What secrets does Australia have that are worth blabbing about? I think he's safe on that score.

Noone really associates Assange with Australia, at least not here in Australia.. he's not really very representative (and that has no bearing on whether he's right or wrong / good or bad)

From a UK perspective it is interesting that a cureent Tory MP allegedly groomed a civil servant and got him to leak sensitive information about the then government's immigration policy. He said that it was his job to expose the many failings of the government's immigration policy. He said that government was an out-of-touch, authoritarian, failing government. The story goes that not only did he leak information that was passed to him, but he encouraged the civil servant to leak. I wonder what the Tory government now think of people who leak or encourage others to leak when it doesn't suit their interests so much.

This does highlight the fact that generally the people who decide what is kept secret are often the people with the most reason for keeping things secret; wikileaks and others help readdress that balance, it isn't perfect but perhaps it helps politicians be more open with the people who elect them.

@Urel: Whether or not I chose to express my opinion about a gift my mother has given is irrelevant to the question. Comments of the quality of "Karzai looks awful in that dress" really have no place in international diplomacy, and maybe we should refrain from writing and storing memos of this ilk.

Nonetheless, since you challenged me on the point, I am infamous in my family for my rather direct responses. Last year I said upon opening one present: "I don't want this. And frankly, after knowing me intimately for about ten years, I'm rather confused and a little insulted as to how you could make such an egregious mistake." Now I get nothing, in accordance with my express wishes. That said, I don't think it is necessary to express everything that passes through your mind, but what you do express should be expressed honestly.

also, you smell bad.

*lol*

But I think you got my point here, right?

@Urel "Next time you get a creapy present (christmas is coming) from your grandma or something alike, don't be cynical and tell how much you hate it. Best would be right to her face..." - yes or you could honestly say thank you for the thought and effort that went into this thing, even if it's not what i wanted. (my granny keeps giving me cash, cause she doens't know what i'd want, so i don't feel that a lot of effort went into it...)

And if you don't appreciate the thought and effort that went into it, then say so, you can save your granny such effort next year by not having her bother.

I think i get your point, i just find it failing

@Goldfinger: "I hate the idea of wikileaks for government docs ...Corporate leaks on the other hand are fine by me." - how do/can you jusatify this?

is it blind Patriotism?

+1 blind patriotism. MY COUNTRY RIGHT OR WRONG! No seriously people, the only check on a government is a vigilant and informed citizenry, and citizens who want and expect to be kept in the dark about the functioning and decision-making of their govt are signing a blank check for abuse: if you don't want to know, you just signed off on assassinations, abductions, torture, coup d'etats, full scale unilateral invasions, indiscriminate attacks on civilian populations, the use of internationally banned weapons and the whole catalogue of etceteras that the US has secretly and not-so-secretly employed over the last century and indeed throughout its history, and your self-imposed ignorance makes you complicit in those crimes. If the country is at war, then of course it would be defeatist to inform "the enemy" of your plans. But I want to know the real reasons my country went to war in the first place, I want to hear the conversations and read the memos in which the decision to go to war was made and I want the members of my govt to know that they will be held accountable. Anyone out there who thinks that there is any way but institutional transparency to hold a govt (or a corporation or ANY organization) accountable for its actions abroad and at home is either a delusional moron (ie a blind patriot) or one of the bastards that seeks to benefit from such a lack of transparency.

amusing i find Iran's responce: "Iran's President Ahmadinejad dismisses as propaganda leaked US cables of Arab nations urging Washington to destroy Iran's nuclear facilities." (according to bbc news)

I pulled this quote from another source...but here you go...

If one needs further proof that today's WikiLeaks document dump is really a propaganda operation, one need only contrast how the media is treating these documents compared to other genuine leaks in the past.

The Climategate emails were a real leak, one which exposed the reality that the push for carbon taxes and a global environmental authority was built on a massive fraud, one that is rather obvious as we head into our second record setting winter in a row. But the New York Times refused to cover that story on the grounds that the source documents were illegally obtained. Even at the time this seemed a strange editorial position to take, since the New York Times had not hesitated to report on the Pentagon Papers, even though they too were leaked.

