201–210 of 266 posts
I see here: http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Executive_Order_13526#Part_1 that there's some structure to these documents, but what transport are they being sent by?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not suggesting they assassinate him. He's broken numerous laws and they have a pretty compelling case against him. I can't imagine that the public relations fallout from his arrest would be any worse than the public relations disaster they have with the release of these cables.
"He's broken numerous laws and they have a pretty compelling case against him." Are we still talking about the CIA? Has it become a law-enforcement agency and I didn't notice? If your point is regarding the possibility of the US government going after Assange by legal means (not via some extralegal, shadowy CIA antics), I'm certain they would if they could. The fact that they haven't leads me to believe their case ag…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I was struck by a pretty similar sentiment (and was somewhat surprised by it). Maybe more negative pieces will subsequently come out, but I was surprised to find myself thinking that some of the leaks may actually be helpful in producing a unified, multi-state agreement on how to approach the situation in Iran. I couldn't believe that it was actually other countries asking the US to bomb Iran.
And the fact that some of our most secret communications support that we are not out to destroy Ahmadinejad could be the most powerful weapon we have to actually undermine him. I expect in the future, there will be calculated "secret leaks" to Wikileaks - who knows - these may be just that.
http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/atlarge/2010/05/10/100...
...in Peter Ustinov’s 1956 play, “Romanoff and Juliet.”... a crafty general is the head of a tiny European country being squabbled over by the United States and the Soviet Union, and is determined to play one off against the other. He tells the U.S. Ambassador that the Soviets have broken the Americans’ secret code. “We know they know our code,” the Ambassador, Moulsworth, replies, beaming. “We only give them things we want them to know.” The general pauses, during which, the play’s stage directions say, “he tries to make head or tail of this intelligence.” Then he crosses the street to the Russian Embassy, where he tells the Soviet Ambassador, Romanoff, “They know you know their code.” Romanoff is unfazed: “We have known for some time that they knew we knew their code. We have acted accordingly—by pretending to be duped.” The general returns to the American Embassy and confronts Moulsworth: “They know you know they know you know.” Moulsworth (genuinely alarmed): “What? Are you sure?”
...
At one point, the British discovered that a French officer in Algiers was spying for the Germans. They “turned” him, keeping him in place but feeding him a steady diet of false and misleading information. Then, before D Day—when the Allies were desperate to convince Germany that they would be invading the Calais sector in July—they used the French officer to tell the Germans that the real invasion would be in Normandy on June 5th, 6th, or 7th. The British theory was that using someone the Germans strongly suspected was a double agent to tell the truth was preferable to using someone the Germans didn’t realize was a double agent to tell a lie. Or perhaps there wasn’t any theory at all. Perhaps the spy game has such an inherent opacity that it doesn’t really matter what you tell your enemy so long as your enemy is aware that you are trying to tell him something.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm a WikiLeaks skeptic so I can't say I really support this. But I am also a diplomacy skeptic. I'm very suspicious of the effectiveness of our foreign policy and the honesty of our leaders in engaging in it. I'd even go so far as to say that the diplomatic aspect of our foreign policy is equally or more damaging and deserving of criticism than the military aspect. So I'll be interested to see what the more frank, n…
Can you explain further what you mean by "diplomacy skeptic"?
It's hard to imagine how exactly this ethos could reasonably manifest.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
According to The Guardian: "There have been suggestions that an alarm system to detect suspicious use of the network was suspended for US military personnel in Iraq after they complained it was inconvenient." http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/nov/28/siprnet-america-...
It would be rather inconvenient if one full-text search on the name of this old possible insurgent you captured suddenly disabled your computer and led to your arrest by MPs, I agree.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> When you comment that these cables are mundane in nature, you are assuming that you yourself are indicative of the audience as a whole. I don't think they're mundane -- some are quite amusing, such as the Afghan vice president trousering $52 million. > If you do not believe that millions upon millions of people will read this, you are mistaken. I'm sure millions will read them. > And many, if not the vast majority,…
I'm curious- how does one actually carry $52mm on your person? In $100 bills I calculated that as roughly 170 feet deep of bills (at .1mm per $100).
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.…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"how completely disconnected Westerners are from the way the world actually works" Would you like to explain that, or are you just going to throw a nebulous assertion out there and expect it to mean something?
Sure (btw, reworded it a bit, hope it's less inflammatory). A good example is the Iraq war: the pro-war side just assumed that, given the option, Iraqis will be happy to adopt the Western liberal democracy model. On the other hand, 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. Anothe…
It's a shame that airing extreme views produces more ad dollars than airing centrist views, because apparently, it also tars how entire populations are percieved. My impression is that your questions are shared by many (most?) in the west.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> When you comment that these cables are mundane in nature, you are assuming that you yourself are indicative of the audience as a whole. I don't think they're mundane -- some are quite amusing, such as the Afghan vice president trousering $52 million. > If you do not believe that millions upon millions of people will read this, you are mistaken. I'm sure millions will read them. > And many, if not the vast majority,…
I'm curious- how does one actually carry $52mm on your person? In $100 bills I calculated that as roughly 170 feet deep of bills (at .1mm per $100).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Pure capitalism is a rent-seeking company-town dystopian nightmare. It encourages exclusive ownership of strategic resources, even when they're openly used to destroy the competitive free market by preventing rivals from existing. Similarly, lack of access to capital is a self-perpetuating social stratification problem which has led to violent revolution. IMHO these are reasons to regulate it carefully, not to elimin…
> IMHO these are reasons to regulate it carefully, not to eliminate it. You don't get to assume regulation that does "the right thing". Instead, you have to accept regulation as it works in practice. When buying and selling are regulated, regulators are bought and sold.
Surely, in that case, the market will make certain these valuable resources (regulators) are distributed in such a way as to maximize value, yes?