home

Wikileaks Casualty? U.S. Ambassador to Mexico Resigns

By Jeralyn, Section Obama Administration
Posted on Sat Mar 19, 2011 at 08:58:57 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

U.S. Ambassador to Mexico, Carlos Pascual is resigning. Pascual's cables, critical of the Mexico President Calderon's handling of the drug war, were among those released by Wikileaks.

The Wikileaks cables on Mexico and the drug war are accessible here.

< N. Mexico Senate Rejects Bill Preventing Undocumented From Driving | Conservative Utah Offers Residency to Undocumented Workers >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Wikileaks Casualty? U.S. Ambassador to Mexico Resigns | 26 comments (26 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    You see, (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by NYShooter on Sat Mar 19, 2011 at 10:25:48 PM EST
    this is the conflict right there.

    If (almost) everyone agrees that some confidentiality is necessary in conducting successful diplomacy, do we really want any rank amateur, with a computer, deciding for you and me what should be public and what should remain private?,

    Based on my reading of (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by inclusiveheart on Sun Mar 20, 2011 at 08:59:16 AM EST
    Jeralyn's post it is pure speculation that the cables criticizing the Mexican government are at the root of this decision.  In case you didn't know, it looks like our military has started something of a "soft invasion" in Mexico to battle the drug cartels -- and if I were to bet, I'd put my money on that being a more reasonable explanation for his exit.  Not every ambassador is going to be supportive of that kind of operation for a whole host of reasons.  Or it simply could be that the drug cartel issue continues to be such a big problem and he and the administration are not seeing eye to eye on solutions.

    Parent
    And hey, if it helps the campaign against (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by Anne on Sun Mar 20, 2011 at 01:42:44 PM EST
    Wikileaks and Assange and whistleblowers of every stripe to put out a message - a speculative message, mind you, delivered by an oh-so-cooperative media - that perhaps this resignation is more fallout from the irresponsible dissemination of information, well, all the better.

    Because heaven forbid we could get some critical analysis and reporting about what's going on vis-a-vis these two governments, the drug "war" and immigration, because then average folk might reach a conclusion a tad less favorable to the US.

    Gosh, I'm just so over being treated as if I am stupid - and it pains me that too many people are willing to just accept at face value anything they are told to believe.

    Parent

    btw a very good book (none / 0) (#7)
    by The Addams Family on Sun Mar 20, 2011 at 03:40:25 PM EST
    about the "drug war" in Mexico is Murder City: Ciudad Juarez and the Global Economy's New Killing Fields, by Charles Bowden

    Parent
    exactly (none / 0) (#3)
    by The Addams Family on Sat Mar 19, 2011 at 11:14:23 PM EST
    & let me hasten to add that my comment is not an endorsement of Bradley Manning's treatment or of false accusations of rape (if in fact they are false) against Julian Assange

    but i do second the characterization of Assange as "a rank amateur with a computer" - having spent lots of time w/career diplomats over the years, i cannot see Assange in the same light that others here shine on him

    Parent

    Assange is an amateur ... (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Dadler on Sun Mar 20, 2011 at 11:51:18 AM EST
    ...with a computer like we are amateurs at breathing.  We may not like him personally, but please, this is not an amateur. The guy has been in the hacking game since the beginning.

    Governments in this world are out of control, and it is only through brave people willing to be jailed or worse, that truth comes to light.

    I would suggest the only amateurs and true mental midgets, in this texting and techo day and age, are the dipsh*t pols or appointees so stupid that they cannot recognize the days of easy secrets and not having your shit put our there for all to smell....are long, Long, LONG and over.  Wake up, you maroons.

