Wikileaks

(40 Posts)
longfingernails Sun 28-Nov-10 17:04:44

Just starting a thread in anticipation of the story hitting the shelves.

If the material leaked is anything like what has been rumoured, the release of these documents will probably be one of the defining political events of the decade.

ChickensHaveNoMercyForTurkeys Sun 28-Nov-10 17:14:58

Ooh, haven't heard anything about this. Please elaborate....

longfingernails Sun 28-Nov-10 17:18:31

It seems Wikileaks has gotten hold of secret US diplomatic correspondence from dozens of ambassadors around the world.

Rumoured to include candid and extremely embarrassing details about US assessments of various politicians (in the UK, including Gordon Brown/David Cameron). Also, what the US really thought about things like the release of the Lockerbie bomber, etc.

That is all just embarrassing, probably - but there are also rumours about the US tacitly supporting groups like the PKK in Turkey, possibly because the US had intelligence evidence that Turkey was helping Al-Qaeda in Iraq - and all sorts of other bombshells.

I think the world will be a much less safe place tomorrow than it is today.

ChickensHaveNoMercyForTurkeys Sun 28-Nov-10 17:20:35

Blardy 'ell. This should be....interesting.

longfingernails Sun 28-Nov-10 17:27:28

Apparently the documents will be published in El Pais, Le Monde, Der Spiegel, the Guardian and the New York Times.

Der Spiegel already out - apparently.

From Twitter in German

"Angela Teflon Merkerl"

This could actually be fun smile.

See also - the Guardian Online. Oh dear!!

newwave Sun 28-Nov-10 18:41:32

Excellent! as we are often told "if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear"

ulyanka Sun 28-Nov-10 18:51:21

the site's crashed already

Fortheverylasttime Sun 28-Nov-10 19:00:56

Who is the member of the royal family of the, 'inappropriate behaviour'?

Alouiseg Sun 28-Nov-10 19:02:59

I've been trying to get on wikileaks all day, crash after crash!!!!

Must be good stuff!

complimentary Sun 28-Nov-10 19:07:20

Sounds interesting, must get onto Wilkileaks!

Meglet Sun 28-Nov-10 19:09:42

Is this going to be a massive bitch-fest with the US slagging off everyone?

complimentary Sun 28-Nov-10 19:14:17

Could not access wikileaks, site under 'cyber attack'.

ChickensHaveNoMercyForTurkeys Sun 28-Nov-10 20:12:39

Apparently the Obama administration don't think much of Dave <snigger>

Meglet Sun 28-Nov-10 20:14:25

Is this stuff they have been stupied enough to write down?

Or is it transcripts of conversations / bugged telephone calls.

DanceInTheDark Sun 28-Nov-10 20:14:30

Any links? I have no idea what you are talking about and wikileaks isn't working!

Meglet Sun 28-Nov-10 20:14:47

stupid

Meglet Sun 28-Nov-10 20:15:59

The live updates feeder on Google is helpful.

And the Guardian have some bits, no name for the Royal though.

DanceInTheDark Sun 28-Nov-10 20:17:05

its ok i found it.

<reading>

ChickensHaveNoMercyForTurkeys Sun 28-Nov-10 20:17:26

The royal has to be Prince Phillip, surely? He has a reputation.

longfingernails Sun 28-Nov-10 22:19:00

All very interesting, but nothing earth-shattering I can see so far. It might have been over-hyped (partly, by me).

It appears to be more embarrassing for the Americans than anything else. Although there might be some implications for Hillary Clinton.

It looks like The Guardian is going to milk it for all it's worth for several weeks....

newwave Sun 28-Nov-10 22:31:46

I hope so

TheCrackFox Sun 28-Nov-10 22:32:26

I think the royal will be Prince Andrew.

The stuff mentioned on the news didn't sound all that surprising actually.

newwave Sun 28-Nov-10 22:34:15

Any damage done to the standing of the royals can only be for the good

madamimadam Sun 28-Nov-10 22:40:55

I'm just appalled that the US was after the UN. I mean, trying to get Ban Ki-moon's frequent flyer number, what possible justification is there for that? Were they going to up his air miles? hmm

kerstina Sun 28-Nov-10 23:00:01

I think the Royal will be Andrew i think it will come out that Fergie really was trying to charge for a meetings with him and he knew that it was going on. Was very suspicious if you ask me.

newwave Sun 28-Nov-10 23:03:34

Kerstina, hope your right, Fergie is one of the only royals (or is she an X royal) I have time for. A very honest chancer does not make out she is anything else and she cant stand Liz which is another thing in her favour

longfingernails Mon 29-Nov-10 01:16:15

To my mind the most destabilising revelations for the world are that the US has been secretly trying to remove nuclear fuel from Pakistani reactors, and that most Arab leaders want the US to invade Iran.

