. That genie isn't going back into the bottle. Shutting down Napster only gave rise to a host of unaccountable, decent…

Yes, because I'm sure professionals would find it so very difficult to make it look like an accident, self-inflicted or frame someone

Re: WikiLeaks Archive — Cables Uncloak U.S. Diplomacy

#218

Post by glenstein »

aneth wrote: post #213
glenstein wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think telling German officials to "consider the implications" of enforcing an arrest warrant against C.I.A. officers implicated in the kidnapping of a German citizen makes the U.S. look good.

It was an honest mistake and arresting CIA officers for making a mistake in their job, one which they corrected and admitted to, would hardly be without implications.

Being kidnapped, flown to a prison for five months and possibly tortured, possibly sodomized is more than a "mistake."

And merely admitting to having committed a human rights violation is not a substitute for following due process of law. Threatening a country with "implications" for wanting to bring the people to justice who wrongfully detained one of their citizens does not make the United States look good.

Plus there are other examples, like Hilary Clinton ordering diplomats to collect private information on the U.N. Secretary General, which was likely a violation of international law. This does not make the U.S. look good.

Re: WikiLeaks Archive — Cables Uncloak U.S. Diplomacy

#219

Post by Aloisius »

I'm a little confused as to why people think dumping cables from American embassies would show the US in a negative light or contain some sort of revelation that the US is engaged in anything illegal.

These are cables from the American point of view of the rest of the world. If anything, it is going to show foreign leaders/countries far more negatively than the Americans.

Re: WikiLeaks Archive — Cables Uncloak U.S. Diplomacy

#220

Post by helium »

glenstein wrote: post #207
aneth wrote: post #173

The most interesting thing about reading these cables is how the US comes out well - reasonable, rational, and analytical - not the nefarious evil satan that it is portrayed by our enemies and domestic extremists. This snapshot of the inner workings of American diplomacy actually make me feel much better about how things are being managed, and should undermine efforts to portray some nasty plot to dominate the world.…

I don't think telling German officials to "consider the implications" of enforcing an arrest warrant against C.I.A. officers implicated in the kidnapping of a German citizen makes the U.S. look good.

That is true, but I think he meant he was expecting it to be worse. I think most of us were actually.
Post reply on HN