WikLeaks cables roundup - "Don't some secrets need to stay secret?"

"Don't some secrets need to stay secret?" is wrong question. Unless it's OK for your govt to lie to you. From @jricole: http://bit.ly/f8YU5p" - From author/former CIA employee Barry Eisler's Twitter.

The subject matter is fascinating to me, as I'm now peripherally adjunct to the scene and my general inclinations towards matters of state secrecy.

Best one line lede of the job of the media role [that they often forget] - US embassy cables: The job of the media is not to protect the powerful from embarrassment | Simon Jenkins | Comment is free | The Guardian:

"Anything said or done in the name of a democracy is, prima facie, of public interest. When that democracy purports to be 'world policeman' – an assumption that runs ghostlike through these cables – that interest is global. "

How did the cables get released? Because millions already have access. Information finds a way - Siprnet: where America stores its secret cables | World news | guardian.co.uk:

"Siprnet is itself an acronym, for Secret Internet Protocol Router Network...  This means that a diplomatic dispatch marked Sipdis is automatically downloaded on to its embassy's classified website. From there it can be accessed not only by anyone in the state department, but also by anyone in the US military who has a computer connected to Siprnet. Millions of US soldiers and officials have "secret" security clearance. The US general accounting office identified 3,067,000 people cleared to "secret" and above in a 1993 study. Since then, the size of the security establishment has grown appreciably. Another GAO report in May 2009 said: "Following the terrorist attacks on September 11 2001 the nation's defence and intelligence needs grew, prompting increased demand for personnel with security clearances.""

Geeks [my people!] work at the Moscow Embassy - WikiLeaks cables gallery: Washington's view of world leaders | World news | guardian.co.uk:

"In late 2008 the Moscow embassy wired back about the relationship between Russia's president, Dmitry Medvedev and the prime minister, Vladimir Putin, remarking that Medvedev, officially the senior partner, 'plays Robin to Putin's Batman.'"

The cogent critique of having these released - Instant View: Wikileaks releases US diplomatic cables | Reuters:

"'These cables could compromise private discussions with foreign governments and opposition leaders, and when the substance of private conversations is printed on the front pages of newspapers across the world, it can deeply impact not only U.S. foreign policy interests, but those of our allies and friends around the world.'"

"This is pretty devastating. The essence of our foreign policy is our ability to talk straight and honest with our foreign counterparts and to keep those conversations out of the public domain. This massive leak puts that most basic of diplomatic requirements at risk in the future. ...""

Which, you know, I almost... almost... buy. But it smacks too much of the same line of nonsense we heard from former VP Cheney when he had his buddies the oil execs secretly into the White House to, basically craft American energy policy. But people didn't need to know who he was talking to, or when, because if folks knew, it would "compromise" the dialogue.  You know, because accountability compromises conversation, apparently.

The only convincing rationale I could conceive of would be one if individual confidential sources would be placed in physical danger, but both Wikileaks and the news orgs that summarize the leaks have said they have their own vetting process to keep that from happening - and while they can't be trusted any more than government in that regard, I'd argue they can't be trusted any less either.