WikiLeaks Under Denial of Service Attack 870
wiredmikey writes "WikiLeaks has reported that its Web site is currently under a mass distributed denial of service attack. The attack comes around the time of an expected release of classified State Department documents, which the Obama administration says will put 'countless' lives at risk, threaten global counterterrorism operations and jeopardize US relations with its allies."
attacked by whom? (Score:3, Informative)
So who OTHER than the US government could be responsible for the attack?
Re:attacked by whom? (Score:5, Funny)
The aliens that don't want the notes of the US ambassador to the intergalactic union to be published.
Re:attacked by whom? (Score:4, Insightful)
It's always a possibility that they're doing it themselves/hired people to do it in order to drum up business. I mean, Assange loves playing the victim card all the time - it's not much of a stretch to imagine WikiLeaks DDOSing themselves just for the publicity.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Simply labeling something as "Anti American" won't get you any credit or support on the slashdot community.
I strongly suggest you find better arguments for your position.
Re:These documents should not be released. (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure, it erodes the level of trust in politics and goverment, but they deserve no less, they should've never been allowed to be the closed club of friends they are while enjoying even the rather shabby trust of the people they recive today.
This reveals how bad it have become, should we hide it all and let it get even worse? In my opinion it's better to expose the flaws before the bridge collapse, even if doing so would result in said bridge being demolished.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You don't even understand what you're talking about, do you? Do you even understand the relationship between embassy staff and the executives for which they work, back in their home countries? Do you understand their need to be able to communicate frankly, in private, while important negotiations are taking place? Do you have any idea the appropriate difference in tone in behind the scenese communications about other countries, and the public communication with those co
Re:These documents should not be released. (Score:5, Informative)
The basic reaction in the german Spiegel forum about the U.S.'s opinion of german politicans was: "Nothing new to see here. Just my opinion being confirmed." I guess this is generally true for most other countries.
Or to put it differently: If the U.S. assessment was widely different from what most people were thinking anyway, I would have been wondering if the U.S. diplomats and the world were living in parallel universes.
Re:These documents should not be released. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:These documents should not be released. (Score:5, Insightful)
Congratulations, AGENT-KAGURA on your successful work in the cyberspace battlefront managing this latest "event." Your work will not go unnoticed by the Overseer. 2MWPQB56
IIIIS IIIIIIIT (Score:3, Insightful)
I think the current status quo, Pax Americana, is the least disruptive and most beneficial to all parties involved.
it only is because fools like you dont know whats going on :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Gladio [wikipedia.org]
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/US_ThirdWorld/dictators.html [thirdworldtraveler.com]
tell that 'peace' to the people whose families were murdered in genocides by 12+ puppet dictators that u.s. installed to propagate that 'pax americana'
moron.
Re:These documents should not be released. (Score:4, Insightful)
so patriotism wins over the truth?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So, if these leaks don't show anything of substance, why this hue and cry over Wikileaks and Assange? You can't label him irresponsible and at the same time claim there is nothing in the 'leaks'.
Patriot Act SHOULD NOT HAVE HAPPENED (Score:5, Insightful)
Nor waterboarding, warrantless wiretapping of US citizens, "black" prisons/detention facilities, Abu Ghraib, drone targeting of a US citizen, Cheney's still largely hidden secret activities, etc, etc.
Lots of stuff shouldn't have happened. The more we find out about how our government is behaving itself, the better WE THE PEOPLE can have a chance at reigning in our governments behavior. Way too much really bad stuff has gone down in the name of national security, and I for one am sick and tired of the ruling elite using the cry of national security to get away with everythign from civil rights trampling to outright war crimes. The mroe is released the merrier, the US government has very little credibility left in almost any arena.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't understand - a penalty for what? For exposing the truth of the government's action and deceits in a series of wars that a majority of the population did not support?
A government for the people and by the people cannot exist if the government controls the people by only giving them selective information on what it is doing.
Manning is a hero. He put his life and career on the line to get out information that could help people understand what their government is involved in.
