The actual value of the information in the Wiki leaks release is sketchy

[bigtree]

There may well be some bombshells and smoking guns in the latest Wikileaks releases, but the cables look to have a 'he said, she said' element which I doubt will significantly enhance or change the debate in Washington over our foreign affairs more than it just adds another arguable layer to the inside chatter.

Will it really matter what Saudi King Abdullah thinks of the end results of the Iraq invasion and occupation? Does it really matter that SoS Clinton sought out dossiers on the individuals she endeavored to negotiate with? Maybe, to historians or journalists (or policymakers), but its hard to see anyone actually employing any of the Wikileak information in any serious policy debate or prosecution without serious challenge to its credibility because of the dubious nature of its source.

It would be different if there was some way for Julian Assange to stand unassailable and defend the documents as a protected and accountable whistleblower, but it doesn't look like he's going to come any closer to any of that credibility because of the proliferation of officials and others enhanced interest in prosecuting him. That impetus to criminalize the releases is not going to change, mostly because the principals affected are often the same folks with their hands on the legal levers of opposition to the leaks of these official communications between government officials.

There will always be deniablity for those officials and leaders whose remarks have been revealed out of context and often in cryptic form. They may well prove embarrassing or awkward, but the releases are mostly titillating and just more chatter on top of all of the other speculative political chit-chat.

The releases may well be a good, and sometimes revealing, addition to narratives which intend to hold government officials accountable, but they are going to be irrevocably tainted by the source that has presented them unless we somehow legalize and legitimize this type of interception and theft of government communications. I just don't see that happening.

[Hissyspit]

1. MIT: WikiLeaks Isn't Going Anywhere

http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/editors/26085

[bigtree]

3. maybe not from U.S .hands

. . . at least not directly. I can't imagine that other nations without any of our constitutional or legal restraints won't find some way to reach out and touch the operators of the site.

[2Design]

2. that's how they will downplay what they have done - just enhanced interogation NOT torture - yeah ri

[bigtree]

4. government officials will likely not even address the contents directly

. . . referring instead to the tainted source.

[MadHound]

5. Sketchy is in the eyes of the beholder,

Even if all this is just "background material", put it together with other information and you can find new and interesting conclusions.

Not to mention the information about US support for the Honduran coup is anything but sketchy.
<http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/11/29-9?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter>

[bigtree]

7. how do you use the information?

Is it really something which can be used in court? The source may well be the government, but it's filtered through Wikileaks, isn't it?

[MadHound]

13. Congressional investigation, but that's not going to happen

The US has a long history of both passive and active support for anti-democratic coups and none of them have been investigated. However the public does deserve to know what our government does in our name, and perhaps the public will one day have enough sense to call for an accounting.

Keeping such information secret in a democracy is a profoundly anti-democratic concept. To give such support in our name, without our knowledge is against the spirit of this country.

[EFerrari]

6. The source isn't tainted. The source is the US government

and these are digital docs. The manner of their duplication is a separate matter but no one can question their authenticity.

In fact, it looks like Mel Zelaya is going back to the UN with that cable about Honduras in hand. The UN has already responded, as well, to the cable where Clinton's requests for intel on the Security Council members is detailed.

I guess I see the manner of this release a little differently. It is massive but if you know what you want, you can find find information easily. What you can't do is stick out for looking at it because so many people are looking at the same material. The manner of release gives maximum cover to people accessing any part of it. All the less interesting or less important stuff is like camouflage but even so, it's not really possible to tell what is less interesting or less important to somebody.

Julian seems to be a very serious person. I don't think he'd go to all this trouble over gossip about rich people.

[bigtree]

8. digital docs of conversations

. . . a great deal of hearsay involved in the chatter.

I thought the stuff Secretary Clinton was looking for was tame and mostly related to her the work she hopes to accomplish. I think its interesting how her inquiries are being called 'spying' when they appear to be standard fact-finding and personnel related efforts.

[EFerrari]

9. It is spying but isn't that part of her job?

When I was younger, I always imagined the State Department as a big Welcome Wagon, full of white gloved greeters who ate at nice tables with famous people.

But in truth, the State Department is up to its eyeballs in intelligence and home to CIA and DIA agents all over the world. I don't think you can be Secretary of State without participating in all of that.

[bigtree]

10. right, like that

I don't know how she can reasonably do her job otherwise.

[alcibiades_mystery]

11. I dunno: all I heard on NPR is how Iran is REALLY REALLY dangerous

and everybody wants to attack them.

That's what I heard on NPR about Wikileaks.

Maybe the Assange Cult thinks that's a good kind of sunshine. We shall see.

[Generic Other]

12. When you suspect your spouse is cheating on you

finding the text messages doesn't really change anything, but it does wipe the smirk off the lying bastard's face!