    Parent

    there's a crucial difference (none / 0) (#8)
    by The Addams Family on Sun Mar 20, 2011 at 08:36:47 PM EST
    between an amateur at the computer & an amateur with a computer

    Assange is clearly an expert hacker

    & in the area of international diplomacy he is, as NYShooter said, an amateur with a computer

    Parent

    If what you mean by labeling Assange (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Anne on Mon Mar 21, 2011 at 07:17:37 AM EST
    an amateur at international diplomacy is that he doesn't know enough about the information he is now privy to to know what it means or what effects its disclosure may have, I would say that pretty much puts him on even footing with us - the people from whom much of this information has been kept secret.  Which is why he has formed a partnership of sorts with various media outlets, all of whom have reporters on staff who do know - who know the players, can separate the wheat from the chaff, know what's potentially dangerous to lives, etc.

    It's amazing to me that others in the media, as well as political leaders, are still stating as fact that "hundreds of thousands" of documents have been published; they have not - only a tiny fraction of them have seen the light of day, but there has been so little willingness to accurately report this because continuing the myth helps push the narrative that we just cannot have this kind of transparency - it's too dangerous.

    Don't you ever get tired of being manipulated this way?  Led to believe that all you need to know is what your government thinks you can handle?  That you shouldn't worry because you can trust them to do the right thing?

    I mean, looking back over the last decade or so, has the government really shown that it can be trusted?  I don't think it has - and yet this whole campaign against Wikeleaks and Assange and Manning has been designed to do two things: (1) allow it to keep operating in the dark, away from the questioning eyes of the people, and (2) send as loud and clear a message as possible that those who dare to shed light on what our government is doing do so at their own peril.

    If you stop buying the government's message that is designed to get you to fear the truth, and sinmply observe what it is doing and how it is handling this, there are some valuable and chilling things to be learned about the state of this democracy.

    I think we ignore that at our own peril, but that's just me.


    Parent

    good lord (none / 0) (#10)
    by The Addams Family on Mon Mar 21, 2011 at 12:35:03 PM EST
    Don't you ever get tired of being manipulated this way?  Led to believe that all you need to know is what your government thinks you can handle?  That you shouldn't worry because you can trust them to do the right thing?

    don't you ever get tired of insulting people who disagree with you?

    If you stop buying the government's message that is designed to get you to fear the truth, and sinmply observe what it is doing and how it is handling this, there are some valuable and chilling things to be learned about the state of this democracy.

    isn't it possible to disagree with you without "buying the government's  message" or fearing "the truth"?

    Parent

    My apologies - insulting you was not my (none / 0) (#11)
    by Anne on Mon Mar 21, 2011 at 01:03:29 PM EST
    intention.

    So, let's take the personal "you and I" out of it, and let me ask what the government's responsibility is to its people it purports to serve: what should the people know, and how can the people hold the government accountable when it is withholding and manipulating information that might otherwise cause the people to object?

    I know that it isn't operationally possible for us to be in the know on everything, and there are reasons for that, but should the government just have the blanket ability to classify and mark "Secret" or "Top Secret" anything it wants for the sole purpose of being able to continue operating in the dark?

    The "people will die" fear-mongering is exactly the same as what the government did trying to justify torture: remember the ticking time bomb, with thousands of lives at stake?  We were supposed to start thinking of ways to make it okay to use torture, because as soon as we agreed that it was okay under one scenario, the door was open to other scenarios, more torture and absolutely no accountability.

    They did it in the run-up to the Iraq war, too; they manipulated information to manipulate public opinion and never looked back.

    I don't believe we are better off, as a nation and a democracy, allowing our government to operate in the dark, with little or no accountability, and almost no consequence, and I guess I have a hard time understanding why others might be okay with that.

    Parent

    If I may step in (none / 0) (#12)
    by jbindc on Mon Mar 21, 2011 at 01:10:28 PM EST
    I don't think it's an "either-or" scenario. Yes, I would like the government to be more transparent.  But on the other hand, there is plenty of things I don't need to know, especially when every little thing will be made into political hay by the party not in power.  All that does is obfuscate the real issue and gets turned into talking points.

    I also think it's a bit premature and naive to definitively state that the Wikileaks, um, leaks, have not or will not cause harm (or even death) to Americans in the field, or those agents who have risked their lives to help us. We may never know the extent of any good or any damage that has come from this - especially damage to international relations that come from the leak of a private conversation where some diplomat thought the Turkish ambassador's wife was fat. How do you measure the damage done to diplomacy from these "just embarassing" cables?

