So, Amazon, Visa, PayPal, Was It Worth Accepting Government Lies?
Mark Hosenball reports that aside from some pockets of short-term damage, the impact of the Wikileaks leak of diplomatic cables has been embarrassing, but not damaging.
Internal U.S. government reviews have determined that a mass leak of diplomatic cables caused only limited damage to U.S. interests abroad, despite the Obama administration’s public statements to the contrary.
A congressional official briefed on the reviews said the administration felt compelled to say publicly that the revelations had seriously damaged American interests in order to bolster legal efforts to shut down the WikiLeaks website and bring charges against the leakers.
“I think they just want to present the toughest front they can muster,” the official said.
But State Department officials have privately told Congress they expect overall damage to U.S. foreign policy to be containable, said the official, one of two congressional aides familiar with the briefings who spoke to Reuters on condition of anonymity.
“We were told (the impact of WikiLeaks revelations) was embarrassing but not damaging,” said the official, who attended a briefing given in late 2010 by State Department officials.
[snip]
National security officials familiar with the damage assessments being conducted by defense and intelligence agencies told Reuters the reviews so far have shown “pockets” of short-term damage, some of it potentially harmful. Long-term damage to U.S. intelligence and defense operations, however, is unlikely to be serious, they said. [my emphasis]
More important than yet another indication that the Obama Administration has oversold the damage done by Wikileaks is the reason given by Hosenball’s Congressional source as to why they oversold that damage: to bolster legal efforts to shut down Wikileaks’ website.
The Administration lied, says a congressional official, to make it easier to shut down Wikileaks.
Now that’s important for several reasons. First, all this time the government has been pretending that the series of decisions by private corporations to stop doing business with Wikileaks were made by the businesses on their own. Surprise surprise (not!), it seems that the government was affirmatively trying to shut down Wikileaks.
Just as importantly, Hosenball’s story seems to suggest, the government was going to service providers–the same service providers they routinely go to on terrorist investigations–and lying to get them to do the government’s bidding. The government was making claims about the damage of the leak to convince service providers to shut down Wikileaks.
And companies like Amazon, Visa, and PayPal complied.
So, to these companies, now tainted with cooperation in government censorship, was it worth it? Was it worth being branded as a collaborator, knowing you were lied to?
And to Philip Crowley, whom Hosenball quotes talking about “substantial” damage: given your critique of Tunisia’s suppression of social media, and given that we now know you lied in the service of similar repression, do you still want to claim there’s no disjunct between claiming to support free speech while squelching that of Wikileaks?
Deep pockets had short term damage.
Amazon, Visa, PayPal acted based on US Lies? So will WikiLeaks release details on US lies to shut down WikiLeaks ?
Recursion’s a biyach.
Frankly with “Whistle blower Goes to Wikileaks” http://bit.ly/dOcSzo
despite the Pentagon/Obama campaign, Wikileaks is providing a valuable global service.
EW, did you see this latest article from Scott Horton…
Australia Opens Probe of CIA Rendition
Very interesting, CTuttle, and thanks for that. (I think that Horton has made a mistake there, or at least a serious understatement — unless there are two Julia Gillards, Julia Gillard is prime minister of Australia, and if she’s calling for an inquiry, things must be srs.)
Since we all pretty much know that, on the surface of things, the docs WL releases haven’t done “damage” of the kind that the government and the spinsters try to get people to believe, then what explains the overreaction? Somebody I read today (might have been Zizek at London Review of Books, minimally deconstructiony) concluded that WL’s offence is that the docs now make it impossible for everyone to deny that everyone knew what everyone knew, even though everyone has wanted to deny that. Well, the Serious People have desperately wanted to deny it.
I would like to think that that works, although as usual, I think it will be true only if large numbers of people outside the suppressionary elites get the message. I worry that the lies are still working, and that Obama can go on talking nonsense in spite of any documentation and actually succeed. Worse, a right-wing Republican could succeed more.
Scott Horton seems to have conflated 2 different people listed in the first two sentences of The Australian article:
As you point out skdadl, these are two different people.
