The Associated Press runs a story dated Sept. 10, "AP review finds no WikiLeaks sources threatened," which the Assange fan club is of course touting as vindication. Yet the text doesn't contain a single reference to the one case where WikiLeaks may be implicated in serious repression: Belarus. Towards the end, the piece does quote some opposition figures from various countries around the world who are miffed that their names were made public by WikiLeaks. Venezuelan journalist Nelson Bocaranda said, "I feel betrayed by WikiLeaks," and the report noted the possibility that Syrian opposition activists named in leaked cables "may be" targeted by the regime in the current crackdown. This is hardly the vindication of WikiLeaks that the article's title would imply. But why single out Venezuela, a country where there is no significant repression of the opposition, and hypothetical cases in Syria, when there is evidence that needs to be examined of actual WikiLeaks complicity in state repression in Belarus? Why are the media seemingly determined to ignore this story?

And The Guardian blames Assange. Somebody is playing a cynical game here, and it smells to us like it is Assange. From CNN, Aug. 31:

More than 250,000 secret U.S. diplomatic cables are now available in full and unfiltered online, exposing scores of U.S. diplomatic sources and informants that were meant to be protected often for their own safety, according to the website WikiLeaks.

But this is not an official WikiLeaks release. Rather, what appears to be a string of errors has lead to both the raw file and the password that unlocks that file to be released into the public domain, without WikiLeaks control.

In a statement posted on Twitter, WikiLeaks said, "Guardian investigations editor, David Leigh, recklessly, and without gaining our approval, knowingly disclosed the decryption passwords in a book published by the Guardian."

In February, Leigh released the book "WikiLeaks: Inside Julian Assange's War on Secrecy." In it, he describes in detail how WikiLeaks editor Julian Assange gave him the password to unlock the massive archive of diplomatic cables.

The London-based Guardian newspaper responded to the WikiLeaks tweet with its own statement: "It's nonsense to suggest the Guardian's WikiLeaks book has compromised security in any way. Our book about WikiLeaks was published last February. It contained a password, but no details of the location of the files, and we were told it was a temporary password which would expire and be deleted in a matter of hours.

"It was a meaningless piece of information to anyone except the person(s) who created the database. No concerns were expressed when the book was published and if anyone at WikiLeaks had thought this compromised security they have had seven months to remove the files. That they didn't do so clearly shows the problem was not caused by the Guardian's book."

Remember how you all insisted WikiLeaks was not "indiscriminately" dumping documents on the Web, but responsibly vetting them first? What do you all have to say about this, nine months later? From The Guardian, Sept. 2:

WikiLeaks has published its full archive of 251,000 secret US diplomatic cables, without redactions, potentially exposing thousands of individuals named in the documents to detention, harm or putting their lives in danger.

The move has been strongly condemned by the five previous media partners—the Guardian, New York Times, El Pais, Der Spiegel and Le Monde—who have worked with WikiLeaks publishing carefully selected and redacted documents.

"We deplore the decision of WikiLeaks to publish the unredacted state department cables, which may put sources at risk," the organisations said in a joint statement.

"Our previous dealings with WikiLeaks were on the clear basis that we would only publish cables which had been subjected to a thorough joint editing and clearance process. We will continue to defend our previous collaborative publishing endeavour. We cannot defend the needless publication of the complete data—indeed, we are united in condemning it.

"The decision to publish by Julian Assange was his, and his alone."

As an earlier comment on this topic, WikiLeaks and the Pentagon Papers, Weinberg reproduced part of a Wall Street Journal opinion piece by the New York Times' Pentagon Papers lawyer, Floyd Abrams, that tries to justify protecting the secret diplomacy of the world's premier imperial power. It includes such assertions as:

[Ellsberg] made [a] critical decision [...] to keep confidential the remaining four volumes of the study describing the diplomatic efforts of the United States to resolve the war.
[...]
The diplomatic volumes were not published, even in part, for another dozen years. Mr. Ellsberg later explained his decision to keep them secret [...] by saying, "I didn't want to get in the way of the diplomacy."

That's because Ellsberg was a reformist opponent of a U.S. war, and not a revolutionary or subversive opponent of the U.S. Empire. For those of us who unconditionally oppose the Empire, U.S. diplomacy is just another tool of U.S. imperialism the subversion of which is necessary and desirable.

Can anyone doubt that [Assange] would have made those four volumes public on WikiLeaks regardless of their sensitivity? Or that he would have paid not even the slightest heed to the possibility that they might seriously compromise efforts to bring a speedier end to the war?

I have no idea what Julian Assange would have done in that situation, but undermining the efforts of the U.S. to achieve by diplomacy what it couldn't achieve by military means would have been a good thing!

WikiLeaks [...] revels in the revelation of "secrets" simply because they are secret. It assaults the very notion of diplomacy that is not presented live on C-Span. It has sometimes served the public by its revelations but it also offers, at considerable potential price, a vast amount of material that discloses no abuses of power at all.

Sorry, but everything the United Snakes government and ruling class do to achieve their goals is an abuse of power!

I believe that Machetera was the original "source" for the Cuban connection ...

On Anna Ardin, Israel Shamir and glass houses
http://machetera.wordpress.com/2010/12/08/on-anna-ardin-israel-shamir-an...

"As far I can tell, the whole Israel Shamir/Anna Ardin business started back in September, when Counterpunch...announcing the 'telltale signs of CIA connection surrounding Anna Ardin,' one of the women involved with the Swedish complaint against Julian Assange..."

"Evidently I missed the pingback at the time, but the part of the Shamir/Bennett article that linked to Machetera was the part about Las damas de blanco [Ladies in White] in Cuba, with whom Shamir says Ardin was associated. The Cuban Damas are a cynical U.S. sponsored public relations appropriation of the image created more than 30 years ago by Argentine mothers..."

"The Shamir sourced rumors about Anna Ardin jump-started by Counterpunch are a repeat of the phenomenon, on a wider scale. The exponentially increasing pingbacks at Machetera as the rumors about Ardin go viral..."

Doug Salzman writes:

"And the Belarus case seems to be much worse than mere recklessness. It appears to constitute active collaboration between WikiLeaks and the Lukashenko dictatorship..."

Honestly, Bill, that goes beyond mere hyperbole and into the realm of hysteria--deeply irresponsible hysteria, it should be unnecessary to add.

There's no point in continuing this if every response serves merely as a springboard for your next display of fact-free show-boating.

You are making Assange more powerfull than he is. In your earlier posts regarding Belarus you made some dubious comments, but has certaintly reported about the illegitime arrests in Belarus. You are the first one, who thinks that Assange could have prevented these arrests.
Two young guys made a funny yoke about the elections in Belarus beforehand, 'Steal your grandmothers passports' and were also arrested. Elections are not the way to reach democracy. This anarchic message was clearer than your suggestion that Assange is (not) a 'hero' because he might have assaulted two women (even Fox news made in this case a better timeline and provided more balanced information) and Wikileaks did or didn't provide information from a US State Diplomatic post.
With all respect Bill, I do not consider it smart to provide any political information to any embassy, consulate or any other state institution. States arrests people, especially when it concerns protesters and dissenters. It happens altready for thousands of years and Sweden, Belarus, Israel, Iran, Colombia, Zimbabwe, Italy, USA, Guatemala ect. etc. are no exceptions. Much power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Ps. You censure way to may posts.