Quote:
Originally Posted by
SDW2001 
I don't agree that this was a managed leak. I don't see any reason to have such a leak. I think that Assange fancies himself as some sort of raging man against the machine. I also think that the information was obtained illegally, for which he will be prosecuted in some form (even if its not on charges related to the offense).
Now, I do agree that there is really nothing in these cables and documents that "endangers national security." Are our allies and enemies really surprised that we talk about them? Is it a really a surprise that older WMDs were found in Iraq? In it surprising that our Secretary of State was checking up on the mental health of a foreign leader?
I realize some will attack me for this, but frankly...I just don't care. Who does care, beyond the corporate-whore media?
I likewise don't think that it is a big propaganda-fabrication, not because it wouldn't be possible, but because of seeing no reason for doing this as it would have no advantage for the US.
I think it's the natural consequence of the new communication-technologies and probably a watershed-moment that will be remembered in decades to come. Should we call it wikileak-gate?
This is a diplomatic a-bomb that pulls the curtain away and shows us what we already suspected was going on... but it has a whole different quality to see our suspections proven.
Currently only a small part of the documents were published, there is probably still a lot of "dangerous" information waiting to see the day of light, so we will probably have a lot of fun for months to come.
Of course a whole machinery of defense is already being set in motion by the US- and other governments to reduce the impact of the wikileaks:
1. They portray Assange as an egoistic maniac, who is maybe a rapist. It's the old tactic of killing the messenger. Of course the secret agencies would like to kill him for real but that would make him only a martyr and his message more convincing. The ideal solution would be to convict him for some crimes or to pressure him until he commits suicide.
Maybe Assange is a rapist, who knows, but it doesn't change the meaning of the wikileaks in any way.
2. They try to prevent the publication of the rest of the documents by forcing internet-providers to deny wikileaks a platform as happened with Amazon and by asking the major newspapers that have the full documents to consult with them on what to report and what not. The justification for that is of course the national security, the endangerment of diplomatic trust...
3. They try to downplay the importance of the leaked cables, belittling it...
Until today there were these "explosive" leaks:
1. Hillary Clinton ordered diplomats to spy out the leadership of the UN, including aquiring iris-scans of Ban Ki Moon and credit-card- and other infos of him and his colleagues.
2. The UK-government assured the US to let it use a loophole to allow it to keep cluster-bombs on UK-soil that is leased by the US, despite the UK signing a ban on cluster-bombs that prohibits it to store cluster-bombs on UK-soil and to prohibit it to help other countries in using, developing or storing them.
3. The arab governments of Jordan and Saudi-Arabia called the US to attack Iran, "to cut off the head of the snake".
4. Russia's government, an autocracy around Putin, is being described as being so involved in organized crime that there is no difference between them.
5. The US supports the kurdish terror-organization PKK inside Iraq, freeing its militants, training them and delivering weapons and funds to them.
It will take months to digest through the many documents to be released and there will probably more and more revealing infromation coming out of it, interesting times are ahead.