For one unfamiliar with Australian political leadership, this probably was an easy mistake to make.
Scott should probably have continued reading to the finish with this paragraph:
Btw, the Austalian Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security is actually Dr Vivienne Thom.
You’re right — the Australian piece is written for local consumption, so they wouldn’t stop to think how confusingly that intro is put for anyone who doesn’t know who’s who in teh antipodes.
I know about Gillard because she has been silly about WL and Assange, although I think she is being forced to climb down now because Aussie support for both is so strong, and Kevin Rudd, her predecessor and still a member of the coalition government, sounds a lot more in tune with the people than she has.
I watch BBC America News nightly, so things Aussie are not so unfamiliar.
that shows
sometimes bbc coverage is way better than abc coverage
to give just one example from this morning – it was a program on tucson and palin and they dragged out this republican guy to defend palin describing him as a black republican – left me fuming as to why that should matter when no justification was offered despite the recent martin luther king day and the issues that arise about the extent of progress towards his dream beyond obama’s election as potus or perhaps because of it in the craziness of the anachronistic tea partiers, birthers, et al
Not just for local consumption, but probably a glimpse of what the settlement with Habib consisted of. He was not quiet, was rightly aggrieved, and politically astute. So would not have agreed to just shut up and take the money unless the historical records were corrected. Not likely to be something the Australian government would have pursued unless stipulated in the settlement.
There are very few governments that were/are with the Americans on the war on terror that can avoid the taint of rendition.
I agree. Canada sure can’t. Sweden can’t. Those two have been active participants, not just passive sites of kidnappings.
Och. It is the Augean stables we have to clean out somehow.
neither can iceland, germany, italy, the uk, ………… the list includes one and all of them ……. all done through opaque backroom deals in democracies
gillard is a walking political disaster – never thought i would say that of the first female federal labor pm but as with maggie thatcher (tory – not quite my taste), she ain’t no sister
people here think rudd was treated shabbily by the party even if his ouster was perfectly legal since we vote for a party’s candidates rather than directly for a pm and accept it’s for the parties to decide on leadership
yes, i didn’t go into the ins and outs of australian political and administrative infrastructure in my previous comment
the inspector general is totally independent of government control
gillard had no choice in the matter because the greens, supported by independents, pushed the issue and they hold the balance of power in both the house and the senate
it’s useful to remember that both habib’s and hick’s cases were pushed by the greens in the senate with overwhelming public support while howard was the pm until his inglorious ouster in the 2007 federal elections
Zizek?!?!
Not sure I’ve ever explained this on this blog.
But Zizek was at UM in 1999, I think. I saved up my last seminar to take his. It was annoying for a lot of reasons, not least the endless Lacan. Also, those of us actually IN the seminar (there was always an audience) sat at the table. And Zizek spits when he speaks–globby, almost solid pieces of spit that fly precisely table width.
So you learn to duck.
Anyway, like a lot of big names in my field, he loved my project. But he also, well, kept trying to close the door. We had this great argument one day in his office. Me arguing. Him getting up, half-closing the door, saying something, me ducking his spit globules. Ultimately, I pointed out the book in question–a Derridian interpretation of Peron in Argentina, as it happens–didn’t actually reflect historical facts. We went around a couple of more rounds (with him, at one point, suggesting he should be on my diss committee), close-door, spit, duck, argue, close-door, spit, duck, argue. And finally, he says, “well, it’s meant to be theory.” That is, it didn’t matter that this theoretical interpretation of history, written by one of his friends, ignored the actual historical facts to make an ahistoric theoretical point.
Anyway, suffice it to say I have reason to believe that Zizek is, at times, full of shit.
But this one sounds a bit interesting. Might have to look at it.
That was quite wonderful to read – thank you, and chuckles. You know, I RTd that link to him before I read it (very dangerous practice, but early in the morning I do stupid things), and as I started to read it, I thought several times of writing back to friend who posted original link to say “I’m sorry now that I RTd that.” But then at the end it got interesting, with the line I’ve tried to summarize above.
