Wiki takes a Leak: Yawning becomes infectious!

Well, I just had a quick read of the NYT's version of the WikiLeaks dribble, and then I had a skim-read of The Guardian's report in which it assumes the swooning pose of an elderly Victorian lady inadvertantly catching a glimpse of an uncovered table leg.  Nothing I have read so far evinced the slightest surprise from me, except possibly the great and growing friendship between Putin and Berlusconi but in the world of mega-rich crooks it takes one to know one - and appreciate a fellow one!  The Guardian appears to be having a multiple orgasm - try not to imagine Polly Toynbee in such a condition; simply too, too distressing - and you can imagine how the Lefties will re-act as they actually come into contact with the real world.  Anyway, unless they can come up with something really new and surprising, I think the whole thing is a total yawn - well, I mean, Prince Andrew was rude to someone or other, gosh, what a surprise, who'd a' thunk it?!

ADDITIONAL: Gideon Rachman of the FT agrees with me, such a wise man!

The “revelations” in the latest download from WikiLeaks strike me as surprisingly dull. You would have thought that, in 250,000 pages of diplomatic cables, there would be insights that were a bit more startling than the suggestions that Angela Merkel is cautious, Silvio Berlusconi is vain, Nicolas Sarkozy is thin-skinned and David Cameron is a bit of a lightweight. Tell me something, I didn’t know.

Comments

[hank]

David

I think the fun is about to begin.

In US law if you have the documents you can publish them, but if you obtained them illeagly you can go to jail. Wikileaks apparent paid one of their sources which would be bribe.

But other counties laws aren’t so generous. I would imangine if he ever went to Saudi Arabia his life expediency would be 10 minutes longer than a perfunctory trial.

I hear the UK’s liable laws are expansive. Is Wikileaks they responsible for the accuracy of what released? That many documents is bound to have an error of fact that some one would consider libelous.

Maybe going to the US and coping a plea for bribery may be a good idea.

[AmbushPredator]

"Nothing I have read so far evinced the slightest surprise from me..."

Me neither! It was nice to see the Yanks held the same opinions on the regard in which Cameron is held, mind you... :)

[David Duff]

Well, Hank, one should never underestimate the vigor of a no-win-no-fee libel lawyer if he smells blood!

Indeed so, Julia, but was anyone surprised, apart from the excitable MSM.

[dearieme]

If I were the President, I'd be really pissed off if some understrapper reported a minor royal saying something "inappropriate" - is there any word prissier?

[JK]

"Well, Hank, one should never underestimate the vigor of a no-win-no-fee libel lawyer if he smells blood!"

Truer words were ne'er typed Hank. And, (owing to David's modesty on revealing his grasp of techie knowledge) he didn't offer a "possible out" for whoever did the actual leaking. - Please forgive David, but the one link is very short -

Prior to 9/11 only US military communications were routed thusly:

http://www.fas.org/irp/program/disseminate/siprnet.htm

After 9/11 (and we've GW & Co to thank for not "thinking-thru" on this) in an effort to make communication between agencies easier, the US established guidelines collectively known as 'Net-Centric Diplomacy' which led to the possibility that someone could write the sentence: "Secret-level wide area network. SIPRnet is accessible to cleared American military service members and civilian agencies around the world." [emphasis mine]

Actually only that preceeding sentence need be read because putting the tidbit about the Prince getting miffed in the hands of "a civilian agency" could've been had by The National Enquirer - but I include the link only to show someone could write the sentence.

http://www.governmentsecurity.org/global-security-news/wikileaks-diplomatic-cable-dump-reportedly-imminent.html