" Trivialization of that information is your opinion."

I am hardly trivialising and have been nothing but supportive of Wikileaks. However OLO is about giving an opinon but do we really need to qualify everything with the caveat "this is just my opinion but....". One assumes an opinion is based on personal experiences and other cognitive abilities.

Perhaps I have been too long in the public service, but much of what has been revealed is not the stuff of gasping shock horror amazement (sadly).

How many people, including those who do not have close access to government that many in the APS do, really believe this stuff is out of the ordinary.

One thing I do agree, that we can't always believe what we read as far as Wikileaks assertions on their website - that is true. Nothing is known until it happens as far as document release goes but so far I have seen almost no country that has been 'spared' from these releases. Thus far I cannot see an agenda other than to further the cause of freedom of information and transparency. Maybe in the future that will be revealed to be inaccurate - until then I for one, live in hope.

Spindoc,

"Without censure".

This is the line being attacked strongly by the US blog, 'veteranstoday'. Their argument clearly is that it is being well censured to suit other agendas and this is their main argument.
To add to that opinion are some of the best minds on the internet, for those who know them well, Alan Hart and Jeff Gates.

I comment no further on this aspect because regardless of that insidious activity, if it is true, the more important criminal activity is what is happening to Assange in the UK on the instructions, trumped up or otherwise, of Sweden, as well as protecting him from the rabid lunatics that occupy some of the seats in the US Congress and The Senate, themselves more frightening than any "terrorist" could ever be. Why? Because a majority of apathetic people in their electorates just re-elected them for another four years. Frightens the hell out of me!

There is your big problem. The ignorance of the American voters to what is happening in their own country. Most would see the comments from Huckabee, Pallin and the tarnished Gingrich ( CIA should make Assange 'disappear' ) as worthy comment indeed, extracting all their daily information as they do from the diatribe spewing forth from Fox News and the jaundiced, manipulated writings from the New York Times.

So whatever failings we have here in out little parochial cricket pitch, cultural cringe being the worst, but tolerating as we do the feckless characters of both the inept Gillard and Abbott, no one has yet said that we should make Assange "disappear" which makes us a little more civilised than the world's #1 superpower, crumbling slowly as we speak.

In the eyes of the US Attorney General, actively searching as he is for any way, legal or otherwise, to hang Julian Assange from an oak tree or sending him to Salem to be burnt as a witch, all publishers of WikiLeaks are equally guilty.

Let us see him bite into that one!.

Pelican, when I suggested that your “nothing new” comment was trivializing the content of the cables, I was drawing on the analysis provided by Jennifer Wilson, OLO, “And the ABC’s Drum beats: shoot the Wikileaks messenger” By Jennifer Wilson, published 14/12/2010”

She clearly points to this as a technique for diminishing the content and is a form of “shooting the messenger”.

rexw, I am not comforted by what I’m hearing about Wikileaks:

I suggested that “Without censure? We assume but we don’t know this claim to be true, yet. If Wikileaks is releasing that which suits its own agenda, whatever that might be, then at the very least they are being “selective”. If we don’t see some of the other “stuff” pretty soon we might begin to wonder about censorship.”

It would be ironic and devastating for me, if Wikileaks ended up evidencing an agenda other than complete transparency and openness. The statement from the former No2 to Julian Assange in announcing the formation of “openleaks” says;

“We felt Wikileaks is developing in the wrong direction”, claiming that Mr. Assange’s concentration on the US government and his pursuit of the headlines over the leaked US cables had preoccupied the site and stopped it from releasing other leaks and confidential information to the public. He went on to say that “It is not entirely clear any more what is personality and what is organization there. There is too much self promotion for the organization”. (Full article, Peter Wilson, The Australian, Dec. 15, 2010).

If Wikileaks has an agenda and that agenda promotes “selectivity”, then it can only harm Wikileaks and provide ammunition to its opposition.

In the long run if “openleaks” continues the good work and leaves Julian to “draw fire” I guess we have a Plan B?

You say, <<There is your big problem. The ignorance of the American voters to what is happening in their own country.>>

I don’t know that we in Australia are any better? As a blogger you know just how much is not covered by our media.

Extolling the virtues of Wikileaks in one sentence then sowing the seeds of doubt ('censorship') in the next.

As far as the 'climategate' emails go - we know there were far more emails NOT released than selectively were. Did the 'hackers' have an agenda? Probably. The Wikileaks' cables? Spindoc may be right, we don't know what they're hiding.

Yep, paranoia is an affliction that debilitates society.

bonmot, when are you going to learn comprehension to go with your reading?

Since when were the climategate emails "hacked"? Perhaps you should check the current status of the Police invetigation by the Norfolk Constabulary? Sorry to rain on your parade but you're so out of date.

"Pelican, when I suggested that your “nothing new” comment was trivializing the content of the cables, I was drawing on the analysis provided by Jennifer Wilson, OLO, “And the ABC’s Drum beats: shoot the Wikileaks messenger” By Jennifer Wilson, published 14/12/2010”

That might be so spindoc, but I don't see it that way.

Wikileaks is not responsible for the newsworthiness of the documents - they are simply releasing them for public consumption. Some of the revelations (some still to come) may or may not be new.

In a sense, I am trivialising the trivialising of the fact that much of the information is not New or the stuff of science fiction, but rooted in real life and as such we should not be surprised or fearful of those revelations.

Some of it will be new in detail but not in principle eg. fear of a nuclear war with Iran, Russian black market and fear of Muslim extremism. Let's put all cards on the table and make policy decisions based on reality not on what we are told is reality.

In fact my approach is attempting to trivialise the response of the US not that of the messenger, but I can see how you might arrive at your interpretation.