WikiLeaks about to hit the fan

Washington is running a secret intelligence campaign targeted at the leadership of the United Nations, including the secretary general, Ban Ki-moon and the permanent security council representatives from China, Russia, France and the UK.

A classified directive which appears to blur the line between diplomacy and spying was issued to US diplomats under Hillary Clinton's name in July 2009, demanding forensic technical details about the communications systems used by top UN officials, including passwords and personal encryption keys used in private and commercial networks for official communications.

It called for detailed biometric information "on key UN officials, to include undersecretaries, heads of specialised agencies and their chief advisers, top SYG [secretary general] aides, heads of peace operations and political field missions, including force commanders" as well as intelligence on Ban's "management and decision-making style and his influence on the secretariat". A parallel intelligence directive sent to diplomats in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Uganda, Rwanda and Burundi said biometric data included DNA, fingerprints and iris scans.

Washington also wanted credit card numbers, email addresses, phone, fax and pager numbers and even frequent-flyer account numbers for UN figures and "biographic and biometric information on UN Security Council permanent representatives". ....

Quote:

....why did we decide to publish these articles and selected cables?

BECAUSE WE CAN

Or simply because we have the right to have access to such information?
Why shouldn't we know what or our elected governments are actually doing?
Surely it is in the best interests of democracy for us to know?:

Quote:

... All governments have a legitimate right to protect national security. This should be a specific, and closely scrutinised, area of policy. Most of our secrecy rules are designed merely to protect politicians and officials from embarrassment. Documents are habitually over-classified for this purpose. The previous (UK) government made desperate attempts to stop legal evidence of its collusion in torture from reaching the public. Ministers argued, speciously, that this was to protect the "special intelligence relationship" with Washington. .....

As with all free speech, as with Wikileaks, context is key. It is vital to know when governments collude in torture or other illegal acts. It is important to know when they say one thing in private (about a particular world leader) and do quite another in public. It is perturbing to know that aid agencies may have been used by the military, particularly in Afghanistan, to help Nato forces to "win hearts and minds".

These questions, and more, are vital for the democratic debate. The answers inevitably cause embarrassment. That too is essential for a healthy civil society. Good journalists and editors should be capable of separating the awkward from the damaging. Information that could endanger life, either in the short term or as part of a longer-term operation, should remain secret. ....

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/john-kampfner-wikileaks-shows-up-our-media-for-their-docility-at-the-feet-of-authority-2146211.html

Wikileaks and Assange are not about shining light on government secrets they believe may be harmful, they are about assuming that all government secrets are harmful and doing all they can to expose them.

Finally, I don't trust so-called good journalists or editors to separate the awkward from the damaging. Can Assange be considered either and certainly he has proven he can't be trusted? (Someone on this thread likened him to Robin Hood)

But most of the embarrassment is about the portrayals of some foreign leaders by the writers killing time.

I'd imagine most citizens of other democratic countries would feel pretty much the same way.

Oh sweet irony -- US congressman who raised funds for the IRA wants Wikileaks to be classified as terrorists http://politi.co/e0d1fe :-D

Can I ask if there are any specific examples of information you've come across in the the current & previous Wikileaks that you believe we shouldn't have had access to?

Is there any veracity to that claim? Did Peter King raise funds for the IRA?

The United States and the IRA

The IRA was a genuine terrorist group, but it was listed as such by our government most of all because it was a sworn enemy of one of our closest allies. The record seems clear: terrorist groups that are useful to us or harmful to states we officially oppose are given a pass, while those that target us or our allies are condemned in the strongest terms. That’s the nature of things in the real world, I suppose, but it is something that none of the reponses to the counterfactual seems to be taking into account. Had things gone very differently in the last century and London and Washington became enemies once more, it is very easy to imagine that the IRA or similar groups would have been made into anti-British proxies of the U.S. government.

http://www.spectator.co.uk/alexmassie/3239896/the-united-states-and-the-ira.thtml

Your question was addressed to Finn, but I would probably say "No." As long as it is made clear that much of the stuff made public were musings by people who are paid to muse about "what if?"

Is there any veracity to that claim? Did Peter King raise funds for the IRA?

Leaked video shows gunship killing journalists:

US embassy cables: hanging North Korea out to dry
Editorial
The Guardian, Tuesday 30 November 2010

If the leaked cables are read and absorbed by Pyongyang, they may instil realism in a dictatorship so clearly lacking it

The US secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, last night attempted to limit the damage caused to US diplomacy by the leaking of US embassy cables, which she claimed both endangered the lives of real people – who were used as sources by US diplomats – and tore at the fabric of proper international discourse. Within a few moments of the condemnation, Ms Clinton found herself referring to the contents of the cables as backing for US sanctions on Iran. She said that anyone reading the cables would see that Iran did pose a threat and that its Arab neighbours were concerned about it. Ms Clinton thus elegantly had her cake and ate it – in the same breath attacking the dangerously irresponsible exposure of information while also welcoming evidence that US policy on Iran had wider regional support than was earlier realised. Between the two moments, Ms Clinton also issued a muted apology for the leaks. If anything endangered confidential informers, it was the decision to disseminate their information on an intranet with a potential audience of 3 million.

Nor should we axiomatically accept that the release of this information is harmful. Today's revelation from the embassy cables that North Korea had lost its strategic value to China as a buffer state between their forces and US ones, and that Beijing would accept the reunification of the peninsula under Seoul's leadership, should send shivers down the spine of the right person – the ailing dictator Kim Jong-il. Pyongyang could be about to lose its only insurer. Long before last week's lethal shelling of a South Korean island, it is clear from the private views of senior Chinese officials that their strategic asset had turned into a major liability.

South Korea's vice foreign minister was told by two named Chinese officials that they believed Korea should be reunified under Seoul's control; a Chinese ambassador called North Korea's nuclear activity a threat to the whole world, and China has already calculated how many refugees it could take in from North Korea before closing its borders. This nugget alone should give Pyongyang greater pause for thought than any military exercise near its shores. The implication is clear: as long as US troops stay south of the demilitarised zone that bisects the Korean peninsula, China would not stop the regime collapsing after the death of Kim Jong-il. It had already, in their view, collapsed economically and, despite efforts to secure a succession to the inexperienced youngest son Kim Jong-un, it was likely to collapse politically. If the leaking of these cables was read and absorbed by North Korea's ageing generals, this would be an example of disclosure instilling realism into a military dictatorship which so clearly lacks it. ...<cont>

Wikileaks cables reveal China 'ready to abandon North Korea'
Leaked dispatches show Beijing is frustrated with military actions of 'spoiled child' and increasingly favours reunified Korea ...:

Wikileaks cables reveal China 'ready to abandon North Korea'