Another Wikileaks release

[Yasa]

Whistle-blowing website Wikileaks has released 250,000 secret messages sent by US embassies which give an insight into current American global concerns. They include reports of some Arab leaders - including Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah - urging the US to attack Iran and end its nuclear weapons programme.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11858895

Interesting to hear about US political concerns. I'm curious to see how these leaks will affect the US in the short, and long-term.

[driveway]

I believe that Wikileaks is a valuable resource for the world, but I'll admit that I would like to see them make some releases that aren't specifically targeted against the US government.

We've seen Afghan War, Iraq War and now US Diplomatic document releases. Where are the Russian documents? The Chinese? Wikileaks could just as easily be used to release documentation from some of the more oppressive regimes of the world.

Maybe they have been and it hasn't been getting the press here, or maybe they just got one really, really good source in the US.

[puckluck]

Wow that is not a good thing that Iran now knows that Saudi Arabia wants Iran attacked.

Don't understand how this release could be a good thing. Will probably only lead to a greater chance of war.

[MelBridgeman]

Originally Posted by puckluck

Wow that is not a good thing that Iran now knows that Saudi Arabia wants Iran attacked.

Don't understand how this release could be a good thing. Will probably only lead to a greater chance of war.

If that's true then wikileaks is doing more harm than good. But i would imagine Iran could already know that anyway.

[Cowperson]

Originally Posted by driveway

Maybe they have been and it hasn't been getting the press here, or maybe they just got one really, really good source in the US.

It is true that this is all essentially from one source isn't it, a USA Army person? http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/06/conscience/

Seems like a bit of a tempest in a teapot. Interesting to some extent to a layman but, among governments and diplomats, probably not a lot that wasn't already known or suspected.

The potential is there to whip up populations with something unguarded but by and large it looks like most people in the world have only given this stuff a passing glance.

Loved this from the Washington Post . . .

. . . . while Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi is accompanied everywhere by a "voluptuous blonde" Ukrainian nurse.

Wow that is not a good thing that Iran now knows that Saudi Arabia wants Iran attacked.

That's hardly a revelation.

Cowperson

[puckluck]

Originally Posted by MelBridgeman

If that's true then wikileaks is doing more harm than good. But i would imagine Iran could already know that anyway.

I don't think Saudi Arabia would ever want to let Iran know they want them attacked. If so, then it wouldn't really be a worthy of being a Wikileak no?

[Phaneuf3]

let me know when the 9/11 conspiracy documents get released...

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by driveway

I believe that Wikileaks is a valuable resource for the world, but I'll admit that I would like to see them make some releases that aren't specifically targeted against the US government.

We've seen Afghan War, Iraq War and now US Diplomatic document releases. Where are the Russian documents? The Chinese? Wikileaks could just as easily be used to release documentation from some of the more oppressive regimes of the world.

Maybe they have been and it hasn't been getting the press here, or maybe they just got one really, really good source in the US.

That's pretty much it. According to the Wikipedia page, WikiLeaks has released many documents that have nothing to do with the United States. For example, in 2009 the site won an Amnesty International media award for leaking information about secret extra-judicial killings in Kenya.

A list of the site's notable leaks is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikileaks#Notable_leaks

[puckluck]

Originally Posted by Cowperson

Wow that is not a good thing that Iran now knows that Saudi Arabia wants Iran attacked.

That's hardly a revelation.

Cowperson

Has the Saudi government ever spoke out against Iran? I could be wrong, but I don't recall the Saudi's ever speaking out against Iran.

This will just add more fuel to ahmednajsjhshsjads fire.

[T@T]

Originally Posted by puckluck

Has the Saudi government ever spoke out against Iran? I could be wrong, but I don't recall the Saudi's ever speaking out against Iran.

This will just add more fuel to ahmednajsjhshsjads fire.

I remember a while back the Saudi King told the Iranians "your just Persians,mind your own business and leave Arab business to Arab's" or something to that effect. It was when the Saudi's allowed the Americans to use their country as a staging ground against Iraq

[HPLovecraft]

I am sure Iran already knows the country full of American military bases isn't really their best friend in the world.

Really interesting stuff, but nothing much new if you're a realist. The Mid-East might be a religious region, but they're not all suicidal crackpots. Many of them are genuinely afraid of Iran.

[mamacint]

According to Radio-Canada the canadian documents are from the Halifax, Toronto, Montréal, Québec, Vancouver and Calgary consulates and the embassy.

http://www.radio-canada.ca/nouvelles...es-monde.shtml

Google translated:

Five international newspapers begin publishing the contents of nearly 250,000 U.S. diplomatic documents submitted by the website Wikileaks. The documents, posted in a progressive manner, in particular reveal that Saudi Arabia urged Washington to attack Iran for fear of his nuclear program.
You can access the database by clicking here Wikileaks: cablegate.wikileaks.org.
If you find documents relevant to Canada-US relations, send us a detailed email to the following address: temoin@radio-canada.ca.


These documents, dating mainly from the last three years and whose contents will be released in the coming days, are analytical and notes, U.S. officials exchanged between the State Department and various embassies in a format Telegraph.
The interest of the publication of these documents is that they reveal a frank U.S. diplomatic relations. It speaks for example of hypochondria of Muammar Gaddafi, the Libyan Head of State, the "wild parties" of the Prime Minister of Italy, and esteem of Washington's Nicolas Sarkozy.
The French daily Le Monde began publishing Sunday night on its website of the elements contained in U.S. diplomatic documents "secret" or "confidential" on the Iranian nuclear issue submitted by the website Wikileaks.

The U.S. daily New York Times announced on its website that will be published several articles on various topics including:

• US-Pakistani talks on the withdrawal of Pakistani uranium enrichment;
• discussions on the possible reunification of the two Koreas in the event that the power of North Korea collapses;
• negotiations with Slovenia, Belgium and Kiribati, a small State of Micronesia, around the transfer of prisoners from Guantanamo;
• allegations of corruption in relation to the Afghan Vice-President (he visited the UAE with 52 million U.S. dollars in cash);
• a cyber attack against the servers in Beijing Chinese Google;
• reluctant allies in the war on terrorism;
• an intriguing alliance between Vladimir Putin and Silvio Berlusconi;
• delivery of weapons from Syria to the Lebanese branch of Hezbollah;
• talks with Germany that Berlin does not lay charges against the CIA agents who have not respected the rights of a German. The man, whose identity the CIA was wrong, was kidnapped and held against their will in Afghanistan for several months.

Canada and the leakage
For now, no major story involving Canada has been revealed by the media. Moreover, Canada does not appear in the map of British daily The Guardian that shows the countries affected by the leak.

We know however that 251,287 documents received over 2000 from Canada.

• Canadian Embassy: 1948
• Consulate Toronto: 145
• Consulate Halifax: 136
• Consulate Montreal: 82
• Consulate Quebec: 52
• Consulate Vancouver: 44
• Consulate Calgary: 14

Canadian Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lawrence Cannon, said Sunday that "this kind of irresponsible leaks is deplorable and does not serve the national interests of anyone. Their authors may threaten our national security. "

The number out of Halifax is curiously high (I never new we even had a consulate there), unless it's related to ship movements which I would've thought would be shared info between Nato alllies. *shrug*


Also this re: Ahmadinejad

¶1. (C) In a conversation today with Iran Watcher, a [Source removed] in Ashgabat labeled the announcement of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s victory in Friday’s presidential election a “coup d’etat,” and called Iran’s incumbent President “another Pinochet.” [Name removed] said that based on calculations from Mousavi’s campaign observers who were present at polling stations around the country and who witnessed the vote counts, Mousavi received approximately 26 million (or 61%) of the 42 million votes cast in Friday’s election, followed by Mehdi Karroubi (10-12 million). According to his sources, Ahmadinejad received “a maximum of 4-5 million votes,” with the remainder going to Mohsen Rezai. He said that more than anything else, the huge turnout of voters on Friday was a reflection of the Iranian electorate’s overwhelming “anti-Ahmadinejad” sentiments.
PRECINCT RESULTS OBSCURED
¶2. (C) [Name removed] said that in a clear departure from established electoral rules and practice in Iran, including the procedures followed in the 2005 presidential election and last year’s legislative elections, the authorities embargoed the results from individual precincts and announced instead that they must be conveyed directly to the central election authorities, who would announce the overall results after all the votes were counted. The Iranian authorities knew, he said, that attempts to falsify individual precinct counts could be countered by observers from the Mousavi and the other campaigns, so in order to engineer a “lopsided” Ahmadinejad victory, they had no choice but to conceal the precinct results. In his words, “People know who they voted for and the observers know who won in each precinct.”
ARAB REACTION: A HUGE DISAPPOINTMENT
¶3. (C) [Name removed] said that Iranians are puzzled by the muted reaction thus far of the U.S. and EU governments, as well as “very disappointed” by the number of Arab rulers who have sent messages to Ahmadinejad congratulating him on his “victory.” He said that the international community should acknowledge the illegitimacy of the election and demand that the Iranian authorities release and account for the results from each precinct. He said the IRGC (Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps) was behind the “coup.” Even Supreme Leader Khamenei, he said, to whom the IRGC owes allegiance, is “not totally in control” of the IRGC. Citing the IRGC’s warnings against a “velvet revolution” in the days leading up to the election, it would appear that the IRGC has taken on “a life of its own.”

[HPLovecraft]

Yes, it threatens our national security, even though we have no idea if it actually does yet. They said the same thing about the original leak, and then later came out and said it didn't actually pose any real risk and nothing happened from it.

[Jimdon]

What purpose does this serve other than to undermine their own countries security? These guys should be shut down permanently and I'm sorry to say deserve to be prosecuted.

[HPLovecraft]

Originally Posted by Jimdon

What purpose does this serve other than to undermine their own countries security? These guys should be shut down permanently and I'm sorry to say deserve to be prosecuted.

Wait, why do they deserve to be prosecuted?

"Security" is running the risk of becoming a catch-all buzz-word these days.

[T@T]

Another leak has Israeli/US talks of striking Iran.

A cable dated June 2009 describes meetings between two congressional delegations and Israeli officials. It says that Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak "estimated a window between 6 and 18 months from now in which stopping Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons might still be viable."

"If the Iranians continue to protect and harden their nuclear sites, it will be more difficult to target and damage them," the cable says.
The cable continues: "Both sides then discussed the upcoming delivery of GBU-28 bunker busting bombs to Israel, noting that the transfer should be handled quietly to avoid any allegations that the USG (U.S. government) is helping Israel prepare for a strike against Iran."

http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/11/28/us....ex.html?hpt=T1

Hmmm, next month is the 18th month.

[HPLovecraft]

Originally Posted by T@T

Another leak has Israeli/US talks of striking Iran.


http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/11/28/us....ex.html?hpt=T1

Hmmm, next month is the 18th month.

It also states that Israel has said on other occasions since 2005 that Iran's program is reaching a "critical point" and that an all-out attack would cause too much collateral damage. I wouldn't hold your breath for anything.

Really, I am not reading anything new from these leaks that we don't already know. The West doesn't like Iranian leadership, Arab states are afraid of what a nuclear armed Iran might do, the Saudis don't like the Iranians, and Israel really doesn't like them. Nothing at this point you can't glean from reading the news every other day, except there are diplomatic names attached to them and the language is a little stronger.

[T@T]

Originally Posted by HPLovecraft

It also states that Israel has said on other occasions since 2005 that Iran's program is reaching a "critical point" and that an all-out attack would cause too much collateral damage. I wouldn't hold your breath for anything.

Really, I am not reading anything new from these leaks that we don't already know. The West doesn't like Iranian leadership, Arab states are afraid of what a nuclear armed Iran might do, the Saudis don't like the Iranians, and Israel really doesn't like them. Nothing at this point you can't glean from reading the news every other day, except there are diplomatic names attached to them and the language is a little stronger.

It's also says in 2007 they talked about changing the ruling regime in Iran, that didn't work as they hoped (guess Ahmadinejad was right about the election)

To me it seems critical, you simply can't allow these people to have nuclear bombs.

[Jimdon]

Originally Posted by HPLovecraft

Wait, why do they deserve to be prosecuted?

Treason?

[Codes]

Am I the only one that thinks that some secret things should be kept... secret?

I agree that transparency is a key issue with governments and militaries these days, but some people are privvy to some very damaging and dangerous information that really isn't suited for dinner table conversation.

I'm particularly concerned about the identities of agents, informants, and sources being published, which really does put them in grave danger.

I just don't see what purpose most of this information will serve for most people?

That said, I'm interested to see what dirt they've dug up!