"Cablegate": Do You Approve Or Disapprove Of Wikileaks' Release Of The Diplomatic Cables?

After the 1st 24 hours of these 1st cables coming out and seeing the reactions to them, I thought it might be a good time to find out what DU's overall feeling is about them.

It would be interesting to read some thoughts on what makes anyone approve, disapprove or why they're still unsure, too.

http://polldaddy.com/poll/4165419/

Current results...


.. Right. The public has a right to know and governments need to be kept honest. 1,132 VOTES 52.53%
... Wrong. Some of the things it discloses put lives at risk. 1,023 VOTES 47.47%

Main reasoning being that Wikileaks claims to be a 'whistle-blower' site and most of the recent diplomatic cables can't even come close to qualify under that status.

Yes there have been some cables revealing illegal activities which I applaud Wikileaks for releasing but if they had been serious about their claim of being whistle-blowers then they should have held back all those files and papers that are not relevant to revealing crimes, illegal activities and corruption.

And yes, I hope they DO get the book thrown at them for releasing so much data that is not relevant in regards to revealing illegal activities and such(since in my eyes they can't hide behind saying they are whistle blowers when it comes to revealing that classified info)

The U.S. is not supposed to keep state secrets. Classified information is limited to public safety and troop movements. Any government document that can be released without compromising these should never have been classified, and classifying them was in and of itself a crime worth blowing the whistle on. We have a right to know, even if some may see the details as less than significant.

or go get a job with access. Other than that you live in a representative democracy.

Not only is your assessment of what should be classified childish and a pipe dream it is impossible to implement. The church commission which cut the balls off the cia never thought of going where our open source government contingent is opining.

It is against the law for the government to classify any information that is not a direct threat to national security. They are not allowed to use it to cover up crimes. There's nothing childish about it, that is representative democracy. Our representatives don't have the right to act in secret... remember, it's not just representative, it's also democracy. We're supposed to participate in the actions of our nation.

But may I ask, what rights do you think people have, other than a false sense of security?

committee or other committees where you have access to classified information. You will be required by law not to disclose it. Or you could be an asshole and talk about OBL using his sat phone and how we listen in. Guess what, he stopped using the phone. True story..

What crime has been exposed? Discussing recovery of HEU from Pakistan? Korean unification talks with china. all fucked up now thanks to the wikidicks crowd.

Who do you think will be paying to fix this? That would be you.

The problem is excessive entanglement. See now you know just enough from Assange to know what he wants you to know, thats if he actually did due dilligance. You got played.

You participate by voting representatives in to fund and order actions. That is the limit of your access to the raw numbers and data other than FOIA.

What do you want? You want rights to all diplomatic cables. Budgets for NSA computers so you can estimate cypher complexity? Do you want real time access to all signal and human intelligence?

DO you want to sit in on the morning security briefing with the President?

Other than a false sense of entitlement, what do you want?

I'll give you another chance.

Here's the answer to your question. What crimes were revealed? Giving military aid to the military dictatorship in Honduras. The cables reveal that the State Department fully understood the ousting of Zelaya was a military coup, and yet, contrary to U.S. law, they continued to give them military aid. That's an early example, more will surely come.

And yes, we do have a right to that information. If it is not a direct threat to national security, we have a right to full disclosure of all government documents. That is the law as it stands today, and it is being broken.

Why do you want the government to illegally classify information not directly related to national security to cover up their own crimes?

What harm is going to come from its release and mass availability? It remains to be seen.

Should all diplomatic cables be made public at all times? If not, Where do you draw the line?

The US government has engaged in so many nefarious activities the past decade and there is no longer any credibility.

The problem comes down the road when we really need some information to remain secret, but it will be out there for all to see.

Lines should be drawn in certain circumstances IMO.

Which I expect is true already.

ication. I agree with you on that score.

to reveal that the US thinks the President of Russia is just Putin's toady?

It's information our diplomats need, in that they need to know who has the real power. But announcing that to the world just pisses both men off, resulting in worse relations with Russia. And we need their help with Iran at the moment.

Just an example where secrecy can be useful.

the US classifies way too much info. That's the real scandal.

now that diplomats are going to be afraid that their words will see the light of day, two things will ensue. #1 - They will communicate less and #2 - They will endeavor to be more secretive with their communciations and use more careful wording.

