Quote:

---

One of the great ironies of the latest WikiLeaks dump, in fact, is that the industrial quantities of pilfered State Department documents actually show American diplomats doing their jobs the way diplomats should, and doing them very well indeed. When the cables detail corruption at the top of the Afghan government, the Saudi king’s desire to be rid of the Iranian threat, the personality quirks of European leaders, or the state of the Russian mafiacracy, the reporting is very much in line with what the press has already told the public. There’s no big disconnect about the facts; no evidence—in the recent cables at least—that the United States government is trying to deceive the public or itself. And when it comes to taking action, far from confirming the increasingly commonplace image of a waning superpower and a feckless State Department, the WikiLeaks cables show that American diplomats draw on the full range of tools at their disposal, the soft power of persuasion and the hard power of economic and even covert military action, especially in the fight against Al Qaeda.

“Diplomacy is about a mix,” says Joseph Nye, a former head of the National Intelligence Council, who coined the term “soft power.” “The cables reveal how effective most American diplomats really are.” Do they always get what they want? No. There are endless compromises and work-arounds. But Harvard’s cold-eyed realist Stephen M. Walt notes that the cables leaked so far show that, still, “everybody around the world wants Uncle Sucker to solve their problems.” As Walt wrote on ForeignPolicy.com, “It is still striking how many pies the United States has its fingers in, and how others keep expecting us to supply the ingredients, do most of the baking, and clean up the kitchen afterwards.” Sir Christopher Meyer, former British ambassador to Washington, suggests with typical reserve that “the chaps in the field are doing pretty well,” while Roger Cohen, the veteran foreign correspondent and columnist for The New York Times, is absolutely frank in his admiration for the people writing those cables: “Let’s hear it for the men and women of the U.S. Foreign Service!”

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
This is espionage, pure and simple,

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:
In part:

Quote:

---

One of the great ironies of the latest WikiLeaks dump, in fact, is that the industrial quantities of pilfered State Department documents actually show American diplomats doing their jobs the way diplomats should, and doing them very well indeed. When the cables detail corruption at the top of the Afghan government, the Saudi king’s desire to be rid of the Iranian threat, the personality quirks of European leaders, or the state of the Russian mafiacracy, the reporting is very much in line with what the press has already told the public. There’s no big disconnect about the facts; no evidence—in the recent cables at least—that the United States government is trying to deceive the public or itself. And when it comes to taking action, far from confirming the increasingly commonplace image of a waning superpower and a feckless State Department, the WikiLeaks cables show that American diplomats draw on the full range of tools at their disposal, the soft power of persuasion and the hard power of economic and even covert military action, especially in the fight against Al Qaeda.

“Diplomacy is about a mix,” says Joseph Nye, a former head of the National Intelligence Council, who coined the term “soft power.” “The cables reveal how effective most American diplomats really are.” Do they always get what they want? No. There are endless compromises and work-arounds. But Harvard’s cold-eyed realist Stephen M. Walt notes that the cables leaked so far show that, still, “everybody around the world wants Uncle Sucker to solve their problems.” As Walt wrote on ForeignPolicy.com, “It is still striking how many pies the United States has its fingers in, and how others keep expecting us to supply the ingredients, do most of the baking, and clean up the kitchen afterwards.” Sir Christopher Meyer, former British ambassador to Washington, suggests with typical reserve that “the chaps in the field are doing pretty well,” while Roger Cohen, the veteran foreign correspondent and columnist for The New York Times, is absolutely frank in his admiration for the people writing those cables: “Let’s hear it for the men and women of the U.S. Foreign Service!”

---

http://www.newsweek.com/2010/12/05/not-dead-yet.html

Pretty much the way I see it. Aside from a bit of embarrassment over lax security, this actually gives the U.S. the chance to air stuff they couldn't previously, because they had to be "Diplomatic".

