The New York Times issues an explanation for its publication, last night, of the huge docu-dump allegedly from a "disenchanted, low-level Army intelligence analyst who exploited a security loophole."[*]
After reviewing the cables, [White House] officials — while making clear they condemn the publication of secret material — suggested additional redactions. The Times agreed to some, but not all. The Times is forwarding the administration’s concerns to other news organizations and, at the suggestion of the State Department, to WikiLeaks itself. In all, The Times plans to post on its Web site the text of about 100 cables — some edited, some in full — that illuminate aspects of American foreign policy.
There was no way the Times could ignore this material, they say.
[These documents] shed light on the motivations — and, in some cases, duplicity — of allies on the receiving end of American courtship and foreign aid. They illuminate the diplomacy surrounding two current wars and several countries, like Pakistan and Yemen, where American military involvement is growing. As daunting as it is to publish such material over official objections, it would be presumptuous to conclude that Americans have no right to know what is being done in their name.
And that's the key. Diplomacy can and does require deep secrecy. Up to a point. Illegal wars sustained through ten years and counting -- and through two administrations -- are corrosive to a democracy. Understanding and dismantling the secretive structure that make illegal wars possible is a responsible, not irresponsible, move.
That's not to say they won't create huge problems for US diplomacy for years to come.
The disclosure of the cables is sending shudders through the diplomatic establishment, and could strain relations with some countries, influencing international affairs in ways that are impossible to predict.
Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and American ambassadors around the world have been contacting foreign officials in recent days to alert them to the expected disclosures. ...
... The White House said the release of what it called “stolen cables” to several publications was a “reckless and dangerous action” and warned that some cables, if released in full, could disrupt American operations abroad and put the work and even lives of confidential sources of American diplomats at risk. ...NYT
Here's a preview of what the Times will be publishing over the next days:
"A dangerous standoff with Pakistan over nuclear fuel..."
Plans for dealing with an "implosion" in North Korea
Efforts to empty Guantanamo
Details of UAE/Afghanistan's illicit financial dealings
China's successful hacks into US government and corporate computers
"Mixed records against terrorism" in the Persian Gulf
Curious Italian/Russian relations
Failures to stop the flow of arms to "terrorists"
Details about administration-backed terrorism by the CIA in Europe
___
* By the way, would anyone prefer an Army intelligence analyst who was "enchanted"?