That being said, let's use the example of India and Pakistan. India plans to do 'something' with Kashmir. Build houses, or position troops or something. The Indian ambassador to Pakistan communicates this to the Pakistani foreign minister. However, not wanting the intentions to embarrass India in case they are leaked, he uses wording that does not completely and accurately describe what India intends to do.

The Pakistani Foreign minister, for his part, is worried that the Prime Minister will not like what India intends to do, but does not want to seem overly harsh and threatening in case his words are leaked. He issues a tepid caution to the Indian ambassador.

The Indian ambassador misreads the communique from the Pakistani Foreign minister as a go ahead and the Indians promptly do whatever it is in Kashmir.

It turns out that the thing the Indians do is much more severe than what the Pakistani Foreign minister understood it to be. The Pakistani Prime Minister is furious and regards it as an act of war. A skirmish ensues that rapidly escalates into a general war that goes nuclear. When the nuclear exchanges are complete, 500 million people are dead on the subcontinent, India and Pakistan are wastelands, the world financial system reacts with a panic and a weak global economic situation becomes a severe depression. Tens of millions more die of starvation.

Is this still a good thing?

the DPRK to find out that China would accept its reunification under a Seoul government?

Wikileaks Cables Reveal China 'Ready to Abandon North Korea'

That little tidbit could just ramp up the paranoia and push North Korea over the edge into taking military action.

THAT is effing dangerous stuff.

the fact that they do not have a huge, powerful friend, and they may decide to stop acting like they do.

Aside from that, Clinton was working on that exact scenario, joining N & S Korea and was having some success. But Bush blew it when he dropped the efforts to do so, and then called them part of the 'axis of evil'. Now THAT was dangerous stuff, not to mention interfering with a process that there was so much hope for.

This pretend outrage over information getting to the people, is ridiculous. If these people who we elect and their appointees don't want to be embarrass themselves and/or their countries, they should not be putting in writing things they know will do just that. You'd think they'd know that nothing you put in writing is safe. Imho, they are too stupid for the positions they are in. But that is not a surprise, our country appears to be run by morons.

"Clinton and Carter were working on that exact scenario, joining N & S Korea and were having some success."

:hi:

The Bush years did so much harm. I didn't know about Carter's efforts, but it makes sense since he really did work hard to establish peace. Probably why he was so feared by the right.

After posting I got a little worried you might have thought I was coming across as a bit patronizing, but then I thought, "Nah... she must know me better than that by now". Amiright?

Anyhoo, before reading your reply I had literally just heard someone on CNN International talking about Carter's major role in what happened in 1994 - the 1st peace talks in 40 years.

Since then, I've had a look online and come across this source of interesting reading: http://www.cartercenter.org/countries/north_korea.html

with Israel, but not about his involvement with N.Korea during the Clinton administration. Clinton was smart to use Carter. I think he is one of the most trusted Americans when it comes to peace-making because he is obviously really sincere about it. Clinton's policies could have been successful imo, if he had had a few more years. But, Bush's destroyed all his work, and then went on to insult N. Korea, and now we are now probably not trusted anymore.

... this year.

It all makes sense now, after reflecting on what happened in the 90s. They're probably the only American politicians they trust, now. Especially after what Bush said, as you mentioned.

Carter's presidency was before my time, but I have been impressed by the work he has done since.

Ignored's projecting a certain outcome and course of action on Kim Jong Il and his regime is incredibly naiive. We have no idea what he would do if he felt completely isolated. Over the last 20 years, he has engaged in very unpredictable and seemingly self defeating behavior at times. He could opt to surrender, or he could opt to nuke Seoul, Beijing, Shanghai, Hong Kong, Tokyo and Honolulu. He could opt to shell Seoul until we/they provide him food. He could attack more South Korean naval vessels until he gets his way.

NK is a nuclear armed state headed by an unpredictable madman. Just because YOU would become reasonable in his position if your one friend deserted you, doesn't mean HE would. Wishing it so doesnt make it so.

... NK's 15 minutes have been OVER for decades.

The point is what would a megalomaniacal, paranoid and unpredictable madman with nuclear weapons do if he suddenly found out he was cut off from his one friend.

Seems like US leaders wouldn't mind having that info out there?

The US hopes that China will put pressure on NK and perhaps threaten to withdraw their support unless North Korea rejoins the six party talks. but if NK knows that China has all but yanked their support already, exactly what pull will Beijing have with North Korea now?

You said "Regardless," so I expect you agree in this case as well, yes?

For crying out loud people, the truth matters. I can't believe the people that vote no on this.

would you say that anything confidential said between you and your superior should stay that way?