Selling lies to its citizen
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Rubbish. He should be commended. We have far too little access to information as-is. Anytime someone risks their career and safety to let us see what's going on, it's precious. Bravo to Bradley, we appreciate your sacrifice.
Re:These documents should not be released. (Score:5, Insightful)
Bradley Manning, the disgruntled private who was demoted from the rank of Sergeant prior to leaking this information, should be given the harshest penalty possible (excessive prison sentence) for the sole purpose of discouraging this type of behavior in the future.
Noone should ever be punished more harshly 'as an example', but only on the merits of what they deserve. If you want to send a message, write a letter.
Re:These documents should not be released. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:These documents should not be released. (Score:5, Insightful)
An honest whistle-blower who reveals true wrongdoing will lose their job when found out, but they won't be prosecuted for releasing the information. However, deciding to release all classified information you can get your hands on is not whistle-blowing. It is nothing short of displaying a reckless disregard for any consequences.
The leaks did reveal true wrongdoing. The Danish government has consistently been claiming that the Danish army did not turn over prisoners to torture at the hands of the Iraqi or Afghan armies. However, the leaks showed that not only did the Danish army turn over prisoners, they adopted a practice of embedding a couple of Brittish soldiers into their units. Whenever they caught someone, the Brittish soldiers would do the arresting and subsequent turning over of prisoners. This obvious attempt by the Danish army to circumvent the rules shows that they knew that they were doing something wrong. Unfortunately, the wikileaks documents did not show how far up this travesty goes, but one can hope this release sheds some light on the issue.
Re:These documents should not be released. (Score:5, Insightful)
You are so full of yourself. Governments around the world do illegal things and get pissed off when they are found out. It's too bad this poor individual has to pay the price. These documents are only embarrassing because the actions they reveal are an embarrassment.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
As I said on another thread, diplomatic dispatches are supposed to frank and honest assessments. What you're advocating ultimately will lead to the fogging of information as diplomats and their staff begin self-censoring out of fear that Wikileaks will reveal what they said. What Assange and his cronies have done won't make us safer, it will make things more dangerous. Our governments need accurate information, not self-censored tripe.
Re:These documents should not be released. (Score:4, Informative)
What wikileaks is doing is un-American and is the same as supporting terrorism
tell me what do you classify the things below as :
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/US_ThirdWorld/dictators.html [thirdworldtraveler.com]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Gladio [wikipedia.org]
dont give us 'supporting terrorism' bullshit.
Re:These documents should not be released. (Score:5, Insightful)
That guy did not work alone or among machines, if there were problems this serious, then they should have been spotted and solved long ago. And how the hell did a private get access to those documents?
It seems there are much more serious problems in the US Army than one disgruntled soldier.
Re:These documents should not be released. (Score:5, Interesting)
And soldiers who kill civilians should be put on trial for war crimes. Why do they get an automatic pass, and a person who reveals their actions should go to jail?
Re:These documents should not be released. (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Fine talk from an Anonymous Coward. If you're going to call for somebody's execution, you should at least be willing to put your name behind the call.
Re:These documents should not be released. (Score:5, Insightful)
period.
traitors are those who call for continuance of that kind of violation, under ANY justification. like you. you betray your country's founding ideals.
Re:These documents should not be released. (Score:5, Informative)
The Iraq and Afghan dumps were only "a little harmful" and barely worthy of classification. These cables, on the other hand, are strategically damaging the U.S., its interests, and its allies. Wikileaks should be exposing corruption, wrongdoing, and illegality. It shouldn't take what appears to all outside observers as a vendetta against the U.S.
You're not making sense, they're exposing corruption, wrongdoing and illegality, and you complain that they're doing it to someone you'd rather think of as uncorrupted. Boohoofuckinghoo.
Re:These documents should not be released. (Score:5, Insightful)
Me and my wife are not elected to work in your interest. That's a big difference.
Re:These documents should not be released. (Score:4, Insightful)
The probability that I will die from a fishbone stuck in my throat is about 10,000 times higher than falling victim to a terrorist attack.
And I don't stop eating fish.
So what?
Re:These documents should not be released. (Score:5, Interesting)
If that's true then I'd love to see an example of how the U.S. government is fulfilling its responsibilities.
Some guy gets on a plane with a bomb strapped to his body and we only find out about it when he detonates it, injuring no one but himself. Result? The U.S. government takes away more of our privacy and dignity and arguably withdraws freedoms from every citizen, in order to make the claim that it is stopping attacks on U.S. citizens.
Meanwhile, somewhere at an ATM in Oakland, California, a man is hit on the head with an aluminum baseball bat and two young men walk away with his money, ID, and cell phone. The man later dies of complications due to skull fracture. Where was the U.S. government?
Re:These documents should not be released. (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm wondering, on the smaller scale, how you would feel if everything you said about your wife in private were to be dropped on her lap.
You'll pardon me for being a pragmatist since I don't have experience in love (as I'm certain experience would completely negate a pragmatic argument, no matter how true), but if your relationship is sustained by the fact she doesn't know what you said or what you feel, either you're a dick, or she's psycho--or you fear she's psycho / she fears you're a dick, which means you aren't even sure of the other's personality. Any of those might indicate that your relationship, and the friendship that's behind it, is shaky. Of course, given the divorce rate here in the US, I suppose those things do happen quite a bit.
If governance is running on the same shoddy model, that should be changed. I'm not saying it can be (easily or otherwise) anytime soon, but it should be.
Re:These documents should not be released. (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm wagering that there's more than that in there. I'm wondering, on the smaller scale, how you would feel if everything you said about your wife in private were to be dropped on her lap. That's one form of damage from these releases.
Perhaps people should try being honest?
Re:These documents should not be released. (Score:4, Insightful)
Wikileaks should be exposing corruption...
That is exactly what these documents allegedly contain. US diplomatic reports of corruption and other shenanigans in practically every country where the USA has an embassy. This is only damaging to the US because it can't keep a lid on other people dirty laundry it's the people who own the dirty laundry that will be most affected.
[oblig. Liar Liar quote] (Score:5, Funny)
Judge: Why?
Fletcher: Because it's devastating to my case!
Judge: Overruled.
Fletcher: Good call!
Re:These documents should not be released. (Score:5, Insightful)
The Iraq and Afghan dumps were only "a little harmful" and barely worthy of classification. These cables, on the other hand, are strategically damaging the U.S., its interests, and its allies.
Didn't your daddy ever tell you the story about the little boy who cried 'wolf' ?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
If I may elaborate, I believe that this leak is morally wrong if it includes future plans and strategies that could be implemented in various situations, but the parts that are of past affairs should be known so that people can be held responsible for their mistakes.
Re:Oh please. (Score:5, Insightful)
"Aside from the Arabs pressing for the attack of Iran, nothing there was of any news to me."
Ditto. And even that wasn't terribly surprising.
The real surprise is that any of these things are marked as 'SECRET, NO FOREIGNERS' when most of the foreigners already know them because, duh, they live in these countries. I'm sure that no Russian thinks that their government is linked to organised crime and every Briton believes their military is doing a great job in Afghanistan... oh, hang on.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Aside from the Arabs pressing for the attack of Iran, nothing there was of any news to me.
That's only news to people who don't understand that Iranians aren't Arabs, and don't understand that Iran is the only real threat to Saudi Arabia and Israel as regional powers. (In other words 75% of the US population.) Israel and the Saudis have nothing to lose from a US war with Iran and a lot to gain (money, expansion of their influence). The US wouldn't be able to win full on conventional war with Iran at this point. And the Iranians know it, hence their attitude on uranium enrichment.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Do you think US "HUMINT requirements" were a secret for any self-respecting foreign espionage agency?
I still fail to see anything that is really damaging to US, except for damage to public opinion (which is low enough already).
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Come on, be serious (Score:4, Informative)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Gladio [wikipedia.org]
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/US_ThirdWorld/dictators.html [thirdworldtraveler.com]
i find your ideas disgusting. your place is in 1930s. not 2010.
Re:These documents should not be released. (Score:5, Insightful)
Example: You will read, just like Iran (and, of course, Muslim fundies that support them) will, about Saudi and other Gulf states calling for the US (or whomever) to do whatever it takes to erase the Iranian nuclear weapons threat.
The short term result? Increased destabilization of an area of the world that really, really does not need that. Slightly longer term - war, quickened by this release. A war that otherwise might have been avoidable, or conducted on more favorable terms to those who don't want Iran to have nukes - which includes parts of Europe that are in range of their missiles, as I recall.
I hope I am wrong. I have a gut feeling that I'm not.
moron. (Score:5, Insightful)
but its not ok, when this information is released. because, it will 'destabilize' the area.
yeah. other countries pressurizing others to start a goddamn war, will not destabilize the area. lets just allow them to do that, behind an easy curtain of secrecy.
Re:moron. (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, to be fair, just because someone advocates starting a war does not mean that war will actually be started. I am not at all in favor of war, but I can see how calling for a war _in secret_ is less destabilizing than calling for that same war in public. So the position that "war is more destabilizing than calling for a war" and the position that "publishing a call for war is destabilizing" are not mutually exclusive.
Re:moron. (Score:4, Interesting)
Well, to be fair, just because someone advocates starting a war does not mean that war will actually be started.
your approach is too shallow. these are not ordinary trolls talking and raving on the internet. these are actual countries, which have various departments, including intelligence agencies which may act in direction of the desire of their government.
you cant imagine that, all the government of a country wont be working to that end, when the government wants war.
Re:moron. (Score:5, Insightful)
Secondly, to be clear about what it is we are referring to:
Definition of DIPLOMACY
1: the art and practice of conducting negotiations between nations
2: skill in handling affairs without arousing hostility : tact
With that definition in mind, that SA, the US, and/or other countries talk to each other through secret diplomatic channels and say things they may not repeat in public, does not surprise me in the least. This is a common, human thing to do. It allows one to express the depth of feelings or intentions about an issue without offending someone else, without creating issues with them so that discourse may go on perhaps to a satisfactory ending for all concerned, or might keep an antagonistic personality somewhat mollified, avoiding provoking them to attack.
Tell me how blowing this process out of the water is, could possibly be in any way good or beneficial for the stability of the region, for the diplomatic process going on between the nations there?
Third, and last: Do you personally have any idea of what the last word in that definition - "tact" - means? Apparently not. Might be a good one for you - and Wikileaks - to learn, then practice.
Re:These documents should not be released. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I use Reynolds Recycled. http://www.reynoldsrecycled.com/index.html [reynoldsrecycled.com]
I get all the protection of a regular foil hat, but the warm fuzzy of knowing I'm not harming the environment.
Re:attacked by whom? (Score:5, Funny)
So who OTHER than the US government could be responsible for the attack?
The answer to your question is actually posted right under the story above, under "Related Stories"...
"WikiLeaks Under Denial of Service Attack by wiredmikey (1824622)"
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Bloody 7 digit UID members are getting uppity.
Re:attacked by whom? (Score:5, Insightful)
Sigh, do we have to point out every single time that Wikileaks is _not_ an investigative organization, but merely posts what is sent to them while protecting the source, and that maybe they just get more data from US than from $COUNTRY?
Guardian released leak already (Score:5, Informative)
Secrecy (Score:5, Interesting)
"lives at risk" "threaten global counterterrorism operations" and "jeopardize us relations" all sounds like politicianese for "we really fucked up and don't want anybody to know about it"
Whatever happened to justice against people who commit (war) crimes?
Re:Secrecy (Score:5, Insightful)
Whatever happened to justice against people who commit (war) crimes?
That "justice" only ever existed for the war criminals on the losing side. Silly.
Re: Secrecy (Score:5, Insightful)
Whatever happened to justice against people who commit (war) crimes?
Apparently it's not a crime if the President of a superpower authorizes it.
We've consistently imprisoned people for waterboarding since the Spanish-American war. We convicted Japanese for it after WWII. We convicted our own troops for using it in Viet Nam. And we've even put some civilian law enforcement officers in prison for using it in Texas.
But suddenly it's OK...
Bet it wouldn't be OK if someone did it to our troops.
Re:Secrecy (Score:5, Interesting)
Agreed. I remember that part of the brainwashing i got as a child was to describe how the USSR treated its prisoners using sleep deprivation, secret hidden prisons, etc. It readily dehumanized them to me as a young child. Now our own government readily admits (proudly at times) to doing worse. I can't help but fail to be proud of my country any more. Our leaders are no better than the soviet scum I was raised to hate, except their now us.
Countless? (Score:5, Funny)
the Obama administration says will put 'countless' lives at risk
Who would have guessed the US military has aleph-one [wikipedia.org] people working for it?
Possible attacker (Score:5, Informative)
One self proclaimed "Hacktivist for good" claims responsibility for the DoS-Attack: http://twitter.com/th3j35t3r [twitter.com]
He threatened before that he would do that when Wikileaks releases, see last comment on http://th3j35t3r.wordpress.com/2010/09/17/wikileaks-insurance-policy-expired/ [wordpress.com]
Funny stuff. (Score:4, Interesting)
"and jeopardize US relations with its allies"
Wiki leaks is just releasing information.. sounds like to me they're doing things the other countries wouldn't approve of; thus ruining relations. So they don't want anyone to know about what they ( the U.S. ) does in secret.. BUT If someone is willing to expose such information, they blame it on the site. lol~
It's like a kid stealing from a store and his brother that was with him tells on him, then the kid who stole blames it on his brother for telling everyone what he did. /laugh
Publicity stunt? (Score:3, Insightful)
It seems highly unlikely that the US government would do something like this. A DoS attack is temporary, and only calls attention to Wikileaks. It seems to me that two other options are more plausible:
1) Self-proclaimed patriots doing a little wannabe-vigilantiasm.
2) Mr. "Personality" Assange has arranged for a publicity stunt. After all, if he can make it look like the big bad US is trying to stop him, and he still manages to leak the data, he can further his self-promotion as a hero.
I guess time will tell, though.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You'd have to be borderline retarded to think it was a publicity stunt. It's pissed off american teenagers, simple as that.
no (Score:3, Interesting)
ddosing RIGHT at the time news is fresh, would eliminate a lot of casual readers interested in the material only temporarily.
RT (Score:5, Insightful)
DavidWaldock David Waldock
Dear government: as you keep telling us, if you've done nothing wrong, you've got nothing to fear #wikileaks
Thought it was worth sharing.
Dear every politician on earth (Score:4, Interesting)
Drop the fucking paranoia. It's old. It's boring. It's see through. Stuff like this:
the Obama administration says will put 'countless' lives at risk, threaten global counterterrorism operations and jeopardize US relations with its allies
doesn't win sympathy. It merely shows your inability to come up with relevant points to put in a press release. Who on earth do you think believes it?
Sorry for rant but I've seen this from US politicians, from UK politicians and from European politicians; I'm sick of this crap.
The leaks are not the problem (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Exactly this.
The policies themselves are the dangers to human lives. Wikileaks exists to make sure this stuff gets out while the responsible parties can still be held accountable.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Listen to yourself. You don't understand your own metaphor. The reason why it's called "dirty laundry" is because it's unsavory but nevertheless unavoidable - we all have it and do our best to conceal it from company.
All facets of life involve keeping secrets. You don't want your doctor telling your friends or your employer nd family about your STDs. You don't want your shrink telling your parents all those dreams you had about killing them. You don't want your best friend telling your girlfriend about
Re:The leaks are not the problem (Score:5, Informative)
Your attitude is naive and idiotic. Regardless of your feelings, there are dangerous and evil men in the world. Overall, The United States is the greatest force for good in this world. The free press has traditionally been an excellent force to keep American voters informed and hold politicians accountable for their actions/policies.
Wikileaks does none of these things. All that Wikileaks does is undermine the efforts of the United States and the West to safeguard and make the world a better place. Make no mistake, these actions strengthen those who stand opposed to us who would like to see their own personal fortunes/power grow at the expense of democratic/free nations.
