>> ^kceaton1:

Habeas Corpus is the thing bothering me a lot. The fact that Obama almost flippantly discarded the issue angers me. As it means that: one, he doesn't care for habeas corpus when it comes to those that he believes committed crimes, and two, he wants him to rot for what he did, or lastly, he doesn't know enough about the issue to make a smart comment/decision.


Well, look at the transcript again. For one, we don't know what the question was, but we know the full answer was:

No, no, but look, I can’t conduct diplomacy on an open source. That’s not how…the world works. If you’re in the military, and…I have to abide by certain classified information. If I was to release stuff, information that I’m not authorized to release, I’m breaking the law…We’re a nation of laws. We don’t individually make our own decisions about how the laws operate…

He broke the law.

Does that sound like he's responding to a question about Manning's case, or something along the lines of "You don't think the American people deserve the right to know what its government is doing?"

That kind of question presumes that Manning did what he's accused of, and makes the case that the law Manning broke shouldn't be there...to which Obama says "we can have a philosophical difference...but he broke the law." That's why my initial comment was "bad on the activists for making this about the moral value of what Manning did, and not about Manning's right to a trial". That's an argument to take to the public in defense of Wikileaks, not an argument to take to Obama out of concern for Bradley Manning's treatment.

Don't get me wrong, I love to see everyone so concerned about habeas corpus and the presumption of innocence and all that, but I think people are misrepresenting what Obama actually meant here. I can live with the professional spin doctors willfully misreading the context to draw attention to their various rags, but I expect people here to be a touch more grounded.

I actually think this was a pointless interview. We gained no great insights, we heard no new information, etc... All of what was said has been said for weeks AND has been said better, i.e. reasons to be there and reasons not to be there.

Plus, I don't consider the CIA to be anything more than a tool anymore and hopefully it stays that way; as in the past you could make a case that the CIA was GETTING us involved in wars and shaping internal politics. I'm sure they still do this, but enough whistle-blowers came forward to create an environment were the CIA must tread carefully. Especially, after their complete and utter fuck-up of the century for the last Iraq war.

I appreciate this man's council, but in the end he has as much experience in leading a country as I do (armchair generals). He's very well informed in some international dealings, but his answer of "do nothing" is an old answer and it needs to be done away with to some degree. As it's an answer that does nothing; in fact it shows you the shear amount of apathy that our country feels is O.K. to use (like Cambodia, Ivory Coast, Rwanda, etc.). The problem as I see it is that the U.N. passed a unanimous security council resolution on Libya, a U.N. member. Libya said it would comply and then went on to do exactly what @bcglorf has said.

The solution I see is that NATO shouldn't be the watch dog here. The problem is that the U.N. is a useless body without fangs. It NEEDS fangs. The fact that EVERY security council member is not involved in this situation/resolution to me means that their "security club membership" should be nullified. I'm tired of people abusing the U.N. . It's perhaps our best way to solve many of these problems. But, when the military action is ALWAYS carried by NATO at the end of the day, I begin to believe that members that don't participate in resolutions THEY PASSED need to be kicked out of their position (I'm looking at you China).

Until the U.N. gains some fangs and the ability to enact resolutions that are passed UNANIMOUSLY (5 abstains for the countries too scared to take a stance), we will continue to carry the weight via the U.S. Armed Forces or NATO; otherwise, we let innocent people die. We could do nothing, but if we did do nothing the media needs to put the blame squarely at the feet of U.N. Security members that abstain; make them swim in the blood they've spilled by their political maneuvering called "abstain"... We don't do this, but I think it's time we did. If China wants to be a big boy, they need to learn about responsibilities related to their direct inaction. Likewise, Russia needs to learn that the Cold War is dead; holding their feet to the fire internationally might do that.

Eventually, this comes down to the media getting the story right and being willful enough to put countries to the question: Why?

Don't bring up the "reverse angle" of death and destruction. I know it will happen, but this is the cost of choosing and FIGHTING for any side. Death is everywhere; it doesn't make it right, but it makes it true...

Here is the vote for, Resolution 1973:

U.S.-Y*
Lebanon-Y
France-Y*
U.K.-Y*
Bosnia and Herzegovina-Y
Columbia-Y
Gabon-Y
Nigeria-Y
Portugal-Y
South Africa-Y

Abstained (the eternal worthless permanent security council members: China-they never do ANYTHING, and The Russian Federation-who seem to vote just to be contrary); I'll put a mark next to permanent members that abstained^:

^The Russian Federation-NA*
^China (as usual)-NA*
Brazil-NA
Germany-NA
India-NA

I find it hard to keep Russia and China on the security council (they'd whine like babies if removed) as they almost always abstain AND they don't help; in fact they do nothing. The other members are not permanent and may be cycled out in the upcoming year; making me not very concerned with their attitude.