Also, while there's posturing in U.S. political circles about punishing Assaunge, I doubt much will come of it, since he really did, in my opinion, more good than harm for U.S. diplomacy.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by canttakesky:
And yet punishing him they are.

The man is sitting in jail without bail, isn't he?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
This is espionage, pure and simple, and the man should be brought to America and face that charge. He is giving aid and comfort to our enemies during a time of war, and we have a legal right and an obligation to our national security to stop him. If he had released stolen Russian or Chinese top secret documents he'd have been shot dead long ago. He is a coward and a punk, and is part of the George Soros destroy America crowd. The American who stole all this data on his Lady Gaga blank CD will spend the rest of his life in prison. Assange will likely and deservedly do the same.



]

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
Releasing the info is the same as stealing it, actually worse.

---

Quote:

---

Section 793(e)reads “Whoever having unauthorized possession of, access to, or control over any document…relating to the national defense…willfully communicates… the same and fails to deliver it to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it…[s]hall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.”

As made clear in the Pentagon Papers case, the word “communicates” was never meant “to encompass publication” or to affect the press. Congress included the word “publish” in three other sections of the Act but intentionally left it out of 793. As the legislative history of this provision states, “Nothing in this Act shall…in any way to limit or infringe upon freedom of the press or of speech as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States.”

Justice Douglas referenced the legislative history in his concurring opinion, when he wrote of Section 793, “it is apparent that Congress was capable of, and did, distinguish between publishing and communication in the various sections of the Espionage Act.”

...

All of this evidence suggests that the Justice Department’s statement saying they are “exploring possible criminal charges” against Wikileaks is just posturing.

As Timothy Matusheski, a lawyer working with Wikileaks and Mr. Assange, said, “They accuse him of breaking the law. But they haven’t said what law.” Perhaps because they can’t find one.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:
It's all a big plot,...

---

Quote:

---

The two Swedish women who accuse WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange of sexual misconduct were at first not seeking to bring charges against him.

They just wanted to track him down and persuade him to be tested for sexually transmitted diseases, according to several people in contact with his entourage at the time.

---

Quote:

---

Dear Prime Minister,

We note with concern the increasingly violent rhetoric directed towards Julian Assange of WikiLeaks.

“We should treat Mr Assange the same way as other high-value terrorist targets: Kill him,” writes conservative columnist Jeffrey T Kuhner in the Washington Times.

William Kristol, former chief of staff to vice president Dan Quayle, asks, “Why can’t we use our various assets to harass, snatch or neutralize Julian Assange and his collaborators, wherever they are?”

“Why isn’t Julian Assange dead?” writes the prominent US pundit Jonah Goldberg.

“The CIA should have already killed Julian Assange,” says John Hawkins on the Right Wing News site.

Sarah Palin, a likely presidential candidate, compares Assange to an Al Qaeda leader; Rick Santorum, former Pennsylvania senator and potential presidential contender, accuses Assange of “terrorism”.

And so on and so forth.

Such calls cannot be dismissed as bluster. Over the last decade, we have seen the normalisation of extrajudicial measures once unthinkable, from ‘extraordinary rendition’ (kidnapping) to ‘enhanced interrogation’ (torture).

In that context, we now have grave concerns for Mr Assange’s wellbeing.

.... read more at link

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Niki2:
I don't think so, CTTS; I think it is a further reflection of fear. "The government at least keeps us safe, that's all I care about".

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Niki2:
Most definitely not intentionally condescending. More along the lines of "sigh...our opinions won't mean anything to anyone but us", as in "sad" that this is so. We ARE irrelevant, in both the Wikileaks thing and most other things, that's all. Not how it should be, not condescending, just sad.

Once again, I think my style, the weaknesses of the written word AND internet, lead to a misconception. When I MEAN to be condescending, I think it shows pretty well.

---

Quote:

---

Would YOU rape* this CIA agent, if she begged you to rape* her AND HER HOTTIE NAZI FRIEND over and over in her own bed?

*Rape is defined as consentual sex without a condom in Sweden.

---