WikiLeaks
Well, hell, if nobody's going to open up the floor to discuss WikiLeaks, lots of links let's start here, let me get the ball rolling with a few questions:
a) what's the most surprising/troubling revelation so far?
b) what's the most damaging to US interests?
c) Is Assange a modern day hero or vile supporter of terrorism?
d) Was the NYT right to publish the documents?
e) Does Palin's lashing out on her Facebook page, suggest Tea Partiers are working with an odd notion of "freedom" and "limited government"?
f) Who's responsible for Sunday's DoS attack on WikiLeaks?
I'm not really prepared to do a full blown analysis, just eager to hear what some of your keen minds had to say, so let me just say the following:
a) I guess I won't say it's surprising but it really pissed me off that "U.S. officials warned Germany not to arrest CIA officials involved in the bungled rendition of an innocent German citizen who shared the same name as a wanted terror suspect". Apparently these idiots kidnapped and held someone for months just because he had the wrong name. The US really can't expected not to be hated in the world if it won't allow for any sort of justice in grave travesties like this. Also, the Yemen president can't be happy.
b) I think that the most damaging thing here will be the complete erosion this will have on US diplomacy going forward.
c) I think Assange is neither. He's no Daniel Ellsberg, he's motivated mostly, I believe, by a desire to embarass the US, not high principles of valor. On the other hand, the US attempts to portray him as the equivalent of a terrorist are ridiculous. They're afraid of the embarrassment, for obvious reasons, but disingenuously spin it as a concern for safety of informants. If that were their real concern, they could have worked a lot harder to negotiate for redaction. Furthermore, it's unclear that leaks to date have resulted in any deaths or casualties calling into question attempts to portray this as a human safety concern. See, for example, this article on that.
d) Yes, I think so. The documents were being made available anyway, arguably their network can do a better job of helping people understand and contextualize.
e) Palin says "Why was he not pursued with the same urgency we pursue al Qaeda and Taliban leaders?" Seems a bit ridiculous to compare this guy to people who murder people in cold blood. "What if any diplomatic pressure was brought to bear on NATO, EU, and other allies to disrupt Wikileaks’ technical infrastructure?" Read that and the rest of the paragraph, to me it seems at odds with the purported value that she and Tea Partiers place on freedom, free speech and limited government. I'd be interested to hear arguments to the contrary.
f) D'uh
ETA: It's starting to look more and more like a very major story coming out of this is China's willingness to see Korea reunified. This has gone from diplomat speak to something that may be approaching official statement/policy very quickly: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/nov/30/china-wants-korean-reunification. to the extent that the leaks spurs movement on this, doesn't it become harder and harder to argue that it was such a terrible thing?
a) what's the most surprising/troubling revelation so far?
b) what's the most damaging to US interests?
c) Is Assange a modern day hero or vile supporter of terrorism?
d) Was the NYT right to publish the documents?
e) Does Palin's lashing out on her Facebook page, suggest Tea Partiers are working with an odd notion of "freedom" and "limited government"?
f) Who's responsible for Sunday's DoS attack on WikiLeaks?
I'm not really prepared to do a full blown analysis, just eager to hear what some of your keen minds had to say, so let me just say the following:
a) I guess I won't say it's surprising but it really pissed me off that "U.S. officials warned Germany not to arrest CIA officials involved in the bungled rendition of an innocent German citizen who shared the same name as a wanted terror suspect". Apparently these idiots kidnapped and held someone for months just because he had the wrong name. The US really can't expected not to be hated in the world if it won't allow for any sort of justice in grave travesties like this. Also, the Yemen president can't be happy.
b) I think that the most damaging thing here will be the complete erosion this will have on US diplomacy going forward.
c) I think Assange is neither. He's no Daniel Ellsberg, he's motivated mostly, I believe, by a desire to embarass the US, not high principles of valor. On the other hand, the US attempts to portray him as the equivalent of a terrorist are ridiculous. They're afraid of the embarrassment, for obvious reasons, but disingenuously spin it as a concern for safety of informants. If that were their real concern, they could have worked a lot harder to negotiate for redaction. Furthermore, it's unclear that leaks to date have resulted in any deaths or casualties calling into question attempts to portray this as a human safety concern. See, for example, this article on that.
d) Yes, I think so. The documents were being made available anyway, arguably their network can do a better job of helping people understand and contextualize.
e) Palin says "Why was he not pursued with the same urgency we pursue al Qaeda and Taliban leaders?" Seems a bit ridiculous to compare this guy to people who murder people in cold blood. "What if any diplomatic pressure was brought to bear on NATO, EU, and other allies to disrupt Wikileaks’ technical infrastructure?" Read that and the rest of the paragraph, to me it seems at odds with the purported value that she and Tea Partiers place on freedom, free speech and limited government. I'd be interested to hear arguments to the contrary.
f) D'uh
ETA: It's starting to look more and more like a very major story coming out of this is China's willingness to see Korea reunified. This has gone from diplomat speak to something that may be approaching official statement/policy very quickly: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/nov/30/china-wants-korean-reunification. to the extent that the leaks spurs movement on this, doesn't it become harder and harder to argue that it was such a terrible thing?