From EW:
There is a lot of that around these days, eh? It is driving me bananas. So many people who want you to see how theoretically accomplished they are — while writing about real cases involving real people, the facts of which they don’t know and aren’t interested in winkling out.
Fortunately, I have had excellent training in winkling from you and all friends here. ;)
LOL. Zizek is still useful. It’s just every time I see him cited in the blogosphere–about the only of my former CompLit folks–I think of that meeting: close-door, spit duck, argue. And, suffice it to say, in spite of the fairly explicit invitation, I didn’t ask him to be on my diss committee.
Just as well w/Zizek on my committee, I might still be stuck in academics.
and clearly, also, reason to know that he is, always, full of spit.
“Somebody I read today (might have been Zizek at London Review of Books, minimally deconstructiony) concluded that WL’s offence is that the docs now make it impossible for everyone to deny that everyone knew what everyone knew, even though everyone has wanted to deny that. Well, the Serious People have desperately wanted to deny it.”
This is what I have believed for a long time. If a PFC could get his hands on these docs, I am to believe they were a great big Secret with a capital “s”.
I tend to believe that probably most cables are intercepted by most countries and then the Nobs pretend the cables are secret. What makes them uncomfortable is the great unwashed know these “Secrets”.
They are embarrassed at having the populace know and, in places other than the US, demanding an explanation. They also know that the word “collaborators”, which is being to pop up more and more, has a very specific definition that may affect elections.
you are exactly right – it is not julia gillard who is calling for any enquiry but the greens – they hold the balance of power along with independents in the house and the senate even though the the labor party of which gillard is the leader remains the biggest political party still
Tangentially related to your comment, via the ACLU:
The odious ruling is here (23 page PDF). The judges were Sentelle, Griffith and Silberman. All who tilt the scales of justice way, way, rightward:
Shorter DC Appeals Circuit: “La la la…I can’t see it!”
And this is just precious (page 13 of the 23 page PDF):
(My Bold)
Shorter DC Appeals Circuit: “History overules the law.”
This could be difficult to assess.
As has been pointed out, the leaks made it easy for foreign governments to track WHO leaked information to diplomats, even if not named.
It isn’t hard. You see what info was given to the US diplomat, check the time noted on the leaked cable, compare to who was where at what time and, bingo, you have a very good idea of who did it.
That isn’t going to get made public. So, some reporter or even Congressional committee is not going to be able to assess that because the foreign government is not going to disclose it or make it public.
AND, spotting who leaked doesn’t mean that person is going to get shot. There are lots of other repercussions.
So, it really is not clear at all how damaging the leaks have been.
But, I think one thing is for certain, no diplomat or other foreign government official is going to trust another diplomat (of any country) with sensitive information in the future. It isn’t just the US, ALL countries see that any information they give to anyone can be leaked in the future. Just because Wiki picked the US for this leak doesn’t mean other countries won’t have their stuff leaked in the future.
your rationale is a classic paradigm of putting the cart before the horse
it is not wikileaks that picked the USA rather that the wikileaks was picked by US whistleblower(s)?
you wax lyrical about the damage that wikileaks has done to diplomacy and that’s your choice but some of us worry more about the damage that diplomacy wreaks on the fabric of democracy itself
When that Australian underwent rendition in 2001, Howard’s right-wing government was in power in Australia (as it was when Australian David Hicks was captured, transported to Guantanamo, and tortured around the same time).
Shorter State Department spokesman Philip Crowley: “I do so claim. La la la….I can’t hear you!”
There’s ultimately a price for the bastardization of American exceptionalism: sooner or later, the high ground is no longer ours. Our power and authority in the world no longer rests on higher ideals, to which the rest of the world aspires, but on raw power, which anyone can grab, no matter how depraved. “Might makes right” will rule again.