No one elects me and what you would call my "superior". I guess you mean someone that would be my boss or my supervisor, something I haven't had in years and years, and if that is what you mean you should know, again, no one elects me. No one votes for me. Not one person. I don't claim to represent the wishes of anyone but myself and the people I love.

Do you see the difference yet? A real democracy depends on an informed populace, and we can't be informed unless we know the whole story.

Really, it almost sounds like your being purposefully ignorant.

but the accusation says more about you then me methinks.

and let me rephrase a bit, if you had a supervisor/boss, do you think any confidential conversations with him should be private, if yes, why does a diplomat not have the same right of confidentiality?

And I'm sorry but I don't think you have the 'right' to know *everything* even if you think you deserve to know it.

Like most the diplomatic cables that has diplomats give a blunt and direct view of the leaders in the countries they are placed, that information is useless to you.

The only ones who have a use for the information is the state department as it helps them arrange future agreements and avoid pitfalls et al due to the said leaders personality traits. If the traits is somewhat negative on the leaders then giving a blunt public view of them would likely hurt relations which does nobody any good.(which is only one of the most basic reasons why they are considered confidential, there is nothing evil, untrustworthy, or corrupt in the state department keeping that info under wraps)

The diplomat does not have the same right because elected officials appoint the diplomat and that diplomat is discussing matters of state. My state. Our state. Not a secret privet state of diplomats, generals and politicians, but our state. See what I mean?

As far as what information is useful or useless to me, as a member of a free society don't I have the right do decide which is which? I would say yes, even if only in a historical sense. That's what freedom of information is all about.

All of your arguments are based on me trusting the people we elect to know the best thing to do and to look our for the interests of ALL the people. I do not. This system isn't set up for trust, it's set up for truth.

Again, I don't think you're ignorant, but on this topic I do believe you are seeing what you choose to see.

These are not documents between Obama and Hillary Clinton. These are documents produced by career foreign service officers, reporting data to their superiors.

So, how is it helpful to announce to the world that we think Medvedev is just Putin's sidekick? While that may be true, we've now irritated both men and we need Russia's help with Iran to head off all the people screaming for a 'military' solution.

Who gives the foreign service officers their jobs? And who votes for the people that give them those jobs. As for your question about Medvedev and Putin, I don't really have an answer to that, but I do know the truth is always better than a lies. The truth doesn't pick nits.

The politicians decide how many billets to have, and may select the top of the bureaucracy where "career" and "political" get a bit blurry. But the rank-and-file are hired by rank-and-file slightly higher on the food chain.

"I do know the truth is always better than a lies"

Then please explain how it is 'better' to reveal we think Medvedev is a waste of space. How does that help?

They work for the government.

Our government representatives work for us, and (theoretically) run the government.

And I still can't get anyone who likes the wikileaks leak to explain how it's good to piss off the president of Russia.

Diplomatic communications are a real tough one for me. I dont think that anyone who really understands the institution of diplomacy could give unfettered support to what was done here.

most people would say that any confidential conversations they have with their superior/supervisor/boss are private, yet very many here on DU seem to think that diplomats should have no rights at all to speak confidentially to theirs.

I'm still not sure of where I stand on Wikileaks - but there are things that need to be kept secret. On the other hand our government seems to keep many things secret that are simply embarrassing or troublesome.

Stalin got the bomb, but things may or may not have turned out worse for the world if only the USA had the bomb. :shrug:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_and_Ethel_Rosenberg

Werner Heisenberg made a stupid mistake in his calculations (possibly on purpose) that derailed Germany's program. If this had been fixed, we could have had a problem.

I do know this: I lost a lot of relatives in Bobruisk, at the hands of the Nazis and then the Russians.

Way before my time, but I was at a family reunion a few years ago, watching all of the generations having a great time, then it struck me: all of those missing, whole big branches of the family that were pruned all those years ago, all of the sould killed and all of those never born.

So sad.

I mean, Wikileaks has been selective about what they release and what they don't. They're keeping national security in mind. If our government wasn't classifying information that didn't have to do with national security, then Wikileaks would have no reason to exist and would clearly be doing the wrong thing. But in the situation we're in now, where a corrupt system is making it illegal to shed light on their crimes, we need someone brave enough to put their life on the line and step forward with this information.

But then again, I'd probably enjoy finding out which celebrities are in the closet. Doesn't mean I have a right to know.

And, at least theoretically, an "informed" citizenry is essential to democracy.

Yes, it is essential.

I don't mention unrec's normally but I just saw it go down from 7 to 5 and this is an OP asking for opinions, not giving any.

Why do you want to try and restrict other DUers from taking part in this poll? :shrug:

Or they are petty and don't like the OP so whatever he/she writes they will unrec.

As I said in the past, the feature is silly, and the unrecing of this poll makes that obvious IMHO.

This is an open ballot and hopefully we'll get a lot of votes (in total) which will help us find out where DU stands on this. The only thing unrec'ing would achieve is to minimize that.

I am as sure that the sun will rise tomorrow as I am sure that many people will unrec something solely on the basis of who the OP is.

Its a cult of personality, therefore anything relating to Wikileaks gets an automatic Unrec from them.

Just ignore them.

For my part, I found your poll informative, but it confirmed what I already suspected: most of us here support Wikileaks and oppose government secrecy, even when its "our guy" in charge.

Thanks for your response.

As a BOGger and huge supporter of the President, there is no way I regard this poll as an attack on the President. I dont know of any other BOGgers who would regard it as such. You forget, we are the folks who are willing to negotiate and meet people halfway. It is the folks who are anti-Obama who are inflexible.

So much incredible information around which to wrap ones head. In fact, that is my current Facebook status.

On the one hand, it is I-N-C-R-E-D-I-B-L-Y damaging to the institution of diplomacy to have confidential diplomatic communications made public. We need diplomats to be able to be candid and speak amongst each other and with the governments of other countries without any fear whatsoever that their communique's will be made public as they are now being made.

On the other hand, it is also incredibly valuable to know some of these things and not in the way that many might expect. For instance, I am against using force against Iran. I thought the only people who were in favor of force against them were neocons here in the US. I had no idea that several arab states fear them and wanted/want us to attack them. Does that alter my opinion of whether we should attack them? No. But, it does weaken my resolve a bit. It makes me think there might possibly be a reason to worry about Iran. Maybe.

It's also disturbing to find out that diplomats are advocating war/attacks. The reason that the institution of diplomacy needs to be protected is precisely because it is supposed to be an institution that fights for peace. Clearly, that is not happening in some cases with these arab states and Iran. Its all the more reason to go to alternative energy sources immediately and withdraw from the Middle East. We're only going to be drawn into and fight more and more wars over oil if we continue to have a presence there.

Is it a good thing these things and more were leaked? Still not sure. It is useful and important to have this information, but anything that tends to restrict free and open communications between diplomats will tend to increase the risk of more wars in the future. The original Gulf war where Iraq invaded Kuwait, for instance was a result of a miscommunication between our ambassador and the Iraqi government. Our ambassador accidentally gave the go ahead for Iraq to invade Kuwait. Do we want diplomats to use carefully constructed language to convey intentions in order to protect themselves and their countries or do we want them to be crystal clear? To me, the answer is obvious, we need them to be crystal clear.

So, I am still unsure.

I move from 'approve' to 'not sure' a few times a day. I haven't had any 'disapprove' moments yet, though.

wasn't accidental...but that's another story.

I was against the Wikileaks release at first but now I think it's better to have all the cards on the table.

Let's have as much of the dealing out in the open as possible, not under the table.

Secret deals and secret alliances aren't good for democracy.

I'm pretty sure it was accidental. When you read the full accounts of what happened there and how George H. W. Bush was initially unsure of what to do, I think its clear there was no plan there. Who can forget Thatcher's famous admonition to him "Don't go wobbly on me, George."

See my above example in post #23 of a worst case scenario that can happen when diplomats fear the public release of their words. I'm sure there are many others we can come up with. Anything that impedes clear communication between diplomats is a very dangerous thing.

I have no objection to the release of classified information when appropriate to expose actual wrongdoing. But the way Wikileaks has handled this, simply releasing information in bulk without any evidence of criminality, makes their entire approach rather questionable. Wikileaks was supposed to be a site designed to protect whistleblowers exposing criminal behavior. I don't think diplomatic cables showing no wrongdoing qualifies.

When all is said and done ruffled feathers will go back to normal and the effect will be minimal...I mean I know one of them cables probably is assessing me, what happens when you transport the secretary to the consular officer to hospital after a ca crash.