*Permanent Security Council Members

So take it or leave it; but, I think our worldwide diplomacy from every country still revolves around the Cold War and WWII. It's terribly sad to me that we are still stuck on such ridiculous fears and ghostly machinations...

Has the world become a deus ex machina to politicians? Do they believe complex problems can be solved with the smallest of effort? This is what it seems to be coming to and it's scary to see people like Donal Trump in the runnings for president. Sarah Palin is a walking and breathing Captain Catherine Janeway in the sense that she believes she has answers and solutions that are easy to implement and as ridiculous as every piece of deus ex machina "Voyager" ever used. AND she is not alone...

I see this in our country and in others. Simplistic leanings that help no one except to further their own agenda. It's as though politicians and leaders use Rube Goldberg machines, yet these do have a purpose: they grab your attention, they pacify, they cause you to become their disease--ready to even spill the blood of what they hate. It's true in every country on the planet. So when Russia and China take the easy way out, that is what I think of them. It is also why they should NEVER be given leadership, as they seemingly don't know what it truly is or they abuse it.

/My long two cents with a little drama to get a dialogue started...

From what I've gathered, the US's policy has been to only support nascent revolutions when they reach critical mass implicitly (or in this case where there is violent suppression, explicitly).

Diplomatically this is smart. If a country's people don't have the will to follow through with a revolution on their and the US actively plays a part in stirring one and fails, the dictatorship in power will likely become highly isolated. That will lock it away from modernization, insulate it from western investment/democracy and cause the country to stagnate politically and economically. Perhaps not to the extent of North Korea but suffering from the same problems.

Whether anyone would like to admit it or not, I would bet anything that the relations that the US had with Egypt's military was utterly instrumental in throwing Mubarak out of power. The civil institutions that it has being able to support on the taxes of foreign investment and tourism will probably help it from falling back into dictatorship.

Not to mention, the specter of intervention could cripple either a country's attempts at revolution or the entire movement. Obviously, Africa has a history of colonialism. The Middle East has much more recent and current interventions. If there was genuine intervention and US/European involvement beyond simply behind the scenes diplomacy and preventing violence against civilians and rebels, it would give the dictators a huge amount of credulity and a mandate for their strongman rule.

As far as it being a European idea, let's face it, even if European leaders led the charge, US involvement by way of it's military spending being greater than the rest of the world combined is pretty much a requisite for involvement.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Tim Minchin, comedy, irony, atheism, holistic, hippie, dinner party' to 'Tim Minchin, comedy, irony, atheism, holistic, hippie, dinner party, diplomacy dyke' - edited by calvados

There are three books on the market that can shed some light on what happened behind the curtains between Assange/WikiLeaks and Guardian/NYT/Spiegel primarily on the other side.


a) "WikiLeaks: Inside Julian Assange's War on Secrecy" (Guardian)
b) "Open Secrets: Wikileaks, War and American Diplomacy" (New York Times)
c) "Staatsfeind WikiLeaks"/"WikiLeaks, Public Enemy No. 1" (Der Spiegel)

Excerpts of each one have been made available at the corresponding pages. Whether the truth can be found within one of these books, I highly doubt it. But at least "WikiLeaks, Public Enemy No. 1" was an interesting read.

@bmacs27

WikiLeaks' response can be found here, but if we take into account this excerpt from "WikiLeaks, Public Enemy No. 1" published by folks from "Der Spiegel" as well as the latest excerpts from David Leigh's book published by the Guardian, it appears to have turned into one big pissing contest between Bill Keller, David Leigh and Julian Assange.

So far, I have read neither "WikiLeaks: Inside Julian Assange's War on Secrecy" (Guardian) nor "Open Secrets: Wikileaks, War and American Diplomacy" (New York Times), just "Staatsfeind WikiLeaks" (Der Spiegel). But comments and op-eds at "Der Spiegel" and "Le Monde" differ quite significantly from those at the NYT in particular.

On a different note, how about these two tweets by David House, Bradley Manning's only allowed visitor, together with Jane Hamsher:

Visited Bradley this weekend; his conditions are still intolerable, but we talked at length about Egypt & Tunisia.

Bradley is in a shocked state due to solitary confinement, but his mood and mind soared when I mentioned the democratic uprisings in Egypt.

EDIT: Quote system broke.

@hpqp

Totally agree with you about the definitions being different, but in this interview on The Globe and Mail he seems to be saying that he means "determine" and not "analyze."

Imagine how our view of the human condition would change if we ever found a cure for racism, xenophobia and other forms of bigotry. What if there were perfectly safe ways to increase feelings of compassion and altruism? I think interventions of this sort – pharmacological and otherwise – are probably in our future. Neuro-imaging technology could also change our lives profoundly. We will probably develop reliable lie detectors, so that when the truth really matters, it will be impossible for a person to lie. This will change politics and diplomacy rather profoundly. There is no telling how developments of this kind could put pressure on popular beliefs.

It sounds like he's advocating a world where science has determined without a doubt "the answer" to moral questions and the state is forcefully re-educating those whose actions are determined not to be "maximizing well-being." I have no trouble with science analyzing moral questions, but I have a big problem with someone claiming that the results of some experiments should determine our individual choices--or even remove our individual choice entirely.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Wikileaks, Diplomacy, This, Guy' to 'Wikileaks, Diplomacy, This, Guy, Sergei Rachmaninoff' - edited by RedSky

WikiLeaks' Bottom-Line Revelation

by

Austin Bay

Julian Assange, the man behind the WikiLeaks dump of secret US State Department cables, has been frank about his reasons for releasing thousands of classified -and stolen -- documents.

Assange says he wants to seriously damage the United States. If this damage forwards America's ultimate destruction, so be it. The son of leftist America-haters, Assange was born and weaned during the Cold War. Then the wrong side won. What the superpower Soviet Union failed to do with its armies, he, a super-empowered individual, will accomplish via the information anarchy of the Internet.

If Assange's history-shaping goal seems grandiose and detached from reality, indeed it is. However, once you understand the man's religion, his megalomania and solipsism become a bit more comprehensible if even more reprehensible.

Like other anti-American cranks on the planet, Assange holds firm in his warped faith that the U.S. is the leading source of global evil. The roots of this religion run deep, beginning with 18th century European aristocrats who despised the American Revolution. The anti-Americanism of Nazis, communists, tribalists, anarchists and now militant Islamists all rehash the same tropes, with their semi-schizoid baseline being the U.S. is simultaneously a vast authoritarian conspiracy and a heterogeneous menagerie of infidel-cowboy-capitalist idiots who dogmatically resist enlightened social policies.

Assange argues his revelations will force this conglomerate American monster to become more secretive and authoritarian. Limiting access to information, in order to stop future leaks, will reduce the monster's secretive and authoritarian effectiveness. The monster's "security state" will dumb down, and --here's the moment of religious rapture in Assange's prophecy -- this will increase global justice.

Assange also links this shackling of America to creating peace. Don't snicker too long. There are a lot of tenured gray-haired profs with ponytails who teach this dreck at notable universities and get paid for it.

Assange understands media grandstanding, but he doesn't understand people and certainly doesn't understand how American diplomats contribute to maintaining peace.

U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates understands people and diplomacy, and his assessment of Assange's info dump is as clear as it is historically and psychologically informed. At the Pentagon last week, Gates said: "The fact is, governments deal with the United States because it's in their interest, not because they like us, not because they trust us and not because they believe we can keep secrets. Many governments -- some governments -- deal with us because they fear us, some because they respect us, most because they need us. We are still essentially, as has been said before, the indispensable nation."

Gates added that the cables were "embarrassing" and "awkward," but the ultimate effects on policy would be "modest."

Pray that Gates is right about modest impact, but right now and for at least the next six months, the world confronts the possibility of a nuclear war in East Asia ignited by North Korean aggression. This is a time period when the world absolutely needs close -- and trustworthy -- cooperation between the U.S. and China. A big war in Korea could kill millions but will guarantee a global economic depression. Leaked cables discuss corruption in China's Communist Party and names hypocritical party elites.

Even if the information is accurate, this is a case where revealed candor damages personal relationships among key U.S. diplomatic personnel and Chinese leaders. China is a face culture, and the leaders have lost face. A mature appreciation of the common danger should override personal anger, but another leak revealed that China sees North Korea as a "spoiled child" and that it believes Korea will ultimately be reunited with South Korea absorbing the North. This revelation weakens China's political leverage with North Korea at a moment when any leverage is precious.

Assange, of course, did not consider how he increased the threat to the lives of millions of Korean, Japanese and Chinese when he dumped his filched documents. His faith-based narrative of American evil excludes the possibility that American diplomats are collaborating with China to avoid war and eventually put an end to North Korea's armed brinksmanship without a nuclear explosion.

Here's WikiLeaks' bottom-line revelation: Assange and ideologues like him promote an ignorant and destructive solipsism that has nothing to do with peace and justice but a lot to do with sociopathic narcissism.

The obvious flaw of this episode of the daily show is that it appears to view the recent wiki-leak as being directed at audiences in the USA. The jokes certainly stand their ground in that regard - on an international scale however, this is an entirely different matter.
One can of course argue that, again, the world already knows how US diplomacy views its allies (and spies on them) - that fact however, would pose an entirely different and much more serious problem for the US:

Politicians in other countries are going to have a MUCH tougher job explaining why they have their troops in Afghanistan or are offering logistic support.

Finally, do you really believe the US diplomats in the affected countries can continue business as usual after this event?

^charliem:
Governments need to be held accountable for everything they do. Light is the best disinfectant to corruption. This 'assklown' is a damn hero. quantumushroom 

I completely disagree in this instance. If what they leaked was say, medical experiments in Guatemala I would be all for it. But as diplomacy consists largely of trust and confidence this is just an unnecessary embarrassment. imho.

ps. my quote f'd up.

*ban, after a failed round of diplomacy from @chicchorea

Who's lying to themself? You think Obama would extend the war indefinitely to enrich military contractors? The ones he's been constantly pissing off by killing their pet projects like the F-22 and C-17?

I'm suggesting that it's quite possible that Obama actually thinks America's national security interests demand that we try to address the continued existence of Al Qaeda.

I'm personally in total agreement with Zakaria that the war seems wrongly disproportionate, but I refuse to categorically declare that there is no possible sense in doing anything to go after Al Qaeda, and that therefore Obama is only interested in enriching future campaign donors.
-@NetRunner

Read the history of my comments and you may find that I harbor no love for the enrichment of the Military Industrial Complex. I find the creation of the F-22, and C-17 a little like creating weapons platforms just so money can be wasted. In reality, is it really necessary to have a F-22 when there are Nuclear devices?

I guess it's fine to violate a nations sovereignty in the pursuit of justice, but to use military force is another thing completely. - Sarcasm. I point to the US and its relation ship with South America.

Okay, so what are Republicans arguing we should do with the war? End it, or ramp it up and keep it going as long as it takes?

Aside from Ron Paul, is there anyone in Congress speaking against the war who isn't a Democrat? Hell, what's Rand Paul saying? More war, or less war? I also have a hard time believing that Ron Paul is the saint that he's made out to be.
-@NetRunner

It is quite clear that the Republican party is pro war. I can't argue that and to do so would betray my opinion of a corrupt party so bathed in neo-conservative foolishness.

You sorta point out the problem with your own logic here. If the whole reason for the war is because the military-industrial complex demands a war, and the conservative majority of the Supreme Court wants to systematically eliminate limits on corporate money being used to influence elections, then having more or even just new parties won't fix a damn thing.

People who refuse to get partisan about what's going are the ones who are deluding themselves.
-@NetRunner

EDIT: I shouldn't have to remind you of my stance on Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. Corporations are not people, they are conglomerations of people. But that's the problem with this country isn't it? The root of the problem, is that this country's policies are dictated by the almighty dollar, and who has the most; corporations.

What is clear to me about the Supreme Court is that it is divided by partisan ideology. They are not impartial, and pragmatic about laws. They constantly make decisions based on political ideology. For example, the 2nd ammendment. I wonder if anyone from the Judicial Branch has taken a good look at unbiased statistics (I'm not concerned with how the statistics point now, for gun or against gun). If arguments could be put in a more emotionally independent fashion, perhaps that would make a difference. To often is politics a game of ideology and emotion. Although I wonder if this solution is simply evil arbitrarily.

The military industrial complex does not demand war. Supply and Demand. The Military Industrial Complex exists out of a need to meet supply, and make a profit on it. For this I point you to Germany, a Documentary called "Bullet Proof Salesman". How do you stop supply and demand? Stop the wars, no war at all. Cut military spending. I think that would have been the best way to deal with Terrorism with good police work and diplomacy. The military is, by design, not for police work; they exist to fuck shit up.

I never think of the Democrats as perfect -- they're most certainly flawed in all kinds of ways -- but the story always comes out the same, no matter the issue.

Democrats may be split on whether to do the right thing or the expedient thing, but the Republicans all scream and howl for the wrong thing to be done and done immediately.
-@NetRunner

The elimination of one party would leave only the other party. A situation rife for Majority Rule, which is counter to a Democratic Republic, or a Republic at all.

But know this, I agree with you that it's time for a change of scenery; republicans need the boot.

The US hasn't declared war since 1944. Congress has simply authorized the use of force. "War does not decide who is right, only who is left" - George Bernard

Taken from LiveLeak...

War with Iran has already been decided by the powers that be and the modern-day quasi-declaration happened last Thursday. Using the same legislative and propaganda playbook that led to the Iraq War, the U.S. Government has just officially declared War on Iran. Reuters reported "Congress on Thursday approved tough new unilateral sanctions aimed at squeezing Iran's energy and banking sectors, whic More..h could also hurt companies from other countries doing business with Tehran. The House of Representatives passed the bill 408-8 and sent it to President Barack Obama for signing into law. The Senate had approved it 99-0 earlier in the day."


Congress hasn't officially voted for a Declaration of War since World War II. In modern times they use creative wording in bills that authorize the broad use of force across borders in the sweeping "War on Terror." The Bush Doctrine of preemptively attacking countries because they may pose a threat to America in the future was universally trashed by progressives, but is alive and well under Obama, the Prince of Peace, without one dissenting vote in the Senate. This authority is what the Obama Administration claims also gives them the legal argument to bomb sovereign countries like Pakistan.

This unilateral decision by the United States Congress comes on the heels of a 12-2 U.N. Security Council vote on June 8th to impose a "modest tightening of sanctions" against Iran. Of course, Russia and China have been assured that sanctions won't apply to their energy needs in order to secure their votes. After the vote President Obama asserted that, "these sanctions do not close the door on diplomacy."

However, the United States preempted this embargo vote in Congress by taking up an aggressive posture in tandem with Israel by deploying an Armada of Battleships to the Red Sea. There are now reports from the Israeli National News that, "The Israeli Air Force recently unloaded military equipment at a Saudi Arabia base, a semi-official Iranian news agency claimed Wednesday, while a large American force has massed in Azerbaijan, which is on the northwest border of Iran."

Now, it seems that the United States is working overtime to sell their war plans to potential allies. CIA chief, Leon Panetta appeared on ABC's This Week and announced that the Iranians, "have enough low-enriched uranium right now for two weapons. They do have to enrich it, fully, in order to get there. And we would estimate that if they made that decision, it would probably take a year to get there, probably another year to develop the kind of weapon delivery system in order to make that viable."

While world leaders negotiate their piece of the Iranian pie in G8 negotiations, the multinational fear campaign has begun. Russian President Dmitry Medvedev said Sunday that a CIA warning that Iran has enough uranium to build two atomic bombs was "worrying," and criticized Tehran's secrecy over its nuclear program. Gathered at the G8 Summit in Ottawa, world leaders now "fully believe" and are "worried" that a preemptive attack by Israel on Iran is inevitable. Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi told reporters that "Iran is not guaranteeing a peaceful production of nuclear power [so] the members of the G8 are worried and believe absolutely that Israel will probably react preemptively."


Enforcing an unprovoked embargo on a sovereign nation has been historically defined as an act of war. Unfortunately, very few of our elected officials know or understand history and therefore overwhelmingly voted for the new sanctions. Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX), an outspoken critic of Iran sanctions, was one of the eight house members to vote against the measure. Here is Ron Paul from a few months ago comparing sanctions to an Act of War while discussing this bill; H.R. 2194 Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act of 2010.

The Bush-Obama Doctrine is the rule of tyrants. Clearly it looks like Israel and America are determined to preemptively strike Iran even though Iran has always maintained that their nuclear program is for peaceful energy production only. America has once again engaged in an Act of War on a sovereign nation that has not harmed, or even threatened to harm her. Iran's biggest crime appears to be sitting on a sea of crude at a time when oil-thirsty Neo-cons, who penned the Doctrine, rule the world. The coming war with Iran will not be pretty.

I like how he said defense in quotations. I've often heard seemingly intelligent Americans speaking of the troops in Iraq/Afghanistan say that they're "fighting for our freedom."

It's clearly not the military's job to keep American citizens safe today. The best defense against terrorist attacks at the moment seems to be the airport security. The military is just an alternative to diplomacy in foreign affairs.