Nothing wrong with that in this context, but it highlights how hard it is to do anything else. It's easier to talk about the reactions and dissemination and censorship and rhetoric. Those are actually more universal topics, and they're unfolding now.
The nitty-gritty of the cable revelations is subject to a interpretation and even more acrimonious rehearsed-roles debate, so (as here) it often just gets mentioned in passing, with a hand-wave and nod to its importance.
Of the cables' revelations, many that people are 'shocked, shocked' to hear are what was already assumed to be true or partially reported -- covert military strikes in other countries, attempts to downplay fatalities or wartime actions in error, frank assessments of shady regimes.
And it seems to me many people are just seeing what they wanted to see. If they already bought into a Chomskyite view of the US as the scheming amoral fount of all evil in the world, there's enough in the cables to feed that view. If they think the US is just another powerful but bumbling country pursuing its interests, fighting several wars, striking balances with sordid situations not entirely under its control, there's enough in the cables to feed that view, too.
What's the one or two things in the cables you found most surprising?
That said, the role of the oil companies in the Niger Delta unrest isn't exactly unknown, not many people labour under the delusion the Nigerian government isn't to some extent corrupt, and the page you linked to isn't even a particularly damning one, as governments do have a legitimate interest in monitoring activities of rebel groups and the effects on multinationals they target. The smoking gun would be finding documents suggesting that events like the Odi massacre were planned (and possible oil company collusion) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Odi_massacre
What's been released recently seems to be the sort of thing that might cause discomfort to a few diplomats who've made rather unflattering and speculative (but in many cases justified) comments about their host countries but it's less than earth-shattering. The half-hearted attempts to discredit Assange feels like an attempt to appease the leaders they've privately insulted; perhpas they have more reason to be concerned about what hasn't been released.
Governments have willingly released far more inadvertently damaging material... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodgy_Dossier
VOA has a good roundup of news about Africa:
http://www.voanews.com/english/news/africa/WikiLeaks-Revelat...
To me as a citizen the US is essentialy a foreign power and I would like it to have no say in the internal affairs of the country I live in without having obvious benefits for me. This doesn't appear to be the case and it isn't because US diplomats apply pressure to get concessions but rather because politicians yield even without pressure.
If the whole cache is ever going to hit the streets in plaintext it will likely be through wikileaks.
Why is Assange taking so much heat (yes, I know he wanted to be the lightning rod)? Is it merely that it would look bad to go after 'name-brand' news sources?
As stated elsewhere
According to his essay, Julian Assange is trying to do something else. Because we all basically know that the US state — like all states — is basically doing a lot of basically shady things basically all the time, simply revealing the specific ways they are doing these shady things will not be, in and of itself, a necessarily good thing. In some cases, it may be a bad thing, and in many cases, the provisional good it may do will be limited in scope. The question for an ethical human being — and Assange always emphasizes his ethics — has to be the question of what exposing secrets will actually accomplish, what good it will do, what better state of affairs it will bring about. And whether you buy his argument or not, Assange has a clearly articulated vision for how Wikileaks’ activities will “carry us through the mire of politically distorted language, and into a position of clarity,” a strategy for how exposing secrets will ultimately impede the production of future secrets. The point of Wikileaks — as Assange argues — is simply to make Wikileaks unnecessary.
http://zunguzungu.wordpress.com/2010/11/29/julian-assange-an...
In both cases, the moral victory is not an immediate part of the action or product. It's about the secondary effects of living in a world where coercive force is no longer rational.
That revealing past secrets will somehow make governments more transparent - they'll use encryption and off-record remarks, watch what they say, ensure records are destroyed, tighten security protocols. But IMO, and it is just that, they will still keep the same secrets and have the same covert conversations and exchange the same messages.
It's not by any metrics naive it's exactly what is going on right now. Overreactions decreasing the ability to communicate. That's what Assange by his own words are after.
If someone wants to whisper something in your friends ear, and seeing it you step closer, does the third party whisperer quit or do they usher you friend away so that they can keep the secret?
Making it harder to keep secrets means that people are more secretive.
Decreasing the ability for people to communicate is not at all a good thing IMO. If diplomats can't do their job, acting as intermediaries and smoothing over relationships between countries then I don't think that is going to help anyone unless they desire anarchy.
>It's not by any metrics naive it's exactly what is going on right now.
Could you expand on this I'm not at all clear what you're saying.
You are making it harder to communicate thus you are making conspiracies harder. You are slowing down things.
> Most of the cables that have come to light so far have not provided new information. It was no great secret that Libya had probably put pressure on the UK over the Megrahi release, that the US was doing strikes in Yemen etc, even if no one was prepared to confirm this in public. But if this was reported by the US government - and then pushed into the mainstream of public debate by journalists for highly respected news organizations, it became common knowledge that could not easily be ignored. Not only did everyone know it - everyone knew that everyone else knew it too. This explains Rachman's paradox - why apparently banal revelations can have very important political consequences.
http://www.themonkeycage.org/2010/12/wikileaks_and_the_diffe...
I didn't know about any of these cases in particular, but as an American I see nothing surprising (sadly) in the fact that the U.S. tried to obstruct these investigations. In two cases American acts are the target of the investigation. In the other case it is the acts of people helping the U.S. government, whom the U.S. has even more powerful incentive to protect. So I guess it was a surprise to Spaniards how much the U.S. was able to affect the investigations? I don't know enough about the Spanish justice system to know what standards to expect, but criminal investigations into another nation's actions in other countries (the first two cases) seem explicitly political to me anyway, hence naturally amenable to diplomatic "pressure."
All in all, it's been the biggest story I've had in my
five years as editor of El País, without any doubt. And
measured by its international impact, it's probably the
biggest story this newspaper has ever been involved with.
He also mentions the impact in Latin America.[0] http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/09/wikileaks-cables...
US-based private security contractor DynCorp, who was hired by the US to train Afghani police, was apparently supplying drugs and young boys for a sort of sex party.
The details are horrifying. The Afghani interior minister apparently went to US officials to warn them that reporters were sniffing around this story, and urged them to try to kill the story. He specifically warned that this would look bad if the connection to DynCorp was made clear (he called them "foreign mentors"). Apparently, US diplomats told him not to worry, and the eventual story was in fact watered down greatly (until now, of course) calling the whole thing a "tribal dance," rather than a party where young boys wear "scanty women's clothes" and "dance seductively" before being "auctioned off to the highest bidder" for sex.
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101208/00221812176/so-wik...
There's also the fact that everyone knows the Afghani election was rigged but while the Canadian ambassador wanted to do something about it the US didn't.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-embassy-cables-documents/...
The revelations won't have any kind of mind-blowing effect, but the cumulative picture they paint is VERY important.
(I watched CNN America once. Once was enough.)