And here we are today with the New York Times excerpting and interpreting sections of this WikiLeaks document dump, even though the government maintains that these are illegally obtained, provided by an organization which maintains there was no 9-11 conspiracy, that Osama bin Laden is still alive and running Al Qaeda, and that WMDs were actually found in Iraq!

This isn't news; it is a sales job. The New York Times is trying to sell you a load of propaganda disguised as a leak in the hopes that claims you would discard as obvious lies in the corporate media might be more successful if presented as coming from an organization hostile to the US Government. But again, with WikiLeaks supporting the official stories of 9-11, Osama, and WMDs, it is clear that the hostility between WikiLeaks and Government is about as genuine as that seen on pro wrestling!

And I note that despite the diplomatic crisis triggered by Israel's attack on the aid flotilla last May, not one document critical of Israel appears anywhere in the millions of cables WikiLeaks is feeding you all.

May I inquire about your source Darwyn? It smells familiar.

some people call on their own government for more transparency... i guess we'll see how this experiment progresses... http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/rorycellanjones/2010/11/is_the_government_beginning_to.html

Well, mcbry, I'd rather not have the source be the topic of discussion or be used to detract from the point. What part do you need cited exactly?

But the source *is* the point when the source is questionable. If you aren't willing to back up quotes or ideas with their source, then that is tantamount to admitting the source is of dubious integrity.

For instance: I have read that the Haiti earthquake was punishment from God. I can state that this has been published beyond a shadow of a doubt. I have a source to back it up. It's a well known figure who said it.

But until I tell you who it is, you are going to assume it is just a whack job or I am lying. As it is, it is a whack job named Pat Robertson and I don't believe a word of it. But the point is the same. Back your statements with reputable sources, or expect them to be ignored as you being a whackjob if you don't back them at all, or the source being attacked if it is of known questionable integrity.

@Darwyn

"Well, mcbry, I'd rather not have the source be the topic of discussion or be used to detract from the point. What part do you need cited exactly?"

So, you're basically saying that you tried to sneak a bad source past us...

No, no...the source of the writing has nothing to do with the point being made is what I am saying. And the point being made is common knowledge...that being that the New York Times dismissed the Climategate leak due to the documents being stolen, but are freely accepting the Wikileaks documents, despite them being stolen.

Obviously, the NYT's is full of shit.

therefore, the New York Times are selling you a load of crap. And that's called propaganda.

Actually, it's just an indicator that a hacked account is beyond proven criminal and could make them liable for civil prosecutuon when they knew the info came from a hacked account, where as info leaked from an insider may or may not be criminal due to whistle blower laws and they cannot be held liable in this instance as the news outlet is always covered under whistle blower laws if they believe the person in question would be covered by same.

I.E. They have reason to believe the info from wikileaks may well be covered under whistle blower laws, but know for a fact the *stolen* documents form a *hacked* account were not. One protects them. The other puts them at risk of serious civil and possible criminal penalties.

Oh, and I'll simplify it even more. WikiLeaks was *leaked* info. Climategate was *stolen* info. BFD there, my friend.

Well, how much of it is quoted? That's how much I want properly attributed. I see it a couple different places around the net, but most solidly the conspiracy rag What Really Happened. Of course it's unsigned, I was wondering if you knew who wrote it. It's a bit difficult to make any sense of it and it appears constructed just to disperse doubt in as many directions as possible without actually saying anything that can be pinned down. Or maybe I'm just not up on what is the current govt line regarding Osama, WMDs and 9/11 conspiracies. Bad NY Times, Bad anyone who thinks human activity is contributing to global warming, Obama = wikileaks. Israel conspiracy? Not sure...

I'm not the one to debunk conspiracy theories. Just because you're paranoid doesn't meet they're not all out to get you.

guh--- mean for meet.

