Let's stay on topic. Someone made a statement and was asked to back up the information. Until/unless they do, we can assume that the information was mis-written. No one needs to apologize. The discussion is about the result of Wikileaks.

Thanks.

WikiLeaks will be remembered as a seed, planted in the world of Internet information and many seeds will follow. It's just a beginning and we can't even comprehend the total effect it will have on the people of so many countries.

Yes, Diplomats well get new instructions how to communicate and Diplomats in many countries will be more careful to one another. The documents/cables showed that the conversation between the Foreign Embassies and the Base at home (so to speak) wasn't chique and proper.

It also showed that many Governments didn't learn from previous experiences and keep on lying and cheating upon their own people; the same people who made it possible, not only because of their votes but also because of their paid taxes, that their leaders could take the seats.

That's a disgrace and that's why WikiLeaks is opening the eyes of hundreds of millions of people.

The question in the OP was "What will be the results of WikiLeaks' Actions Be.." and the largest mistake the Governments in question would make is to implement an even greater shield of secrecy around them, cutting off even more information to the citizens of the countries than they already withheld (from their people).

Nobody on this planet can possibly foresee the holes in the information possibilities and Internet since there will always be opportunities for people who are sick and tired of the lies by their own Governments and.............will leak information -this time in total anonymosity- to channels like WikiLeaks.

It's time our Governments play more open and transparent to their taxpayers without having a total transparency in place. But dishonesty and blunt lies should be punished.

It's time the people on top in those Governments realize that they're there - on top - BECAUSE the people allowed them to be there, and because of WikiLeaks the people of the world got a voice, a voice to protest against illegal, unlawful and dirty tricks their Governments were and still are playing.

It's time -and that time WILL come- that leaders will face the bench in the courtrooms of the world, to pay for their dirty and unlawful actions and wars...wars that killed millions of innocent people.

LaoPo

Come writers and critics

Who prophesize with your pen

And keep your eyes wide

The chance won't come again

And don't speak too soon

For the wheel's still in spin

And there's no tellin' who

That it's namin'

For the loser now

Will be later to win

For the times they are a-changin'.

Come senators, congressmen

Please heed the call

Don't stand in the doorway

Don't block up the hall

For he that gets hurt

Will be he who has stalled

There's a battle outside

And it is ragin'

It'll soon shake your windows

And rattle your walls

For the times they are a-changin'.

Three days after Dylan made the final recording Kennedy was assassinated. That was 47 years ago.

If anything WikiLeaks has so far revealed that there is not a politician on the horizon who has the balls or foresight or potential to change anything. Obama's approval rating is down to 40%, so I think you can write him off as a flash in the pan. For all the negatives, America was the world's best hope and that hope is being replaced fear and revulsion of it's role as world policeman.

Where is your change going to come from? China? The European Union? South America? I know you don't want to dance with the one that brought you. But I don't see any other good choices out there dancing right now. I don't see anything changing. It will be business as usual.

The Internet will become less free now. It is USED by people, but it is controlled by governments. The leaks are like liquid explosives on an airplane, we will all suffer more regulation now.

Let's stay on topic. Someone made a statement and was asked to back up the information. Until/unless they do, we can assume that the information was mis-written. No one needs to apologize. The discussion is about the result of Wikileaks.

Thanks.

I was not going to respond further to this topic after Mark's further posts but as you have now implied my comments were without foundation I will clarify.

No legal action has been brought against Wikileaks or Assange in respect of these cables. The only legal action that has been taken is by the US against a member of the diplomatic staff and that is not on a theft charge as no theft has taken place. Just google it and look at the numerous media reports.

The London court case is about the extradition application against Julian Assange, the co-founder of Wikileakes. Again there is a great deal of information on the internet and elsewhere on those hearings. During the hearings the point was made by Assange's lawyer that no charges had been brought against Assange or Wikileaks in respect of the cables. He has suggested there is a political motivation for the extradition and that the extradition is actually linked to the publication of the cables and little to do with the original charge. The judge did not adjudicate on that saying it will be dealt with at the full extrradition hearing. The judge did however reject the Swedish prosecutor's request for bail to be refused. The fact that the original cahrge had been dropped by the swedish prosecutor but has now been reinstated was mentioned by the judge as "obiter dicta"

All this is freely available for posters to look up, there are numerous web addresses.

So the source for the information is the US government itself who have brought no charges ( they are making life difficult and influencing certain web sites, one US bank has now blocked wikileaks accounts )and the London court reports.

It is not me that is going off topic

Leaked or stolen, it doesn't matter; Caf's point is that diplomats should be diplomatic.