Chil1234 Mon 29-Nov-10 07:15:53

I'm really suspicious of Wikileaks' agenda. Claiming to be operating altruistically and exposing 'the truth', whoever is running it seems hell bent on creating the maximum embarrassment for western governments wherever possible. It's far too one-sided and the information that's now being revealed is so much diplomatic tittle-tattle. Aside from the ruffled feathers, far from making international relations more open and above board it'll encourage all parties to be much more secretive.

They're the modern-day Lord Haw Haw.... and he met a suitable sticky end.

Snorbs Mon 29-Nov-10 07:37:08

Wikileaks isn't, and doesn't claim to be, an investigative organisation. It simply publishes the information it receives. It so happens that the biggest and most revelatory batches of information it's received so far have been about the US, but there is lots of other stuff up there too.

I think the comparison with Lord Haw Haw is misplaced though. He was a propagandist for an established regime. As far as anyone has been able to establish, Wikileaks isn't. And I bet the CIA et all have done their very best to dig up any evidence that could be used to discredit Wikileaks' founder.

I think wikileaks has a tendency to over-hype the information it receives - although the press has a large part to play in that too - but I do think it's nevertheless playing a very important role. For all the US's claims of the protection of freedom of speech, it can be very hard for whistle-blowers to actually get their voices heard over there. The US legal system is so skewed towards the protection of businesses and the military that individuals can really struggle to voice their concerns.

For example, the tapes that Wikileaks released of the Apache gunship attack in Iraq were important and did need to be seen. But there was no way that any US-hosted website could have touched them. They'd have been closed down within hours.

Whether there is anything particularly important or revelatory in the latest release remains to be seen.

Alouiseg Mon 29-Nov-10 08:54:53
lucky1979 Mon 29-Nov-10 09:33:08

So what have we learned from the leaks:

Prince Andrew is a bit of a knob
Diplomats do a bit of spying on the side, including on countries they're meant to be friends with
Countries are concerned about the security of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal
North Korea is a total basket case
US diplomats don't have a high opinion of other world leaders (as oppose to our opinions of US leaders which are always highly complimentary. George W Bush anyone?)
The Afghan governement is corrupt
Silvio Berlesconi is involved with dodgy dealings and bribes
The rest of the middle east is extremely concerned that Iran may have a nuclear bomb (when they don't)

Well, it's revolutionary stuff alright. Or it's just a rehash of the guardian's comment is free section over the last year.

I think the only truly embarrassing revelation for the US is how shit their basic security is really.

lucky1979 Mon 29-Nov-10 09:36:20

snorbs - agree with the need for whistleblowing, however, this isn't whistleblowing, it's airing of slightly mucky laundry IMO.

slug Mon 29-Nov-10 10:14:07

Agree lucky. There's not a lot there that we didn't know/suspect already.

Great summary Lucky - and I think you could be right about CIF smile.

KerryMumbles Tue 30-Nov-10 20:36:12

SUPPORT THIS CROWD!!!

Their site is getting hacked into as we speak.

Wonder who is doing the hacking?

Did you get Hillary on the news? Cunt.

Sheerer1 Mon 06-Dec-10 10:16:06

I tried to read some of documents on wikileaks but they seems to be very very long and complex.. as a normal user I don't think you get to much useful information.. and who tells you that all the information is true anyway? .. I don't believe to much in what is written in newspapers or in the internet especially so why should I believe everything on wikileaks???

allthatsturquoise Wed 03-Oct-12 15:31:16

Julian Assange is in hiding in the Ecuadorian embassy. The Respect party is split over George Galloway anti-women statements purportedly in support of Assange's case that the Swedish authorities will comply with potential requests for his extradition. Main wikileaks source Bradley Manning is still facing completely dehumanising treatment- perpetually lit, solitary confinement in a US jail.
In India a wikileaks cable revealed that transnational energy and resources company Essar paid protection money to Maoist guerillas. In a crudely conceived and executed alleged sting operation, state police in central indian state of Chhattisgarh rounded up an Essar executive, a local contractor and two local people- a young journalist and his aunt, local teacher and mother of three young children Soni Sori.
Soni Sori has been in prison awaiting either sufficient public outcry or some sort of eventual fixed trial for conspiring to handle Essar money "destined" for Maoists.
She has been adopted as an Amnesty Prisoner of Conscience, but local Amnesty groups here focus on support for women in the Arab spring.

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now