Darwyn, why are you so desperate to find a conspiracy here? If anything these leaks show that the United States isn't running some grand conspiracy to invade Iran or overthrow Chavez or form a North American Union. It shows that the State Department can be incredibly stupid, but not evil. They even come out looking more competent on Iran than one would expect, since the information on Iran having North Korean nuclear-ready missiles only came out in the leaks.

This set of leaks is extremely damaging to the trust in confidentiality ALL states need to effectively carry out diplomacy, but at least proves the United States is more stupid than evil in its handling of foreign policy. That's something of a silver lining...

Darwyn -

As for the lack of criticism of Israel, this point alone doesn't make the leaks fake. Being perceived of as 'anti-Israel' in Washington is the fast track for early retirement. I'm certain there is criticism of Israel in the American diplomatic corps, but I expect critics are very wary about putting any of it in writing where it can be read (under normal circumstances) by any of thousands or tens of thousands of people, some of whom almost certainly have the political clout to remove you from your position. These cables are only one channel of communication, and apparently (I'm guessing from what I'm hearing) a very low priority/security one. I'm sure information critical of Israel is passed through other channels.

And any idea that there is a government conspiracy behind these things is totally false. I have a relative who works at the Pentagon for a Deputy Director (i forget which agency) and they say there are weekly meetings among the top staffers about WikiLeaks and how to stop it/contain the damage. So unless the Pentagon isn't in on it, there is no conspiracy.

Honestly, I feel that the government should keep some things secret from the rest of us. Knowledge is more valuable when less people are in the loop. In this case, I don't believe there will be much damage to the US's reputation. Every country is doing the same thing that we do behind closed doors. I bet some diplomat is cabling his superiors about how dumb Obama is do bust his lip in a game of basketball. Everyone does it, so they will understand what they here. I think France has already said they don't care about the leaks

Hey awesome, they do it in Somalia, it's good enough for me.

Now you have to use the most fucked up country in the world as an example? They do it in China, the UK, Germany, France, Canada I'm sure. Its probably just that their gov'ts have a lot tighter hold on the cables sent to each other. Its a CANDID observation. Everybody makes them. Just maybe not everyone is dumb enough to put them in writing, thats all

heh, ok, ok. Didn't your mother ever ask you what you would do if everyone else were jumping off a bridge? I'm just saying...

not a justification.

States aren't people. States don't have "morality." The real damage here is not the CONTENT of the leaks, but the fact that things supposed to be said in confidence in the context of diplomacy were leaked. You need diplomats and world leaders to be able to speak frankly with each other without having to worry that their naked opinions will be published in the newspaper to get things accomplished in the world system.

By publishing this particular leak (not the ones on the Iraq War or Afghan War whose leak might have some justifiable purpose and goal, even though I might not think so) Wikileaks has shown itself to be nothing but a group of nihilists. What's there to gain by publishing this material? Discrediting the US's diplomatic endevours, which we've been hearing for years is the one way to solve the world's problems effectively? This will have a chilling effect on international relations moving forward, since now the precedent is set that nothing is really confidential. That means less will be talked about and states will be more distrustful. Good job, Mr. Assange. You've dealt a body blow to the candid discussion of issues between members of the international community.

States don't have morality? You've got to be fucking kidding me. See, I always thought we were the ones taking the moral high-ground. Remember the Evil empire? The Axis of evil? Nope, no moral overtones in those monikers. So what happens when you lower yourself to everyone else's playing field? US accuses China of human rights violations? Laughable. US justifies invasion of Iraq in the absence of WMDs saying "we've taken out a very bad man". Pathetic. US pretends to broker peace in Palestine? Absurd. What these memos show is an attitude of superiority, the conviction of entitlement, an absolute belief in the old myth of American exceptionalism, this stupid, blind insistence that America is inherently MORALLY superior. And we haven't got a wooden leg to stand on, we're right there with the rest of them, rolling in the dirt.