I beg to differ. Caf's point was the diplomats were being careless and leaked the documents. That is untrue and he could not back up his false statement. It is black and white Harcort, Caf said, "The emphasis should in my view be on the diplomats who have leaked." How do you get anything else out of that except wrongdoing on the part of diplomats? I realize it is in the interest of untruths about the whole Wikileaks thing to cloud the issue but Caf was trying to paint an untrue picture of US diplomats. Unless he can substantiate his claims he should apologize for posting a falsehood.

If I said something blatantly false and got called on it I would apologize.

Stop getting so personal Mark

I have made no false statements. You may not like them but they are not false. My pointsb are well recorded on the internet and in some of the media.

I am not painting untrue pictures of US dilpomats. I have reported what everyone now knows: they had been indiscrete about their views on certain people and governments.

There has been indiscretion but no theft. The US, to be fair to them, have not said the comments made by the dipomats are false. They can't as the cables are now in the public domain. The fact is that there is egg on many faces all round and the result of the leaks will be damage limitation and clouding the real issue of the diplomtic faux pas in the first place

Future comments by dilpomats will likely be made verbally and not committed to recorded media. A point I made some time ago and to which Scott directly referred. Already happens in the UK privy council.

I am not painting untrue pictures of US dilpomats. I have reported what everyone now knows: they had been indiscrete about their views on certain people and governments.

INDISCREET? They did not post the stolen secret documents on the Internet.

Leaked or stolen, it doesn't matter; Caf's point is that diplomats should be diplomatic.

I beg to differ but I think you bring up an interesting point. A leak is when a person intentionally tells something to the press that his boss does not want him to reveal for whatever reason. Stolen is when a third party takes something that the speaker and his boss don't want revealed. When I was in the Army I had a map detailing troop positions in Laos. Thailand was insisting they had no troops in Laos. If I had called the newspaper and given them a copy of the map, that would have been a leak. If the reporter or some random GI had broken into my office and stolen a copy of the map that would have been stealing.

If the result of WikiLeaks contains no disciplinary action for the thief or the media that publish the stolen document then it will encourage more people to steal documents.

Is hacking different than leaking? A leak to me suggests someone involved giving some information. Hacking is any Tom, Dick or Bradley gaining access to protected information.

If there is no legal difference between stealing, leaking and hacking. It might open up a new source of revelations about western governments. When every disgruntled computer hacker or military person realizes he can steal documents and get them published it would create a new source of information. Is this future trend good or bad? Will hackers be able to release confidential engineering data or formulas or security codes? Will the WikiLeaks signal the end of private communications? Will that be the legacy of WikiLeaks?

I think both ulysses and Mark are americans but they seem out of touch with the fact that the us government has itself brought no charges for stealing or theft. You can say it is theft until the cows come home but you are just fantasising. The legal situation in the US is that no crime of theft has been committed

The likely effect of the cables being disclosed ( and they were not all secret, some were not even classified. none were top secret as the government employee now detained did not have that level of clearance.

If you follow these issues more closely elsewhere on the internet and a broad range of media you will note that some sensitive information received has actually not been published.

Look particularly at what Hillary Clinton and Palin have said. They are not putting it the way you seem to want to portray it.

I think both ulysses and Mark are americans but they seem out of touch with the fact that the us government has itself brought no charges for stealing or theft. You can say it is theft until the cows come home but you are just fantasising. The legal situation in the US is that no crime of theft has been committed

The likely effect of the cables being disclosed ( and they were not all secret, some were not even classified. none were top secret as the government employee now detained did not have that level of clearance.

If you follow these issues more closely elsewhere on the internet and a broad range of media you will note that some sensitive information received has actually not been published.

Look particularly at what Hillary Clinton and Palin have said. They are not putting it the way you seem to want to portray it.

Charge sheet" for Pfc. Bradley E. Manning lists 8 federal criminal violations, including one of espionage. http://boingboing.net/2010/07/06/us-will-press-crimin.html

Quoting or reading Sarah Palin has as much validity as quoting Donald Duck. She is an embarrassment to American politics and the American people.

Hillary Clinton has nothing to do with charging PFC Manning except in her dreams.

Did you not capitalize Americans as a grammatical error or because you are trying to make a statement that America is not a country.

The Internet will become less free now. It is USED by people, but it is controlled by governments. The leaks are like liquid explosives on an airplane, we will all suffer more regulation now.

Controlled by Governments...?

Internet is not controlled by Governments per-se but only by those Governments who do not allow Freedom of Speech and the country where this forum is based is a fine example of a Government trying to gag it's people...

If the free, so called democratic, countries in the Western Hemisphere are going to follow the suppressive Governments, and start to control Internet and THUS Freedom of Speech, we really have a problem.

Where is our voice...our call for more openess, more freedom for the people of Myanmar, China, North Korea, Laos and so many more if WE allow our Western Governments to control our Freedom of Speech ?

The problem is not WikiLeaks and the leaked documents.........the problem lies within our Governments.

I'm truly amazed that so many don't see that.

LaoPo

We could always permit the UN to regulate the internet. Perhaps they could do a better job with it than they did with the Oil for Food Program.

______________________________________________________

U.N. Delegates Debate Control Of Internet

by TOM GJELTEN

Among the little-noticed debates at the United Nations this week was one that focuses on a potentially explosive issue: the future of the Internet. On one side are those countries favoring more governmental controls. On the other are the advocates of Internet freedom.

Rest of story here: http://www.npr.org/2010/12/17/132144972/U-N-Delegates-Debate-Control-Of-Internet

We could always permit the UN to regulate the internet. Perhaps they could do a better job with it than they did with the Oil for Food Program.

______________________________________________________

U.N. Delegates Debate Control Of Internet

by TOM GJELTEN

Among the little-noticed debates at the United Nations this week was one that focuses on a potentially explosive issue: the future of the Internet. On one side are those countries favoring more governmental controls. On the other are the advocates of Internet freedom.

Rest of story here: http://www.npr.org/2...rol-Of-Internet

Thanks for the link.

Highly amusing debate in the UN,.......... a tiger without teeth not able to bite.

I seriously doubt, even for a second, that there will ever be a 100% backed UN resolution on controlling the Internet.

Does anyone believe that countries like the US, China, Israel, Mauritania, Serbia, Thailand will have themselves controlled by a UN resolution ?

Really...

The available information on Internet is so huge that it is impossible to stop the ever increasing waves of info.

LaoPo

Leaked or stolen, it doesn't matter; Caf's point is that diplomats should be diplomatic.

It's the job of diplomats to be diplomatic to those countries that they're posted to. It's also their job to be truthful to their employer which needs no diplomacy at all - just their judgement of how things are in the country that they're working in.

The leaks have angered governments (many have been embarrassed) and others who could influence how the Internet is governed. How many countries out there have a state-owned company as the main ISP? Governments aren\t helpless, the Internet isn\t a completely free frontier.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Internet#Governance

The Internet is a globally distributed network comprising many voluntarily interconnected autonomous networks. It operates without a central governing body. However, to maintain interoperability, all technical and policy aspects of the underlying core infrastructure and the principal name spaces are administered by the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), headquartered in Marina del Rey, California. ICANN is the authority that coordinates the assignment of unique identifiers for use on the Internet, including domain names, Internet Protocol (IP) addresses, application port numbers in the transport protocols, and many other parameters. Globally unified name spaces, in which names and numbers are uniquely assigned, are essential for the global reach of the Internet. ICANN is governed by an international board of directors drawn from across the Internet technical, business, academic, and other non-commercial communities. The US government continues to have the primary role in approving changes to the DNS root zone that lies at the heart of the domain name system. ICANN's role in coordinating the assignment of unique identifiers distinguishes it as perhaps the only central coordinating body on the global Internet. On 16 November 2005, the World Summit on the Information Society, held in Tunis, established the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) to discuss Internet-related issues.

I'm pretty sure that the Internet will be controlled and not that far in the future, There is too much slander, libel, cheating, stealing, bullying, etc. going on for it to remain as it is. A few a__holes always ruin it for everyone else.

We could always permit the UN to regulate the internet. Perhaps they could do a better job with it than they did with the Oil for Food Program.

it was good someone exposed that scandal isnt it?

We could always permit the UN to regulate the internet. Perhaps they could do a better job with it than they did with the Oil for Food Program.

it was good someone exposed that scandal isnt it?

You're welcome.

We could always permit the UN to regulate the internet. Perhaps they could do a better job with it than they did with the Oil for Food Program.

it was good someone exposed that scandal isnt it?

I would not have started this thread if there were a specific scandal that had light shed on it by Wikileaks. But that isn't what happened. If a serial killer is thrown in jail for life, a good thing has been done for society. If 250,000 people at random are thrown in jail for life and one turns out to be a serial killer, is it still a good thing? No, it isn't and it should lead to some serious changes in the system to prevent it from happening again. That's what we are likely to see, serious changes and I don't think we'll like them too much.

Conspiracy theory time:

The whole Wikileaks saga has been set up by the US to feed some important misinformation to it's enemies.

By allowing embarrassing but otherwise harmless information to be promulgated, there is a huge amount of credibility in the source.

Or......

By allowing embarrassing but otherwise harmless information to be promulgated, the US's "security is at risk and we therefore have to curtail some of the people's constitutional freedoms" (a la the Patriot Act), ie government control of the internet.

Chances are that Bradley Manning is in solitary because he is being treated very well indeed .

Conspiracy theory time:

The whole Wikileaks saga has been set up by the US to feed some important misinformation to it's enemies.

Or for Obama to destroy some domestic rivals. There had been talk of Hillary challenging him in 2012. Soon after the leaks, in which Hillary asked diplomats to spy, her stock has dropped more than just about anyone's.

Conspiracy theory time:

The whole Wikileaks saga has been set up by the US to feed some important misinformation to it's enemies.

By allowing embarrassing but otherwise harmless information to be promulgated, there is a huge amount of credibility in the source.

Or......

By allowing embarrassing but otherwise harmless information to be promulgated, the US's "security is at risk and we therefore have to curtail some of the people's constitutional freedoms" (a la the Patriot Act), ie government control of the internet.

Chances are that Bradley Manning is in solitary because he is being treated very well indeed .

Harcourt, there is no one in the current administration that is bright enough to do that. I am a patriot and all that stuff but look at the absolutely dumb things that have been done in the past few years. It is not malice or a malevolent desire to take over the world or ruin the international economy. They just didn't know any better. They have a small understanding of international politics, banking and economics and people in general. And given the cast of characters on the international stage from Putin to Berlusconi and almost everyone in between, the lot of them could be defeated by a 7 year old chess player. There are no Churchill's or Lincoln's walking on today's political stage. I get up everyday and read the newspaper and have to check and make sure I am not reading a comic book.

Conspiracy theory time:

The whole Wikileaks saga has been set up by the US to feed some important misinformation to it's enemies.

By allowing embarrassing but otherwise harmless information to be promulgated, there is a huge amount of credibility in the source.

Or......

By allowing embarrassing but otherwise harmless information to be promulgated, the US's "security is at risk and we therefore have to curtail some of the people's constitutional freedoms" (a la the Patriot Act), ie government control of the internet.

Chances are that Bradley Manning is in solitary because he is being treated very well indeed .

Harcourt, there is no one in the current administration that is bright enough to do that. I am a patriot and all that stuff but look at the absolutely dumb things that have been done in the past few years. It is not malice or a malevolent desire to take over the world or ruin the international economy. They just didn't know any better. They have a small understanding of international politics, banking and economics and people in general. And given the cast of characters on the international stage from Putin to Berlusconi and almost everyone in between, the lot of them could be defeated by a 7 year old chess player. There are no Churchill's or Lincoln's walking on today's political stage. I get up everyday and read the newspaper and have to check and make sure I am not reading a comic book.

You're afew years behind the times....Bush isn't in the current administration.

Conspiracy theory time:

The whole Wikileaks saga has been set up by the US to feed some important misinformation to it's enemies.

Or for Obama to destroy some domestic rivals. There had been talk of Hillary challenging him in 2012. Soon after the leaks, in which Hillary asked diplomats to spy, her stock has dropped more than just about anyone's.

There ya go...or that. But I think (and my conspiracy theory is less a theory than an amusing idea to toy with) that domestic politics would not be worth the effort.

Soon a cable will be revealed by Leaks that will convince North Korea or Iran that they had better come to the table, or convince China that they had better not falsely keep the wan under-valued.

Something that is worth billions.

Conspiracy theory time:

The whole Wikileaks saga has been set up by the US to feed some important misinformation to it's enemies.

Or for Obama to destroy some domestic rivals. There had been talk of Hillary challenging him in 2012. Soon after the leaks, in which Hillary asked diplomats to spy, her stock has dropped more than just about anyone's.

There ya go...or that. But I think (and my conspiracy theory is less a theory than an amusing idea to toy with) that domestic politics would not be worth the effort.

Soon a cable will be revealed by Leaks that will convince North Korea or Iran that they had better come to the table, or convince China that they had better not falsely keep the wan under-valued.

Something that is worth billions.

US Domestic politics not worth the effort? I'm talking about the Presidency, not some small town local city councilman. If the Obama admin knew what was being leaked and that the leak could take out his top rival for the Democrat Party's nomination in 2012, that would be worth it to them.

Conspiracy theory time:

The whole Wikileaks saga has been set up by the US to feed some important misinformation to it's enemies.

Or for Obama to destroy some domestic rivals. There had been talk of Hillary challenging him in 2012. Soon after the leaks, in which Hillary asked diplomats to spy, her stock has dropped more than just about anyone's.

There ya go...or that. But I think (and my conspiracy theory is less a theory than an amusing idea to toy with) that domestic politics would not be worth the effort.

Soon a cable will be revealed by Leaks that will convince North Korea or Iran that they had better come to the table, or convince China that they had better not falsely keep the wan under-valued.

Something that is worth billions.

US Domestic politics not worth the effort? I'm talking about the Presidency, not some small town local city councilman. If the Obama admin knew what was being leaked and that the leak could take out his top rival for the Democrat Party's nomination in 2012, that would be worth it to them.

The problem with conspiracy theories is that they may or not be valid, but they often include enough information in them for there to be a strong possibility about their being right or partially right.

I think that your point about the next presidential election has a great deal of logic in it.

Many "leaks" are engineered of course. Cabinet members in the UK leak information about colleagues to try to influence their view over theirs. I would not suppose that America, with a capital A, would be any different

Enquiries into leaks don't normally want the entire truth to be uncovered which is why they are usually not conducted through the court system.

Some interesting points are coming out of this thread but of course there is a lot elsewhere on the internet and in the media too.

The points about crimes being committed and stealing and confidential information dangerous to security issues seem to emanate from cloud cuckoo land. Surely no one believes that people higher up the chain did not know some of what was going on.

The effect of the leaks, given your comments and those above, would seem to me to be that no court charges will be brought. Talking about espionage and hunting Assange down ( Palin) is for the birds. Assange is and will continue to be dealt with by other means such as putting pressure on bamks and internet sites. That is a major effect that these leaks are having.

caf

The effect of the leaks, given your comments and those above, would seem to me to be that no court charges will be brought. Talking about espionage and hunting Assange down ( Palin) is for the birds. Assange is and will continue to be dealt with by other means such as putting pressure on bamks and internet sites. That is a major effect that these leaks are having.

caf

If the biggest results of the leaks are what happens to this one guy, then I think the rest of us will have gotten lucky. Like someone here mentioned, gov'ts or companies don't pass up opportunities like this. Like in May 2009 when my company gave everyone a 7% paycut due to the financial crisis (about 700 employees).

A "different" take...

This new spin, endorsed mainly by conservative media outlets, showed that rather than being duplicitous, US diplomats are unafraid to criticize the governments of the countries they are based in, and highly skilled at dealing with wily foreign leaders.

Rather than showcasing Washington's failures, the leaked cables show that in private, officials actually live up to the same high-minded principles proclaimed in public. In short, the United States shows greater regard for international security than for its own interests.

http://www.elpais.com/articulo/english/Why/PAIS/chose/to/publish/the/leaks/elpepueng/20101223elpeng_3/Ten

A "different" take...

This new spin, endorsed mainly by conservative media outlets, showed that rather than being duplicitous, US diplomats are unafraid to criticize the governments of the countries they are based in, and highly skilled at dealing with wily foreign leaders.

Rather than showcasing Washington's failures, the leaked cables show that in private, officials actually live up to the same high-minded principles proclaimed in public. In short, the United States shows greater regard for international security than for its own interests.

http://www.elpais.com/articulo/english/Why/PAIS/chose/to/publish/the/leaks/elpepueng/20101223elpeng_3/Ten

This is only El Pais' opinion of course and as they hint it may just be trying a different spin on damage limitation. Certainly Clinton's and Palin's rather rushed initial reactions were off key

I don't see any sources that suggest their actions have anything to do with the US having regard to other nations'security. (Involvement in other nations sovereign affairs is something that the US needs to think a little more clearly about )

And, "US diplomats are unafraid to criticize the governments of the countries they are based in, and highly skilled at dealing with wily foreign leaders.", does not ring true of Thailand

caf

And, "US diplomats are unafraid to criticize the governments of the countries they are based in, and highly skilled at dealing with wily foreign leaders.", does not ring true of Thailand

These criticisms are from private cables. I'm sure all of us are critical of people in private that we we hesitate if it were out in the open.

In the case of the cables from Thailand, I was surprised at how thorough the information was. The ambassador cited his sources, he differentiated between their impressions and factual information. He also talked to academics about certain situations. Fairly comprehensive and well done, considering they were quite brief.

I haven't read with any degree of interest the cables other than those in South East Asia, but most were reasonably fair and, whether you agree or not, an accurate assessment of the situation.