We will once again learn that the world is too big a sandbox for us to control, and that by trying to control it, we may exhaust ourselves by over-extending, over-reaching, just like the Soviet empire foundered on the shoals of its imperial pretensions. It may be that the American Empire will collapse not by engagement with a superior enemy, but by trying to do too much at once– such as by borrowing too much money. There are dozens of ways an empire can exhaust itself. But by reducing ourselves to “might makes right,” we corrupt our legacy.
On the other hand, we might once again focus on our values, and rein in our excesses, and by so doing, extend our influence over future generations in a more positive (exceptional?) way.
But, it seems, I digress.
Bob in AZ
What is happening to the United States is pretty much what happened to France in the second half of the reign of Louis XIV. By the mid-1670s France ruled the roost, having bested the previous super-power Spain in what was until the middle of the 1640s a very close-run race. The King then tried to extend that hegemony into the Netherlands, and western Germany with the largest army Europe had known since Roman days (400,000 men). It all turned out badly in the end, with state bankruptcy in the early 18th century. France remained a great power of course, as will the United States, but never again possessed the power to impose her will on the rest of the world the way she had in the 1670s. Napoleon was a kind of outlier in this respect, but that’s an entirely different history.
Okay, so now that the gubmint seems to be moving on to the position that there is no long term damage from WL, and since I automatically assume they are lying, I look for what the opposite of their claim would mean. Seems to me that the long term damage from all of this is the stark exposure of just how blatantly and how frequently our government and our diplomats lie. That is quite a long term cost to pay.
It’s as though public officials never had mothers who read the children’s classics to them: The Emperor’s New Clothes, The Little Boy Who Cried Wolf, The Wizard of Oz …
They don’t want to be seen for what they are, which is very far from “the best and the brightest.” Get the band to strike up another chorus of “Hail to the Chief” and we’ll all feel better.
PS: Jim, I admit that when I first saw the title of the article, I thought it was going to say the opposite of what it does. I thought it was going to say that there actually has been damage confirmed and the government are keeping that secret until they can spring the evidence on Assange at trial.
Yeah. All the goodwill Obama racked up, in America and outside of it, just for Not Being Bush he has blown away by, well, Being Bush.
We voted for these Obama bastards … why? Any surprise would’ve lain in their having been honest re Wikileaks. Or about nearly anything else, for that matter. Barack Obama has turned out to be utterly rotten.
Of interest, current Air Force Magazine said pretty much the same thing, that the leaks didn’t do that much damage. Their focus was on why so much information was available so far down the chain and what was being done to fix it.
We have been taught that the Commies are bad, we can’t let them come here to get us, and China is now our partner. Wikileaks is a godsend to us for just that reason.
Just reviewed Hu’s speech. He wants us to be his consumers, yet our own Government wants us broke with no spending money. We have been bombarded with a spy apparatus in everyway possible, even RFID chips on our toilet paper.
Tell me, exactly who is the Commie State now?
the US obsession with communism and reagan’s manichean rhetoric always amused me
let me e tell you a true story
in the 1950s, the liberals (conservatives in politics) wanted to outlaw the communist party in australia – the communist party chose to fight that through the courts which ruled such a move to be unconstitutional since no act of treason is demonstrable and ideological beliefs are not crimes
nobody screamed activist judges and still don’t
And all these calls to assassinate Assange?
Merely embarrassing the US government has become a capitol offense?
Exactly! How are we to respect and trust our leadership? Everything is a game to them aside from hunting down ways to take away from us.
Thanks for the post, which only confirms how abjectly rotten this Admin is. Oh hey: WL is bay-yad for the USA so let’s call for Assange’s head on a platter. Oh, nevermind, WL means nothing. Move along now, children, nothing to see here…
Unsurprising but disgusting. Thanks to CTuttle for link re the aus. rendition info. I used to live downunder. At one time, it was a more “liberal” (in the USA sense of the term) place, but since the early 1980s, like the USA, it has gone progressively more hawkish and rightwing.
I’m not “up” on how things are going under Gillard, but this is interesting. My “mates” in the antipodes have a much much better lifestyle than we do here, even though their quality of life has suffered lately. But they still have a very good social safety net and jobs are still more available than they are here. Of course, Rupert Murdoch’s mum (I think she’s still alive but very elderly) believes in public health care and advocates for it.
