Wikileaks is not "seeking transparency" as the NYT suggests. If they were seeking transparency, they would publish ANY NATION'S confidential documents, but they don't. Their actions are more than mere tacit support of al Qaida and the Taliban. Their mission has been to undermine the standing of the United States, and the United States alone, and they are doing it in close coordination with a small coterie of press operations.

To begin with, those with access to SIPRNET and the Diplomatic Communications network who have been giving Wikileaks the documents are breaking the law, and are being openly treasonous. Wikileaks on the other hand, is at the very least violating copyright and trafficing in stolen goods to such a great magnatude that they have committed a high crime.

Wikileaks intention is to introduce so much doubt inside the practices of the staff of the State Department, DoD, NATO states' governments, even the Pakistani governemnt, that it will tip the balance of power in favor of Iran, Syria, al Qaida, the Taliban, and their network. Nothing else.

This is more than just "vandalism".

Let's put it this way: if I had ever even so much as lost a confidential document, I would have been in serious violation of Federal Law and the UCJ. Some wanker who feeds a nihilist like Assange a quarter of a million classified documents gets a smug nod, and acclimation by the detached commentariat that would, if they had a nutsack, kill soldiers for recreation themselves.

That the cables are not big news is irrelevant. In fact if you put it in contrast to the polite and diplomatic statements of the State Department and DoD, you immediately see the contrast between them and the European governments who seed highly slanderous characterizations of foreign parties through the press all the time. i.e.: Spiegel getting opinionated, libelous, and clearly mendatious German government commentary about George Bush, coupled with the citation of one statement about Gerhard Schroeder which was broadly accepted in the press at the time, with a retort today that "Bush was a liar" when it's quite clear that Gerhard Schroeder is the liar trying to build himself a legacy.

Does anyone out there NOT think that Erdogan ISN'T a bufoon? Or that Sarkozy ISN'T practicing the usual haxagonal irrelevant self-importance? Or that Putin isn't a simpleton pulling moronic international stunts as a result of the impotence that bluts his megalomania?

And as to Westerwelle: why does anyone think the rest of humanity need the approving smile of a disinterested non-actor in risky and relevant security affairs such as the German FM? It's like caring terribly about needing the approval of the 3rd Consul at the Albanian embassy in Rome.

What does Assange want? A world where government's exist in order to be accountable to the mere opinions of some like him, but are unable to protect their populations. While he migh think that this will all turn us into Luxembourg, it is more likely to turn Luxembourg into Transnistria.

By the way, we've already spent a good chunk of our GDP on that billion hungry people for nearly a century: what eliminates poverty are our ideas, the non-collectist ones. The remaining failures on this earth are the venal and corrupt authoritarian run societies, that, by no coincidence are anti-western, anti-American, and post fake protests about world peace as an constructed disposition to the outside world.

An interesting comment was left at my blog by a regular:

[blockquote]There are many fascinating aspects to this Wikileaks issue. One is that every 'cable' is assumed to be authentic. Some of these could be created for effect. In any case, we can't take them all at their face.
For instance, the one in which Hillary is reported to instruct U.S. officials at the UN to spy on other UN personnel. Is there anyone in the world who can believe this? My guess is that within minutes of the incorporation of the UN, there was a desk at Langley and another at Foggy Bottom with only one responsibility: get every detail on everything with a pulse at the UN. Further, I would bet that given the propensity of government to expand, those desks have become entire departments. So when Hillary bacame Sec of State, she was probably bombarded with granular details on every being at the UN. There was nothing she needed to know that some ambitious intelligence person at State or CIA hadn't already had in their PowerPoint slide package. Hillary was certainly bombarded with backgrounders on every weasel at the UN. She probably screamed "Enough! I have to get some work done!" So the idea that she would have to initiate the idea to gather information on UN personnel can only be believed by a dewy-eyed Swedish high school girl.

Supporting this is that this intelligence work is not only going on at State and Defense and CIA, but in other knowledge organizations in the U.S. Several large law firms spend a lot of money and effort getting very deepsix info on other power players, to debrief their international clients on a host of matters that affect them in certain negotiations, such as when dealing with powerful men in, say, oil, who have a weakness for, say, buxom Ukranian nurses.

One more data point. Back in the Iran-hostage era, Boutros boutros Ghali, Principal Weasel at the UN, traveled to Tehran to 'negotiate'. Turns out he got run over by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, came completely apart, tried to sell us out and lied to us about it. Only, we had been listening to every conversation he had with the Iranians in Tehran. So if we had the goods on the Chief UN Weasel 30 years ago inside the enemy camp in Tehran Iran when he thought he was only with comrades, why would Hillary have to suggest in 2008 to ferret any dope on any slugs at the UN? We have probably been archiving every detail of their lives for decades.{/blockquote}

Joerg:

Perhaps you'll actually explain what you mean by "brainwashing", instead of just throwing some unexplained negative accusation out there without any basis.