    Parent

    There ARE (none / 0) (#13)
    by jbindc on Mon Mar 21, 2011 at 01:11:02 PM EST
    plenty of things I don't need to know.

    Yes, I did complete English classes at one point.

    Parent

    we heartily agree on this (none / 0) (#14)
    by The Addams Family on Mon Mar 21, 2011 at 01:43:36 PM EST
    I don't believe we are better off, as a nation and a democracy, allowing our government to operate in the dark, with little or no accountability, and almost no consequence . . .

    but in my experience, & from my observation of others' exchanges w/you on this topic, discussion w/you tends to go off the rails when you say things like this:

    . . . I have a hard time understanding why others might be okay with that

    my sense of this whole issue is that it is far more nuanced than what i take as your rather broad-brush, black & white characterization of it

    for an example of what i mean, please see jbindc's comment downthread - jb is right - we really have no idea how much damage some of the supposedly "just embarrassing" revelations may have caused - remember when Newt Gingrich shut down the U.S. government b/c President Clinton told him he had to use the rear exit of Air Force One?

    i will say that my view of this situation is biased by my interactions over the past 40+ years w/many U.S. Foreign Service Officers

    thanks for your apology - much appreciated

    Parent

    There are a couple of things that will (none / 0) (#15)
    by Anne on Mon Mar 21, 2011 at 02:35:32 PM EST
    almost always send me off the rails: one is when there is information out there and people fail to make use of it, and another is when I feel like people are spouting talking points fed to them by the media without any real understanding of the issues.

    Which is not to say you're doing either of these things, but easy enough to read that in some of my response to you - because I shouldn't have used the word "you" in the questions I asked but the more neutral "one" or "people."

    Because there has been so little of the leaked material published, we don't have any way of knowing what would be damaging to reveal and what would not - in terms of jeopardizing operations and putting people's lives in danger.  But we aren't alone in that - Julian Assange and his team aren't in any better position to make that assessment, either, which is why they've reached out for help with the analysis - and why they consulted the US Government for help with redactions and what-not - too bad they were summarily rebuffed.

    While I'm not willing to say that harm wouldn't follow from irresponsible publishing of the materials, the government - with the help of the media, and after they reined in Joe Biden, who initially opined that it was embarrassing at worst, before they sent him out to talk about these high-tech terrorists - seems pretty intent on sending the message that Wikileaks, with the help of Bradley Manning, has put lives in danger, compromised diplomacy and operations, and cannot be allowed to stand.

    We aren't having a conversation about why so much needs to be secret, what we should be entitled to know, because it seems the government isn't interested in that conversation; our leaders want to do what they want to do, and as much as possible, they want to do it without anyone or anything looking over its shoulder or having to ask permission.

    I'm not so doctrinaire on this that I don't see that there is plenty of gray area, where it isn't so clear what should be disclosed and what shouldn't, but I think it's reasonable to suggest that we shouldn't want to be a country whose government takes the position that we don't need to know anything they don't want us to know.


    Parent

    Isn't this part of the problem? (none / 0) (#16)
    by jbindc on Mon Mar 21, 2011 at 02:47:20 PM EST
    But we aren't alone in that - Julian Assange and his team aren't in any better position to make that assessment, either, which is why they've reached out for help with the analysis - and why they consulted the US Government for help with redactions and what-not -too bad they were summarily rebuffed.

    So, Wikileaks actually admitted that they weren't sure that the information they had to release wouldn't get people hurt or killed, because they asked for help in redactions.  When they didn't get the help they wanted, they released them anyways.  Don't you see how ridiculous that is? They took a non-answer as permission.

    It's the same as if a child told you, "I want to play with a gun by myself," and you ignored the request, and then the child decided that because you didn't answer, it was ok to go ahead and play with the gun.

    Even Glenn said:

    Why would the DoD refuse to offer this assistance?  WikiLeaks -- in response to Pentagon threats -- has already stated emphatically that these documents are going to be released no matter what.  No rational person would doubt that they mean this.

    So, even Glenn admits that Wikileaks had no real concern about possible danger to anyone - they were going to release the documents no matter what.

    Doesn't seem so noble.

    Parent

    If they didn't care, why would (none / 0) (#17)
    by Anne on Mon Mar 21, 2011 at 03:15:01 PM EST
    they even have asked in the first place?  And what does it mean that, having been told the material would be published regardless, the US government didn't care enough about possible loss of life to provide redactions?  That's a knife that cuts both ways, I think.

    And if Wikileaks didn't care, why bring in media partners who have more knowledge and could perhaps identify many of the cast of characters, and could analyze for context - put the puzzle together, if you will, so it might have meaning?  Was that just about co-opting others to make it harder for Wikileaks to face some kind of legal action?  If so, perhaps they killed two birds with one stone - seems more smart than noble.

    It remains to be seen whether there is any nobility or heroism at play here; I haven't been willing to elevate anyone involved in this to that kind of status, but it seems that being in favor of more openness in the conduct of the government's affairs, being appalled at the way the government and the media continue to distort and misrepresent what we do know, and believing in the right of those in US custody to be treated humanely means that I do?

    The government has the power and the ability to make 2 + 2 = whatever it needs to add up to; the government is watching us, but who is watching the government?  Who holds the government accountable?  Congress?  Please.  The voters at the ballot box?  What does that even mean anymore?

    If you're looking for someone who finds all this Manning/Assange/Wikileaks stuff heroic and noble, all I can do is repeat that I'm not willing to go out on that limb - I don't know enough; I could go as far as "well-intentioned," but that's about it, for now.


    Parent

    It's called CYA (none / 0) (#18)
    by jbindc on Mon Mar 21, 2011 at 03:33:59 PM EST
    Wikileaks can make the very same argument you are making - "We asked the Pentagon and they refused to help us! They have something to hide! We had to do it!"

    And maybe the US government didn't respond because they never thought Wikileaks would be that dumb - to bring the wrath of the US government (not to mention other world governments) down upon their head.  Or maybe they thought it was so silly it didn't warrant a response.  Or maybe it's standard practice unless Wikileaks could show them what they had.   I don't know.

    And let's face it - rightly or wrongly, the US government has the upper hand here - they have the money, the power, and the might.  Julian Assange doesn't stand a chance no matter what information he still has.  The US has survived this long - other countries have survived for centuries - with bigger scandals in their wake. Julian Assange will be long forgotten and the embarassing cables will be just a footnore in history.

    Do I think the government is hiding stuff?  Absolutely.  Does that mean it should be released by someone like Julian Assange?  No, way.

    But you're right - it does cut both ways - if a contact or agent gets killed because of this, we will never know because that will only release more information.  You will never read, "Joseph Smith, an undercover CIA operative who was working with Iranian intelligence in an effort to bring down Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and had the proof that Iran was building nuclear weapons, was killed today by supporters of Ahmadinejad, who learned of Smith's identity through Wikileaks.  Smith's contacts, who were double agents working out of the Iranian Army, and their families were also gunned down in outlying areas of Tehran. Smith also worked with an agent named Chin Ho Kim, who is deep inside the North Korean intelligence world and found secret plans for North Korea to invade California."

    Like I said - we have no idea the damage done to diplomacy done in the name of what I believe is really primarily an exercise in feeding the meglomaniac's ego.


    Parent

    i strongly supported (none / 0) (#19)
    by The Addams Family on Mon Mar 21, 2011 at 05:01:53 PM EST
    Daniel Ellsberg's release of classified documents - still do

    that was an example of real whistleblowing, as witness the reaction of H. R. Haldeman:

    To the ordinary guy, all this is a bunch of gobbledygook. But out of the gobbledygook comes a very clear thing. ... It shows that people do things the president wants to do even though it's wrong, and the president can be wrong.

    i am aware btw that Ellsberg supports Pfc Bradley Manning's alleged release of thousands of classified documents to Wikileaks

    i do think it is a good thing that information about abuses & criminal activity on the part of U.S. troops has come to light -  likewise documentation that Bush & Cheney lied us into Iraq

    but i think for me it is a question of ends & means - Ellsberg's narrowly targeted release of what came to be known as the Pentagon Papers seems to me to have employed a means different from the more scattershot leaking of many thousands of classified documents, apparently including random diplomatic cables

    anyway these 2 sets of events some 40 years apart offer real opportunities for reflection

    Parent

    The attorney in the Pentagon Papers case (none / 0) (#20)
    by jbindc on Mon Mar 21, 2011 at 05:24:54 PM EST
    Floyd Abrams, an expert in First Amendment law, has written that Bradley Manning is no Daniel Ellsberg - there is no comparison.

    Daniel Ellsberg did not just release eveything he had.  He released specific documents to highlight specific points - he did not just do an information dump on routine communications without any thought to the consequences in order to embarrass people. In fact, Ellsberg held back documents because, as he said, "I didn't want to get in the way of the diplomacy."

    Parent

    jb, come on - how many times must we (none / 0) (#21)
    by Anne on Mon Mar 21, 2011 at 05:49:46 PM EST
    go over this?  ALL of the material given to Wikileaks has not been released - in fact, what has been released is a very small percentage of the total documents.  

    I don't have any problem with you being opposed to the whole Wikileaks thing - whatever it turns out to be or to do - but could you at least get your facts right?

    And before you tell me that those aren't your facts, but Floyd Abrams' facts, just because Abrams has misrepresented them doesn't mean you have to perpetuate the dishonesty.  I mean, what purpose is served by that?

    And given that hundreds of thousands of documents still have not been released - that we have no idea what is being withheld and why - he pretty much jumps the gun on setting Ellsberg on moral high ground, don't you think?

    No, you probably don't; nevermind.

    Parent

    Yet (none / 0) (#22)
    by jbindc on Mon Mar 21, 2011 at 06:11:44 PM EST
    ALL of the material given to Wikileaks has not been released - in fact, what has been released is a very small percentage of the total documents.

    Yet - they are usuing the rest as blackmail and bargaining chips.

    You know, we were actually having an intelligent discussion, but, there you go again.

    The point is - Bradley Manning (and Julian Assange) are no Daniel Ellsbergs.  Even if Ellsberg himself thinks so, the fact just don't show it.

    And so what if it's one document they released or 4 million?  So what's the difference?  They were indiscriminately releaseing documetns just to embarass officials and did not care about the consequences. And actually, if you look at ALL the documents released by Wikileaks - not just the diplomatic cables (which is conveniently, the number you would like to use), the number of total documents released is much, much higher.  You tell me to check my facts - you better check yours and not cherry pick. Here's a synopsis.

    Shame on them, and shame on anyone who keeps perpetuating, "But, but, it wasn't that many!"

    Parent

    jb, you were the one who paraded (5.00 / 0) (#24)
    by Anne on Mon Mar 21, 2011 at 09:35:36 PM EST
    Floyd Abrams and his Manning-is-not-Ellsberg case to once again try to make your point about what scum/cowards/egoists Manning/Assange/Wikileaks are, and part of that case - and one you keep making - is the idea that there was indiscriminate release of an ocean of documents.

    Not so, not even close:

    After I highlighted the multiple factual inaccuracies in Time's WikiLeaks article yesterday (see Update V) -- and then had an email exchange with its author, Michael Lindenberger -- the magazine has now appended to the article what it is calling a "correction."  In reality, the "correction" is nothing of the sort; it is instead a monument to the corrupted premise at the heart of American journalism.

    Initially, note that Time has refused to correct its blatantly false claim that WikiLeaks has published "thousands of classified State Department cables" and posted "thousands of secret diplomatic cables" when, in reality, they've posted only 1,269 of the more than 250,000 cables they possess: less than 1/2 of 1 %.  It's true that they provided roughly 251,000 cables to five newspapers, but they have only "posted" and "published" roughly 1,200 of them.  Time just decided to leave that statement standing even knowing it is factually false.

    More significant is the "correction" itself.  It applies to Time's clearly false claim of "a distinction between WikiLeaks' indiscriminate posting of the cables . . . and the more careful vetting evidenced by The New York Times."  That is false because WikiLeaks' release of cables had not been "indiscriminate" in any sense of the word.  As this AP article documents -- and as a casual review of its site independently proves -- WikiLeaks has done very little other than publish the specific cables that have been first released by newspapers around the world, including with the redactions applied by those papers.

    Wikileaks has not published anything that wasn't already published by another media outlet, and yet you and others continue to push the lie that Wikileaks indiscriminately published hundreds of thousands of documents.

    And you do realize that anyone can post anything on Wikipedia, right?  I'm not sure I would cite it as a source for much of anything.

    I've provided all of the links in the excerpt from Glenn's post so you can, if you are so inclined, independently read where he obtained his information from.

    Parent

    You were expecting (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by getoffamycloud10 on Mon Mar 21, 2011 at 09:46:54 PM EST
    truth, justice and the American way from teabaggers?

    That's a good one.

    Parent

    wtf? (none / 0) (#26)
    by The Addams Family on Tue Mar 22, 2011 at 12:21:48 AM EST


    Parent
    Really? And whom was Abrams representing (none / 0) (#23)
    by getoffamycloud10 on Mon Mar 21, 2011 at 08:17:33 PM EST
    when he wrote that?

    Even if he wrote it merely for publication, Floyd's a top-shelf lawyer. He can argue it round or argue it flat.

    Ellsberg says Manning is a patriot. Having been a patriot in that position, I'll defer to his judgement on the matter.

    That said, whether Manning is a patriot or a monster, he's rapidly becoming a martyr at the hands of the Obama Administration and his jailers.

    Ellsberg's actions didn't get anyone killed. LBJ, Nixon and Kissinger are another matter. LBJ was soon dead, Nixon never was held accountable and the fact that Kissinger continues to be consulted and remain free is a continuing criminal enterprise and an ongoing travesty of justice.

    Review them, withhold those that genuinely endanger national security, sources, methods and endanger innocent lives.

    Beyond that, let the Wiki chips fall where they may. They're bound to be more embarrassing to the gops than the Dems and this country ain't gonna perish from the face of the earth because of embarrassment.

    Shame don't faze gops. They'll just award each other medals of freedom at some Heritage Foundation dinner for schmucks while C-SPAN provides gavel to gavel coverage.

    Bank on it.

    Parent

    The specifics of the Assange leaks, (none / 0) (#27)
    by NYShooter on Tue Mar 22, 2011 at 03:49:07 AM EST
     past, present, and future, are irrelevant. The point is our Government determined that the documents should be classified, and a private citizen decided they should be made public.

    The whole issue: The Government lies, the documents are embarrassing, not national security sensitive, or that the Government labels way too many documents "secret" for a whole host of reasons other than real "need to know" purposes, is completely besides the point. Also, whether Assange (and/or Manning) is a hero, or a traitor, is totally irrelevant too.

    Somebody has to decide. The government is our government; they represent us, and in one way or another they are elected and/or answerable to us. On the other hand Manning (and Assange) are answerable to no one. They are self appointed and and conduct their affairs with no checks and balances from a representative body.

    Now, before everyone rushes to grab their barf-bag, I know all the arguments. But the answer to a lying government is......change the government. It is in our power, in fact, it is our duty.

    Manning and Assange may be heroes, and the specifics of their actions may prove to be very positive for the American public. But the debate we're having isn't about Assange/Manning, it's about anyone who decides the law isn't working, and, unilaterally decides to break it.

    Wikileaks Casualty? U.S. Ambassador to Mexico Resigns | 26 comments (26 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment