Reports of world reaction to Wikileaks

[ProSense]

Nations unhappy about secret US diplomatic cables

Nations around the world are condemning the release of confidential U.S. diplomatic cables on subjects such as Iran's nuclear program and U.S. efforts to spy on foreign officials.

France, Britain, Pakistan and other nations are criticizing the release of the documents by the WikiLeaks organization.

The group made public thousands of State Department documents on Sunday, revealing a hidden world of backstage international diplomacy. The cables show often unflattering U.S. assessments of foreign leaders, ranging from U.S. allies such as Germany, Italy and Afghanistan to other nations such as Libya and Iran.

Pakistan criticizes release of secret US cables

Israel greets Wikileaks cables as vindication of its Iran policy

LIBYA: More laughs, not many surprises in Wikileaks releases on Moammar Kadafi

Australian police investigate WikiLeaks founder

France says stands by U.S. after WikiLeaks cables

‘Illegal’ WikiLeaks release won’t harm US ties: Germany

Iran Dismisses Hostile WikiLeaks Documents

Wikileaks report stokes anti-US hardliners in Pakistan

WikiLeaks: India to wait and watch

This is what they're saying in public.

[mmonk]

1. Thanks. Nothing really unusual.

[Cal33]

24. If the secret messages of the foreign ministries of other nations

were also made public, how different do you think they would be from
those of our state department?

[alcibiades_mystery]

2. Transparency

on teacher evaluations bad, on diplomatic and foreign policy meetings good!

Yeeehaaa!

[MineralMan]

3. +1

[HEyHEY]

5. ruh roh

This good fight-starter and I can't even find my starburts.

[EFerrari]

7. Comparison fail. Teachers are not out saying one thing to the public

and another to each other on matters of life and death.

[alcibiades_mystery]

25. Oh, so you're not a transparency absolutist

Well, that's a relief. You see, there are some people on this board running around claiming that a government must be transparent in nearly all its operations, and I would think evaluating teachers might be one of those areas. But I guess not. For you, when it comes to teacher quality, transparency is a bad thing, and secrecy is desirable...or at least a high degree of confidentiality. Do I understand you correctly here? You don't think public school teacher evaluations should be released to the public; they shouldn't be transparent. So, transparency of government information is not a good in itself. Rather, it is good in some cases, and bad in others, yes? In other cases, information should be kept from the public for particular purposes. We can quibble about the comparison after that. Do we agree on those basics, however?

[EFerrari]

45. I don't see Hillary Clinton's psych eval out at Wikileaks.

When Wikileaks releases personal job evaluations for the Secretary or any of her staff, then you'll have a comparison.

In fact, it is our government's publicly cavalier attitude towards our privacy and their assumption of their own privilege that likely brought this on their heads. It's not my double standard that made this situation in the first place. Does that seem like a fair statement?

IOW, if this administration wasn't telling us to put up with genital groping while refusing to endure the same, maybe I'd feel a little differently about what Wikileaks is doing.

[alcibiades_mystery]

46. So you're NOT a transparency absolutist

Good enough. You think some things should be confidential, even, dare I say it, secret, or available to only a limited group. That's a good starting point for discussion. I think some things currently secret should be made public. And I think other things aren't really meant for public consumption, at least during their operational lifetime (which could be a year, or 50 years...). See, I'm not a transparency absolutist either. Or a secrecy absolutist. We have to do the hard work of DECIDING whether, on balance, particular kinds of information should be widely available or not, for how long, in what forums, and etc.

That;s grown up, adult work.

It doesn't go so well with sloganeering and bluster. It requires patience and discrimination.

[EFerrari]

47. I think I agree with all of that.

What I can't do is agree that criminals in our government cannot be prosecuted. If Chile can do it, we can do it. But the idea that we can't or don't sprang up around Mr. Raygun and is now taken for gospel. An assertion of privilege so absolute is dangerous, is going to cause problems in a democratic society, and people will push back on it as Wikileaks is pushing back now.

[alcibiades_mystery]

48. It's the indiscriminate nature of the pushing that is troubling

I don't celebrate people who are not thoughtful. Broad, indiscriminate releases of information are not thoughtful. There's no doubt that the assertion of privilege is a problem. Whether reckless "transparency" is the solution is another question altogether.

[EFerrari]

49. I don't think it's indiscriminate at all.

Think of it this way. If you are looking for a particular conversation, would you rather go read it directly where your interest can be noted or, would you rather access a much bigger package where your interest gets hidden in the crowd gathering now?

I'd much prefer the latter myself, especially were I working on a story or case that my government considers sensitive.

[alcibiades_mystery]

51. Please..it's indiscriminate by definition AND intent

Wikileaks did not between documents. It did not judge whether to release particular documents according to any criteria. It releases everything. That's indiscriminate, and its underlying philosophy is an idiotic absolutist transparency, which you yourself claim not to agree with.

[JackDragna]

26. My god, there's no chance missed to snipe at teachers.

Perhaps the release of documents illustrating the abuses of a government might be a touch different from those of a profession who are increasingly judged on an arbitrary set of test scores over which they have limited control. But hey, have fun with your false dichotomies.

[alcibiades_mystery]

27. I don't see how this particular release is different

In both cases, there would seem to be professional reasons related to the actual function people are assigned to do for keeping the information confidential.

By the way, I teach at a university, and have for ten years. I don't snipe at teachers. I snipe at inconsistent jackasses and absolutist idiots.

Cheers.

[JackDragna]

29. The general public looks at standarized test scores..

..and assumes those numbers tell you everything there is to know about how a teacher does their job.

You say you teach at a university. Is it a public university? Would you approve of the grades you give becoming public knowledge, unfiltered, without any kind of opportunity for you to give them context?

[alcibiades_mystery]

35. I'm not the one arguing that transparency is a good in itself

Specific student grades, in any case, can't be released to anyone but the student, as a matter of federal legislation (FERPA).

And I don't "give" grades. I record the success of deeds. :-)

See my post below for the rest. I'm not writing the same argument twice.

[treestar]

31. You don't get to have it both ways.

If it's good enough for other professions, it's good enough for yours.

[JackDragna]

33. Right.. Because releasing a single set of stats without context..

..is the same as telling the people our government is planning a war crime somewhere.

[alcibiades_mystery]

34. Releasing a set of documents without context is just as meaningless

What you mean by context in the profession of teaching is all the things we teachers know: that evaluations and test scores aren't always good indicators of learning - things that don't register with a public that has a very limited view of what teaching is precisely because the public has delegated those important social functions to a group of specialists. But we've also delegated the important social functions of international diplomacy to a group of specialists, and their work product circulates in densely contextualized ways that non-specialist readers would easily misconstrue, in the same way the general public easily misconstrues standardized test scores and other measures of teacher quality.

In both cases, the public can "see" something as clear cut and easy to interpret, when in fact the data is far from that. And before you suggest that the "cables" speak for themselves, and one need not be trained in diplomacy or foreign relations to interpret them, just remember all the times you were frustrated trying to explain the deeply complex relationship between testing, learning, social context, and teacher quality to a non-teacher, who thought the test scores spoke for themselves.

Transparency is not a good in itself. Nor is confidentiality or even secrecy an evil in itself. They both serve specific purposes within particular kinds of social organization, and for specific social functions.

[JackDragna]

36. And in all of this, I agree with you.

Which is why I am firmly against the public records of teaching professionals being released. I can also see a case for how the Wikileaks releases are damaging, but my bone of contention comes from equivocating the two. In the Wikileaks releases, there's some good evidence our government has endorsed actions that violate international law and cast serious doubt as to our nation's role as a "defender of democracy." There's more to the leaks than just communiques about diplomacy: there's details about a philosophical foundation to American foreign policy that should give anyone who pretends to value democracy pause.

[alcibiades_mystery]

40. What is of dubious value is the complete lack of discrimination in the release

I'm happy to see people release files that provoke thought on the nature and operation of our foreign policy. I'm less happy with the notion that because some things should be exposed to the light of day, everything should, which is pure stupidity and absolutist thinking of the most idiotic kind. Some professional functions are better served through confidentiality. Some information is not easily interpreted by non-specialists, and is very easily misinterpreted. These two rather obvious points alone should speak to the need for discrimination in such matters, just as they would lead us to be skeptical that "full transparency" of test scores and other evaluative measures tell a non-specialist all that much about what is happening in classrooms. But we don't see discrimination. We see data dumps with a very casual notion that "people in a democracy" can sort it out. We don't apply such lazy and blase thinking to teacher test scores, pre4cisely because so many of us are teachers, and know fucking better than that. But we apply it with these cables and documents. It's a thoughtless and silly argument at best.

[Rage for Order]

30. Wow, that's certainly an over-simplistic lens through which to view this situation

There is apparently no discernible difference between diplomacy that could head off a war, or cause a war, that could kill millions of people and the test scores of Mrs. Smith's 2nd grade class and how they impacted her evaluation.

:eyes:

[alcibiades_mystery]

37. If this latest batch has any effect on war and peace

It would seem to be that these cables support the conservative case for war with - or at least military action against - Iran.

Certainly, Benjamin Netanyahu didn't miss the chance to note that Arab leaders also supported attacking Iran. Do you think perhaps some of this was kept secret to *avoid* that fucking result? Maybe there's a good reason from time to time to keep shit under wraps while you're still talking with people?

[Whisp]

50. lol!

:rofl:

not funny but I can't help it.

[de novo]

4. Naturally, they will downplay it, and maintain their ties.

Did anyone think otherwise? They are members of an elite club, the club that runs the world. They may squabble and not really trust each other, but in the end they are playing the same game.

[ProSense]

8. Actually, as I said in another thread

Other than the governments that already distrust the U.S., I don't see anything much changing. In fact, this is likely going to be exploited by those governments.

The public and private diplomacy will continue, even if relationships have to be repaired.

This is the failure of a dump simply to embarrass. People hate that.

[EFerrari]

6. When the headlines says "nations", they mean a handful of powerful people who have been exposed

like the racist idiot in Paris who said Chavez is turning Venezuela into Zimbabwe.

[ProSense]

9. So now it's not

the evil U.S., but also the leaders who were going to reject the U.S. because of these leaks are now racist idiots --- Pakistan, India and Iran?

[EFerrari]

10. I don't follow your wild generalizations. lol

[ProSense]

11. Wait

Pakistan, India and Iran are not nations?

[EFerrari]

13. See?

:shrug:

[Marvinio]

42. And a Nation has millions of people in it. I guess they polled the people

Of course not.

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[TexasObserver]

14. The guilty chickens cackle loudest.

Is it any surprise shady practices by countries embarrass them?

[CJCRANE]

15. The Wikileaks release puts the world's dealings on the table

instead of under the table.

I was against it at first but I think it's a good thing in the long-term.

The Republicans should also answer why their foreign policy seems to be dictated to them by the arab countries.

[leftstreet]

16. Global Corporatists pressure the Political Class to whine in Corporate Media

How shocking. I may need to sit down

[EFerrari]

19. LOL. Exactly.

[ProSense]

20. So what's the point?

If the release serves no purpose, what's the point?

People are now insulting other countries and their leaders in much the same way they claim the U.S. does.

[leftstreet]

23. smoke screen?

No idea. I don't really get this at all :shrug:

It's interesting there doesn't look to be anything in the leaks about global corporations and their influence on governments, military actions, etc. That's the only thing that might be shocking to people

[La Lioness Priyanka]

17. i suspect most of our allies will react like India did and most of our enemies

will continue to dislike us.

[emulatorloo]

18. Pretty much - Dunno most of what has been revealed in the press so far sounds like Office Gossip

Curvy Ukranian Nurse, Karzai is paranoid conspiracy nut, Berlusconi and Putin are having a Bromance

[La Lioness Priyanka]

21. i think the german warnings and the kidnapping of the wrong person

were very informative

[emulatorloo]

22. missed the kidnapping, I will have to google it.

German warnings were very interesting.

Since these go back to the 60's there is going to be some interesting stuff there. Pretty sure we will get lots of confirmation about things we already knew or suspected about Rice/Bush/Cheney

[L0oniX]

28. Lights on ...roaches are scurrying to hide.

[treestar]

32. What allegedly good thing do you think is going to happen?

[L0oniX]

44. I want them to fear that their bull shit will get exposed.

[ChimpersMcSmirkers]

38. As much as the conspiracy theorist around here wanted more, this thing is just a yawn fest.

What this did do though was make sure that Federal agencies don't share their info. more. It will also make foreign relations more difficult. Not exactly something that's really needed right now.

The idea of a wikileaks is a good one. The problem is that the one person running the show isn't showing much discretion. This makes me wonder what his motivations are. To me it's about saying Fuck You! to America and getting as much attention doing it as possible.

[sendero]

39. Awww...

.... waaahhhhhhhh.

Who gives a shit?

[Name removed]

41. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ProSense]

43. Wow, you just joined DU do a call out?

Welcome, and have we met before?

:rofl: