Leak fallout: Putin angry at U.S.; China had it up to here with North Korea; Prince Andrew "is a twat."

• Breaking news on the Prince Andrew beat! Wikileaked missives analyzed today have him praising bribery, directly meddling in a corruption investigation, and being the recipient of the sort of praise that cannot be offered without caveats such as "He is a twat." [The Guardian] • Vladimir "Dobby" Putin is upset. One cable, attributed to U.S. Defense chief Robert Gates, reported Russian democracy has 'disappeared,' to be replaced by an oligarchy centered on the state security apparatus. Putin warned him to stay out of Russian affairs, suggested that the country may develop new nuclear weapons should the U.S. fail to cut a new security deal with it, and pointed out that unlike at least one U.S. president, he did in fact get the most votes. [NYT] • Barbed wire fences in Pakistan are inordinately expensive, at least when you are paying for them. Did you know it cost $70m to maintain radars to help fend off the Taliban Air Force? The nonexistence of this martial institution is apparently not an impediment to those cutting the checks. So confusing! • Not to be outdone by Sarah Palin calling for Julian Assange's assassination, Mike Huckabee says he wants presumed leaker Bradley Manning dead. • China is indeed 'ready to abandon' North Korea, says the Guardian.

⟿ Follow Rob Beschizza on Twitter.

MORE: News

More at Boing Boing

Ants and Stars: Bruce Sterling and Jasmina Tesanovic visit the Sardinia Radio Telescope in Italy

The Snowden Principle

glimmung

Of all the things in this data-dump that are NOT news, foremeost amongst them is that ‘Prince Andrew “is a twat”‘, although he is not the biggest twat floundering around in that particular gene-pool…
Guesstimate Jones

It’s clear that the politicians are in panic mode…this stuff is coming out faster than they can check it, and they are embarrassing themselves, right and left.

Consider this statement, from Tom Flanagan, a senior adviser to the Canadian prime minister, Stephen Harper, on the Canadian TV station CBC:

“I think Assange should be assassinated, actually,” he said. “I think Obama should put out a contract and maybe use a drone or something.” Flanagan chuckled as he made the comment but did not retract it when questioned, adding: “I wouldn’t feel unhappy if Assange does disappear.”

Leading me to ask: What the F was he thinking? Seriously…does he mean to imply, that the United States Government puts out “contracts” on dissidents?

Who needs leaks, when you have government idiots on national television, spewing their idiocy, for all to hear?
Anonymous

When it’s us under scrutiny, the mantra usually goes something like “if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear”. When it’s them, however, we’re told “it’s an attack on everyone” and it’s “the end of diplomacy”. I suppose the moral of this fiasco is simple, however it seems to have escaped the notice of most of the mainstream media.
Guesstimate Jones

Breaking News! It turns out Flanagan is a former government idiot:

“Sources close to the Canadian prime minister, Stephen Harper, have asked us to point out that Tom Flanagan, the professor who flippantly called for Assange’s assassination (8.38am), does not have a formal role as an adviser to Harper.

Canada’s respected magazine, The Walrus, carried a long profile of Flanagan in 2004. It was headlined “The Man behind Stephen Harper”.

We should have made clear that Flanagan is a former adviser to Harper.”

So, clearly, Mr. Flanagan’s comments are not representative of the opinions of any current or former members of the Canadian government, nor do they represent the policy of the United States Government, and that Mr. Flanagan, is, in fact, a twat.
mdh

“Dobby” Putin – thanks for that. Brilliant.
Ernst Gruengast

Re Prince Andrew@
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/nov/30/prince-andrew-wikileaks-cables?intcmp=239

Already more evidence coming out within a day to back up the hypothesis I mooted yesterday that his casual comments on al Yamamah were the tip of an iceberg of lobbying at the highest level on this issue by Andy.
We now have two meetings with the Richard Alderman, head of the SFO, one of which was a “summoning” to Buck House, to try and convince them to back off the Saudi royals.
Given that Tony Blair ultimately instructed the SFO to call off the investigation, the question then arises, did Andy lobby Blair to step in when his own direct interventions were, as seems apparent, rebuffed.
Not that Blair would need much nudging to do the bidding of corrupt elitists!
I’m interested to see how this develops.

Ernst
Anonymous

“One cable, attributed to U.S. Defense chief Robert Gates, reported Russian democracy has ‘disappeared,’ to be replaced by an oligarchy centered on the state security apparatus.”

So, basically, Russia is now like the United States?

–An American
urbanhick

Only Andrew is a twat? Hmph!
- patter
  
  I can only assume they’ve not come across Prince Phillip yet, he drops amazing pearls of nutcaseness.
Anonymous

Say what you will about Palin, at least her statement had her calling for charges, albeit charges that made no sense. Other politicians are openly saying that assassination should be attempted. I hope to god people understand what that means and that they never reelect those politicians again.

After reading Assange’s essay on authoritarian conspiracy, I see an interesting parallel. Now that he is high-profile enough to want to assassinate, wikileaks has already done enough that assassination wouldn’t accomplish anything and, more likely, would drastically improve the respect and support wikileaks has from any civil-rights respecting entity.

Goblin, you at once suggest that wikileaks needs to keep more secrets and say that wikileaks (not assange, wikileaks is not one person) should let millions of people decide what files to disseminate. That’s ignoring the fact that ‘his little site’ is under constant ddos from any number of govt. entities. To be frank, you seem to not understand the situation at all.

@sasa: what wikileaks is doing is hardly advocating peace. If anything, they are making conflict more likely. What they are doing is, in my opinion, more noble that a pursuit of peace. They are distributing [presumably] truthful information that most people would never see and would never know was the stance of their governments and financial institutions. The truth is worth fighting a few wars over.
benher

The CCCP government was replaced/morphed into an oligarchy?
Don’t be upset Putin – rather, think of this leak as an unofficial American style welcome to the club!
Anonymous

Here be dragons. I warn anyone not familiar with Ambassadorial
Disease that it is highly contagious, and will cause you and
your family unparalleled grief, as your brain wracks and burns
in torment, trying to understand why you should pay your income
taxes next spring to these twats.

We will have to start ratting out each other next spring, writing
W-1099′s for everyone from the newsboy to the lawnmowing boy, all
to save just $2B a year for the IRS, when at the same time, our
august Congress just awarded Defense +$95 BILLION a year as their
‘Iraq War Dividend, errr, …BONUS’.

That’s right, while Republicans are screaming about the cost of
ObamaCare being $90B a year, they turned right around and gave
Defense $95B a year RAISE for 2011 and every year thereafter. So
the headlines can now say, ‘Americans Pay Trillion to Twats’
Ugly Canuck

America is itself such a vast and populous place, that it is difficult to remember that it constitutes but a small minority of the world’s population.

These are international “cables”. They concern the world.
Not only Americans.
bjacques

Russia is a (so far) non-hereditary Sultanate with a Grand Vizier and a court of hereditary boyars (the oligarchs and their get), with provinces and major cities run by satraps (Ramzan Kadyrov) or pashas (Luzhkov, until recently mayor of Moscow), and a veneer of democracy. So, close enough.
niro5

Well if it is freedom you want, why don’t you just move to Russia?
tdaonp

I am not rueful that the mighty fall a bit. They are watching us every hour of the day. It’s time we watch them for a bit. More at:

http://thesecondopiniontribune.blogspot.com/2010/12/wikileaks-empowered-find-out-what-its.html

Henk.
vaporlock

It seems that many people just don’t get the fact that Wikileaks is designed/setup for whistleblowers to release information. If Assange didn’t release this information he would be in breach of the whole idea behind Wikileaks.
- Goblin
  
  Then why is Assange currently sitting on the the information about Bank of America? Doesn’t that violate the whole pretext of “completely” free information? Why doesn’t he release it as soon as it is leaked? You’re taking a too simplistic view of what Wiki-leaks really is.
  
  Timing obviously counts for great deal for Assange, there is more then meets the eye. Assange understands that WHEN he releases something can mean as much as what is released. What gives Assange a free pass on his own closest held principle?
  - Bloodboiler
    
    What good is a leak if no-one will know about it because something more media friendly is taking all attention of the public?
    
    You said it yourself: “Assange understands that WHEN he releases something can mean as much as what is released.”
    
    I don’t pretend to understand Assanage’s motives for anything he does, but not releasing everything as soon as it comes in is just sensible. Releasing e.g., bank and medical corporation information now would just give all parties easy means to direct attention elsewhere.
    - Goblin
      
      You’re not one of the type I was addressing. You obviously see the pragmatic and political considerations that must be involved.
      
      I was addressing and frankly getting fed up with the politicking. Some folks want to take Wiki-leaks strictly at face value. However, I’m just interested in the truth of the leaks.
      
      Assange has repeatedly used the leaked information to further his own agenda. I just feel that someone should point out the obvious. As much as people want to deny that it “isn’t about” Assange; Assange very much makes use of the information for furtherance of his own agenda (i.e. his withholding of leaked information), which near as we can tell involves the tearing down of government and certain corporations.
      
      That personal and announced agenda is what allowed some republicans to sink a rhetorical hook in Assange. Who cares if we all agree that that is a step too far? No matter how you cut it, Assange completely mis-played his hand to the American public and he’s been torn up in the mainstream as a result.
      - Ugly Canuck
        
        Nonsense…you argue that editing is “evidence of an agenda”, and therefore that ALL of it should be ignored – because you don’t like Mr Assange, personally.
        
        A typical American “personalization” of political issues, as a way to dodge the issues themselves.
        
        Like the ones Fisk writes about here:
        
        http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/fisk/robert-fisk-now-we-know-america-really-doesnt-care-about-injustice-in-the-middle-east-2146971.html
        
        Oh wait…he has a reason for writing = an agenda = ignore him, all good Americans!
        
        PS Americans < 7% of world population.(350 million out of 6000 million)
        
        The audience for these materials goes far beyond Americans…I personally find it intriguing, that Canadian Officials seek to keep secret, from Canadians, the unflattering things they say about their fellow-citizens… to the Officials of a Foreign Government!
        
        No secrets from THEM, eh?
      - Goblin
        
        Ugly Canuck
        
        I think you are reading too much into me, I am just a private citizen so unless I personally chose engage then there is no issue. So I agree with your point but I don’t think that it proves much beyond the fact I actually care about it and I am engaged with the issue. I thought you guys were all about holding those who make public statements accountable? I don’t think Assange should be held to any different standard then anyone else who makes a date with the chattering classes on the TV.
        
        Greater then me caring about this situation is the fact Assange has chosen to personalize the Wiki-leaks issue. Assange’s Agenda went public when he announced or hinted at his agenda (i.e. Calls for Hilliary resign) he should have just let the information that he released do what it was going to do.
        
        Why should Assange matter beyond his release of the information? What makes his view any more compelling then any other individuals? What matters is the leaked information and Assange by using that information to advance his own agenda is a disservice to the original purpose behind leaking information. I am saying that thanks to Assange’s actions the public well forever associate Wiki-leaks with Assange’s private agenda, and that, that is the worst thing that could happen. Because then the public dismisses Assange and become more circumspect about Wiki-leaks.
        
        Really Ugly Canuck, why should I care what Assange says? He’s no different from the politicians he attacks.
hubbledeej

Two observations:
1) None of the wikileaks people did or said any of these foolish things, so why should they be punished? I’m appalled at the number of commentators who are stating that these leaks warrant the death penalty.

2) Shouldn’t we be more concerned about loose-lipped morons like Prince Andrew (or whichever unelected monarch/ dictator/ religious leader), mucking about in apparent luxury, apparently above laws ordinary citizens must adhere to — aren’t these the dopes that seem about an inch away from setting off another pointless, bloody conflict?
- Grumblefish
  
  2) Shouldn’t we be more concerned about loose-lipped morons like Prince Andrew ?
  
  In my opinion, no. We should be more concerned about loose-lipped morons who might actually get to wield serious power, but we should definitely be concerned about tight-lipped smart people who wield power often in shadowy or behind the scenes ways for their own special interests.
  - hubbledeej
    
    Agreed.
  - Lobster
    
    The royalty is a family that is paid a fortune to be rich. They have no qualifications or outstanding skills. They are the very definition of undeserved wealth. The question isn’t whether they should be better at this whole diplomacy thing, it’s whether we should even talk to them when there’s a perfectly good merit-based government we could work with.
Anonymous

Yeah, but we knew all this stuff already.
- Ugly Canuck
  
  Anon #10: Not true – it was at most perhaps suspected.
  
  But people didn’t KNOW.
  But now….
sasa

How is calling for Julian Assange’s assassination any different from terrorist calling for assassination of the guys who draw cartoons. Isn’t there a law against these kind of things in civilized societies.
Shouldn’t they be held accountable for that. As for the Wikileaks, those guys should be nominated for the Nobel peace prize.
Anonymous

“China is indeed ‘ready to abandon’ North Korea…” seems like a rather optimistic spin on a few shaky rumours.

“South Korea’s vice-foreign minister said he was told by two named senior Chinese officials… the-then South Korean vice-foreign minister, Chun Yung-woo, told a US ambassador, Kathleen Stephens, that younger generation Chinese Communist party leaders no longer regarded North Korea as a useful or reliable ally…”

This is at best second-hand information. It’s about as reliable as “I heard these Chinese guys talking in a coffee shop …”

Maybe there really is some annoyance about Kim building in Beijing. But that doesn’t mean they’re ready to cut him loose. Like much of this release, it’s interesting, but mostly it’s innuendo and rumour.
Anonymous

“Putin … pointed out that unlike at least one U.S. president, he did in fact get the most votes.”

Oh no he di’nt!
Anonymous

oh, i see. sounds like a whole new explanation for the korean escalation: attention, not only from the west, but asking for chinas love, too?

.~.
Goblin

What gets me in all this is the implication from Assange that the entire idea of “secrets”, state or otherwise, is somehow a “new” thing. As if it just recently became vogue for people to cultivate a garden of secrets.

Don’t get me wrong transparency is good, but there is no excuse for Assange’s articulated naivetÃ© when it comes to human nature. Who doesn’t have secrets to keep? And what sovereign since the beginning of time didn’t try to keep secrets?

To put it another way, Assange just like his nemesis only sees black and white. Despite the larger systemic war Assange purports to be fighting, his most recent CNN interview shows that he is willing to give up that war in favor of a few potshots aimed to scapegoat certain individuals who just happen to occupy places in that system. Naive in the extreme, he should leave the “talking” to the reverberations he gets from the mainstream.
- zio_donnie
  
  Assange is not against secrets per se. He is pretty clear that there are limits and that he enforces them.
  
  The fact that government secrecy (and wrongdoing) is a long established tradition does not make it right.
  
  http://www.ted.com/talks/julian_assange_why_the_world_needs_wikileaks.html
  - Goblin
    
    I don’t deny the need for an organization like Wiki-leaks, especially in the new media climate. What I am against is the naive viewpoint espoused by Assange, and as you repeat here, that somehow all government secrecy, is inherently wrong. It just not a pragmatic viewpoint.
    
    You might not believe me but I am on your side. What I think Assange and his movement needs is a more nuanced view of how government actually functions. Wiki-leaks is only a raw Data-dump power right now and they might very well play right into their enemies’ hands (read his TIME/CNN interview).
    
    Assange should just let his little site go viral and let social media do what it does best. There is no way Assange can process all that data as one person to the extent that social media can and does (Wiki-leaks is nothing without Mainstream processing of its data).
    
    The way I see it Assange is essentially committing suicide by political troll when he grants interviews, Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? CNN and TIME Sure think they do.
    - zio_donnie
      
      Regardless your stance on this i do not find Assange naive at all. He is granting interviews that by definition do not allow for a nuanced discussion specially if you are discussing with established media journos that are there to troll more often than not. Viral campaigns simply do not cut it to garner mainstream attention. If he just published on his website he would soon be forgotten.
      
      As for realpolitik goes, i do not think that governments merit all that mystifying respect. Secrecy more often than not is to make important people feel important.
      
      Assange IMO is playing the media game on his terms and he is winning for now. But he is a one man band. If he does not convince others to follow him he will be alone very soon. But consider his other options. He doesn’t have any if he wants to make an impact with his material.
      - Goblin
        
        See my comment #30
        
        Assange has played right into his opponents hands. You, just as Assange, are cow-towing to the very media system that you are convinced is in the pocket of the government. You can’t have you cake and eat it too. You either believe in true Open-Sourced information (i.e. no secrecy) or the old school media+government system that stacks the deck in certain pragmatic ways. Those are the two choices at the moment and Assange chose to cave to the very system he professes to want to change.
        
        And speaking of pragmatics and brands, I don’t think Assange’s crowd is the type to watch hours of CNN on end just to catch a quick little interview segment. Just what target audience was Assange going after in the CNN/TIME interview? I would conjecture that most people who would see/read those might be a good deal more conservative and thus less likely to understand Assange’s deeper causes. Rather those folks will just see him as another Extreme Pundit who is about to go down in a blaze of glory. After all that is how the old media has been playing him…. What makes you think this one interview will change all that?
    - EH
      
      It just not a pragmatic viewpoint.
      
      Value judgment, irrelevant.
      
      Funny that people go up against Assange because he has a viewpoint, then upbraid him not for being at the front of Wikileaks, but simply that he has the *wrong* viewpoint. Oh, he just needs to become more journalistic! Well, in the US that leads to you becoming the New York Times and clearing your stories with the government before printing.
      - Goblin
        
        You didn’t understand me at all…
        
        So let me get this straight, you think that because I have minor issues with they way Assange and Wiki-leaks present themselves that I must have it out for Assange and the whole 9.
        
        You couldn’t be farther from the truth.
        
        1) Wiki-leaks is fundamentally doing a good thing. HOWEVER,
        2) Raw Data is nothing without people there to process that data.
        3) EH, do you recognize Professional Bloggers as part of the media structure? I certinly do, I mean you’re here on BoingBoing, and when I refence “journalist” you are mistakenly assumeing that I must be a slaving to the mainstrem, WRONG. I was rather explicit about that above when I mention the social network. I just felt Assange takes credit for the “original” release then he should sit back and watch everyone else take it from there, Mainstream Pundit and Private Netzian alike.
        
        Assange by calling attention through the Mainstream media to his own views on the leaks publicly downplays his own professed ideal of a true open-source media. Rather Assange is cow-towing and caving to the old school media stodge’s that both he and you are openly contemptuous of.
        
        I mean once its on the net, its on the net. The “original” no longer has any intrinsic meaning. That should also apply to whatever the source is or the leaked information or whatever. Once the data’s out there it’s OURS the information belongs to everyone (isn’t that what Assange believes?). It belongs to everyone and Assange by publicly staking his “originators” claim, or in terms of the CC, “Creators/Attribution” claim (which by the way isn’t his to begin with); this only calls attention away from all the wonderful open source spectrum of opinions that came about as a result of his original actions.
        
        This overlaying of creative commons over the Wiki-leaks model might not be what Assange or anyone else had in mind. But if you are true to the idea of truly free information EH, then you shouldn’t give a hoot if someone takes a different value tack then you might approve of. After all none of us “own” that leaked information.
        
        None of us are on pedestals, Not Assange, not me, not you. We are all open to the subjective accounting of whomever might read us. We are in an open-source environment. And all I want Assange to do is act like he actually believes that, rather he cow-towes to the very government (Via the corrupted Media Companies you mention EH) that he claims to be fighting against….
- Lobster
  
  Have you ever thought that maybe this has nothing to do with Assange?
  - Goblin
    
    That the point in harped on in my last post! By granting interviews where he discusses “his” personal views and how they relate to the leaks, Assange takes public ownership of the whole. If Assange were truly a man for his cause then he would be sensitive this danger. He was so much more powerful when he was distant and somewhat mysterious to the public. Personal Mass-broadcast punditry just invites one to be treated as such. (i.e. how many folks here on BoingBoing hate the mainstream TV pundits?) If you do, then you can now greet Assange with that honorific.
electricworry

What’s perturbing about the treatment of these documents is how they’re being held up as the whole truth. Much of this is nothing more than gossip. I wonder why newspapers are focusing on N. Korea being called a “spoiled child” rather than the more interesting discussion of China’s role in US monetary policy?

These documents are only worth anything if we read the actual documents rather than a synopsis written for public consumption. Furthermore, we need to remember that the players documented in the cables are not being wiretapped. They’re playing a game and not always being honest with each other or their bosses who received the cables. All this is just the flip side of diplospeak, and a great deal of it is gossipy hearsay.

The point of the leaks isn’t to move specific policy or embarrass certain people. It’s to short circuit the mechanisms of the State by interrupting its ability to control information flow. Those who want Assange dead are realizing, at least subconsciously, that he’s fomenting pretty serious revolution. The last guy to dump diplomatic documents like this was Trotsky.
Legion971

Wikileaks have so far released nothing more than diplomatic tittle-tattle. What is really interesting is how it has flushed out all the rabid idiots calling for him to be arrested, killed, hunted like Osama. Beware these people, for they are the dangerous ones.

Prince Andrew says that the Americans don’t have a good knowledge of Geography. Palin doesn’t know the difference between North and South Korea? You just couldn’t make this stuff up.

How that bonkers woman Hilary Clinton stays in office, I’ll never know, from “miss-speaking” about sniper fire to ordering the bugging of the UN. What an embarrassment she is.
Antinous / Moderator

Will we be talking about Giovanni “Dobby” Arnolfini now.
awjtawjt

@Lobster, you are a crustacean after my own neurogenic heart.
awjtawjt

@Lobster: you are a crustacean after my own neurogenic heart.