It is REALLY not gonna change much. I know I is shocking, but it ain't gonna change much, well beyond who's gotta access to it.

doesn't want us to think about. It might cause undue irrepearable harm
to non-government minds that are not trained to see through things
in a understanding way. They get paid big bucks to think about things
we oughtn't think about, and we are not experts on how to think about
top secrets in the right knowing way. Also, it might even be dangerous
or unhealthy for us to be thinking too much about the "crazy" things
leaders have to do and say and think in order to lead and deal with
other leaders who are also doing and saying and thinking "crazy" things,
not that they are actually "crazy", or "liars", or "corrupt" "arrogant",
"hubrist", etc., but just that they have to act that way in order to
deal with one another ands get things done, pacts, lunch, wars, etc.
After all, I wouldn't want you to read all the cables that I send
around trying to trick and control the crazy people I have to deal
with all day long. So, anyway, out of sight, out of mind.
Let's think positive. By the way, I accidentally voted "approve".

I find that too many other opinions muddy the water, especially
the more complicated they are.

I don't know how that got in there,
nor what I might have meant. Most
of the rest I stand by for a while.

This kind of thing puts lives in danger. It's irresponsible to release this information. Wars have been started for less.

and govts withholding accurate information.

Apples and oranges, I'm afraid.

I have idea. Why don't we all just air all of our secrets, no matter who they might harm? You go first.

Wikileaks has been a hell of a lot more careful than our own government in that respect.

I think much of what has been leaked is fairly inflammatory, which could put a lot of lives in danger if taken as anything other than simple discussion.

I'm all for transparency, but at some point you have to realize that exposing private communications can have negative consequences, too.

instead of trying to shape a message by selectively releasing them in dribs and drabs.

If Assange doesn't want to be the story, he shouldn't make himself the story.

Sid

Are you really sure you want to link diplomacy directly to domestic politics by making it completly public?
Rather than a discret cable to a diplomat we would get bombastic press conferences direct for public consumption.

Diplomacy just took a hard kick in the nuts, is the world a better place because of that?

And I WILL NOT donate to DU so long as ads are allowed to cover up the votes on polls.

I have complained repeatedly about that.

i see both sides.

that said, i expect that if a whistle blower is gonna blow the whistle they should have something worth telling that packs a punch. so far i'm bored with the trickle of non-news.

designed to get the public to rally behind the idea of putting limits on internet access? In other words, a means to squelch public outrage, stemming from an elimination of Net Neutrality. Who knows what or who to trust anymore with such a corrupt system of government. The constant push to protect the interests of the wealthy, by BOTH parties, should be clearly obvious to just about everyone by now though.

about issues like Net Neutrality.

The last bunch of wikileaks released contained evidence of actual wrongdoing which I think probably justified publishing confidential material.

The more recent ones appear mostly to be confidential communications of a perfectly legitimate nature, which I think makes it harder to justify publicising them.

The debate should really be about 'secrets' and 'open democrac'.

Secrets -- especially in the case of illegal wars and corruption in the extreme
Aren't really good for a democracy where the public
Needs this kind of info to decide how the ship of state
Is steered.

:kick:

real information. Pressure for truth telling has to come from somewhere.

but we are told lies.
Truth is the only way out of this morass.

but what we are told is generally what is suitable for the children to hear.
In an age of an all volunteer military it is even more important that we have more accurate information to base out decisions upon. People are giving their lives for the decisions out government makes and we need to know what those decisions are.

committee. Raw diplomatic cables will never be the public in real time. ever.

A lot.

And the arguments of those who do approve of them are about the dumbest things I've ever seen.

It's like the people here who say the checker at Walmart could run the company just as good as the CEO does so they should get paid the same.

I'm not opposed to certain leaks that actually prove something beyond a shadown of a doubt, but none of the stuff being released could be used to actually charge someone - it's all circumstantial evidence meant to embarrass people, and I hope they stop at whatever cost.

BUT if anyone has a "smoking gun" out there that will actually put Bush and Cheney and their croonies behind bars - release that shit, just stop wasting our time with this other stuff that seems like nitpicking.

I am not ready to say I disapprove because I really did find out some interesting information, but the cost may be way too high and we wont even be able to quantify that cost. Things will just happen and we will not really know why. Anything that causes diplomats to communicate less and communicate less clearly with each other and leaders of other countries is a very dangerous thing.

but no one wants to pay the bill. We will all be picking up the cash tab for fixing the wallet fucking handed to us by Assange and Manning. Not like we are getting out of the diplomacy business.

These guys are slightly more sophisticated than guys who dress in black and break the windows in starbucks. Slightly.

Evidence is not at issue, but rather will.

and forget about all the other open issues in the world?

Maybe you should email them and let them know that you don't approve of "this other stuff" that you know nothing about and apparently haven't even thought about.

And the reasons you mentioned are exactly why. If the leaks exposed illegality or wrong doing, that would be one thing.

and our politicians are so crooked that I feel it is better that they don't so much as pee without oversight.

If they are to distrustful to sign bogus "free" trade agreements and senseless wars, so much the better. The current world order is a net negative to most of the people on the planet.

278 of 250,000 is not yet a release.

Most of what we're getting so far is spinned stories from the lucky papers who were given first crack.

Let's have the release then!

that so many people on this website are against the leaks. Its just started and there is already so much valuable information out there that should change the way we look at our government. The stuff about Saudi Arabia, Honduras, and Kazakhstan alone is incredibly important and provide actual documentation about events that many of us suspected but could never prove.

The fact is that we are constantly being lied to and left in the dark about what activities our government is conducting all over the world and many times it is seriously bad news. I would love if all this information was released by our government instead of Wikileaks and they came clean about all the horrible stuff we have done over the years, but that is never going to happen, so sadly the responsibility falls to someone else.

Let the sunshine in.

I'm all for leaking documents that expose crimes or lies or anything else in which there is a compelling public interest. But most of these documents haven't told us anything we don't already know, nor have they revealed anything that is outside standard diplomatic practice. All they have done is embarrass the government and made it more difficult to conduct foreign policy. People who think these internal communiques are somehow shocking or incriminating and who are celebrating their release don't understand -- or deliberately don't want to understand -- how the diplomatic side of statecraft works and has worked for thousands of years.

WikiLeaks needs to be careful not to undermine themselves. Right now they are positioned to be an invaluable international resource, a bulwark against corruption and oppression, but they could easily lose all that if they allow themselves to become a world-wide version of the Drudge Report where various operatives and people with axes to grind turn to leak things that will injure and embarrass their enemies. The fundamental goal of governmental whistleblowing in a Democratic society should not be to cripple government, but rather to clean it up so that it can function properly in the best interests of its citizens.

Turn on the fucking lights!

Teacher ratings! Not some communiques between teachers and their supervisors and coworkers, but merely RATINGS. And yet the very same people think the wikileaks release is ok. Iow, if it harms a teacher's feelings and/or is an inaccurate representation of their performance, clearly it's beyond the pale...

Teachers work for the govt. TOO. Why is there one rule for everything regarding diplomats and another rule for everything regarding teachers? Currently, many public agencies only release internal investigations that are sustained? Should that change? Should any accusation against a public employee (teacher, firefighter, cop, postal worker) be released even if found unsustained? Or released prior to investigation?

When that teacher committed suicide, the LA Times was evil incarnate because it was THEIR fault according to some. On the other hand, the release of diplomatic cables is okey dokey no matter who it hurts.

Seriously, I see some serious disconnect here.

around here. It will fall on deaf fingers.

All we can do is hope that minimal lives will be lost as a result of these leaks. That is the most important issue.

of the gutted fourth estate.

Assange and his team should get the Nobel Prize for their efforts to expose the corruption that no longer has effective enemies among the populace to combat it.

So much of what has been leaked has no business even being secret!

And I've been hoping for that final nail in the coffin of the old "U.S. foreign policy has ALWAYS been honest, benevolent and worked in the best interests of her global neighbors" -meme... A lot of paleo pundits were still spewing that during the Bush years...

Go, Assange!

Foreign policy is a tricky game. I can see this from my limited view and knowledge.

There should be a level of confidentiality among our diplomats wolrdwide and our government.

We elect leaders to push forward with the best interests of our nation, given their privileged access to information we do not have, nor do I think we probably should have.

Foreign policy should not be left to a message board, or some dude with what increasingly seems to be a motive and an agenda to aggrandize himself.

Until all cables to and from all nations and their operatives are made public, I think this only hurts the US, and creates real danger for us and those who work, for the most part, to make us and the world safe and secure.

I disapprove of the fact that they were leaked at all. Such communications should have been more secure. No one shuld have been able to walk away with 100's of thousands of classified documents on a CD or thumbdrive.

Once Assange, a foriegn national, had them releasing the documents to all as opposed to conducting extorsion with them seems about right. One would not expect a foriegn national to comply with our security laws, which is why such documents need improved security.

In larger concept, I have always felt our government does too much in secret, but there is a need for some confidentiality.