Friday, December 10, 2010 at 12:37 | Scott Lucas in EA Global, Journalism and Media, News and Announcements 
I joined BBC West Midlands Radio on Thursday to give an introduction to WikiLeaks and to consider questions such as "Are the released documents a threat to national security? Do they offer valuable information in the public interest? Or both?"
The interview starts at the 42:55 mark.
For earlier updates, see Wednesday's story....
UPDATE 1640 GMT: Tweet of the Day. State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley has tweeted, as the Department opens World Press Freedom Day, "No country believes in press freedom more than the United States. We practice what we preach."
UPDATE 1555 GMT: WikiLeaks has issued a statement: "These denial of service attacks are believed to have originated from an internet gathering known as Anonymous. This group is not affiliated with WikiLeaks. There has been no contact between any Wikileaks staffer and anyone at Anonymous. WikiLeaks has not received any prior notice of any of Anonymous’ actions. Wikileaks spokesman Kristinn Hrafnsson said: 'We neither condemn nor applaud these attacks. We believe they are a reflection of public opinion on the actions of the targets.'”
I am not an insurgent, and neither are you. Until we realize that, until we understand the difference between journalism and war, then the government will continue to claim it's acting in self-defence.
Stop giving the government an excuse for repression. Stop calling Wikileaks "warfare".
For later updates, please see Thursday's story.
UPDATE 2305 GMT: Twitter has just suspended the account of the hackers Anonymous.
UPDATE 2255 GMT: Looks like former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin wants to get in on the act. She is e-mailing journalists that, as she is a dedicated foe of WikiLeaks, her website and her credit card information has been targeted by Operation Payback.
Monday, December 6, 2010 at 9:17 | Scott Lucas in Africa, Iraq, Middle East and Iran, US Foreign Policy 
ANALYSES
1. A two-part special evaluating the January 2010 assessment of the Green Movement and Iranian politics by the US Consulate in Dubai:
Part 1: "US Diplomats Assess the Green Movement and the Political Situation"
Part 2: "US Diplomats Assess Green Movement and Politics 'From Crisis to Stalemate'"
2. Getting behind misleading headlines to assess the claim "Saudi Arabia: A Cash Machine for Terrorists"
3. Getting to the real significance on an American assessment of the situation in Iraq: "Comparing the Threats from Saudi Arabia and Iran"
FEATURES AND DOCUMENTS
1. A November 2009 diplomatic episode involving the US and Libya: "When the Nuclear Deal Almost Unraveled...Because Qadhafi Couldn't Camp in New York"
2. The State Department warns students, "Link to Documents and You'll Never Work for Us"
Monday, December 6, 2010 at 6:25 | Scott Lucas in EA Middle East and Turkey, Iraq, Middle East and Iran 
What is notable here is the divergence between the analysis of the Saudi and Iranian threats to Iraq and the recommendations for the way forward.
Proposed US action on the Saudis is limited to "keeping up the pressure on Egypt and Saudi Arabia in particular to return their Ambassadors [to Baghdad]" and general invocation to "caution Iraq's Arab neighbors against efforts to inflame Shia-Sunni anxieties through their support for Sunni parties and by Shia-critical media attacks".
In contrast, Tehran retains its special place as Number One Adversary, its presence used to link Iraq with others in the area in an American partnership: "We will need to flesh out ideas for a post-GCC [Gulf Cooperation Council] security architecture that includes Iraq more fully, develops ways to contain Iranian regional influence, and shapes the special position Iraq will likely occupy in the Gulf in ways that further our interests and those of our Gulf partners."
UPDATE 1400 GMT: State Department spokeswoman Nicole Thompson comments:
---
DO NOT post links to these documents nor make comments on social media sites such as Facebook or through Twitter. Engaging in these activities would call into question your ability to deal with confidential information, which is part of most positions with the federal government.
Friday, December 3, 2010 at 11:42 | Scott Lucas in EA Iran, EA Middle East and Turkey, Middle East and Iran 
Shibley Telhami writes for The National Interest:
One of the highlights of the most recent Wikileaks release has been the focus on Arab attitudes toward Iran. The headlines suggest Arab unanimity in support of a U.S. or Israeli military attack on the Islamic Republic, as long as Arab governments are allowed to keep their heads low to the ground. There was much evidence, and many colorful quotations, to make the case, especially from Saudi, Bahraini, and United Arab Emirates' leaders. And although some of the quotations were jaw-dropping, in truth it was all a bunch of stuff we've heard before. But analysis by the media that followed, and the sweeping conclusion that "Arabs support attacking Iran", is misplaced and ignores significant differences among Arab governments about how to deal with Iran and especially missed the boat on true attitudes of the Arab public.
UPDATE 1120 GMT: The WikiLeaks documents are now available at http://213.251.145.96/cablegate.html.
In Pakistan, the High Court has rejected a petition seeking a ban on the WikiLeaks website.
China, Washington Post, Wikileaks Thursday, December 2, 2010 at 20:21 | Scott Lucas in Afghanistan, Europe and Russia, India and Pakistan, Middle East and Iran 
Analysis
Aluf Benn says "The Fiasco Doesn't Embarrass Israel One Bit".
Features and Documents
1. US officials have "No Confidence in Pakistani Leader Zardari, No Alternative to Afghan Leader Karzai".
2. A year before the 2008 Russian-Georgian war, the US Embassy in Tbilisi documents "The Russian Campaign Against Georgia".
3. In 2009, the US Embassy in Rome intervenes in Italian politics: "Pushing Back Against Silvio Berlusconi, 'The Mouthpiece of Vladimir Putin'."
