Surely the whole point of the diplomatic system is that embassies can report to their governments on matters they've picked up "in-country", as they say, safe in the knowledge that they can do so in absolute confidence. Doesn't the diplomatic bag exist so that nobody in the target country can flip it open and have a good butcher's inside?

In what way are America's - and by extension our own and the rest of the West's - relations with the rest of the world anything but blown sky high by this? If progress was being made in relations with, say, Libya, how predisposed is Gaddafi going to be to continue to be a good lad now he knows that the Americans have been sniggering about his Botox and nudge-nudging about his "reliance" on his sub-Carry On-film Ukrainian nurse?

Yes, we do need to know about waterboarding, rendition flights and Abu Ghraib. In the absence of other effective checks and balances, I'm all for leaks that expose violations of international law. But what goals, what noble cause, what high principles can possibly be helped by informing the world that the U.S. ambassador in Moscow considers Vladimir Putin to be an "alpha-dog" or Silvio Berlusconi a rather sad, if horny, old man?

Put it this way, if you came away from a dinner party bitching with your partner about the crap food, that ghastly woman with the yapping bloody dog and that quantity surveyor from Worthing with the stinking armpits, would you consider it in anybody's interest for your hosts and those other guests to be able to read your conversation verbatim the next morning?

I think we're at risk of confusing crass indiscretion with true transparency.

are quite correct as ever Archie. I understand that under the froth and amusement of a few bits of the leaked communications there is some candid assessment of, eg, Putin's gangster activities and how he's lining himself up to be the biggest oligarch of them all, which, while being of little surprise, is something I believe publicly spoken policy should take account of. Likewise certain Arab states could helpfully go public about their feelings towards Iran rather than covertly expecting the West to do their dirty work. Secrecy at government level has an unerring tendency to run away with itself. It gives government and the those admitted to those 'secrets' an unfair upper hand over the rest of us such that we can't know and make judgements about what's going on.

nothing more than the exposure of the bleeding obvious, masquerading as some form of investigative journalism. Should sentient beings really be surprised that Saudi Arabia is duplicitous in wanting the US to deal with Iran whilst presenting an entirely different public face ? I am not convinced that we need to know absolutely everything our governments are up to, doubt we would be able to sleep at night if we did. I'm all more for the school of serious journalism - the likes of James Cameron and Wilred Burchett - but am not convinced this form of catch-all exposure journslism serves any real purpose.

One of the problems here is the dilution of the phrase, "public interest." Once upon a time, it meant information that was of such significant importance that (subject to national security) it should be discosable and in the public domain. Today, of course, it means anything that a journalist thinks the public might have a vague passing interest in.

I'm with Archie: well said - have another up arrow.

It's true, you don't really want people to know what you think of them or you'd probably have no friends whatsoever.

Still, it's intriguing.

And it's Prince Andrew.

if not for the fact that some of these bozos have their fingers on the trigger to start WW3. Fer Chrissakes, Sarah Palin *could* be the next president of the USA and her foreign policy is based on being able to see Russia from her porch. Shit on a stick, I'm starting to build my bunker now!

... she's definately not sure about North and South Korea..

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11840828

Wikileaks founder Julian Assange doesn't help himself ... looking like an archetypal Bond villain, as he certainly does.