You may be opposed to specific US/Western policies but, frankly, it's the best we have. Your protests remind me of the Churchill quote: "democracy is the worst form of government except for all of the others".
And this is the reason why drugs are bad...
I can support Wikileaks (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
However I draw the line at releasing documents that are the politicians equivalent of a drunken conversation at a frat party.
If I understand frat parties correctly, the conversations aren't usually acted on the next day. Can't say the same for this stuff. There's a couple of interesting bits in there but there's also a lot of stuff everyone already knew; US arming Isreal - no shit Sherlock. I'm waiting for the editing and summaries right now.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't. The fact that politicians frequently behave like drunken frat boys should be highlighted at every opportunity.
Re:I can support Wikileaks (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't think an official document telling the US diplomats to "obtain not just information from the people they meet, but personal details, such as frequent flyer numbers, credit card details and even DNA material" counts as a drunken conversation at a frat party.
"national security implications" (Score:5, Insightful)
Quoth the BBC: [bbc.co.uk]
The UK Ministry of Defence has urged newspaper editors to "bear in mind" the national security implications of publishing the information.
You can make a plausible case that the leaks will put lives at risk. But warning the media about publishing excerpts after the stuff is already made public? That's got fuck all to do with national security, that's politicians worrying about public relations.
"Expected" Release ? (Score:5, Interesting)
i even submitted its article on wikileaks site. All the info regarding the US Afghan war logs were up in a SEARCHABLE and browseable directory. (A good implementation i might add).
Yet, the news of the release, by me or by any other submitter, were not published in slashdot, but, the ddos for the 'release' that was 'anticipated' has been.
The train has long left the station.
Just read through the Guardian story (Score:3, Insightful)
I wasn't sure what to expect - but it sure seems like the sole purpose of this release was to embarrass the United States. I don't see anything that is particularly beneficial to the public here - and isn't that purportedly why WikiLeaks exists? This seems more along the lines of Paris Hilton's ex-boyfriend publicizing his sex tapes.
Maybe it's not a vendetta, even if it looks like one though. WikiLeaks hasn't really lived up to its promise, all in all. I suspect this may be no more than Assange trying to fend off irrelevancy.
Re:Just read through the Guardian story (Score:5, Interesting)
Sure? (Score:5, Insightful)
The documents are out. NYT summary (Score:5, Interesting)
The document are out, and The New York Times is already reporting on the good stuff. [nytimes.com]
One of the more embarrassing items is this: American officials sharply warned Germany in 2007 not to enforce arrest warrants for Central Intelligence Agency officers involved in a bungled operation in which an innocent German citizen with the same name as a suspected militant was mistakenly kidnapped and held for months in Afghanistan. A senior American diplomat told a German official "that our intention was not to threaten Germany, but rather to urge that the German government weigh carefully at every step of the way the implications for relations with the U.S."
Internet Kill Switch (Score:5, Insightful)
Administration has zero credibility (Score:5, Insightful)
They said the Iraq war documents would put people at risk, too. They didn't, though, and the administration was forced to admit that after the release. Seems to me that Wikileaks, whatever their other merits or lack thereof, have been pretty responsible about how they handle this stuff thus far.
I'm less concerned with these leaks than I am with the day to day constitutional trampling the feds do, using all three branches of the government to leverage their oath-breaking.
What 'secret' means to the State Dept (Score:5, Interesting)
When the US State Department classifies a cable as secret, it's usually because of some situation that will embarrass the pants off of someone there.
Let' look at a typical situation that results in a 'classified secret' set of missives:
The US undersecretary of African Affairs refers to the Deputy Minister for Foreign Affairs of the People's Democratic Republic of Bongo as a 'retarded monkey' because he stole half of the $150 million NGO grant for an egg farm and deposited it directly into his Swiss bank account without first wiring it through the Cayman Islands like the undersecretary told him to do. Now the transaction is transparent and the undersecretary won't get his $155,000 consultancy fee from the hedge fund firm that his Yale frat brother runs down there that was supposed to handle the transaction in the first place.
The situation is compounded by the fact that the US undersecretary and the Bongoian Deputy Minister are sharing a mistress who is a top fashion model. The undersecretary made the remark about the DM to his mistress in bed and she texted it to her sister in Paris. The communication was intercepted by the NSA/CIA and put into an official memo to the State Department. Now the DM will be pissed as hell and will make all sorts of accusations of 'USA imperialism' and 'racist corporate profiteering' at the United Nations. The undersecretary will have to buy the DM a new Mercedes to cool him down and get passed over for promotion until a new Secretary of the State Dept is appointed after the next election.
The only person who might be killed is the mistress/fashion model if she makes the mistake of going back to Bongo before the Deputy Minister gets his new Mercedes. Even then, she better allow the DM to indulge his special inclinations lest she find herself floating down the Bongo river, trying to catch up with her head.
-------- This is how diplomacy works and why all these cables have to be kept secret. Let's hope that the WikiLeaks people had the sense to make multiple copies and distributing them widely before announcing that they were going to post all this stuff!
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It's out [guardian.co.uk]
and related picture [apcdn.com]
Right Response? (Score:5, Insightful)
``US ambassadors in other capitals were instructed to brief their hosts in advance of the release of unflattering pen-portraits or nakedly frank accounts of transactions with the US which they had thought would be kept quiet. Washington now faces a difficult task in convincing contacts around the world that any future conversations will remain confidential.''
And here I thought that last sentence would end "that any future conversations will be more civil". At least, I have always thought that saying "unflattering" things behind people's backs isn't the way to behave. If the conversations between the US and its contacts are of such "unflattering" nature that they give rise to diplomatic crises when uncovered, then perhaps the US should have trained their employees and contact to not behave that way.
I understand the anger at WikiLeaks, and I understand that it is not just about the unflattering communications. But still, on this one point, I think that if you don't want to take the heat for your missteps, the best way would be not to make them. So, rather than assuring contacts that, in future, this stuff will stay confidential, I would think that the right response would be to convince your contacts that, in future, you will work to keep things civil and decent.
Re:Administration has zero credibility (Score:4, Insightful)
The (vast) majority of CO2 emissions is from human activity and that's what we want to control, per capita because we're all equal.
Re:Administration has zero credibility (Score:4, Insightful)
Well done, you have just showed your ignorance when it comes to climate change. That isn't necessarily your fault, there are too many powers in world who want you and me and everyone else to not grasp the concepts surrounding climate change.
The real problem with global warming is that human beings are making a major short-cut in part of the carbon cycle. We are taking carbon out of the ground, and moving it to the atmosphere much faster than it would ever occur naturally (apart from something like a volcano appearing in the middle of Saudi Arabia). When plants capture CO2 released from burnt oil the carbon is moved to the biosphere, not back into the ground where it came from. Most carbon that is in the biosphere moves back to the atmosphere (and back and forth), and very little carbon that humans have caused to be released is locked up again in rocks. The rate man is moving carbon out of rocks doesn't come near the rate nature puts carbon back.
Vegetation type, animal farts, and stuff like that are all used by those who benefit from the fossil fuel industry to distract from the damage the fossil fuel industry is doing. If more people understood climate change, then there would be considerable pressure to stop mankind's use of oil for fuel, though that would lead to economic disasters. So many who benefit more from the world's economic systems than others (ie the rich) purposefully misrepresent the situation, and they let the ignorant do the rest - they will repeat mindlessly what the TV has told them.
If a large percentage of the people on this planet understood climate change tomorrow, we wouldn't just see the end of a few oil companies. Anyone who has money invested in the oil industry would stand to lose, and that includes many pension funds, private and national, so for many or even most people in the west the oil industry is a necessary part of their future. Banks and finance entities of course have lots tied up in oil, as they tend to be the largest shareholders in any industry. The cost of raw materials for non-fuel use of oil stands to rise if oil as fuel was rejected, effecting all sorts of petrochemical companies.
Of course, if the people of this planet did demand oil stop being used for fuel, we would see rapid development of nuclear power, both fission and fusion, renewable energy sources, recycling of existing plastics, etc., and lots of valuable companies in those fields would pop-up. Its just those who benefit from the status quo now don't want to risk their position, so do anything to stay there. Just as the selfish, greedy, and powerful have acted throughout history really....
CO2 emissions per person is irrelevant if people are using biofuels (like is widespread in Brazil, or even just people heating their homes with wood fires). Oil use per capita is a better yard stick.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Yes, and if you actually had read any of them instead of telling others to read them, you'd realize that in the 70k documents they published the last time there were a total of 3 informant names. One was already dead, one was a double agent and the other no longer relevant.
Re:Administration has zero credibility (Score:5, Informative)
A thorough Department of Defense analysis concluded -- Wikileaks released no sensitive source information, and to date no Afghans have been harmed or threatened from it.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/10/16/wikileaks.assessment/index.html?hpt=T2 [cnn.com]
Re:Administration has zero credibility (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Administration has zero credibility (Score:5, Interesting)
The last leak contained the needed evidence. It assumed the new will also reveal more, but nothing on this has been reported yet.
Also, please remember the war crime commited by Danish and British soldiers is primarily: Handing over prisoners to foreign states that engage in the use of torture. Where the foreign state in question is the United States of America.
Let me repeat that: It is now considered a war crime to hand over enemies of the US to the US, because of the way the US treats them.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
They do. If you read any of them, you'd realize that they put out the names of civilians who act as informants. I'm sure that doesn't put anyone at risk, nope none at all.
Does BOMBING THE SHIT OUT OF CIVILIANS put them at risk, asshole?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I have read some, and I didn't see any names of informants. Maybe you should point out exactly which cables you are referring to.
Re:Administration has zero credibility (Score:5, Insightful)
You can't publish the names of civilian informants and think it doesn't effect our national security now and ability to recruit future informants.
How about we don't put the names of civilian informants in documents that can be easily leaked? Even in stupid spy novels they are smart enough to use code names or non-descriptive identifiers in diplomatic cable. Maybe then it would be easier to recruit informants. When recruited to be an informant, I might ask "are you going to transmit my name along with everything I tell you?" If the answer is "Yes" I would tell the recruiters to fuck off.
Re:Administration has zero credibility (Score:4, Informative)
Congratulations! You've identified the difference between "raw" intelligence and intelligence reports. They will indeed have names like "Curveball" in the intelligence reports, but the raw intelligence includes the person's name.
oh fuck off (Score:4, Insightful)
i have two words for you, as elaborate, eloquent and intellectual as words can be :
FUCK
ok. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Administration has zero credibility (Score:4, Insightful)
According a Guardian report:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/nov/28/us-embassy-cables-wikileaks [guardian.co.uk]
Over 3 MILLION people have access to this private network. The big story to me is that if this material is really significant, why is the US so incredibly bad at keeping it secret?
Wikileaks is not some kind of 'superspy' organization with resources and techniques beyond the imagining of say, a moderately competent nation state. If they could get full access to this 'damaging' information, then I find it hard to imagine that China, Russia, France and most of the western world couldn't either.
Either this is really sensitive material and this is a wake up call that giving 3 million people access to a sensitive database is a poor strategy, or it's not that damaging anyway and the US foresaw this possibility and thought the risk/damage was acceptable.
Re:Administration has zero credibility (Score:5, Interesting)
how do you know lives haven't been put at risk? Are you privy to the vast intelligence network of people who keep you safe everyday?
Not a clue, although our government has said no lives were put at risk by the prior leak. On the other hand, with the leak of Valerie Plame's name everyone we ever shared a meal with her or washed her car was suddenly suspected of being complicit in espionage.
Re:DDOS or Slashdotted? (Score:4, Funny)
And now this Slashdot story will just increase the traffic, making things even (better|worse) for (national security|Wikileaks). (Congratulations|For shame), Slashdot, you've (protected American lives|disrupted the democratic flow of information). (Nice going|Nice going [sarcastic]).