My “mates” downundah send me their apologies that we’r “stuck” with Pirate Murdoch, but they also say: good luck with that but better you Yanks than us Aussies!
And so: on it goes…
Elmer, who gave Swiss banking data to Wikileaks, was found guilty.
Now there’s a justice system. A fine that doesn’t seek to destroy someone’s life. Whether or not you agree with the right of Switzerland to prosecute for the act he took, at least no one tried to ruin the guy’s life. In this country the government would have demanded an outrageously large fine and would try to attach everything he owned.
Your either with this country or against it. As Green Day says, “Gotta know your enemy.”
*heh* Basically he got off cheap…
While not ignoring the social peer pressure that might make life difficult for Elmer, and prevent him from working in his chosen field again, the monetary fine was peanuts, the cost of a week’s stay in a chalet. A thoroughly judicious comment that confirms he violated the law, but asks whose behavior is really hurting us.
but the presiding judge refused to send him to prison
My definition of national security since I returned from Vietnam is facts about what this government and its officials do that would be embarrassing if made public. That’s all it’s ever been. Keep the people ignorant, in the case of this country, literally ignorant, through a dumbed down educational system and fewer substantive debates on issues that affect everyone replaced by dog and pony shows and idiots like Palin, Angle, and Bachmann to provide comic relief.
Reportedly, the U.S. Pentagon in 2008 secretly determined to destroy WikiLeaks and keep it off of the Internet. This is an example of U.S. “military intelligence” [oxymoron] at work, at a cost of billions of dollars each year in the U.S. Federal budget.
In the past 30 days, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates stated publicly that Wikileaks may cause some embarrassment but no significant harm.
It is noteworthy but rarely noted that to the extent there is any real, verifiable, harm or damage that can be directly tied to the information released by WikiLeaks, then only the corrupt have been so harmed or damaged. No innocent person has been harmed or damaged by WikiLeaks.
Yet, ironically, the whistleblower website WikiLeaks, its founder Julian Assange, and its alleged source Army Pfc. Bradley Manning, have been brutally attacked and have suffered highly significant social, emotional, psychological and financial losses that continue to this day without any expectation of respite or compensation.
POTUS Obama, as Commander-in-Chief of the U.S.A. armed forces, could end this mad, vindictive, feeding frenzy with one telephone call.
Obama is a fascist.
James Ridgeway and Jean Casella in the Guardian raise a thorny question: many of the conditions of Bradley Manning’s near-complete solitary confinement are shared by over 100,000 other American prisoners – 25,000 at “supermax” prisons and 80,000 in other facilities.
True, Mr. Manning is only accused of crimes, not convicted, a distinction, among others, that Glenn Greenwald uses. But Ridgeway and Casella ask, if Manning’s treatment is wrong or inhumane, does it matter whether it occurs pre- or post-conviction?
EOH,
I am astonished that you would ask this question. You could just as well ask the same question about the prisoners in Guantanamo who have not been charged with any crime. The American answer to the question is a resounding YES! because to answer otherwise is to consider the trial a mere formality, with an outcome assured in advanced. And even if the evidence is clear and overwhelming, the American way is still to assume innocence until proven guilty. Or have we lost that value, too?
Or have I misunderstood your point?
Bob in AZ
Emptywheel, thank you for continuing to write about WikiLeaks. I find myself wondering whether you have any critical insights into the newly emerging White House meme that WikiLeaks revelations are embarrassing but not damaging.
Frankly, I think it is a ruse. It quite predictably leads one to note that the ongoing Pentagon/Department of Justice war on WikiLeaks is absurdly inconsistent with their new pronouncements on WikiLeaks ineffectuality. In fact, many progressive bloggers have chosen to place their focus squarely on this apparent folly. I imagine the Administration prefers this relatively minor rebuke to some other infinitely more damming discussions.
As Greenwald says today http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/index.html: