WikiLeaks: Terrorists or Champions of the Truth?

[Remiel]

I've generally been out of touch with the news in the last few months, but I've been hearing a lot lately about Wikileaks.  Wikileaks has caused its share of controversy this year, releasing leaked videos of U.S. military attacks on civilian journalists in Iraq, as well as secret military documents about the war in Afghanistan.   Two days ago (November 28), Wikileaks began publishing an accumulation of confidential messages between U.S. Embassies around the globe.

I just wanted to get Elliquiy's thoughts on this.  Personally, I'm of mixed feelings on the subject.  Part of me subscribes to the cyberpunk mentality "information yearns to be free", but I can also understand how the leak of sensitive military and government intelligence can put lives in real jeopardy (I read somewhere that the Taliban was studying the leaked documents for the names of Afghani double agents).

Also, does anyone else find it frightening that a 22-year old Army private was able to have access to, let alone download and release, so much top-secret intelligence data?

[Callie Del Noire]

He, by dint of his job, had a better understanding of how the system worked. Using tricks like labelling a CD r/w disc as 'Lady Gaga' and using the CD burners on the laptops he worked with at work, he was able to get data out of his workspace. Interesting trick and the sort of thing that slips by folks. You have to realize that the 'human' element in any network system you're working on is the hardest to control.

Sounds like the IT folks, which he might have been part of, failed to realize that some (if not all) their computers had the ability to burn CDs and set the permissions levels to keep that from happening. Small gaps in security make for how things like this happen. It can be hard to spot the gaps in a security layout till they have been utilized.

AS for Wikileaks.. I'm conflicted. Like any media source, they should consider the implications of their actions. BUT that isn't always an easy call to make. Do I think this 22 year old tool's 'hissy fit' might have endangered people. Quite Possibly.

Personally I wish they would practice a little more discresion but that is MY opinion. Like it's my OPINION they should try the fool for treason and put him away FOREVER, but then I don't the Scooter Libby outed Valerie Plame and the true offender needs to go to jail too (because THAT did get people killed)

[Bayushi]

Disseminating classified information is a Federal Felony.

Providing classified military information to a foreign national is TREASON.

A foreign national receiving classified American military information, then distributing it is ESPIONAGE.

The idiot private should enjoy his stay in Leavenworth. Assange better hope he doesn't get extradited, because I believe we still shoot spies.



...so, Wikileaks(Assange) is not a Champion of Truth, nor a Terrorist. Assange is effectively a SPY, while the soldier is a traitor. People may end up dead because this info was broadcast on the internet. I have no sympathy for whatever may happen to either of these two.

[Callie Del Noire]

...so, Wikileaks(Assange) is not a Champion of Truth, nor a Terrorist. Assange is effectively a SPY, while the soldier is a traitor. People may end up dead because this info was broadcast on the internet. I have no sympathy for whatever may happen to either of these two.

I'm not sure.. in the past a reporter (media) were given some leeway. Assange is 'sorta' a Media rep. It's one of the new intangibles in the world of the internet (I figure if Perez Hilton can be call upon the traditional protections of the press, that someone like Assange can).

I doubt anything really bad will happen to him (assuming he stays off US soil. He steps on US Soil..he's in the clink till his country can mediate him out)

[Vekseid]

Assange has broken no United States law. Public dissemination of secrets means, simply, that they are no longer secret. The worst the US government can do above board is call Assange irresponsible, which they have. They were given the offer to pick out which ones would be 'so irresponsible' to release. They refused.

The US Government also has control over ICANN, and through it, can render Wikileaks inaccessible by any means from suspending the domain to declaring ip ranges unroutable - but the information would still be released.

The leaker is in trouble, however, for damned sure.

But if the remaining 99.9% of leaks is a lot like the .1%, it's actually not the United States that should be scared shitless of the leaks. Saudi Arabia and other Arab nations demanding that the United States attack Iran? There is evidence of some underhanded moves by Hillary Clinton. But a lot of it is just good historical data.

For all the blustering that's going on, US Government officials are actually handling this in an intelligent and professional manner - locking down security practices and so on.

[Callie Del Noire]

One of the things I've notices in my tenure in the Navy is it's DAMNED hard to get some things updated if you're not too aware of security issues.  Institutional issues can make things are stiff and rigid to change. Not to mention money can be tight at times.

I know the Navy used to reward folks who found ways to save money with 10% of 10% of the total savings. I don't think there is any such rewards for finding and offering advice on how to eliminate security shortfalls.

So, the IT folks you have around in government typically have to fight to keep up with rigid policies, shortfalls in manning and materials and a massive workload. Not making excuses but pointing out the problems.

[Sabby]

Disseminating classified information is a Federal Felony.

Providing classified military information to a foreign national is TREASON.

A foreign national receiving classified American military information, then distributing it is ESPIONAGE.

Telling me something is wrong because it has word that means 'a kind of crime' in capitol letters is a non-argument at best. Telling me what he did was TREASON and therefore absolutely wrong is one of the weakest things a person can say in such a debate.

Hell, I'm making a law right now. It is now illegal to discuss activities that are felonies. I'm calling the act of that discussion FELONCHATTER.

What your doing right now is FELONCHATTER and it is a crime. This is all I need to quote to paint you the bad guy and render any debate to the contrary mute.

If that sounds retarded, it's because it is.

[Bayushi]

What your doing right now is FELONCHATTER and it is a crime. This is all I need to quote to paint you the bad guy and render any debate to the contrary mute.

If that sounds retarded, it's because it is.

You mean that other than the fact that what was done DID violate already established laws, laws that exist in practically every nation(if not every nation) has anything to do with the drivel you just typed?

While the laws are on the books, approved by our duly elected representatives, or enshrined in the original governmental document(Constitution); you as a non-governmental body are making s**t up.

Nice strawman.

[Callie Del Noire]

Telling me something is wrong because it has word that means 'a kind of crime' in capitol letters is a non-argument at best. Telling me what he did was TREASON and therefore absolutely wrong is one of the weakest things a person can say in such a debate.

Hell, I'm making a law right now. It is now illegal to discuss activities that are felonies. I'm calling the act of that discussion FELONCHATTER.

What your doing right now is FELONCHATTER and it is a crime. This is all I need to quote to paint you the bad guy and render any debate to the contrary mute.

If that sounds retarded, it's because it is.

It's treason because he betrayed his country by disclosing secrets, broke the oath he swore when he enlisted and violated the agreements he made to get his clearance and his SCI ratings.

He broke a LOT of laws, all of them defined as treasonable actions. Cut. Dried. End of Story.

Depending on how things go, he could be facing life in prison for it. And I hope he does.

Too often I hear BS about how it's okay to casually scatter what you know to the four winds if you don't like something. Fine. Be prepared to pay have the intestinal fortitude to face the consequences. Good reporters go to jail all the time, for failure to ID their sources. That is the willingness to face the consequences of your convictions. (And I fear that is a dying breed of reporter but that's another issue all together)

This little punk did it because he felt he hadn't earned the advancement he felt he deserved. He was having a 'hissy'. If he had been out in the field or working on the flight deck he might have done something to 'save the day' to get his recognition he felt he was due. Something that would have gotten someone hurt or killed.

Instead he hurt relations with our allies and other countries, damaged relations in ways that will take years to undo. Just because he got a shitty evaluation he most likely deserved.

I hope he rots in prison.

I'm sorry, it's not stupid. It's not retarded. He committed treason by any legal measure of the law.

[Sabby]

Thank you Callie. That was an actual proper answer that made me see the issue in a different way. A lot better then saying "It's a crime" which was my issue before :/

[Sure]

He committed treason by any measurable standard... except the only one that counts. The legal one. If the government wants to indict him for treason, they'll have to prove one of the following: He waged war against the United States. He adhered to an enemy of the United States. He gave Aid and Comfort to an enemy of the United States. Assange does not, I think, qualify as an enemy of the United States They'll also need two witnesses to the event taking place, or a confession.

Treason is damn near impossible to get a conviction for in the U.S.

In order to try him for espionage, they'd need to prove that disclosed government secrets to other nations, or that he jeopardized national defense, or that he benefited a foreign nation. I imagine that wouldn't be particularly easy either.

He did break plenty of other laws, he will go to jail, but Sabby has a point in that you're using words that evoke an emotional reaction to argue your point of view.

[Callie Del Noire]

Thank you Callie. That was an actual proper answer that made me see the issue in a different way. A lot better then saying "It's a crime" which was my issue before :/

Violating the secrets you've sworn to protect, after having them explained to you EXTENSIVELY and REPEATEDLY means you should be punished extensively for it.

This is a very bitter subject to me. I know friends who screwed up and lost their clearance for nothing and I see folks like this turd or the folks who whitewashed the Plame incident get treated as 'heroes' by the media. It galls me.

Both the Wikileaks and Plame incidents have done a LOT of harm regardless of the actual content of what was revealed. Confidential Communications in and of themselves might not be terribly damaging but it undermines the trust that diplomatic process requires. We, by proxy of a bratty 22 year old and Wikileaks, proved we couldn't be trusted to keep a basic trust of confidentiality. How can we, the United States, be trusted to keep deeper secrets and more important trusts?

Trust, particularly in the gulf and similar regions, is a commodity that is hard to earn and he might have cost us YEARS of work.

The Plame incident when you look at it from the approach the media did, was JUST the outing of a NOC agent. But consider her role in the world. She worked in building trust and recruit folks to put our interest above those of their country. Some for the hope of change, others might have been blackmailed, and others for cold hard cash.  She recruited SPIES, the scarest resource in the espionage field. Human assets in a position to do us possible good. That requires building trust, not just by the agent but with the country she represents.

When whoever it was in the White House outed her, they violated that trust.

Acts like this cost us trust.

And I can point out something, the English spent years.. hell decades re-earning trust in the world from the damage the Cambridge five did to their intelligence community.

Rant done.. g'day.

[Oniya]

He gave Aid and Comfort to an enemy of the United States.

I might be wrong here, but by putting this information out 'to the four winds', as it were, the original hissy-fitter has made it available to any enemy of the United States who cares to download it.  Does that qualify as aid?

[Callie Del Noire]

I might be wrong here, but by putting this information out 'to the four winds', as it were, the original hissy-fitter has made it available to any enemy of the United States who cares to download it.  Does that qualify as aid?

Hmm..that is a hard call. I think that it will be a hard one to call. He had to know that it would fall into the hands of the country's enemies but actually AID? I doubt without twisting the definition of the charge beyond recognition that it will be justifiably fit.

[Sure]

I might be wrong here, but by putting this information out 'to the four winds', as it were, the original hissy-fitter has made it available to any enemy of the United States who cares to download it.  Does that qualify as aid?

It's shaky. There's not much precedent for cases where the spy didn't turn the information over to somebody in particular, but instead scattered it as far as possible. However, considering the legal definition of treason is from the Constitution the judiciary is generally strict and conservative on the definition. So... it would be difficult if possible at all. Possibly Supreme Court difficult.

Historically, Congress passed laws that have a broader definition and used that instead. Of course, most of them were unpopular and abused...

[Bayushi]

It's shaky. There's not much precedent for cases where the spy didn't turn the information over to somebody in particular, but instead scattered it as far as possible. However, considering the legal definition of treason is from the Constitution the judiciary is generally strict and conservative on the definition. So... it would be difficult if possible at all. Possibly Supreme Court difficult.

In the 22 year old soldier's case, it wouldn't go before the Supreme Court. Given that he is a member of the US Department of Defense, he would be tried before a Judge Advocate.

Lot of differences between a military tribunal and a civilian court.

[Oniya]

Actually, a conviction from a JAG trial can be appealed; first, to the appropriate branch's Court of Criminal Appeals, then the Court of Appeals of the Armed Forces, and finally the Supreme Court.

[Callie Del Noire]

Actually, a conviction from a JAG trial can be appealed; first, to the appropriate branch's Court of Criminal Appeals, then the Court of Appeals of the Armed Forces, and finally the Supreme Court.

Which ultimately can mean it would get there (to the SC) quicker.

[ChaoticSky]

"If you have nothing to hide, then you have nothing to worry about."

ive heard that piece of tripe used to justify invasions of privacy all over the world, and especially from american TSA and boarder guards. and dont even get me started on the wiretapping, spying and so on.

well, right back at ya! not so nice when its someone else rifling through your stuff, is it?

i believe its neither treason, nor terrorism, it shouldn't even be a crime. infact, the guy should probably win a medal. what hes doing is sweet delicious reciprocity, justice in its most purest form. a govt that invades the privacy of its citizens as a matter of course and in defiance of its own laws and constitution has no right to expect privacy for its self.

[Callie Del Noire]

"If you have nothing to hide, then you have nothing to worry about."

ive heard that piece of tripe used to justify invasions of privacy all over the world, and especially from american TSA and boarder guards. and dont even get me started on the wiretapping, spying and so on.

well, right back at ya! not so nice when its someone else rifling through your stuff, is it?

i believe its neither treason, nor terrorism, it shouldn't even be a crime. infact, the guy should probably win a medal. what hes doing is sweet delicious reciprocity, justice in its most purest form. a govt that invades the privacy of its citizens as a matter of course and in defiance of its own laws and constitution has no right to expect privacy for its self.

You do realize the putz did it for nothing noble or good right? He couldn't hack his job and felt that he was being slighted. And if it hadn't been Wikileaks but say..the Russians or Iranians, what would you say then?

It IS treason. He betrayed his oath of service. He violated the contracts and agreements he signed when he came into the service, received his rating and clearance.

Do I agree with some of the actions of the US Government? No. Did I think the Patriot Act was a bright idea? No, I think it was a stupid fear fueled action that congress and the folks who normally don't consider how hostile the real world is demanded. I believe in the adage that Ben Franklin said, "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." (I got called a Pinko by one of my Chiefs for saying that and that the Patriot Act was ill thought out).

The private wanted to hurt folks in his chain of command. He was being petty, and hurtful. No heroism involved. If he had leaked the flight plan of the President or such, or if his leak ends up getting someone killed is that mean the victims 'deserved it?'.

What if he's leaked information about the US aircraft control network, banking information on service members (from the Army Payroll system) or meddled with the military supply system to put medical grade narcotics into the hands of people he knew?

Not to mention the damage his leaks did in the region?  You might think American doesn't need to be in the region but do you think that the other countries in the region want us gone? Not really, they'd rather someone else dies when it comes time to face aggression from folks like the Taliban or Iran. Thanks to our efforts the Iranian's major foe in the region is gone. (Saddam for his many many many sins, was a counter to their forces). Aside from possibly the Turks and Syrians, who in the region is strong enough to counter them?

This doesn't cover the points that I brought up about trust in Diplomatic circles. We, the US, are able to talk to this leader on the behalf of another leader he publicly dislikes. The US diplomat mediates an agreement that lets the two of them work things out, without risking loss of face with either and brings stability to the area and slowly lets them build cooperation between their countries (which the net result is better relations which helps us withdraw troops from the area).

Now, since this PUTZ did this, that diplomat won't be trusted to be able to keep things quiet. Without the ability to be trusted, the diplomats can't do their job.

Oh yeah, he's a real hero. (for the bad guys..they thrive when we can't mediate things out)

[Trieste]

And now Assange is apparently on Interpol's most wanted list.

1) Doesn't Interpol have more dangerous crackpots to go after?

2) Why aren't the newspapers that published the story also being punished? If they're going to go after Assange for disseminating this stuff, then they need to go after the news sources that did so as well. While I don't agree with Assange in some (many) things, I do know a witchhunt when I see one, and those are absolutely intolerable.

[Callie Del Noire]

And now Assange is apparently on Interpol's most wanted list.

1) Doesn't Interpol have more dangerous crackpots to go after?

2) Why aren't the newspapers that published the story also being punished? If they're going to go after Assange for disseminating this stuff, then they need to go after the news sources that did so as well. While I don't agree with Assange in some (many) things, I do know a witchhunt when I see one, and those are absolutely intolerable.

For real?

I don't see what in Interpol's jurisdictional purview does his leaking of the documents this falls under. 

[Trieste]

Sorry, I didn't mean to mislead. It's not specifically for the leaked docs, but an unrelated charge.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/11/30/sweden.interpol.assange/index.html

I just think it's mighty interesting that Sweden only decided to Interpol this guy after he bloodied the US' nose.

[Callie Del Noire]

Sorry, I didn't mean to mislead. It's not specifically for the leaked docs, but an unrelated charge.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/11/30/sweden.interpol.assange/index.html

I just think it's mighty interesting that Sweden only decided to Interpol this guy after he bloodied the US' nose.

It's only been an ongoing investigation since August. Still it seems a bit extreme to do that to extradite him.

[Trieste]

Well, and they seem to be saying in the article that they don't even want to arrest him, that they haven't had a chance to question him and they'd like to.

It doesn't make sense on a small scale.

It's looking, walking, and quacking like a witch hunt. :P

[Callie Del Noire]

Well, and they seem to be saying in the article that they don't even want to arrest him, that they haven't had a chance to question him and they'd like to.

It doesn't make sense on a small scale.

It's looking, walking, and quacking like a witch hunt. :P

It seems hard to picture putting a guy on the Most Wanted List for what is basically an Arrest Warrant. BUT he's not JUST stomped on the US Government's face, he's embarrassed other governments. I suspect the fear is if he isn't brought in, he'd never answer the charges. I don't know if the US is behind the witch hunt, I suspect somewhere in that LONG list of people he's pissed off is someone in Sweden with the pull to put the request into action.

It seems.. out of proportion with the charges and the stage of the trial.

[Callie Del Noire]

Interestingly enough I got curious enough to go over to take a look at some of the horrible cables that were uploaded to the net by wikileaks. I picked out a few at random.

I found one that was relating details of coordination with the Austrian Minstry of Finance (it was flagged secret, one of 15,000+ they said they had). It covered 4 major topics in it's summary.

1. Concerns of dealing with North Korean
2. Lack of Transparency in certain oil pipeline works in the former soviet unions.
3. Cooperation between the Ministry and the US over possible terrorist money laundering/trafficking operations that were on their mutual watch lists.
4. Various criminal financial operations.

Oh yeah, we needed to know that. It was a BURNING need to have the subjects of ongoing investigations posted on the internet.

I wonder how many investigations in and outside the US Government have been derailed by the disclosure now.

[Vekseid]

I think having a policy of 'fair game' - releasing stuff more than ten or fifteen years old - would have been a lot wiser. But then he couldn't throw a wrench in the Middle East.

[Remiel]

So, apparently, WikiLeaks, which had been using Amazon.com's server since it was bombarded by Denial-Of-Service attacks since the cable leaks, has been removed from Amazon's servers.

Does anyone else find this developing story as fascinating as I do?  This has the potential to have political fallout of Watergate-like proportions.

[Vekseid]

So far, not for the US government.

Al Jazeera, however, is apparently being very quiet about the leaks due to the nature of their content.

If Assange comes through with the plans to release the internal documents of a major US financial company, that could create a much larger impact.

[Callie Del Noire]

So far, not for the US government.

Al Jazeera, however, is apparently being very quiet about the leaks due to the nature of their content.

If Assange comes through with the plans to release the internal documents of a major US financial company, that could create a much larger impact.

Seems to me, that he's skating on thin ice.

[Vekseid]

He's probably going to lose control of the organization. Iceland seems keen on supporting them, however, which gives Wikileaks a solid foundation even if Assange falls through a crack somewhere.

[Callie Del Noire]

He's probably going to lose control of the organization. Iceland seems keen on supporting them, however, which gives Wikileaks a solid foundation even if Assange falls through a crack somewhere.

If they were smart they would drop him like a hot ember. He's pulling them down with them.

I'm still a bit surprised about the stuff I saw with one quick look through.

[Hemingway]

I allow myself a degree of youthful idealism in this case. A large part of that has to do with the reaction from certain people, who seem to be all too willing to undermine the very principles they claim to stand for, to silence Assange. That fills me with a sort of anarchic glee, to see the power structure rattled in that way.

Would it be tragic if anyone died as a direct result of these leaks? Well, yes, but no more tragic than any other deaths, including ones our various governments are responsible for.

I don't believe that if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear. Not for individuals. But for countries, that sort of should be true. If you have to keep secrets from your own citizens, well, then you're going to have to explain to me how that is not a betrayal of trust.

[Callie Del Noire]

I allow myself a degree of youthful idealism in this case. A large part of that has to do with the reaction from certain people, who seem to be all too willing to undermine the very principles they claim to stand for, to silence Assange. That fills me with a sort of anarchic glee, to see the power structure rattled in that way.

Would it be tragic if anyone died as a direct result of these leaks? Well, yes, but no more tragic than any other deaths, including ones our various governments are responsible for.

I don't believe that if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear. Not for individuals. But for countries, that sort of should be true. If you have to keep secrets from your own citizens, well, then you're going to have to explain to me how that is not a betrayal of trust.

Do you think it's right to publicly disclose the subjects of criminal investigations into international money launderers, arms traders and possible groups with terrorist links?

Seems to me disclosing that, and disrupting delicate diplomatic negotiations are things that the 'public' DOESN'T need to know at every point of the process

[Trieste]

... you do know that Wikileaks asked the US for help in redacting those cables that might pose a genuine threat to specific lives... right? Prior to the release of these things, there was communication.

Quite frankly, I think the government has not earned the right to maintain such a level of secrecy. If they had used it responsibly and actually kept secret those things that NEED to stay secret to protect lives, there would be little problem. Instead, they also use their power to protect anything that might possibly be damaging. This is not okay. They need to admit their mistakes along with everyone else.

And I'm still not sure what's wrong with releasing the Panama cables. Why did those need to remain secret? No, no. The federal government has taken advantage of their ability to keep things secret for far too long.

[Callie Del Noire]

... you do know that Wikileaks asked the US for help in redacting those cables that might pose a genuine threat to specific lives... right? Prior to the release of these things, there was communication.

Quite frankly, I think the government has not earned the right to maintain such a level of secrecy. If they had used it responsibly and actually kept secret those things that NEED to stay secret to protect lives, there would be little problem. Instead, they also use their power to protect anything that might possibly be damaging. This is not okay. They need to admit their mistakes along with everyone else.

And I'm still not sure what's wrong with releasing the Panama cables. Why did those need to remain secret? No, no. The federal government has taken advantage of their ability to keep things secret for far too long.

Would it be okay for the Enquirer/New York Times/LA Times/whatever paper you want to name to call the Justice Department and say 'Hey we got all these legal documents, interdepartmental emails, memos and such that we're wanting you to come over and tell us what's too unsafe to publish?'

When they don't respond or drag their feet and the paper in question publishes EVERYTHING, it's the Justice Departments fault when the cases they were coordinating fall apart due to 'full disclosure'.

I sincerely doubted that the government felt they were going to be given the full file and what promises could they expect a site whose 'full disclosure' outlook is well known.

I'm sorry, 'knowledge is meant to be free' and 'We have a right to know everything' doesn't fly. I do believe the government has been less than scrupulous in their past actions, and yes they have endangered people in some of them. Do I think the mechanisms for oversight needs to be fixed. Absolutely.

Do I think that Wikileaks is that mechanism? No. Who, if anyone besides themselves, are they responsible to? How many more actions outside the country that were exposed by this disclosure are going to lead to problems?

Who knows? Organized Criminals, Cartels, Money Launderers, Arms Dealers.. (I'm refraining from the possible terrorists links) are now aware of who is looking at their activities, and where.


So, as an example, some guy in the MS13 organization goes through the messages and finds out the banks in 'country X' in Central America are working with the Justice Department/DEA to track their funds. So, they look up at who could possibly have been doing this and goes out and machetes the guy and his wife to cut the link.

What about investigations across national borders that deal with things like.. oh.. HUMAN TRAFFICKING? The Trafficking groups find out the fed and the locals are looking at them.

Well lets assume the best case and the girls/boys are packed up and shipped elsewhere.

And it's the US Government's fault? Because they took the opinion that ALL the messages were 'need to know' and didn't want to bargain with the folks at Wikileaks?  Content aside, all the documents give an overview of how the system works. Knowing how a system works allows folks who don't represent our best interests and don't have our good in mind a way to find holes in the system.

Names on the memos help them get an idea of who works where. So now they know this person works in this department and would be the sort to do the sort of job they want if he/she is properly blackmailed/threatened/manipulated.

[Hemingway]

Do you think it's right to publicly disclose the subjects of criminal investigations into international money launderers, arms traders and possible groups with terrorist links?

Seems to me disclosing that, and disrupting delicate diplomatic negotiations are things that the 'public' DOESN'T need to know at every point of the process

I think that's a very poor defense. Because you have to consider that among what has been leaked, have been things that absolutely should not be kept secret. If the cost of exposing those things is the exposure of some things that should not be exposed, then I do believe it's right, yes.

As for the citizens of a country not having a right to know everything their government does, or saying there are things they don't need to know, is more than a little disturbing, in the Orwellian sense.

I'm not American, and so my government isn't - at least not in those word - one of the people, by the people, for the people. They are our elected officials, though, not our overlords. It's an extension of the people, not a mechanism for keeping us from having to think about big issues.

[Callie Del Noire]

I think that's a very poor defense. Because you have to consider that among what has been leaked, have been things that absolutely should not be kept secret. If the cost of exposing those things is the exposure of some things that should not be exposed, then I do believe it's right, yes.

As for the citizens of a country not having a right to know everything their government does, or saying there are things they don't need to know, is more than a little disturbing, in the Orwellian sense.

I'm not American, and so my government isn't - at least not in those word - one of the people, by the people, for the people. They are our elected officials, though, not our overlords. It's an extension of the people, not a mechanism for keeping us from having to think about big issues.

So you're okay with someone coming along and giving out internal documentation on processes and deals the government does to ensure the security of their citizens and enforcement of laws, diplomatic actions with allies and attempts to build or deal with less friendly groups?

Sorry, there are things every government does that their electorate does not need total disclosure at the moment it's being done.

Delicate negotiations with other nations, investigations into the actions of potential enemies, criminals, and counter-espionage comes to mind.

[Trieste]

Would it be okay for the Enquirer/New York Times/LA Times/whatever paper you want to name to call the Justice Department and say 'Hey we got all these legal documents, interdepartmental emails, memos and such that we're wanting you to come over and tell us what's too unsafe to publish?'

When they don't respond or drag their feet and the paper in question publishes EVERYTHING, it's the Justice Departments fault when the cases they were coordinating fall apart due to 'full disclosure'.

I sincerely doubted that the government felt they were going to be given the full file and what promises could they expect a site whose 'full disclosure' outlook is well known.

They don't know that. They didn't even try. "They didn't think they'd get a fair shake!!!!" is no excuse. And now they are thinking of trumping up some charge against him (in addition to the rape and assault charges that his lawyer says have been cleared) so they can call him wanted in the US? "He can't bloody our nose and get away with it!" is the battle cry of bad villains in Disney movies. In real life, you makes your mistakes and you takes your lumps and you deal with the consequences. The US government made a mistake. Many of them, in fact.

And you know, if I could think of someone who would competently replace Hillary Clinton in her position, I would be calling for her resignation along with others.

[Callie Del Noire]

They don't know that. They didn't even try. "They didn't think they'd get a fair shake!!!!" is no excuse. And now they are thinking of trumping up some charge against him (in addition to the rape and assault charges that his lawyer says have been cleared) so they can call him wanted in the US? "He can't bloody our nose and get away with it!" is the battle cry of bad villains in Disney movies. In real life, you makes your mistakes and you takes your lumps and you deal with the consequences. The US government made a mistake. Many of them, in fact.

And you know, if I could think of someone who would competently replace Hillary Clinton in her position, I would be calling for her resignation along with others.

Sorry the only way Hilary Clinton is leaving (barring the president firing her) is if she has an 'Out' so that she can withdraw from his cabinet with grace and run against him in two years. (You know she's looking for an excuse.)

Barring the sight of the President shooting someone in the Oval Office (like a girl scout delivering cookies), the only two ways I see her leaving is being forcefully removed or dropping dead.

I admit I have issues with the President but he's probably the most forth right and up front man we've had in the Oval Office since President Carter. I trust Hilary Clinton about as far as I can throw the USS Nimitz (the only person I trust less in line for the Presidents seat is the VP btw)

[Trieste]

I agree quite strongly.

I'd personally like to see a Hillary/Palin cage match. I'd buy tickets. >.>

[Oniya]

* Oniya did not need that mental image.  Just ate.  :P

[Callie Del Noire]

I agree quite strongly.

I'd personally like to see a Hillary/Palin cage match. I'd buy tickets. >.>

Can I drop the carrier on them? (HATE them both)

[Hemingway]

So you're okay with someone coming along and giving out internal documentation on processes and deals the government does to ensure the security of their citizens and enforcement of laws, diplomatic actions with allies and attempts to build or deal with less friendly groups?

Sorry, there are things every government does that their electorate does not need total disclosure at the moment it's being done.

Delicate negotiations with other nations, investigations into the actions of potential enemies, criminals, and counter-espionage comes to mind.

Yeah, so does torturing people, fighting wars of dubious validity and trying to cover up its fiascos. Governments should not have the rights to tell their citizens what they need and do not need to know. Throwing what I said back at me, regardless of how much spin you try to put on it, is not going to change my opinion.

See, there's a double standard here. To leak a governments secrets, potentially endangering lives and a country's interests, is a crime. But somehow, a government sending its people to kill and die, is not. If a person had done the same, well, it would've been a crime. The point being that to leak these secrets is only wrong because the people it wrongs are the people who decide what is and isn't wrong.

[Callie Del Noire]

Yeah, so does torturing people, fighting wars of dubious validity and trying to cover up its fiascos. Governments should not have the rights to tell their citizens what they need and do not need to know. Throwing what I said back at me, regardless of how much spin you try to put on it, is not going to change my opinion.

See, there's a double standard here. To leak a governments secrets, potentially endangering lives and a country's interests, is a crime. But somehow, a government sending its people to kill and die, is not. If a person had done the same, well, it would've been a crime. The point being that to leak these secrets is only wrong because the people it wrongs are the people who decide what is and isn't wrong.

Oh yeah.. we're back to the video the private 'liberated' dealing the tragic deaths of the Reuter's crew.

Which was 'being covered up' by being found in the folder of the JAG department of his base. Which most likely means the Army's legal department was doing an investigation into it. Most likely they were doing an use of force investigation.

Those, like aircraft mishaps, take a long period of time. It's most likely never going to be done properly done.

Want to bet the Army was working with the Iraqis too.

[Trieste]

Okay, look.

The previous post shows a lot of faith in the US government. It is fine if you want to show that faith. (The investigation might not actually have been in progress, it might not have necessarily been an abuse of force investigation, and so on.) However, please understand that not everyone shares that faith in the government. I don't trust Congress to do the right thing; they already aren't. I don't trust the military to do the right thing, because honestly I have too many family members in the military and have heard far too many stories of how the military admins can be complete, ass-covering dicks.

And that applies to the current situation as well as the video and all that crud. Can we please not revisit the video? I still cringe at the thought of reliving that particular thread.

[Callie Del Noire]

Okay, look.

The previous post shows a lot of faith in the US government. It is fine if you want to show that faith. (The investigation might not actually have been in progress, it might not have necessarily been an abuse of force investigation, and so on.) However, please understand that not everyone shares that faith in the government. I don't trust Congress to do the right thing; they already aren't. I don't trust the military to do the right thing, because honestly I have too many family members in the military and have heard far too many stories of how the military admins can be complete, ass-covering dicks.

I served in the Navy for 15 years, and would still be if I was medially fit to serve. I know about dicks in the military, I just don't see how one LITTLE DICK who was getting grief for not doing his job can get away with what was basically ESPIONAGE.

Do I think Assange should be hunted down? Not really. I think he overstepped his bounds but I think the folks involved were heavy handed.

And you know what.. sometimes the process works. Hells, MOST often it works. It's the exception that draws the notice not the rule. As for the video.. I agree, I don't want to revisit that sad tragedy, but we'll never know how it would have been resolved now because some little tool interfered with the process.

[Hemingway]

And you know what.. sometimes the process works. Hells, MOST often it works. It's the exception that draws the notice not the rule. As for the video.. I agree, I don't want to revisit that sad tragedy, but we'll never know how it would have been resolved now because some little tool interfered with the process.

I wasn't talking about that video specifically in my earlier post, but it is a good example. What I am curious to know is why an incident like that should ever be kept from the public, at any stage. It's true the system can work. There are probably instances of it not working, too. But that's entirely beside the point. Even if it works ten out of ten times, there is still no reason why it should be kept from people.

[mystictiger]

What an interesting topic.

For a start, Assange cannot be guilty of Treason as he's not an American citizen. As to the idea that Assange is a criminal? Do you -really- think that the US wouldn't arrest him / unlawfully render / disappear him if they thought they could charge him with anything? The UK has a very strong extradition treaty to the US - it's virtually impossible to object. Where is Assange? In the UK. You should see how things follow from there.

Secondly, the whole wikileaks exposure of diplomatic cables will not risk the lives of any serving US solider, diplomat or other official. At very 'best' it will simply embarrass them. But then there is a very high chance that - for instance - the UK already knew what was in the content of these emails.

Will it make diplomacy harder to do? Yes and no. We have learned that US diplomats have been... taking liberties with their diplomatic status by recruiting agents when they should leave that job to spies. This will probably make people less likely to become agents for the US... or in other words, commit espionage.

The stakes at the international level are simply too high for things like this to matter. Will Britain stop cooperating with the US in Afghanistan or Iraq? No. Will people stop trading with America? No. The embarrasing revelations will be dismissed as propaganda (e.g. the Saudi call that the US bomb Iraq). This is rather like parents finding porn under your bed - it's mildly embarrasing, but we know full well that everyone does this. It will make American diplomats more mindful of what they say, perhaps. It will also further harden a culture of secrecy and security that pervades NATO halls of power.

When various diplomats posted to London steal, keep slaves, and so on, it is simply hidden under the carpet. Only the most vicious dictatorships get 'insulted'. Unless, of course, you're dealing with Israel-Turkey. There Turkey has to show itself to be not a lapdog of the US and therefore will make personal gestures.

If this mattered, there would have been a waive of US diplomats being declared PNG and sent home. Has this happened yet? No.

Palin-Clinton cage-match would be fun to watch, but can we add tigers to make sure they both lose?

[Callie Del Noire]

I wasn't talking about that video specifically in my earlier post, but it is a good example. What I am curious to know is why an incident like that should ever be kept from the public, at any stage. It's true the system can work. There are probably instances of it not working, too. But that's entirely beside the point. Even if it works ten out of ten times, there is still no reason why it should be kept from people.

Gee.. nice to know that the military has a right to conduct the investigation discretely without the media crawling up their ass. I'm assuming you're going to put this level of trust and reliability to regular investigations. If I follow your logic, it's okay for every law enforcement agency out there to give out every lead, clue and bit of evidence they have in an active investigation. After all using your logic there is no reason to hide any and all data tied with an investigation before a suspect is found and charges filed.

[Callie Del Noire]

Secondly, the whole wikileaks exposure of diplomatic cables will not risk the lives of any serving US solider, diplomat or other official. At very 'best' it will simply embarrass them. But then there is a very high chance that - for instance - the UK already knew what was in the content of these emails.

Will it make diplomacy harder to do? Yes and no. We have learned that US diplomats have been... taking liberties with their diplomatic status by recruiting agents when they should leave that job to spies. This will probably make people less likely to become agents for the US... or in other words, commit espionage.

The stakes at the international level are simply too high for things like this to matter. Will Britain stop cooperating with the US in Afghanistan or Iraq? No. Will people stop trading with America? No. The embarrasing revelations will be dismissed as propaganda (e.g. the Saudi call that the US bomb Iraq). This is rather like parents finding porn under your bed - it's mildly embarrasing, but we know full well that everyone does this. It will make American diplomats more mindful of what they say, perhaps. It will also further harden a culture of secrecy and security that pervades NATO halls of power.

When various diplomats posted to London steal, keep slaves, and so on, it is simply hidden under the carpet. Only the most vicious dictatorships get 'insulted'. Unless, of course, you're dealing with Israel-Turkey. There Turkey has to show itself to be not a lapdog of the US and therefore will make personal gestures.

If this mattered, there would have been a waive of US diplomats being declared PNG and sent home. Has this happened yet? No.

Palin-Clinton cage-match would be fun to watch, but can we add tigers to make sure they both lose?

And what about the criminal investigations and requests on groups that I pointed out.

Just bull dozed over them I see. So the messages dealing with following illegal money transfers, possible criminal activities such as oh.. Human Trafficing (Slavery and such) are 'no big problem' now that the groups being mentioned have access to the paperwork and requests for data on them?

[Hemingway]

Gee.. nice to know that the military has a right to conduct the investigation discretely without the media crawling up their ass. I'm assuming you're going to put this level of trust and reliability to regular investigations. If I follow your logic, it's okay for every law enforcement agency out there to give out every lead, clue and bit of evidence they have in an active investigation. After all using your logic there is no reason to hide any and all data tied with an investigation before a suspect is found and charges filed.

No, that isn't what I said. In fact, I'm almost starting to wonder if we're even talking about the same thing. Because as I recall, crimes are covered by the media quite frequently. It's not like they give out all the details. Usually names and pictures aren't given out, at least not right away, for obvious reasons. But there is absolutely no justifiable reason, at least not as I see it, and you still haven't provided one, for not even letting people know something could have happened, not unless you intend to keep them in the dark.

[Callie Del Noire]

No, that isn't what I said. In fact, I'm almost starting to wonder if we're even talking about the same thing. Because as I recall, crimes are covered by the media quite frequently. It's not like they give out all the details. Usually names and pictures aren't given out, at least not right away, for obvious reasons. But there is absolutely no justifiable reason, at least not as I see it, and you still haven't provided one, for not even letting people know something could have happened, not unless you intend to keep them in the dark.

I don't think the public has a right to know about ongoing investigations. The 'tell it all now' attitude of the media has made any story that as much attention as the video would have merited would never had been left alone long enough for the authorities to do a through and concise job.

[Hemingway]

I don't think the public has a right to know about ongoing investigations. The 'tell it all now' attitude of the media has made any story that as much attention as the video would have merited would never had been left alone long enough for the authorities to do a through and concise job.

Why does the attention given by the media keep authorities from doing their job?

On the matter of the public not having a right to know, we're just going to have to agree to disagree, as much as that - your views - bothers me. It would be a different debate entirely. Your view of what the government is and what its role should be, is the opposite of mine.

[Callie Del Noire]

Why does the attention given by the media keep authorities from doing their job?

On the matter of the public not having a right to know, we're just going to have to agree to disagree, as much as that - your views - bothers me. It would be a different debate entirely. Your view of what the government is and what its role should be, is the opposite of mine.

Didn't say the public DIDN'T have a right to know.. but an immediate and total disclosure of everything that is going on in a situation at the MOMENT isn't.

I was in the Maryland/DC area during the beltway sniper case. It was really annoying to the police to try and pursue the suspects when the media was constantly demanding more and more information about the investigation, more about the suspects, and continually trying to air more information. Obstructing the investigation and possibly aiding the suspects.

[Oniya]

I remember that time as well - everyone was looking for a white 'box van'.  With that kind of information out there, if the snipers actually had been using a white box van, the media dissemination would have told them it was time to change vehicles.  It's actually incredibly common for police to hold back information or even 'refuse to comment on an ongoing investigation'.  Why should a military investigation be forced to be more transparent than a police investigation?

[Callie Del Noire]

I remember that time as well - everyone was looking for a white 'box van'.  With that kind of information out there, if the snipers actually had been using a white box van, the media dissemination would have told them it was time to change vehicles.  It's actually incredibly common for police to hold back information or even 'refuse to comment on an ongoing investigation'.  Why should a military investigation be forced to be more transparent than a police investigation?

That is what I was trying to say.  I remember watching the chief blow up at the media when they kept probing for more details.

[Zakharra]

 That's the problem with the media immediately putting out all the information they have. It gives the criminals much needed intelligence. For most things, there is NEVER a need to spill information immediately, and often in the long run, no real need eityher. Things can be declassified and some requests (FoIA) can go through, but there is no need  for it to be splashed all over like Wikileaks did.

[Hemingway]

Didn't say the public DIDN'T have a right to know.. but an immediate and total disclosure of everything that is going on in a situation at the MOMENT isn't.

Who is advocating that everything be disclosed immediately? Because I would like to meet them. Is it Assange? Because to the best of my knowledge, no one is suggesting police should release their plans for when to arrest their suspects, or how soldiers are going to attack anyone, before it actually happens. If, however, during the course of the aforementioned arrest, the police get a little too rough with the person they're arresting, then the public should know. They should be aware there's an investigation. They should be able to keep up with the details, what's going on, if evidence turns up that might strongly suggest their innocence or guilt. You know, the way the media usually works. If there was that kind of transparency, then there wouldn't be a need to leak anything, because it would all be available. We're talking about rather massive events here, too, things that concern - or should concern - entire nations, their politicians and voters.

If, however, it comes down to a choice between a government being able to withhold anything it sees fit, or everything being disclosed immediately, I choose the latter. Obviously, it isn't, but as a matter of principle, I'd rather live in a world where everything the government did was public knowledge, than one where the government could do whatever it wanted, and keep people in the dark about it.

I really don't have anything else to add, that wouldn't just be rephrasing something I've already said.

[Callie Del Noire]

That's the problem with the media immediately putting out all the information they have. It gives the criminals much needed intelligence. For most things, there is NEVER a need to spill information immediately, and often in the long run, no real need eityher. Things can be declassified and some requests (FoIA) can go through, but there is no need  for it to be splashed all over like Wikileaks did.

That is why I'm so upset.. I looked at random through the stuff on it.. The first SECRET document I read had ZERO attrocity value ..nothing about the Gulf.. and was covering Criminal Investigations that the public at large had NO NEED to know. Most of it was banking related but I'm sure that there are drug issues, human trafficing and kidnapping groups being discussed in some of those message.

How much hard did they do to investigations all over the world?

don't get me wrong.. I respect the INTENT behind Wikileaks..and they did some good with the exposure of atrocities in Africa in the past.. but this 'data must be free' stuff is dangerous.

[Zakharra]

Who is advocating that everything be disclosed immediately? Because I would like to meet them. Is it Assange? Because to the best of my knowledge, no one is suggesting police should release their plans for when to arrest their suspects, or how soldiers are going to attack anyone, before it actually happens. If, however, during the course of the aforementioned arrest, the police get a little too rough with the person they're arresting, then the public should know. They should be aware there's an investigation. They should be able to keep up with the details, what's going on, if evidence turns up that might strongly suggest their innocence or guilt. You know, the way the media usually works. If there was that kind of transparency, then there wouldn't be a need to leak anything, because it would all be available. We're talking about rather massive events here, too, things that concern - or should concern - entire nations, their politicians and voters.

To be honest, that is a foolish way of thinking. During an ainvestigaton, the media is often hounding the authorities for any scrap of informaton. The Beltway sniper case is a prime example.  Does the public  need to know an inverstigaton is going in? Yes. Do they need to know the details? NO. Not right away for sure. The details of the investigation need to be kept secret so the investigaton can go forward. To expose that is damned stupid

If, however, it comes down to a choice between a government being able to withhold anything it sees fit, or everything being disclosed immediately, I choose the latter. Obviously, it isn't, but as a matter of principle, I'd rather live in a world where everything the government did was public knowledge, than one where the government could do whatever it wanted, and keep people in the dark about it.

I really don't have anything else to add, that wouldn't just be rephrasing something I've already said.

That government would not last long then. No secrets could be kept and it's enemies would crush it like a bug. Some secrets have to be kept.

[mystictiger]

I served in the Navy for 15 years, and would still be if I was medially fit to serve. I know about dicks in the military, I just don't see how one LITTLE DICK who was getting grief for not doing his job can get away with what was basically ESPIONAGE.

Because a man's penis size has everything to do with his belief that something is right or wrong.

And what about the criminal investigations and requests on groups that I pointed out.

Just bull dozed over them I see. So the messages dealing with following illegal money transfers, possible criminal activities such as oh.. Human Trafficing (Slavery and such) are 'no big problem' now that the groups being mentioned have access to the paperwork and requests for data on them?

Having read through several hundred of these now, I have yet to find a single one that would compromise an active or ongoing investigation. I am happy to be proved wrong. The ones I've seen were all in the vaguest possible terms. It takes a particularly stupid criminal to not think that someone will investigate him.

[Callie Del Noire]

Mystic..

With all due respect. The guy admitted that he felt slighted to the guy he leaked it to. The same hacker who notified the authorities!
He didn't do it for 'noble reason' regardless of what he said later on

[mystictiger]

Why do people say 'with all due respect' when they're about to say something that lacks any kind of respect at all? ;)

If what you say is true, then say that. Don't say that he released this information because he had a small penis. It's about as relevent and accurate as saying "He released this information because he drank milk".

I'd suggest you read the transcripts.

The line that caught my eye was this: "(02:17:56 PM) Manning: weak servers, weak logging, weak physical security, weak counter-intelligence, inattentive signal analysis… a perfect storm"

If all it took was one disgruntled, disaffected PFC, imagine what Al Qaida, the North Koreans, the Iranians, or the French have already?

[Vekseid]

Mystictiger, the accusations of treason involve the private who originally released the cables, not Assange. The person who sent the cables most certainly was a United States citizen.

Everyone in this thread is quite well aware that Assange is not subject to U.S. law, from the very first post.

[mystictiger]

The third post is ambiguous in that regard.

[Callie Del Noire]

Why do people say 'with all due respect' when they're about to say something that lacks any kind of respect at all? ;)

If what you say is true, then say that. Don't say that he released this information because he had a small penis. It's about as relevent and accurate as saying "He released this information because he drank milk".

I'd suggest you read the transcripts.

The line that caught my eye was this: "(02:17:56 PM) Manning: weak servers, weak logging, weak physical security, weak counter-intelligence, inattentive signal analysis… a perfect storm"

If all it took was one disgruntled, disaffected PFC, imagine what Al Qaida, the North Koreans, the Iranians, or the French have already?

I was being respectful. I tend to type what I think. If I disliked you, I'd let you know.

I read through the statements and he still strikes me as a whiner who didn't adjust to military discipline. If he'd been one of the guys assigned to the flight deck with me, I'd get teh feel he'd be the guy sent to work in the Galley because he didn't follow the rules (sounds like he think's he's too good for them)

And it's fairly hard to get into the network as deep as he did.

You got to have a CAC card to get onto the military network, then you got to have the user permission levels for it.

I don't think Assange should be tried by the US.. of course he is rightfully worried to be concerned about hitting US soild. He took possession of stolen goods.. and classified documents. BUT asides from coming off as a pompous man in the videos of him I watched, I don't think he really didn't do enough to merit active measures from the US.

Of course, I still wonder who pissed he pissed off over the rape case.

[Callie Del Noire]

Disseminating classified information is a Federal Felony.

Providing classified military information to a foreign national is TREASON.

A foreign national receiving classified American military information, then distributing it is ESPIONAGE.

The idiot private should enjoy his stay in Leavenworth. Assange better hope he doesn't get extradited, because I believe we still shoot spies.



...so, Wikileaks(Assange) is not a Champion of Truth, nor a Terrorist. Assange is effectively a SPY, while the soldier is a traitor. People may end up dead because this info was broadcast on the internet. I have no sympathy for whatever may happen to either of these two.

I don't see any lack of clarity in it.

[mystictiger]

I don't see any lack of clarity in it.

Good point. I got a little side-tracked in the capitalisation. Having finished reading the sentence, I agree.

They're not actually charging the PFC with treason or espionage.

I suspect that I just have a deep and abiding sense of skepticism after the WMDs, Guantanamo, dead hostages, and a War in Iraq based on politically-cooked intelligence. If my government were to tell me that the sky was blue, water was wet and fire was hot, I'd want to go and check.

Having read through more cables this morning, they're still all off the titilating / embarrasing nature. My favourite was this http://cablegate.wikileaks.org/cable/2009/12/09ASHGABAT1633.html]one[/url]:

"Turkmen President Berdimuhammedov does not like people who are smarter than he is. Since he's not a very bright guy, our source offered, he is suspicious of a lot of people."

My main thought is: it's no use hand-wringing about "Oh, this will make diplomacy impossible" or "Oh, the rotten chap, he should be arrested or assassinated". Wikileaks is a symptom of what advanced communication, and Wikileaks (or something like it) can't be stopped. The world is turning into a place where your digital mistakes are archived and accessible to everyone. It's useful trying to work out how to live in a world like that, it's not worth trying to stop it.

Maybe these sorts of leaked cables will seem like nothing special to a generation of people whose drunken teenage angsty poseur Facebook pictures and posts are still up there thirty years later. Maybe that means we have a generation to wait before political life catches up with technology.

Do the leaked cables change anything? I wasn't aware of how anti-Iran the Arab leaders are, or of how ineffective Putin is at controlling the Russian government, or of what China really feels about North Korea. So I learnt something. The only way I can imagine the leaking having an actual impact is through people learning more and then applying slow gentle pressure to their governments, the sort of gentle pressure that allows politicians to take small steps because they sense the people are with them, or prevents them from taking small steps.

The US government is in an interesting predicament. It made all these documents float freely around a network as part of a deliberate attempt to "join the dots" after 9/11. I.e. it realized that an effective organization requires open communication. But open communication can't be contained. Assange is trying to provoke the US (and other organizations) to decide whether they will be ineffective with limited communication, or effective with open communication. It's exactly what the West has been preaching at China (the only way to a vibrant knowledge economy is through freedom of expression).

I'm thinking of a statement like this from Hilary Clinton:

"China has a lot of very positive results from economic growth, but I will predict to you, I don't know whether it's five years or 10 years or 15, there is an inherent conflict between economic freedom and the lack of political freedom," she said in a speech in Malaysia in early November.
"The political space for speaking out has not grown."

'Speaking out' means saying something and having it accessible to a wide audience. Clinton is saying that the state should not interfere with these communications.

The US SIPRNET, from where the leaks came, is a communications network designed to disseminate nuggets of information to a wide range of possible listeners, any of whom might be able to do something useful with it.

You might be able to achieve a bit of a reduction in inter-governmental partitioning just by getting the heads of departments to meet for coffee twice a week. But I think they came up with SIPRNET because they realized that "coffee morning for department heads" won't achieve anything, what you actually need is to get the nuggets of information to the people who can do something with them. The department heads don't know who needs what, only the individual experts know who needs what.

So I do think it is fair to say that what Hilary Clinton is preaching to China is very close to what the US embodied with SIPRNET.

This is just another phenomenon that the Westphalian state is unable to deal with. How did they deal with multi-nationals? Be bending over and taking it. With climate change? By burying their head. I am very keen to see what, if anything, will change.

Lastly, I think JFK had it right:

"The very word "secrecy" is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and to secret proceedings. We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweighed the dangers which are cited to justify it."

Does this mean that I think that all information should be free? No, rather that you should have to justify what you conceal rather than what you release. And national security has been used as a blanket to cover so very many sins. From Concentration Camps (Go Britain), torture, enforced sterilisation, assault, murder, rape, crimes against humanity, graves breaches of the laws and customs of war, and so on. These are all things done in the name of the state. Shouldn't they really be done in the name of the people?

[Callie Del Noire]

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/07/world/07sites.html?_r=1

This is the sort of intelligence I would be worried showing up on the list.

They found a list of sensitive sites among the documents. Most of them are already known, but now any backyard group with the ability to mix fertilizer and diesel knows about it.

No one needs to go out and list our most sensitive and vulnerable locations but this sure helps.

[Trieste]

Nobody needed our help to find the World Trade Center.

Nobody needed our help to find the Federal Building in Oklahoma city.

Nobody needed our help to bomb the London underground.

People who want to hurt us don't need to wait for this stuff. They can get it on their own, or think of things that diplomats might find unthinkable or impregnable.

[Callie Del Noire]

Nobody needed our help to find the World Trade Center.

Nobody needed our help to find the Federal Building in Oklahoma city.

Nobody needed our help to bomb the London underground.

People who want to hurt us don't need to wait for this stuff. They can get it on their own, or think of things that diplomats might find unthinkable or impregnable.

True.. but we also don't need to point out how to black out New England, how to cripple the water system in NYC, and
so on.

[mystictiger]

The list of institutions critical to US national society was interesting in that it included a snake-anti-venom plant in Australia, a Danish vaccine company, and a cobalt mine. In securitising everything - even 'targets' beyond their borders, the US administration has massively broadened what it regards as 'cruicial to national security'. I mean, a gas interchange in Siberia?

That high-pitched whirring noise is Kissinger is spinning rapidly in his metaphorical grave.

[Callie Del Noire]

The list of institutions critical to US national society was interesting in that it included a snake-anti-venom plant in Australia, a Danish vaccine company, and a cobalt mine. In securitising everything - even 'targets' beyond their borders, the US administration has massively broadened what it regards as 'cruicial to national security'. I mean, a gas interchange in Siberia?

That high-pitched whirring noise is Kissinger is spinning rapidly in his metaphorical grave.

Uh..he's not dead.

And.. global economy. Just because it's not in country doesn't mean it's NOT critical.

[Revolverman]

Uh..he's not dead.

And.. global economy. Just because it's not in country doesn't mean it's NOT critical.

Its also not the US's business.

[Trieste]

Uh..he's not dead.

(I suspect that's why it was described as 'metaphorical'.  ::))

[fallen paradise]

My 2 cents. While I can support the role of investigative journalism in our free society there are also ethical safeguards that help reign in the traditional media. I dislike the mentality that all information should be free. It is a pie in the sky idealistic notion that fails in basic society. I also disagree that secrecy is at direct odds with our democracy or rule of law. The legal system respects several types of secrecy. Attorney client privilege, the sanctity of marital privilege, doctor patient confidentiality - even the shield laws which allow true journalists to protect the identity of their sources.

People have this irrational fear of the government and seem to think that we must know everything they are doing. However it is somewhat arrogant to assume that the government officials who are dealing diplomatically with foreign nationals need some degree of privacy in order to fulfill their duties. The belief that honesty is always the best policy is about as foolish as other kindergarten ideals like "you can do anything you want to" or "we can get along with everyone."

I'm not saying that lying or hiding things is the best policy either, but to say either must preclude the other is an example of binary thinking that ignores the intensely nuanced reality in which we live.

[Callie Del Noire]

My 2 cents. While I can support the role of investigative journalism in our free society there are also ethical safeguards that help reign in the traditional media. I dislike the mentality that all information should be free. It is a pie in the sky idealistic notion that fails in basic society. I also disagree that secrecy is at direct odds with our democracy or rule of law. The legal system respects several types of secrecy. Attorney client privilege, the sanctity of marital privilege, doctor patient confidentiality - even the shield laws which allow true journalists to protect the identity of their sources.

You know, I just realized something. Wikileaks wouldn't respect ANY of those elements of secrecy. If they got anything that tied to one of them they wouldn't care. I could see them posting anything that they thought would merit attention.

[Callie Del Noire]

Color me a bit confused, but isn't it harder for the US to extradite Assange from Sweden than the UK? I know as long as the death penalty isn't on the docket it is fairly cut and dried. Though the UK authorities don't have anything on him and last time I checked "bloody tool" wasn't a chargeable offense in the States either.

Not that given the level of support Assange has, that I expect the case in Sweden to hold water.

[Trieste]

If 'being a tool' was a chargeable offense in the US I guarantee you that every president, vice prez, secretary of state and most senators would be in jail because I guarantee you at least one person in the country thought they were being a tool at least once. :P

[Callie Del Noire]

If 'being a tool' was a chargeable offense in the US I guarantee you that every president, vice prez, secretary of state and most senators would be in jail because I guarantee you at least one person in the country thought they were being a tool at least once. :P

Exactly. Why not go to Swedenband let a bunch of high price lawyers tear the case to shreds?  I can't find much that fills me with confidence on the charges. Whereas he breaks a law in the UK, he's extradited before high tea. Well not really but as soon as the US can find something to stick.

Right now, he is at most 'persona non grata' in the US. I don't see a reason to grant him an entry visa, but nothing he's done merits jail time in the States.

I do want to know who he pissed off in Sweden to get put on the Interpol most wanted list. That makes me curious. Of course i'm sure he won't tell us why. 

That would violate HIS privacy.

[Kate]

i think he is a champion of truth.

Secrecy and privacy are different. I think the main debate is what should be secret and what shouldnt be.

Personally I don't trust anyone who thinks that I am not suitable to know certain information - unless it relates to medical or romantic nature of others.

The idea that governments need secrecy to do what they wish is historical its not vital, and it is open to be abused.

Anything I want to try or two that is shameful or embrassing - hmm ... how about it in the national or party or my own interest for it to be secret and confidendial - phew => no accountability to anyone as they dont know or can prove anything. How would that not be abused.

If Julians work shows such power being abused, ideally it should raise the question "transparent government" - what no secret projects ? um no. What about military projects ? Um no. But wouldn't that give our weaknesses to other countries ? Yes and no - such a move would be something others would want to be part of - and i think a critcal mass of countries etc could make this the norm (ideally the un being the only real superpower ... all others have enough to manage skirmishes etc ... anything serious and un appears). This does mess with the idea of owneship for coorparations say pharmacudical companies researching a drug - giving that knowlege freely means they cant reap returns - but knowing something and directly exploiting it is different. I hope this could be a step towards a new look at the democracy we want "democracy 2.0"

[Bayushi]

What about military projects ? Um no. But wouldn't that give our weaknesses to other countries ? Yes and no - such a move would be something others would want to be part of - and i think a critcal mass of countries etc could make this the norm (ideally the un being the only real superpower ... all others have enough to manage skirmishes etc ... anything serious and un appears).

Pie in the Sky wishful thinking there, Kate.

Without the secrecy our military uses now, we'd have had much more death and destruction than you seem to realize.

The UN is not even a "power", much less a "super power". They are a bloated bureaucracy incapable of much of anything without demanding it of the US.

The "norm"? It will NEVER be the norm. People are people, and as people (in a group) are stupid, they will continue to do stupid things. War is as much a part of life as peace is. We will never have a century of existance without at least one major war.

"Openness" and "Transparency" did not win the Second World War. Nor did it end the Cold War.

[Soran]

Okay, I haven't gone through every post, but as far as I'm concerned, Mr Wikileaks is guilty of Treason. The old fanfare of 'free speech' gets old fast. Free Speech is all well and good, but when that has real world consequences that could have profound effects on how a country deals with others, it goes too far. It's like broadcasting the exact position and disposition of your countries forces giving an enemy a devastating advantage. Treason, pure and simple. Shoot the fucker and be done.

[Oniya]

The problem with calling it treason is that he is not a US citizen.  I don't think you can be charged with treason against a foreign country.

[Soran]

He's Australian, a citizen of an ally of the U.S. then I think a treason charge is still applicable. Just my opinion of course :)

[Trieste]

>.> Treason applies only to US citizens, not allies.

The thing he might be guilty of (debatable) is espionage.

[kylie]

        I think Kate might be onto something there...  If you look at the history of technology and public disclosure of information, there is usually some body of information that is actually treated as publicly available by a growing number of people -- before it is officially public knowledge.  During that time, there are also usually a number of opponents of that information actually being declared publicly accessible.  And yet, in many of these cases, in the end it is all put online and most people have access to it.  By that time, it all seems less novel and in fact, only a limited number of people actually access it and make much use of it.  But when the need arises, there it is.  A widely known, informal protocol has evolved such that people generally only use it for what it was made available for.

       One example might be databases of prior legal cases, which may include a great amount of private data and information about the workings of large organizations.  We could imagine excuses for a government to declare these state secrets if it were so inclined (and in a time of large-scale, conventional war it might well do so), but we do not see our government doing this.  The material is out there in the open -- for those who are really dedicated to finding it, that is.  So...  The question becomes why is a particular kind of information deemed essential to security or where is the balancing point between security and the public's interest in ethical government. 

       While I have heard the argument that in principle, none of the documents should have left their home databases...  Once we actually crossed that bridge, it seems that the media organizations have done a fairly decent job of either not releasing those cables that were fundamental to national security, or redacting portions that were sensitive themselves.  Given that our major media outlets already have a tradition of staying cozy with the government apparatus and that includes an understanding of what kinds of release will really get them blacklisted...  I'm not sure I can see this as an exceptional case.  Now if Wikileaks had not redacted anything and simply posted the whole archive in the original then it would perhaps be another story.   

       I'm sure some people will disagree, but it strains my imagination to think that what has been released was not already fairly common knowledge in policy circles and even among most militant organizations with a half decent intelligence arm.    The average American citizen might not have known that many Mideast governments were keeping a wary eye on Iran, but I can't believe that our diplomats were the only ones with any inkling of this.  It seems that there is a pretty long history of realist, balance of power politics and shrewd bargaining in the region... 

       I'd venture it's much more likely that the only people truly in the dark were those Western publics whose education, media, and politicians really don't tell them much about these regions their countries have invested so much for adventures in.   Unfortunately, I bet most of us will remain in the dark because 1) most people won't read so much of it and aren't interested to research and make sense of it (it's also in diplo-jargon), and 2) it's still been selectively released to the point where we may not have all that much more clue than what we started with. 

       As for the militants:  Even if they didn't have so much info to read on one site before, they still have to go to the work of reading/ catching up and they can only read what has been released, with redactions and what not.  Assuming they can manage that, then they have to decide whatever to really believe and what is important or useful, just like all the diplomats.  It's not like releasing a troop movement hours before the event.   

[Callie Del Noire]

It's been well known for a LONG time that the Saudis, Kuwaitis and most of the smaller Gulf States look upon Iran as the 'bully on the block.' They have a MASSIVE length of beach, and have for all intents and purposes control of the entrance to the Gulf. The Straits are only like ten or so miles wide and they can almost boresight a gun to fire upon traffic coming and going. That means without a military that they respect running 'traffic cop' in the gulf, they can pretty much do what they damn well please.

So yeah, the requests from the Saudi and Kuwaiti governments about them come as no surprise. I imagine the US (along with anyone else who would listen and had the forces to fight them) have had LOTS of requests about dealing with Iran over the years. No one likes a theocratic government like Iran next door, knowing that they might want to expand their borders. (And I have heard those sorts of concerns in Bahrain and Dubai YEARS ago when I did my tour through there.) They are mostly moderate governments and know the Iranians would love to line a lot of the officials against a wall and shoot them.

[Reno]

Bruce Schneier made a great point recently (the particular post is about the growing tendency to attempt to criminalize citizens recording police, but the point is salient to WL as well). 

Privacy has to be viewed in the context of relative power. For example, the government has a lot more power than the people. So privacy for the government increases their power and increases the power imbalance between government and the people; it decreases liberty. Forced openness in government -- open government laws, Freedom of Information Act filings, the recording of police officers and other government officials, WikiLeaks -- reduces the power imbalance between government and the people, and increases liberty.

[Kate]

"He's Australian, a citizen of an ally of the U.S. then I think a treason charge is still applicable. Just my opinion of course :)" - Soran

Soran... that perspective is scary. I would feed the opposite view more. Fence sitters would be more swayed to my side of thinking if views like that were a common us civilian stance.

I think "Treason" is a label that is immature, many things could be deemed as such if its not in the existing powerbases best interest => "Treason" is too large a net, too crude a tool and implies more mal-intent than what the actions really were intended for or have done.

To me its like saying

"Witch because I say so ... burn them."

[Callie Del Noire]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/jan/03/zimbabwe-morgan-tsvangirai

I've cruised most of the US new sources (including the AP, Reuters and a print news agencies) and haven't found much on this side of the Atlantic. Most of what I found are from folks like The Guardian and such. Anyone else hear about this?

Basically Wikileaks posted a message that put the reform-minded member of the Zimbabwe's government. Morgan Tsvangirai talked to western diplomats about the use of sanctions to promote positive change in the regime in that country. As a result of the release of these cables, he is being investigated for possible treason charges.

Which will result in his death and the setting back of reform and government change 30 years in that country. I find it strange that has been curiously unaddressed in the US media.

[Kate]

"The ends justifying the means" seems to apply to many perspectives.

"The means of exposing secrets to see to a certain end"
"The means of imposing secrets to see to a certain end"

What I don't seem to follow is a strong belief that if secrecy is exploited for non ethical intentions,

Those exposing it should be punished, this effectively gives says

"Hmm governments and stuff should be allowed to be unethical and do dogy stuff and play nasty games, thats what governments do in the past therefore it should be fine for the current one and future ones. Sure others may have issues with it but THAT only happened because it stopped being secret.

The "problem" isn't how power is abused people should expect it to be abused. The  problem is others making it public so lets punish the exposers, protect the abusers of secrecy ... um we have laws for that yes - treason ? espionage phew !! wow thay are catch all aces for heaps ! damn if I am not going to play those any time I can

... hmm how do we prevent this happening again ?

Hmm lets make more conditions that count for such things - penalties harsher and put pressure on other countries to do the same in case its their civillians that pissed us off - wouldn't mind reaching those also ... hmm done.

What a great days work, my mom must be so proud. God bless America. The land of true truth, the real just, the only right, cause damn we have options for those who see life through their own perspective.

Hmm, seems all our trade conditions ensure these are now settled and no room for debate - excellent makes my job easier. Which means I may be bored tomorrow ... lets have a look at that list of resources that America wants more of ... rare earths ? Who has all those ? China ! damn thats a super power can't take over that one that easily, pity, hmm whats next on the list...  Ah ! good that will do, now to try and make up a reason for us to appear in force... hmm tentative but what the hell... lets do that anyway. Done !  Wow what america does for world peace. They just dont get it - there would be no more wars if everyone just agreed to america ! We have already proved we are altruistic ! Those lorals can't be worn thin - ever. After WWII we could have kept on conquering but we didn't so that proves we are good, for ever more no matter what .... hey we even made the UN - yeah we veto anything that could take away our power but its called the UN so that should be enough."

Even if some laws are broken, how appropriate they are should be placed in doubt if their existence is being exploited.
If you have a law for something it doesn't mean the law is right. Many unethical laws exist, doesn't mean applying the law is justified. "Under the law we can detain X for Y days with charge" => Therefore legal - therefor ok.
or "This is an act of espionage = therefore illegal - therefore bad.

This lets laws define too much, we stop being people and become "behavior sets" which different processes apply to.

Terrorist ??  <facepalm>

Now I know this isn't true of individual American citizens nor likely is true from an individuals within ministries of the US.
But as far as foreign policy goes as a whole America seems to act this way, and just doesn't seem to want to stop,

What seems to be pushed is everyone "else" which is wrong, and that America is authoritarian on what is good or right, or true. This doesn't win hearts and minds, fighting momentum of non-agreement or disagreement its just going to make America "vs" more and more and more and more for longer and longer and longer, until something gives.

Ideally internally to America (ie their own civilians are bored of this) and America reinvents itself. Recent complications in other countries and wiki-leaks is an opportunity for that, if they are not what would be ? America always seems to need to be on top of everything .. they can't just let some things go and chill out a little and frankly I'm not sure if America can stop doing this even if it knows its spreading itself too thin, I think it would prefer to tear itself to pieces than give up trying.

So much drama ... America just chill !  More like Dramerica :)

And I know some here are USA citizens and will feel passionate about defending the actions of their country. But most others in other countries don't have the same passionate-nationalistic-association on dynamic principals though and are more than happy to go

" from your perspective yeah you have a point , still we work with what we have " and leave it there ..

but ones who are a ... Dramerican ... (and I am not saying all Americans are) they will want to choose conflict with what I say and NEED to assume an authoritarian stance on interpretation and truth.... want to fight what I imply here. Imply what I am saying is due to an inferior or flawed mindset, will want others to agree with you, need to win (America = win, game = everything, time = always, place = everywhere) , act if so by their own fathoming - beleive they have. Then be dismissive on those who didn't side with you ... then choose an aggressive stance on another topic ...  pounce on it ... choose a hard line, be exposed to those not agreeing ... repeat.

If America was a person its not a friend, nor someone one can really reason with, more like a sports jock that shouts the loudest, threatens the most, punches the fastest the hardest and knows it. Muscles their way to steal every ball they see anyone playing with, no matter what game.   Seems America doesn't want to "play" with other nations - they just want to "own" all balls others can play with. The only times they even think to appeal to other nations is when there is behavior they want other nations to do for Americas best interest.

If countries were people, and the world a house, America would be one of the most unpleasant people to live with,
but you have to agree with the arrogant loud mouth aggressive jock because you don't want to be beaten up for even implying they are a <bleep>.

"Omg America we be worse so therefore is good. And has done some good therefore good" ... no, just because the jock has done SOME good and hasnt yet eaten every baby and killed all the houses pets doesn't make the jock good or right or truthful or reasonable on subjects the jock chooses have issues with.

Each issue the jock does, it chooses one of the hardest stances conceivable. The only reason the jock isn't eating all the houses babies is because currently the jock doesn't want to, judging from past behavior its certainly not ethical or humanitarian reasons which would prevent them doing so.

Doing whatever you want then claiming its "In the interests of world peace" ... "In the interests of National Security" or "its principal X which is more important than any conflicting principal, we have thought about it longer and in a manner more in depth and inclusive than anyone cause we are America, we are more authoritarian on what that is and when it applies so there. And OMG the world will implode otherwise ! trust us we know ! One way - American way.

Then vilifying or dismissing those who think otherwise only enchants .. and enthralls and convinces.

... the Dramericans.

[Callie Del Noire]

Uh.. Kate, what was all that about? I simply asked if anyone had seen something outside UK commentary on what happened.

And FYI, the UN Veto isn't just the US. EVERYONE on the security council has it. Hence the actual lack of action on the behalf of the UN.

[Kate]

Callie,

I never said just the USA has veto powers, nor was my past post a critique of yours :)

[kylie]

 That's an interesting column, Callie!  First the philosophical part…  I’ll be back with a little research section. 

          It is indeed curious that more real "news" articles have not been generated about it...  After some searching, I think that is because the actual situation is quite messy.  Which if I am not awfully mistaken, is the sort of politics Wikileaks aims to expose.  Do many people have the time and courage to pursue accountability for the actors in question after that?  Perhaps not...  It may be useful for research, though.  Sometimes, society adopts the concepts writers churn out a few (or many) years later.

          Speaking a few Googles up from the average Zimbabwe-clueless American, we have a fundamental problem.  No one knows very much about what is actually going on.  That's fine if you take it for granted that our government always does all of the research for us.  "Obviously" they must have done the legwork appropriately and figured out properly who the "least worst" people to cozy up to might be.  "Surely," State's agenda is all good for democracy and human rights and women and minorities.  "Surely" they are going to ensure that a rising tide lifts all boats in Africa soon.   "Of course" there is nothing neo-colonialist going on here... 

         Oh, but since it's in the news and we have a few summaries of "insider" talk to make it sound juicy, we can drag ourselves off Facebook for an hour and take just a little peek.  Who knows, we might just learn something that gives us outsiders new ideas about what is important.  Scary, huh?  Why, governments shut off credit cards (to Swedish outfits no less!) and come up with excuses to kill people who suggest there might be something else that's important in life...  They call it counterintelligence and national security, too.  (PS: It's really better job security than chasing WMD.  Who’s ever going to find out if you did something in Africa or not?  Just drop the “uranium” part.)

A conservative, perhaps more "security"-oriented perspective boils down to:
                     " You can't handle the truth! "   

          Well, if you must put it that way:  Naturally.  Wasn't it Foucault who said that Power (by one definition among a few) is what says "NO".  We can proceed with a debate that assumes that is the only important thing.  If we assume that is the most important perspective, then anyone who wishes to accomplish anything must first deny all other agendas.  The true leader must disclaim any trace of competing influences whatsoever.  The conservative view adopts this sort of logic.  It seeks to means control information for everyone else but the vanguard. 

        That is to say, all the other people who one feels are not sufficiently virtuous enough to know what's happening out there.  For "virtuous," now substitute your choice of virtue:  Who should be in the know?  Should it be the richest, the most well-armed, the career technocrats and intel people, the nationalists wishing to shake off the global economy, the socialists, the reformers and idealists with another vision perhaps...?  To the extent we agree “to draw the line somewhere,” this is the old power struggle we're playing.  Whatever leadership we privilege in our choice, we can go on arguing that faction is the only one who should legitimately restrict (and often, distort) information about the world from a position of advantage.

         I know this may feel rather abstract to some readers…  More on Zimbabwe in a bit.

[Callie Del Noire]

Well there is more. The major rival of  Mugabe, the incumbent who has killed many to stay in office, is outed. Then there is evidence of Mugabe's wife being involved in diamond smuggling as well (she of course denies it).

I get depressed on how little is actually being said on issues in Africa. Check out a Belgium documentary called Darwin's Nightmare.

Thing is I'm wondering why there is little commentary in the news and online in the US, aside from political Blogs on both sides of the spectrum, and asked about that.

Side note: I recall issues with Zimbawe for years and years, but like some areas in Asia, it's never been 'economically significant' and thus doesn't get noticed loudly by the media.

[kylie]

          Well, Callie you've mentioned some of it but I wanted to look too.  First, a few references...    Cable regarding Tsvingari's discussion of sanctions.  Dec. 8 release.  I presume that is the specific one featured in the column in [grr, not OP] Callie's reference.  The column simultaneously cites the cable to attack Assange, and yet does not link to the cable.  (It's red: Do you think if you click it, your credit rating goes down?)  I find that sloppy/unusual and disturbing, but moving forward...    Some news sites from Africa and South Asia were reporting on it at least since mid-December (that's just the earliest I saw, at a very brief Google search).  On Dec. 31: An opinion piece in Wall St Journal. -- This goes in a pretty similar direction to the column.  Perhaps with a little finer grain...    Apparently after the story broke...  Wikileaks supporters (at least reportedly so)/ hackers from a group called "Anonymous" began targeting Mugabe websites for attack.  Possibly a demonstration that they are after any corrupt power, and not only the US government as some claimed? 

         Now on the column:  Disregarding huge hyperbole in its last paragraph, the column alleges that Wikileaks has harmed US interests by providing Mugabe with an excuse to prosecute Tsvangirai for treason.  There are certain built-in assumptions. 

     1)   Regime change is what "The Doctor" (I guess that would be Dr. Sam) prescribes for Zimbabwe. 
     2)   Tsvangirai is a reasonably good partner in achieving that.
     3)   Mugabe is only able to touch Tsvangirai because of the leaked cable.
     4)   Pursuing regime change through the agency of Tsvangirai is the overriding goal.  The resulting damage to that relationship and to this case in the short term, should not be excused by any other concerns.   
           >>> For example:  No one should argue that the posting by Wikileaks has overriding benefits for any of the following:  The absolute welfare of Zimbabwe (however one measures that); international relations in general, readers' ability to comprehend Zimbabwe or international relations in general; accountability of the US government, various Zimbabwe factions and others (to the extent that broader publics are actually paying attention); and freedom of the press (just in case I missed part of it).     

          I'm hardly familiar with Zimbabwe, but it seems like there is some general agreement on #1.  I'll let them have that one for now...  On #2:  Another cable has also shown that although the US appears to have thrown in its hand with Tsvangirai out of a certain pragmatic calculation, State apparently regards him as far from an ideal associate.  "A flawed character" is the line that news organizations have eaten up from that cable.  So there is a certain amount of doubt perhaps.  The BBC posted an article with mentions of Tsvangirai's track record...  Typical jumble in African politics, you might say...  Without questioning yet however we (the West/ "international community" of recent years) may have contributed to that situation...  I'll let this one slide also.

        On #3, I'm skeptical. Again, it seems to me that people in these situations know who their opposition is.  If they have any real means, they find a way to take a crack at them.  Mugabe has been taking shots at Tsvangirai well before Wikileaks came along.  Kirchick's article mentions that in 2009, the regime was suspected of orchestrating a car crash.  The question then becomes, is the cable release going to change that?  Say if you like that in principle, that is one question we shouldn't have to face anyway.  However, I think that in most situations where the question arises, it is not going to be a game changer.  The first cable mentions that sanctions would be aimed at a small group of elites, not the general populace.  Those elites are probably already in a position to realize that if sanctions were removed, they stand to profit.  They know the opposition imagines the effect of the sanctions too.   

          I'm inclined to think that if Tsvingari has a measure of safety, then he has decent security personnel, some popular support, or both.  Whether honestly or as a political maneuver, Tsvangirai himself is not so much denying the story (which I think you’d rather expect in the American politics of flag pins or else.  No Muslims on screen – we’re campaigning!).  Instead, he’s saying effectively (through spokesman): so what if I did.  The people are behind me.  I have a mandate, and I’m going to pursue it however I can!  You want to talk “treason”?  Okay then, first go after the general trying to shut down elections on the other side.  Tsvangirai is also saying that Wikileaks is to credit for sharing another cable – (or at least one) that raises Mugabe and family involvement with blood diamonds.         

          On point #4:  The significance of the cable release depends entirely on your view of world politics at a broader level.  There, I tend to agree with Kate's somewhat extensive arguments above.  The emphasis on support for a particular faction and regime change “on our watch” or whatever the short term may be, strikes me as a narrow excuse for secrecy here.  Do we know Zimbabwe well enough to argue about whether US economic manipulation is good for its politics historically, let alone US backing for particular factions?  Can we really argue with a clear conscience that the world economy as the West installed it has been good for Zimbabwe, or for many African populations?   Might we imagine something else?  A different kind of aid policy?  A hands-off policy?  The complaint against Wikileaks is that it has cost the US some relative leverage over the direction of politics in Zimbabwe.  While we’re focusing on that, we are not talking about the overall situation of Africa, the global South, or even the US.  We’re out policing, but most of the news is about the evil dictators.  (Hmm, at least WMD must be out of style.)  When it comes to Africa especially: Very little is said about the dealings and manipulations of the cops and fair weather friends.  Apart from these alternative sources...

[Callie Del Noire]

Here's a question that keeps coming up in the political blogs.

Does the release of the cable involving him (Tsvingari) count as collateral murder or not? I've commented that the rampant release of these documents would endanger people who were working with the US and it's allies as well as damage the trust needed to conduct diplomacy.

On one hand, Mugabe has (and most likely would have again) charged Tsvingari with treason (along with a lot of his other rivals). Tsvingari is man, feet of clay and all, BUT Mugabe has spent the last 30 years staying in power. Several rivals died in 'car crashes' and it is interesting that Tsvingari was Prime Minster for ONE month when he and his wife were hit in a car accident.  (Tsvingari's wife died in the crash).

Mugabe has and will continue to do whatever it takes to stay in power.

My question is, is this an example of Wikileaks' release of cables putting someone in peril or not?

It walks the line and I'm not too sure as yet.

[Oniya]

         Now on the OP column:  Disregarding huge hyperbole in its last paragraph, the column alleges that Wikileaks has harmed US interests by providing Mugabe with an excuse to prosecute Tsvangirai for treason.  There are certain built-in assumptions. 

I thought the point was that Wikileaks has potentially harmed Tsvangirai himself.

[kylie]

         You're partly right, Oniya...  However, consider the way the column pinned this man with the hopes of the US/West too: 

... But now, with the recent release of sensitive diplomatic cables, WikiLeaks may have committed its own collateral murder, upending the precarious balance of power in a fragile African state and signing the death warrant of its pro-western premier.

          I'm fuzzy on whether it's all more or less one in the same when he's bundled into terminology like "democratic opposition."  Although the fact might be that it's more nationalist and perhaps grass-roots...  The wording as used in our media, lends itself neatly to both human rights activists (should they choose to accept the characterization) or to some "security" types who feel Assange deserves the terrorist label.  With us or against us, and all that...  "Democratic opposition" could be mostly local.  Or it could be a lot of wishful thinking on the part of Western organizations with "their dog in the fight" (as they see it).

         To be fair, Tsvangirai just might be the upright sort of guy...  I don't really know, apart from the cable murmuring that he's not the most brilliant strategist etc.  Apparently he once led a massacre by the same party that Mugabe rode into power, but he later presented his remorse...  I'm a little skeptical when it comes to national candidates and such an embattled arena, though.  My hunch would be that he has some goo on his fingers, just hopefully not too much unnecessary blood? 

         But then generally: I tend to think you should admit cross-cutting interests and flaws, rather than see them all as scandal fodder...  I'm more worried about what kind of system sustains the regional mess he inherited, than whether we have a sort of temporary, possibly US-backed fix in his particular corner for a couple years.  Even the diplomats are saying, he may finally win only to lose it all again.

         All this doesn't mean that it would be meaningless if in fact the cable made that much difference (which I doubt it did)...  To me, though, it would downgrade the actual impact a lot.     

[Callie Del Noire]

The question I'm putting forward is this: 'Did the Wikileaks' release of a confidential discussion get this man killed'.

Not: 'Is this man the second coming of Ghandi/Nelson Mandela?'

A lot of folks have argued that the release of these documents have done 'no harm to anyone directly' or 'everything that was released was already known if you knew where to look'.

In this case it wasn't knowledge commonly available. And anyone that looked on Mugabe's past actions to political rivals (and their 'accidents') would know what would happen.

[kylie]

The question I'm putting forward is this: 'Did the Wikileaks' release of a confidential discussion get this man killed'.

Not: 'Is this man the second coming of Ghandi/Nelson Mandela?'

A lot of folks have argued that the release of these documents have done 'no harm to anyone directly' or 'everything that was released was already known if you knew where to look'.

          Well, if the capabilities of the person in question are not important, then why fuss over this particular case at all?  We have to look at his present situation and the ultimate goals we consider important.  Everyone can pick a different formula to say just how they tally the costs and benefits.  If some incremental increase in threat to this significant figure is a cost, then does it exceed the potential benefits?  Otherwise: I don't see the point arguing over how many different, mechanical ways various mortals could die and how soon precisely if we all do or don't know different things.  One doesn't call "collateral damage" or "terrorists" without a conflict over some kind of values, objectives -- and a specific group of people declared as worth more than others.

          All kinds of information can cause a change in history and may lead to a death, or to someone not being born for that matter.  We can stop opening all the newspapers, and maybe see who is lost because we were missing some pertinent warnings that day...  So yes obviously, the claim that information is harmless should not be read literally.  If you think about it, aren't we all guilty of collateral damage to the extent we don't stop pursuing lives that are at others' expense, somewhere along the economic supply chain?  I suppose it's possible to argue that this or that cable is more likely than others to increase the occupational risk for certain people...  But how many people stand to benefit from so many cables being released, and how and when?  Perhaps more honestly:  Which people exactly -- Not only what nation or faction of the moment, but which class, and what kind of ethical agents?     

In this case it wasn't knowledge commonly available. And anyone that looked on Mugabe's past actions to political rivals (and their 'accidents') would know what would happen.

         Okay now Tsvingari is a VIP after all -- for just as long as he is useful or "virtuous" enough...  Yes, I understand that people may say this creates a problem for him.  I don't know well enough if this is the sort of problem where it's all threat and no gain, or if a higher profile works to his advantage (in this case, as he also goes on pointing to the diamond mines cables etc.). 
   
          Since there is always a conflict...  Will more information in the clear make the conflict heat up?  Will it contribute to a nicer outcome sooner or later?  Who really knows?  With more transparency, people may make better choices.  Governance might also improve.  If in the near future the prime minister is killed, then lots of people will blame Wikileaks for "increasing" risks, without any further evidence.  If that does not come to pass and more pressure lands on Mugabe, then some people will credit Wikileaks with throwing light on the whole situation...  In fact, either position might be too simplistic.  Who can really predict this with crystal clarity, through all the variables?  If you want to find some "line," I think it's wide and fuzzy rather than thin and red...  There are so many issues playing at so many levels.  It's too easy to say that journalists and lay people should never get involved.  That too easily blurs into arguing that they should never know anything, either. 
   

[Oniya]

What I saw was a simple counter to the argument that the release has done no direct harm to anyone.  Callie's post showed that yes, the release of this confidential information could indeed endanger this one specific person.  Had the contents of that discussion not been leaked (by Wikileaks or someone else), then Tsvangirai's role in the sanctions would have remained 'under the table'.  Had he transparently supported the sanctions, there's no question that he would have suffered the consequences for it.

True, Mugabe is probably looking for any excuse or opportunity to off someone who disagrees with him, but this does sort of hand it to him on a silver platter.  It's like saying 'Hi, you're pretty pissed off at that guy over there.  You'd kill him if you could.  Here's the firing pin for that gun over there."  A firing pin is a rather innocuous thing by itself, but without it, the gun is useless.

The problem I see is that the goal line is now being moved.  Rather than 'this hasn't done anyone any harm that we know of', it's 'this hasn't done any harm to any good-guys that we know of'.

[Callie Del Noire]

Okay, I see four paragraphs and nothing to answer the question put forward by me.

It could be just as easily have been a Banker who was being coerced by human traffickers to launder money. I brought this up because this is the FIRST case that was as a result of the leaks explicitly.

The question was: 'If he's killed because the evidence that Wikileaks provided, can Assange and Wikileaks continue to say that they aren't responsible for it?'

Not a debate on the merit of the person being killed. Which is what you seem to be discussing Kylie.

If tomorrow the news comes out that Mutabe's wife, who was named in diamond smuggling, ordered the murder of the men her group pressed into hand picking them out of the soil would it still be a four paragraph debate on the merits of 'free information'?

Or is Wikileaks 'free data' more important than a bunch of pressganged farmers in Africa as well? When does responsiblity for their actions finally come up? One man, a dozen, hundred or does the release of the cables triggering a slaughter into the thousands still not stain their hands.

Mugabe is the type of man Wikileaks worked against with the release of evidence of their corruption, now they are aiding him in securing a hold on his only real rival? Sorry, time to face up to the implications of their actions.'

And since when do we measure the merit of the life our actions kill? Last time I checked murder, by proxy or action, is still murder.

[Will]

So America lost a chance to meddle in another country's politics?  I'm not sure that's a bad thing, regardless of whether the guy dies or not.  That sort of thing hasn't always worked out in our favor.  I won't argue that information released by Wikileaks could lead to people being killed.  I'm just saying that, in this particular case, I see plenty of upside to balance the down.

[Callie Del Noire]

Wow.. it's amazing how well so many people think it's okay that a reasonably good man in a country run by bad men is going to die because Wikileaks didn't think before they put stuff out.

I guess it's alright because it's not us dying. It's only someone overseas in Africa. No one important apparently.

[Will]

Oh, you've never thought it was okay for someone to die to serve a better purpose in foreign policy?

[Callie Del Noire]

Oh, you've never thought it was okay for someone to die to serve a better purpose in foreign policy?

Okay.. so you're saying that it's NOT okay for a journalist to out a Confidential Informant THIS (which is the same thing) IS OKAY?

Look. Diplomatic discussions go on ALL the time. A LOT of stuff isn't exactly kosher at the onset. For example, what would the folks of the 1970s congress had said/done if they knew President Nixon was opening diplomatic talks with China before he finished the initial work?

I'd tell you what.. He'd have been IMPEACHED and we'd have been decades building diplomatic bridges with them. Tensions today would be much higher without the work he did. And at the time he did it, it could have ended his career. It, if it hadn't been for his stupid actions over Watergate, would have been looked on as a measure equal in scope to the Camp David accords by President Carter. Both men, in those specific cases, did a LOT to build towards lowering tensions and building a diplomatic structure.

Mugabe has tried at least three times to kill Tsvangirai using the process of law, and I find it VERY coincidental that a mere month after he was forced to share power with Tsvangirai that the man and his wife were in a car accident. Mugabe is NOT a good man, he's done a LOT to keep ethic/tribal tensions at a peak. There are a LOT of bodies at his feet, and that of the party he leads.

You can't honestly tell me anyone that knows how to read Time, the New York Times, hell wikipedia wouldn't know what he'd do if he found out his MAJOR rival, and possibly the only threat to the power he and he party hold and possibly the man to build the country into something that won't be described as 'despotic', wasn't going use it as a way to justify killing him.

Wikileaks goofed. They are as culpable for his death, if it happens, as a journalist would be for revealing a confidential informant or the source in the White house who outed Valerie Plame was for the people she worked with overseas that were killed as a result of her identity as a NOC (No Official Cover) Agent of the CIA.

I know that from my outlook on the cables leak, that a good portion of the folks who disagree with me think I dislike Wikileaks. I didn't. They did a lot of good in Africa showing corruption, and in places in Asia, but this was irresponsible, reckless and now..
I'm fairly certain it's going to be the death of at least one man. Time will have to pass to see if someone other than Tsvangirai dies because of the way they handled this.

[Will]

It was a yes or no question.

Do I think it was better that this guy die now, rather than us make a mess in another country and end up sending OUR citizens there in uniforms years down the line, just to have them get killed instead?  Yes, I do.

Okay.. so you're saying that it's NOT okay for a journalist to out a Confidential Informant THIS (which is the same thing) IS OKAY?

The case you mention had no positive results for us to outweigh the reckless outing.

[Callie Del Noire]

It was a yes or no question.

Do I think it was better that this guy die now, rather than us make a mess in another country and end up sending OUR citizens there in uniforms years down the line, just to have them get killed instead?  Yes, I do.

The case you mention had no positive results for us to outweigh the reckless outing.

I'm glad you don't make policy. That is an enormous amount of hubris there. Where, in the discussion of supporting UN backed sanctions against individuals in his country did Tsvangirai ask for military aid or was offered it?

Nowhere. Each of the incidents I cited (except Valerie Plame) were done in the interests of peace. Ironically Plame was outed to punish her husbands opposition to invading Iraq.

Tsvangirai's death will not stabilize his country, quite the opposite, and the man was perfectly willing to work with his rivals to promote change from within the government. That is reform, not revolt and most likely won't happen again. Leaders of his patience and sacrifice should be aided, not betrayed, by us.

Consider this, odds are Mugabe is behind the accident that happened to him a month after he took office. Could you work with a man that tried to kill you AND did kill your wife in that attempt?

This was not a prelude to us going in to invade. This was a normal diplomatic discussion behind closed doors.

[Will]

I'm glad you don't make policy. That is an enormous amount of hubris there. Where, in the discussion of supporting UN backed sanctions against individuals in his country did Tsvangirai ask for military aid or was offered it?

Nowhere. Each of the incidents I cited (except Valerie Plame) were done in the interests of peace. Ironically Plame was outed to punish her husbands opposition to invading Iraq.

Tsvangirai's death will not stabilize his country, quite the opposite, and the man was perfectly willing to work with his rivals to promote change from within the government. That is reform, not revolt and most likely won't happen again. Leaders of his patience and sacrifice should be aided, not betrayed, by us.

Consider this, odds are Mugabe is behind the accident that happened to him a month after he took office. Could you work with a man that tried to kill you AND did kill your wife in that attempt?

This was not a prelude to us going in to invade. This was a normal diplomatic discussion behind closed doors.

I'm not talking about Tsingvari inviting our military into Zimbabwe.  I'm talking about us going in years down the line (like I said) after things didn't work out the way we'd hoped.  It wouldn't be the first time someone we helped take power ended up turning against us, would it?  This sort of thing has a way of ending badly, it would seem.

And you keep talking about Tsingvari like he's a saint.  It really doesn't matter to me. : /

[Kate]

Wow.. it's amazing how well so many people think it's okay that a reasonably good man in a country run by bad men is going to die because Wikileaks didn't think before they put stuff out. I guess it's alright because it's not us dying. It's only someone overseas in Africa. No one important apparently.

"I thought the point was that Wikileaks has potentially harmed Tsvangirai himself."

'If he's killed because the evidence that Wikileaks provided, can Assange and Wikileaks continue to say that they aren't responsible for it?'

If tomorrow the news comes out that Mutabe's wife, who was named in diamond smuggling, ordered the murder of the men her group pressed into hand picking them out of the soil would it still be a four paragraph debate on the merits of 'free information'? Or is Wikileaks 'free data' more important than a bunch of pressganged farmers in Africa as well? When does responsibility for their actions finally come up? One man, a dozen, hundred or does the release of the cables triggering a slaughter into the thousands still not stain their hands. Mugabe is the type of man Wikileaks worked against with the release of evidence of their corruption, now they are aiding him in securing a hold on his only real rival? Sorry, time to face up to the implications of their actions.'

And since when do we measure the merit of the life our actions kill? Last time I checked murder, by proxy or action, is still murder.

Wiki-leaks => Murderer ?

Hmm. I don't think its Wikileaks which is abusing power they have. Nor is causing Tsvangirai harm, nor is trying to sue anyone or having any arrested. Wiki-leaks is releasing information to the public thats all. Those changing their actions based on information wikileaks produces do so for their own reasons. Reasons which Wikileaks did not create, nor stands for nor advocates.

~Actions~ others take based on information reveal their nature, not that of the messenger.

The more people who dislike what they see is in power and how power is used (or abused), the more difficult long term support will become, and the more particular they will to look for it in its germination stages. 

I beleive long term ~benefits~ of revealing the unethical nature of current ~institutions~ and ~governments~ behavior is what wiki-leaks advocates.

If he is killed ? That will likely backfire in the short medium or long term on the power choosing to do so, Martyrdom does have its place in positive aspects also - ie Biko south africa.

A lot of folks have argued that the release of these documents have done 'no harm to anyone directly' or 'everything that was released was already known if you knew where to look'. In this case it wasn't knowledge commonly available. And anyone that looked on Mugabe's past actions to political rivals (and their 'accidents') would know what would happen

What people do with the information isn't something that Wikileaks should be liable for.

Censoring information based on preventing A bad that COULD occur, even though GOOD could also is treating people like a second class
who "Can't handle the truth", and does assume the mantle of authority on what people should know and what they shouldn't, and frankly assumes short term complications is not worth that long term benefits that come from doing so...

What I think is more horrible than racism is information prejudiced for something that has far reaching implications of what currently done by people in power.

Taken to the extreme, biko - lets say the plight of biko was known to only wikileaks (and whoever gave it to wikileaks) but otherwise covered up. If the information was released it could be deemed that doing so is unjustified because of the danger to "whites" or those in government being violently overthrown. Thus deemed unethical to release the information, "too sensitive" to be released, the public being deemed "not being able to handle the truth"... if kept secret ... such abuse of power continues....

Short term complications (which can likely result in people being killed) vs long term benefits (fairer more ethical society generally).
I.E. our children inherit a "better world for it". I beleive its a governments role see to long term benefits for the world generally, starting with your own nation first. If governments don't ? Who should ? If governments aren't - Who should know ?

[Callie Del Noire]

I'm not talking about Tsingvari inviting our military into Zimbabwe.  I'm talking about us going in years down the line (like I said) after things didn't work out the way we'd hoped.  It wouldn't be the first time someone we helped take power ended up turning against us, would it?  This sort of thing has a way of ending badly, it would seem.

And you keep talking about Tsingvari like he's a saint.  It really doesn't matter to me. : /

Wow , that is an amazing amount of foresight there. So, folks we've had discussions with in the past diplomatically are all going to magically turn into bad people and thus it's perfectly okay to betray them ahead of time?

Tsingvari isn't a saint. There are no perfect men and women in the world, we all have feet of clay.  I just find that it is amazing that it's bad when a government official exposes a secret like this but when Assange and Wikileaks does it that it is a noble and 'good' thing.  That is an amazing amount of hubris there.

Have you looked at what has happened in zimbawa, what Mutabe's government has done and what Tsingvari's allies are trying to do?  Or is that immaterial as well?

"All that is needed for triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." Edmund Burke said that. When I first heard of Wikileaks it was there disclosure of police murdering people , in Kenya I think, and later a few things similar. They were doing things no one else could/would cover.

So following your logic it's okay to betray Tsingvari's expectation of confidentiality with diplomats because you say that years from now he might become a tyrant and we might have to go into Zimbabwe like we did in Iraq. Despite the fact that he has repeatedly has worked within the system.

Since when did what a man MIGHT do justify making his death okay?

What I get from your statements is a sense of concern that Tsingvari might turn into a Saddam and we would have to come in and put him down. What about the opposite? Good men can be good leaders, look at Ghandi and Mandela.

Sounds like a lot of NIHD (Nobody Important Here Died) on your outlook.

I hope that it's never in the greater good that MIGHT be served by indifference and apathy. Wikileaks claims to look out for the greater good, and like all gathering of good men and women should hold ourselves to a higher standard of ethics. Our actions could and should be at a higher level of conduct. I hope that the folks at Wikileaks look over this and see that some secrets need to stay hidden.

Actions have consequences and good people should accept and acknowledge when they make mistakes and strive to avoid them. To do any less allows them to contribute to the evil and not good, or to say it another way: if you are saying that a death at your hands is immaterial, be it through your actions or inaction, you demean the victim and start to lose the moral high ground. You've started placing value on people.


Simply put: Wikileaks claims journalistic privilege.  That privilege comes with RESPONSIBILITY. They are not taking care of the responsibility to do due diligence. Of course I'm old and was raised to believe the Fourth Estate had duties and responsibilities.

[Trieste]

Wow , that is an amazing amount of foresight there. So, folks we've had discussions with in the past diplomatically are all going to magically turn into bad people and thus it's perfectly okay to betray them ahead of time?

Okay, rhetorical question time: When you wrote this, what was your goal? Was it to clarify a point? Further the discussion productively? Because if your goal was anything other than those two things, then it really doesn't belong in Politics and Religion.

Please, keep it civil. Think about what your goals are when you write your words. We do not have body language, tone, or facial expressions to mitigate harsh statements.

Thank you.

[Callie Del Noire]

Okay, rhetorical question time: When you wrote this, what was your goal? Was it to clarify a point? Further the discussion productively? Because if your goal was anything other than those two things, then it really doesn't belong in Politics and Religion.

Please, keep it civil. Think about what your goals are when you write your words. We do not have body language, tone, or facial expressions to mitigate harsh statements.

Thank you.

Apologies.

I put up the link to show that Wikileaks claim of 'harming no one' was not entirely true. They claim a lot of the privileges of a journalistic organization but it seems that they don't want any of the responsibity or acknowledge that their actions have harmed people. It seems that the folks that support Assange and Wikileaks are willing to forgive a lot of things that they wouldn't accept from a journalist or government.

I see a lot of 'what might be' but since when do we act on what might possibly happen 10 years down the line and things like 'he's no saint'.

Its galling to hear people be okay with this sort of behavior. That secrets are bad and the consequence of actions aren't relevant in the 'grand view'.

I shall try to keep my language more moderate.

[Trieste]

Thank you. And, because I realized that I neglected to do so in my previous post, I want to stress that the quote from Callie was a convenient example, but she is far from the only one being harsh, here. I didn't mean to be targeted, but general.

The difficult thing is that both sides have merit to them. It's not really very cut and dried, this thing.

[Callie Del Noire]

Thank you. And, because I realized that I neglected to do so in my previous post, I want to stress that the quote from Callie was a convenient example, but she is far from the only one being harsh, here. I didn't mean to be targeted, but general.

The difficult thing is that both sides have merit to them. It's not really very cut and dried, this thing.

No, it's not a cut and dried thing. I simply want Wikileaks to behave as the group they claim to be. It's hard and difficult to do so but the moral and ethical path isn't an easy road. I see a lot of arrogance these days in their actions and little accountability.

Secrets aren't inherently evil, and revealing them willy-nilly isn't always good. I guess I'm tired of everything thing the 'little guy' doing as being seen as good and any action a government does to 'protect' secrets as evil.

I'm not going to post anymore for the next two days in this thread since clearly my language has started to creep away from what I intended to say. Wikileaks has done some good, and now I think they've done at least one specific act of evil. I wonder what they will do to make up for it.

See you in two days, maybe.

[Will]

Wow , that is an amazing amount of foresight there. So, folks we've had discussions with in the past diplomatically are all going to magically turn into bad people and thus it's perfectly okay to betray them ahead of time?

It's more than just a discussion.  You're trying to downplay it.

Tsingvari isn't a saint. There are no perfect men and women in the world, we all have feet of clay.  I just find that it is amazing that it's bad when a government official exposes a secret like this but when Assange and Wikileaks does it that it is a noble and 'good' thing.  That is an amazing amount of hubris there.

I never said it was a noble thing; you're putting words in my mouth.  I won't argue that Wikileaks may be responsible for this man's death.  That would be obtuse.  I'm just saying, that as shameful and unfortunate as that may be, I believe there's a silver lining.

Have you looked at what has happened in zimbawa, what Mutabe's government has done and what Tsingvari's allies are trying to do?  Or is that immaterial as well?

Of course.  I'm discussing it, aren't I?  I do try and read up on things like that.  But honestly?  Yeah, it's immaterial.  We don't have the resources to topple every tyrant in the world.

"All that is needed for triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." Edmund Burke said that. When I first heard of Wikileaks it was there disclosure of police murdering people , in Kenya I think, and later a few things similar. They were doing things no one else could/would cover.

Just because someone famous said it doesn't give it more weight than you saying it.  And yeah, Wikileaks performs a useful service, something that would have been done by someone eventually at some point regardless.  Assange just happened to be the guy that did it.

So following your logic it's okay to betray Tsingvari's expectation of confidentiality with diplomats because you say that years from now he might become a tyrant and we might have to go into Zimbabwe like we did in Iraq. Despite the fact that he has repeatedly has worked within the system.

It wasn't okay to betray him, but it was more un-okay in my opinion to try meddling in another country again.  Would I prefer a situation where Tsingvari doesn't die, and America pulls its hand out of that fire willingly?  Definitely!  But, sadly, that doesn't seem very likely.  I can't really stop my country from screwing around where it doesn't belong no matter who I vote for, apparently, so seeing them fail at the attempt is about the only hope I have.

Since when did what a man MIGHT do justify making his death okay?

What I get from your statements is a sense of concern that Tsingvari might turn into a Saddam and we would have to come in and put him down. What about the opposite? Good men can be good leaders, look at Ghandi and Mandela.

It's not just Saddam.  And Mandela and Ghandi went about their business largely without foreign intervention.  Not very convincing as a reason for us to intervene.

Sounds like a lot of NIHD (Nobody Important Here Died) on your outlook.

I already told you why I feel that way.  Better him than us.  I won't deny that Wikileaks has blood on its hands if he is executed, but as far as I'm concerned, so does the U.S. government for getting involved in the situation to begin with.  There is blame to go around.

I really feel that this is starting to drift into the realm of an emotional appeal from you.  There hasn't been much in the way of refuting my points in any sort of rational fashion.  Basically, all I'm saying, is that while Wikileaks may not be a "noble" enterprise, its activities clearly have some benefit.

[Apple of Eris]

Here's the thing about the Zimbabwe situation. It's being argued from a purely who is more helpful to us perspective. Is Mugabe, in my opinion, a morally reprehensible person who should be removed from power? Certainly. But That is -MY- perspective. There are those who support Mugabe who would argue the opposite, do they have a biased perpective and reason they want him to retain power? Of course, but then we have a biased reasoning for wanting him removed.

Now, imagine instead that it was the USA, and WikiLeaks revealed some information that the leader of the minority party in the United States was actively trying to topple the government with the support of a foreign power. Is WikiLeaks a murderer in that situation? Are they morally rephensible because the accused might be put on trial and killed? Or would you instead view them as patriotic for exposing a threat to your country? People in that other country would instead be calling for a crusade against WikiLeaks and we'd be discussing how wonderful they are - unless you were a supporter of the exposed person.

[Anithinum]

Disseminating classified information is a Federal Felony.
Providing classified military information to a foreign national is TREASON.
A foreign national receiving classified American military information, then distributing it is ESPIONAGE.
The idiot private should enjoy his stay in Leavenworth. Assange better hope he doesn't get extradited, because I believe we still shoot spies.

...so, Wikileaks(Assange) is not a Champion of Truth, nor a Terrorist. Assange is effectively a SPY, while the soldier is a traitor. People may end up dead because this info was broadcast on the internet. I have no sympathy for whatever may happen to either of these two.

Don't you think that's a bit harsh?

Essentially, I think regardless of putting other people's lives in danger, what WikiLeaks is doing, is showing people what's really going on in a world they're quite blindly walking through.
People's lives are in danger anyway, regardless of who leaks Military information. The reason why the leaks are frowned upon most is because classified information normally have contents that break a law themselves, or aren't completely safe or otherwise enclined to be classified because there is something in there that someone doesn't want us to know. Why should we as the civilians not be allowed to know what the Military, or Government is doing behind our backs? The Military is our shield, if we can't rely on the one thing that protects us, then how can you be unafraid for your family, or yourself when you're walking around. The Government is our voice, if we can't trust in that, then again how can you live unafraid? I think it's more important to make people aware of what's going on 'outside the box' (or people's everyday thinking) so that we can work towards something better than we are now.
  It's the same thing a reporter does, just on a larger scale...I don't see anyone complaining about the newspaper's flaunting people's personal life situations on the front page. So why is this any different? It's someone reporting to us what we have a right to know as the body of the country. 

[Kate]

I put up the link to show that Wikileaks claim of 'harming no one' was not entirely true. They claim a lot of the privileges of a journalistic organization but it seems that they don't want any of the responsibity or acknowledge that their actions have harmed people.

Their actions have not harmed people.

Wiki-leaks is not bombing, shooting, hitting, slapping, poisoning people.

People harm.

"Wiki-leaks" being responsible for their actions ? You mean responsible for what OTHERS do using the information ?

This doesn't make sense.

Some people taught others English. It doesn't make them responsible for others swearing or using it for for ridicule, slander, words implying racism, emotional harm, social harm. All because "those others wouldn't be able to insult that way if they didn't know English in the first place",  who taught them English knew this could happen thus must have same as the values of those abusing it by proxy. This is like making knife manufacturers responsible for stabbing murders because they would know the knifes at some point would be used against people, by someone somewhere somehow sometime ... or electricity company's responsible for all deaths via electric shock because  "they would have known at some point someone would be electrocuted".. Do we sue manufactures of bleach if someone drinks it and dies? because "they would have known someone would at some point".

=> Murder by proxy => Criminal sentences on all those facilitating its production and distribution of knife, bleach, um .. english...
and on and on ..

Responsibility for ones actions?

Hmm ... a lot easier to manage responsibily for actions when none know of them.

Management ? Easy => It never happened it didn't exist. Thus managed. Job done.

Its galling to hear people be okay with this sort of behavior. That secrets are bad and the consequence of actions aren't relevant in the 'grand view'.

Grand view ?

What grand view is possible when important things are secret ?

Painful as it may be to know or experience for others or themselves,
some prefer a grand view over an ignorant, delusional, incomplete or deceptive one.
Who has the right to choose this for them for reasons or values that may not be shared ?

I won't deny that Wikileaks has blood on its hands if he is executed,

If he is executed. Blood doesn't exist on wiki-leaks hands.

Blood on one's hands relates to the person who DOES the killing... "thus caught red-handed"

*

The argument against wiki-leaks' actions seems to treat society as a static state-machine .. like so:

"if X sees yellow they may kill - thus yellow is banned to all
none have the right or justification to wear yellow.. talk of yellow...
if they do it means their ~values~ are for murder and death by proxy more than anything concerning adding yellow to art.
Yellow => Bad to all .. not just the killers or killed.
Advocates of Yellow "don't get it", to stop more, examples need to be made of them.
They must be managed. They must be repressed. They must conform.
Its not the governments, societies or the culture's role to change to integrate and empower its current individuals,
Its an individuals role to change to integrate and empower current society, culture and government.

If X hears the word "trumpet", they may kill - thus the word trumpet is banned to all
none have the right or justification to say trumpet or draw a trumpet
if they do it means their ~values~ are for murder and death by proxy more than anything concerning adding trumpets to music
Trumpets => Bad to all .. not just the killers or killed.
Advocates of Trumpets "don't get it", to stop more, examples need to be made of them.
They must be managed. They must be repressed. They must conform.
Its not the governments, societies or the culture's role to change to integrate and empower its current individuals,
Its an individuals role to change to integrate and empower current society, culture and government.

If X knows the concept of freedom, they may kill - thus the concept of freedom is banned to all
none have the right or justification to conceive of freedom
if they do it means their ~values~ are for murder and death by proxy more than the concept of freedom
Freedom => Bad to all .. not just the killers or killed.
Advocates of Freedom "don't get it", to stop more, examples need to be made of them.
They must be managed. They must be repressed. They must conform.
Its not the governments, societies or the culture's role to change to integrate and empower its current individuals,
Its an individuals role to change to integrate and empower current society, culture and government.

If X knows the truth, they may kill - thus the concept of truth is banned to all
none have the right or justification to deal with truth
if they do it means their ~values~ are for murder and death by proxy more than benefits of truth
Truth => Bad to all .. not just the killers or killed.
Advocates of truth "don't get it", to stop more, examples need to be made of them.
They must be managed. They must be repressed. They must conform.
Its not the governments, societies or the culture's role to change to integrate and empower its current individuals,
Its an individuals role to change to integrate and empower current society, culture and government.

1984

Big brother is authoritarian, big brother doesn't serve you. You serve big brother.

"Its not what the country can do for you, its what you can do for your country"

That poster of uncle sam was amazing and spoke a more horrible truth we are seeing the effects of, one that is insidious, poisonous that has an armor of secrecy and implied righteousness concerning its own actions, fangs of the law, and more secret fangs also for bites on others increasing abilities to be aware of.

As much as some may not like to think so, Wiki-leaks is a figurehead for causes for a want of an "else" to this.

A country role is to SERVE the will of its components, not the other way around.

Spy, Traitor, Terrorist ? To some perhaps. To me however, Wiki-leaks = Champion, Savaage = Hero.

[Oniya]

The man who only drives the getaway car is just as guilty of murder as the bank robber who shoots the teller.

[Silverfyre]

The man who only drives the getaway car is just as guilty of murder as the bank robber who shoots the teller.

+1.

You are really making some odd examples there, Kate, to support your opinion that "Wikileaks" is just a harmless tool that some "hero" has put out there.  How is he even anything resembling a hero, a champion?  Really, he has put out sensitive information that could be incredibly harmful.  As much as you may dwell in some idealistic paradise where everyone can be transparent and honorable, that is not how the world works in reality and in practice. 

[Oniya]

Do we sue manufactures of bleach if someone drinks it and dies? because "they would have known someone would at some point".

That's actually why they have things like this:



and this:



on any product.  Chemical companies (which include any household cleaner) are, in fact, legally required by the EPA to run tests to see if the product is going to cause eye damage, skin damage, cause sensitivity reactions, or have toxic effects through skin absorption, inhalation or ingestion.

[Star Safyre]

If there is a fire is in the backroom of a crowded movie theater but the fire is under control, those who shout "Fire!" and responsible for the deaths of any who are trampled in the crush of the crowd.

The government has thousands of figurative "fires" under different levels of control as they run the crowded theater which are their countries.  Wikileaks has shouted about these fires and are very much responsible for any harmed by those who react to the release of such information.

[Will]

The man who only drives the getaway car is just as guilty of murder as the bank robber who shoots the teller.

Exactly.  And if Wikileaks knew ahead of time (and surely they did; we aren't any better informed than they, and it's obvious to us) that the information they released would make Tsingvari vulnerable to charges, then they are just as responsible for his death as Mugabi.

I won't argue that at all.

[Zakharra]

Grand view ?

What grand view is possible when important things are secret ?

Painful as it may be to know or experience for others or themselves,
some prefer a grand view over an ignorant, delusional, incomplete or deceptive one.
Who has the right to choose this for them for reasons or values that may not be shared ?

Releasing secrets just because they are secret is never smart. The person that released these secrets to Wikileaks did it not for any 'grand and noble' reason, but because he was a vindictive man. He wanted revenge. Hardly a 'grand view'.

Quote

    I won't deny that Wikileaks has blood on its hands if he is executed,


If he is executed. Blood doesn't exist on wiki-leaks hands.

Blood on one's hands relates to the person who DOES the killing... "thus caught red-handed"

If someone acts off of information they didn't know, that you released and kills someone, you can be held responsible since without that information, they would likely have not killed that person.

  The best example I can think of is someone releasing the name of a secret mob informant. They put that man's life and that of his friends and family in danger.  By some peoples definition here, the man who releases that information isn't culpable since he did not pull the trigger to kill the man.

[Serephino]

Exactly.  If you know a cop is working undercover in a drug ring to bust them, and you go tell the leader of said drug ring this, do you seriously think you wouldn't be responsible for that cop's death?  Because you'd have to be a complete moron to think that the people in the drug ring would just stop talking to the undercover cop.  Anyone with a functioning brain knows that the cop will be killed. 

Comparing this to knives or bleach is ridiculous.  The main purpose for bleach is cleaning, and of course, has a warning label.  Knives are mainly used to cut things while cooking.  Millions of people use these things every day without anyone getting hurt.  Releasing information that you know without a doubt will get someone killed is committing murder by proxy.   

[Sandman02]

Interesting discussions here. Here's my two cents:

1) The young service-member who leaked the information? Yes, he deserves to be punished, although I am not sure that I would want him to go by way of the firing squad. It's simple existentialism: Either you choose to be a good soldier, and hence you follow the duties given to you, or you choose to be a good traitor (for whatever reasons - noble or foolish), and hence you both do your best not to get caught, while accepting the fact that you'll up shit's creek if you *do* get caught. I'm thinking any sort of prison-sentence that absorbs most of his life will be fine by me.

2) As for Wikileaks and for Assange himself, I am going to go out on a limb here and say that I support the activities. It's not that I enjoy the uglier consequences of the leaks (putting informants' lives at risk, that forfeit of "trust" that someone mentioned earlier), but in the midst of all that I must counter with this: we have devoted untold resources and manpower into a violent region that most people do not fully comprehend, and I think it is beneficial to make public certain information that accurately portrays what is going on in the region, as opposed to the highly filtered information that the government decides we should know. Yes, people should know that Pakistan is playing both sides - accepting US money and helping us one minute and then tacitly supporting the Taliban the next. It's taxpayers that are footing the bill for our insurmountable efforts over there, and hence the public deserves to know the ugly truths of the war effort to which we contribute daily.

  As for the costs of making this information public, I think people in the game of brokering information -  be they informants, diplomats, or military personnel - need to understand that there is always a risk of their information getting out. Has information been leaked before the days of Wikileaks? Yes, it has. The fact that this information can now be transmitted so easily as to even make it fairly public is a good lesson for governments to learn in the digital age. Especially when, according to Time magazine, there are now a record 854,000 people inside and out of the US government had top-secret clearance to US government information.

3) For the newspapers/journalists who reported on the leaks after they were already made available, this is a good thing anyways. At that point, it's already out there, with a free for all of everyone trying to get at the information anyways. Why not have independent, respected journalists analyze the potential impacts of the leaks?

[Bayushi]

Why not have independent, respected journalists analyze the potential impacts of the leaks?

You're assuming such a thing still exists. Journalists are human too, and lately they've allowed their personal bias to heavily influence the way the news has been reported.

On both sides of the political coin.

The sad truth is that it feels that the News Media, even our own, would be happiest if we(the United States) fail and people die.

[Silverfyre]

You're assuming such a thing still exists. Journalists are human too, and lately they've allowed their personal bias to heavily influence the way the news has been reported.

On both sides of the political coin.

The sad truth is that it feels that the News Media, even our own, would be happiest if we(the United States) fail and people die.

It's all about ratings. 

[Bayushi]

It's all about ratings.

It's all about money.

Ratings is money.

[Zakharra]

Interesting discussions here. Here's my two cents:

2) As for Wikileaks and for Assange himself, I am going to go out on a limb here and say that I support the activities. It's not that I enjoy the uglier consequences of the leaks (putting informants' lives at risk, that forfeit of "trust" that someone mentioned earlier), but in the midst of all that I must counter with this: we have devoted untold resources and manpower into a violent region that most people do not fully comprehend, and I think it is beneficial to make public certain information that accurately portrays what is going on in the region, as opposed to the highly filtered information that the government decides we should know. Yes, people should know that Pakistan is playing both sides - accepting US money and helping us one minute and then tacitly supporting the Taliban the next. It's taxpayers that are footing the bill for our insurmountable efforts over there, and hence the public deserves to know the ugly truths of the war effort to which we contribute daily.

  As for the costs of making this information public, I think people in the game of brokering information -  be they informants, diplomats, or military personnel - need to understand that there is always a risk of their information getting out. Has information been leaked before the days of Wikileaks? Yes, it has. The fact that this information can now be transmitted so easily as to even make it fairly public is a good lesson for governments to learn in the digital age. Especially when, according to Time magazine, there are now a record 854,000 people inside and out of the US government had top-secret clearance to US government information.

The problem with this is that it screws up the diplomatic process a lot. Part of diplomancy is that diplomants CAN keep secrets. You never say what you might really think about some nation (you are a child raping nation, fuckers! Fix that otr we'll  either cuts funds to you or have an assasin on your wog ass.), but have to use more polite terms (We think you're human rights record could be better. Let's discuss ways to make that happen). 

It also hampers efforts to get information and learn about things in the region/nation since any informant would be exposed and likely killed. The 'benefits' in this case are outweighed by the risks. Since this leak, it has likely become much harder for the US to influence the region.

[kylie]

         Well, I'm thinking Callie kind of set up a straw target.  If Assange or whomever actually said no one would ever be harmed by release of some information, then that was rather silly.  If I were to play super picky: I'm not clear on whether the original quote was, no one has been harmed (to our knowledge?) or no one ever could be.  Anyway.  Without hanging around at that level of pickiness to no obvious end....  Dogging on about a specific interpretation of a vague quote where it's difficult to prove the original context and actual intent is an endless game.  One can thump all comers on the mechanical facts (at least on the presumption that Mugabe would not have found a different trick to pull), sure. Without some statement of broader goals to pursue, I believe the significance is real thin.  How could that sort of rhetorical question reasonably lead to the subtitle?  Depending on how people use the terms, anyone among us could easily be a terrorist and a champion of truth.

The problem with this is that it screws up the diplomatic process a lot. Part of diplomancy is that diplomants CAN keep secrets. You never say what you might really think about some nation (you are a child raping nation, fuckers! Fix that otr we'll  either cuts funds to you or have an assasin on your wog ass.), but have to use more polite terms (We think you're human rights record could be better. Let's discuss ways to make that happen).

Maybe, maybe not.  When the political leadership feels like sanctions or gearing up to possible military conflict, we hear all sorts of public declarations about threats and "failure to live up to community standards" and dictators and perhaps "evil"...  I don't think it's much of a stretch to say that diplomats sometimes do much the same thing quietly.  Moreover, no matter how much game face you stick on the lounge language of diplomats to make it sound all positive, insiders should be able to interpret nicely worded warnings as threats.  They should also often be able to say "nicely" in private that which has already been said nastily in public -- and often they are called upon to do just that.  Secrets are also frequently known to be compromised or to expire.  Now some diplomats will do some reading, have conversations and put a new spin on things, tell a few tall tales and make a few disclaimers...  And voila, a whole new array of fair-weather friends bearing secrets.  This, too, is politics. 

        I do see the argument that this presents issues for Tsvangirai in particular or just maybe for US strategy in Africa.  I'm not really convinced that it's an earth-shattering game changer.   Whether or not we happen to regard Assange as heroic, I think Kate makes a good point that he's just the messenger.  I'm not so clear on the evidence that he would know beforehand that Tsvangirai would be charged with treason, etc.  If so, then it isn't obvious why he allowed that particular cable to be released while redacting more from others, etc.  How many news stories -- including stories with insider-authorized leaks -- may have led to someone being harmed?  Does the government really know, so much better than a major paper journalist?  I don't see Callie or Zak arguing that most international news needs to be shut down for the sake of national security.       

       What Assange has done that is new, is I think not so much receiving classified information per se -- It's more that he released more, sooner than news organizations have previously let fly and without wholly consulting insiders.  I'm actually intrigued that the major newspapers decided to publish summaries.  It would seem that they should have been concerned about some retribution from the government for doing so.  After all, all these financial organizations have turned around and cut off Wikileaks or even moved to freeze assets.  I don't think many people apart from international relations types would have found or bothered to comb through much of the Wikileaks site by themselves.  So to me, it looks like the newspapers said hmm:  Not only is the cat out of the bag and a few news events just might occur because of these releases, but there is fundamental knowledge here that an educated public has an interest in knowing this.  On that note...  How many of you knew this by reading Wikileaks anyway?  How do you explain blaming Wikileaks, as opposed to blaming the soldier who originally released it or the major newspapers who selected and summarized the story for the world?       

It also hampers efforts to get information and learn about things in the region/nation since any informant would be exposed and likely killed. The 'benefits' in this case are outweighed by the risks. Since this leak, it has likely become much harder for the US to influence the region.

Well yeah, if your concern is can the US sneak some particular negotiation through or maintain a figure of the hour on the chessboard, then that is a real problem.  However if you say that is the paramount question in itself, with no broader goals for government to pursue...  Then we are back to that straw target.  Callie's mentioned several times in the forums I believe, that Valerie Plame got a raw deal for someone's political points.  How can we reconcile that kind of concern with a strict view of government secrecy?  If the political leadership (or whatever agency one picks as the final authority on state secrets) may rightfully declare the source of any old leak "terrorist," then well...  It can go after the journalist who finds out there were no nuclear components there in Africa -- and hide the politicians who put Valerie Plame in danger to sell us all a story through the same media organizations before that -- any time it pleases.  Because under that logic only the government, and not the journalists or the people can ever know what is "too dangerous" to be released.

[Callie Del Noire]

I think that is unfair. Some of the people who disagreed with me in the various Wikileak threads argued that no one had been definitively harmed or endangered by the leaks. I posted a story where the only evidence against a man was the diplomatic message traffic that Wikileaks put on the net.

That is the ONLY evidence being cited against him.

I wouldn't say that is a straw argument. I'm fairly sure that some others have been harmed, endangered, and possibly killed but most people acting on this information aren't going to give press releases like the Zimbabwe justice ministry.

[kylie]

      Well Callie, I'm sorry if I missed your broader point.  I looked back at the beginning of the thread and it does seem it began on a different note...  It's just that I also read the last couple pages, and to me they felt like you were trying to beat everything down with that one case of Tsvangirai over and over again.  I just can't see it all in context without a broader discussion of what (or which!) "public" interest diplomats and these figures we choose to support around the world might actually serve (or not)... 

      Yes, it's possible good people (or "less worse" people) will die.  It's a little like the protests at funerals, though.  If people are "serving" in order to further a cause, then you have to anticipate that pursuing a cause through such means will involve contradictions and complications (including contests from other well-meaning causes).  Otherwise, the cause will never be achievable in the first place.  And then, it also starts to look like maybe what is actually being served up by their labors is something rather less pretty.

[Sandman02]

  The question of what to do with the information that was released to Wikileaks is tricky because, just as with most complex transactions, there is no clear "right" option that will benefit everybody - no matter what you choose to do, there will be winners and there will be losers. Since the release of confidential information is at best embarrassing for our government, and at worst dangerous to it and its agents, where you stand on this issue has largely to do with whether these potential "losses" for the government equate to losses for the public at roughly face value, or whether or not there are real gains to be had in spite of those pit falls.

  In response to that, I think its a fair premise to say that the government does not have the sole right to determine which information is good for the public to know and which isn't (some made this point earlier in the thread). If you are of the view that what is best for the country is in line with however long Robert Gates says we need to stay in this-occupied-region and that-occupied-region (which really is a flaky prospect, since the military seems to loath setting deadlines and committing to them), then I would seriously challenge your point of view of what benefits society and why. I think in this case it could even benefit the government in the long-term despite the short-term costs - these releases just may have the chance of speeding up the resolutions of these costly wars, despite what the war hawks can and will inevitably continue to say.

  And I say all this at the risk of giving the wrong impression. I do not hate government. I do not hate the military. But I am sick of seeing so many die due to the decisions made by the few, and so I choose to be suspicious of both,

[Callie Del Noire]

The reason I used, perhaps over used, the Tsvangirai case as an example of responsibility is that the typical outcome in this situation wouldn't be something that would make the news. When someone finds out that the State Department is asking questions in their country (on behalf of the CIA, DEA, ect) they aren't going to put out a press release saying that they are going to kill the most likely leaks in their organization. It's hard to find events in the news to tie to the leaked messages. Most people that would be upset by the items in it aren't going to hold press conferences, more likely they will look over who could be the leak is and quietly shiv him/her in a back alley.

The same sort of concerns I had when the mystery source in the White House outed Valerie Plame. I heard a lot of 'she wasn't harmed' and as far as folks are concerned that is it. Far from it. Want to bet on her lifespan if she was to go to Africa or the Middle East now? But that's beside the point for now.

Already it is becoming clear that the leaks have sown a level of distrust among foreign governments. American Diplomats are asked to come to events in few numbers and pointed asked to leave behind notepads and such in meetings. In the Middle East and elsewhere the people mentioned in the leaked cables (such as the leaders of Saudi Arabia and Bahrain) have lost 'face' and standing in the region. It is quite natural for these moderate (well for THAT region of the world they are moderate) nations to worry about an aggressive state like Iran engaging in nuclear research. Keep in mind, aside from the US, who has the largest standing military in the region as well as who has an impressive position to control entry and exit from the Gulf.

It is only natural they'd ask the US, discretely and behind doors, to look into methods to curtail that research. Because from their front row seats view, the UN methods aren't working. If I was a leader in that region (particularly some of the smaller coutries like the UAE and Bahrain) I'd be waking up at night sweating a lot.

Daniel Ellsberg, the man who released the Pentagon papers, came out in support of Wikileaks comparing his actions to the ones they are doing. I disagree with him, he did a LOT more due diligence and tried to work within the system than Wikileaks. I mean he approached men like the late Senator Kennedy, trying to get the papers introduced into congressional minutes.  I respect what he did, like I respected some of Wikileaks past actions.

Disclosing secrets in the manner they did they with the diplomatic traffic isn't the same reasoned responsible actions they have done with past US government documents. That is what I disagree with the rampant release of so many documents. It isnt' responsible disclosure of something that needs to be shown (like the GITMO SOP manual) but actual intelligence that benefits opponents with no benefit in reform/change in US Policy or methods of Operation.

There is a process in place to discuss things that are classified to ensure they aren't just in 'the interest of the people' but within the law. They don't always work, which is why need folks like Daniel Ellsberg to step forward and prod and push and papers/journalists like to push things into the light when the process doesn't work.

Wikileaks and it's supports argue that nothing had been done besides shed light on the process of operation of the US government and make it more 'transparent' to the people at large.

It has, but it's not always a good point. Things have been damaged by the release.

Trust, as I have said before, is the currency of diplomacy. We have lost a lot of trust and those who dealt with us in those messages have lost face and trust in our confidentiality.

Secrets have a lifespan. That is a fact. Some should be kept and yes, some should be shown. Secrecy isn't a bad word though.

[kylie]

          Thanks Callie, I get most of that I think, clearer than I did some of what came earlier. 

          It still seems to me though, that the broader assumptions have a lot to do with whether or not we assume US government views and strategy are on the whole worthy of protection.  Where "secrets" consist of something most reasonable parties to the situation would already suspect, or where presumptions about insider access to a club were previously abused, I'm skeptical of that. 

It's hard to find events in the news to tie to the leaked messages. Most people that would be upset by the items in it aren't going to hold press conferences, more likely they will look over who could be the leak is and quietly shiv him/her in a back alley....

I can see that...  Although in the case of Tsvangirai, I'm far from clear that 1) he was the cleanest guy on the block to begin with, 2) that US partners in the country are generally ethical, or 3) that Mugabe is not fully capable of producing an equal or more plausible threat tomorrow.  That may just be a lack of background on my part.  So far though, it sounds like a generally nasty environment to me.

Already it is becoming clear that the leaks have sown a level of distrust among foreign governments. American Diplomats are asked to come to events in few numbers and pointed asked to leave behind notepads and such in meetings.

I'm curious:  You don't mention the order to collect credit card numbers here?  You mention Iran, where most of the US public knows next to nothing except oh, look, reputedly insane tyrant pursuing nukes...  And omit the case where diplomats were outed for being ordered generally (not specifically as in the Plame case) to act as spies?     

In the Middle East and elsewhere the people mentioned in the leaked cables (such as the leaders of Saudi Arabia and Bahrain) have lost 'face' and standing in the region. It is quite natural for these moderate (well for THAT region of the world they are moderate) nations to worry about an aggressive state like Iran engaging in nuclear research. Keep in mind, aside from the US, who has the largest standing military in the region as well as who has an impressive position to control entry and exit from the Gulf.

You said yourself, anyone in a realist frame of mind could see that Iran was bigger than its neighbors and blustering about it, too.  Now if it's really any secret that leadership was capable of such a frame of mind while uttering words to the contrary...  Well, that sort of "secret" is more like an elephant in the room.  I think if leaders honestly have a lot to lose over that being said, then those leaders must be having some real difficulty relating to some people domestically already.  It's not officially US business whether whatever % of another country feel Iran might actually have a good point on some issues -- and our people never hear much from our government or media about how and why that's possible.  Oh, but it's an "outrage" if the news makes our favorite proxy in the palace look bad in the "internal" struggle over policy.

Daniel Ellsberg, the man who released the Pentagon papers, came out in support of Wikileaks comparing his actions to the ones they are doing. I disagree with him, he did a LOT more due diligence and tried to work within the system than Wikileaks. I mean he approached men like the late Senator Kennedy, trying to get the papers introduced into congressional minutes.  I respect what he did, like I respected some of Wikileaks past actions.

I sort of get this...  But then, it also seems fair to argue that Congress may not be so ethically concerned about and/or capable of controlling foreign policy at these levels.  If one reads stories and concludes that US policy is often dirty or problematic, one may also decide that the US insiders are not so likely to fix it.  It may take a measure of global exposure and shame before they reform, if they really will at all... On top of that, other countries' people were also already involved, sometimes manipulated and often harmed.   

Disclosing secrets in the manner they did they with the diplomatic traffic isn't the same reasoned responsible actions they have done with past US government documents. That is what I disagree with the rampant release of so many documents. It isnt' responsible disclosure of something that needs to be shown (like the GITMO SOP manual) but actual intelligence that benefits opponents with no benefit in reform/change in US Policy or methods of Operation.

Yes, this is back to the grand view thing Kate discussed well enough.  If existing US modus operandi around the world is simply the last best hope and it never reforms through disclosure or the public obviously should not know things...  Well fine.  I don't see that ethics match up so neatly with process on the books, unless we subscribe to that.

[Callie Del Noire]

           
          I can see that...  Although in the case of Tsvangirai, I'm far from clear that 1) he was the cleanest guy on the block to begin with, 2) that US partners in the country are generally ethical, or 3) that Mugabe is not fully capable of producing an equal or more plausible threat tomorrow.  That may just be a lack of background on my part.  So far though, it sounds like a generally nasty environment to me.
     

So, we're okay with accessory murder when we don't like the victim? Every person has flaws and feet of clay but you don't write their life off due to their flaws. If you're culpable to the murder of a drug dealer, following your logic, because you told someone he snitched on it's okay?

   I'm curious:  You don't mention the order to collect credit card numbers here?  You mention Iran, where most of the US public knows next to nothing except oh, look, reputedly insane tyrant pursuing nukes...  And omit the case where diplomats were outed for being ordered generally (not specifically as in the Plame case) to act as spies?     

Credit cards? I was simply pointing out that the leaks are already affecting the way American diplomats are treated. What does credit cards have to do with it.  I don't follow that logic.

[kylie]

So, we're okay with accessory murder when we don't like the victim? Every person has flaws and feet of clay but you don't write their life off due to their flaws. If you're culpable to the murder of a drug dealer, following your logic, because you told someone he snitched on it's okay?

Callie, please.  I didn’t say we should set out with the intent to expressly help the guy off stage.  It is not very clear that Assange and company did any such thing, either.  Now if making a dubious judgment call is all it takes to make one an accessory:  As a society, we have bigger problems.  We are all living out very dubious judgments about our place in the world, most of the time.

          In the industrialized West, we are all somewhat responsible for the quality and often, brevity of life in other parts of the world.  We dump toxic waste on other continents.  We give Africa hand-me-down technology and game over how much postcolonial debt to forgive.  Our policies sway the odds that millions in various corners have sooner access to improving health care, contraception, and clean water.  We buy shirts made in thousands of sweatshops.  We hire as “domestic help” mothers who have left their children to the dwindling community back at home.  Our troops – and diplomats! – range around the world, picking a faction here, sanctioning an industry there, going to war over WMD or genocide or humanitarianism or pursuit of Qaeda (or sometimes, the militia of our associates’ choice). 

          So, we are not all so innocent.  Whether or not we admit – or even know! -- it, we are already involved in the sacrifice and even killing of many, many people to achieve certain global ends.  Now we have this cache of documents that deals with what a government does all over the world.  Perhaps it’s not news.  Perhaps no one cares, or no one dares to say uncomfortable truths that arise from this.  In that case, you have a more obvious point that indeed, no one but designated officials can handle the truth anyway (or will attempt to do so). 

          Are you so certain that is the kind of course that all of the figures you might seek to give a little measure of incremental protection, now that the cat is out of the bag, are serving only to live in that kind of world?  Is that the world you want to end up with?   If you’re a political realist, then it’s easy to say no one should know because in practice, people don’t stand up and change things anyway.  But do you see?  It appears to me that you’re adopting an approach where precisely when the public could read and see the costs, then you say nope – shouldn’t place individuals at risk.  As if we were not doing that for some “greater” goods (I think, rather poorly conceived ones) all along.

[kylie]

Credit cards? I was simply pointing out that the leaks are already affecting the way American diplomats are treated. What does credit cards have to do with it.  I don't follow that logic.

You mentioned that apparently as a result of the leaks, some foreign officials have become uneasy with American diplomats carrying notepads…  Some of the leaked material features State instructing its personnel to gather confidential information about diplomats from other countries.  The list of desired data includes computer passwords, credit card numbers, biometric information from African officials, military communications infrastructure, and specific vehicles and routes to be used by Hamas and the Palestinian Authority. 

          Perhaps under these circumstances, some of those foreign officials felt that they should avoid situations where it would be so easy for an American official to lift information from all the papers on the table…  You might feel that even this leak is bad because now some diplomats can’t do their job as well.  So in order to cover up this particular mess and save diplomats from restricted use of notepads…  The people would never know that leadership has failed to observe any distinction between common diplomats and trained covert ops seriously. 

     Detailed report here:  http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/nov/28/us-embassy-cables-spying-un

     Copy of the cable:  http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-embassy-cables-documents/219058

     Also an article here:  http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/29/world/29spy.html

The United States regularly puts undercover intelligence officers in countries posing as diplomats, but a vast majority of diplomats are not spies. Several retired ambassadors, told about the information-gathering assignments disclosed in the cables, expressed concern that State Department employees abroad could routinely come under suspicion of spying and find it difficult to do their work or even risk expulsion.

     Ronald E. Neumann, a former American ambassador to Afghanistan, Algeria and Bahrain, said that Washington was constantly sending requests for voluminous information about foreign countries. But he said he was puzzled about why Foreign Service officers — who are not trained in clandestine collection methods — would be asked to gather information like credit card numbers.

     “My concerns would be, first of all, whether the person could do this responsibly without getting us into trouble,” he said. “And, secondly, how much effort a person put into this at the expense of his or her regular duties.”

[Kate]

The man who only drives the getaway car is just as guilty of murder as the bank robber who shoots the teller.

-1

Are civilians paying taxes to a government which is corrupt while assuming "thats just how it is" without protest just as guilty as the corrupt politicians ?

[Zakharra]

-1

Are civilians paying taxes to a government which is corrupt while assuming "thats just how it is" without protest just as guilty as the corrupt politicians ?

No. Since  it's the poloticians that have control over how tax money is spent and over what policies are enacted. Once a politician is in office, they, ufortunately, have a lot of freedom to do what they want and screw the people over.

[Kate]

poloticians that have control over how tax money is spent and over what policies are enacted.

You would be stunned with what public outcry and protests can do.

[Zakharra]

You would be stunned with what public outcry and protests can do.

Your response has nothing to do with the question of yours I answered.  But I'm not surprised that public protests can work. I also know that because a  politician does something, his/her constituents are not responsible for that politician's actions. 


I missed something in this:

The man who only drives the getaway car is just as guilty of murder as the bank robber who shoots the teller.

-1

Are civilians paying taxes to a government which is corrupt while assuming "thats just how it is" without protest just as guilty as the corrupt politicians ?

The getaway driver is directly involved in the crime, helping the murder try to escape. So he is directly involved, as is anyone else that willingly helps the murderer. Civilians paying taxes are not responsible for what their politicians do once in office.

[Dashenka]

Assange has broken no United States law. Public dissemination of secrets means, simply, that they are no longer secret. The worst the US government can do above board is call Assange irresponsible, which they have. They were given the offer to pick out which ones would be 'so irresponsible' to release. They refused.

The US Government also has control over ICANN, and through it, can render Wikileaks inaccessible by any means from suspending the domain to declaring ip ranges unroutable - but the information would still be released.

The leaker is in trouble, however, for damned sure.

But if the remaining 99.9% of leaks is a lot like the .1%, it's actually not the United States that should be scared shitless of the leaks. Saudi Arabia and other Arab nations demanding that the United States attack Iran? There is evidence of some underhanded moves by Hillary Clinton. But a lot of it is just good historical data.

For all the blustering that's going on, US Government officials are actually handling this in an intelligent and professional manner - locking down security practices and so on.

I agree that the US is not in any direct danger from these documents but it has the potential to put a serious tension on international relations with the US, which haven't been all that good with some countries.

Example, all the documents leaked about the US Embassy in Moscow saying Putin has ties to the mafia, have been on the front page of almost every newspaper here in Russia. I can imagine this has happened to other nations as well and although we will not attack the US, rest assured, I can see it having some effect on future relations between the ambassador and the Russian politicians.

[Vekseid]

There are a number of snafus like that, yep.

The only dangerous one so far is in Zimbabwe, and is probably the first case where a release was seriously ill advised. If only because Mugabe is so thoroughly fucking over his country.

How are the newspapers reporting it over there? I've been led to believe by other Russians that Putin's connections aren't exactly secret.

[Dashenka]

How are the newspapers reporting it over there? I've been led to believe by other Russians that Putin's connections aren't exactly secret.

Those are the same Russians as the Americans who are convinced the Republicans had something to do with the assault on that Democrat woman.

There are people who don't like Putin, saying he's a criminal and has connections to the mafia and all and there is people, like me, who see what the man actually did for the country, regardless of the accused ties to the mafia which I don't believe. He doubled the GDP of Russia in 8 years, poverty was cut down by half and average wages gone from $18 a month to $240 a month...


anyway that wasn't the question  :-[

Mostly they report about it being an outrage that the American ambassador had said things like that and want a public apology from the man. Other's, like Kasparov, use it for their own cause saying that if even the US know about it, how come some Russians still support him...

[Kate]

Civilians paying taxes are not responsible for what their politicians do once in office.

Nor are the politicians responsible for anything bad they do .. to all who don't know of it, not only having actions secret but in the other hand also having the choice of who should and shouldn't know creates elitism, without responsibility.

Would you trust someone who said:

     "Trust me that you shouldn't be trusted to know the truth nor make decisions of a manner on on subjects which are important
      which you don't need to worry your little head about, and no we are not going to give this power or privilege away.
      We deserve it, we are doing good for um ... the nation and humanity ... um yes thats how YOU Should think of it ... trust me."

[Oniya]

I realize that you are not American (from your post in the 'If I were President' thread) but I think it's important to mention that politicians in America are held accountable by their constituents for their actions.  It's possible, and not that hard, to get the voting record of any member of Congress.  If a politician runs on a 'health care reform' platform, and then consistently votes against health reform, he or she doesn't get elected the next year.  At the very least, behavior like that gets trotted out by whoever is running against them (and I saw enough of those ads to choke a horse this past election).  Getting voted into office doesn't mean that the person has a free pass to do whatever they like without consequence.

[Bayushi]

I realize that you are not American (from your post in the 'If I were President' thread) but I think it's important to mention that politicians in America are held accountable by their constituents for their actions.  It's possible, and not that hard, to get the voting record of any member of Congress.  If a politician runs on a 'health care reform' platform, and then consistently votes against health reform, he or she doesn't get elected the next year.  At the very least, behavior like that gets trotted out by whoever is running against them (and I saw enough of those ads to choke a horse this past election).  Getting voted into office doesn't mean that the person has a free pass to do whatever they like without consequence.

Well, except for Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. Frankly, their constituents are apparently dumb enough to let partisan politics decide elections, not what their elected representatives actually do.


As for "Freedom of Information", Kate, NO, you do NOT have the right to know what the CIA is doing. They have Congressional Oversight, which means people clamoring for transparency at the one organization that should not be 'transparent' need to stop complaining. It's not happening.

The sad truth is that there have to be things like the CIA and military secrecy in order to preserve the freedoms we enjoy. If Julian Assange doesn't like it, tough s**t.

[Callie Del Noire]

Well, except for Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. Frankly, their constituents are apparently dumb enough to let partisan politics decide elections, not what their elected representatives actually do.


As for "Freedom of Information", Kate, NO, you do NOT have the right to know what the CIA is doing. They have Congressional Oversight, which means people clamoring for transparency at the one organization that should not be 'transparent' need to stop complaining. It's not happening.

The sad truth is that there have to be things like the CIA and military secrecy in order to preserve the freedoms we enjoy. If Julian Assange doesn't like it, tough s**t.

I'm not sure about Harry zReid but Nancy Pelosi's home district is nearly all democrat. You have at BEST like a 10% republican vote in it. And she is one of the richest members of congress out there. She's there to stay till she decides to leave.

[Zakharra]

Nor are the politicians responsible for anything bad they do .. to all who don't know of it, not only having actions secret but in the other hand also having the choice of who should and shouldn't know creates elitism, without responsibility.

You seem to be working under several assumptions, Kate. 1; that their constituants do not hold them responsible for their actions (they do, but once in office, the politicians can and sometimes do act contrary to their voters wishes. That can result in them being a one term politician.) 2; that their voting record will not be brought up. In today's tech information enviroment, anything you say and vote for will be brought up. Bet on that.

Would you trust someone who said:

     "Trust me that you shouldn't be trusted to know the truth nor make decisions of a manner on on subjects which are important
      which you don't need to worry your little head about, and no we are not going to give this power or privilege away.
      We deserve it, we are doing good for um ... the nation and humanity ... um yes thats how YOU Should think of it ... trust me."

Would I trust someone like that? Not really, but not all politicians are like that and there are checks in place to take care of the worst of it. There are forces active that are working to clean up the excesses. Enough people are watching them to make sure of that.

[Serephino]

You can look up voting records online.  Congress has a website where you can view every single bill proposed, and how everyone voted.  All a person has to do is go look. 

[Callie Del Noire]

Indeed. And trust me, there are a lot of things that you can find out about your representative's voting record. Transparency in congress has been very clear with the growth o the internet.

[Will]

You seem to be working under several assumptions, Kate. 1; that their constituants do not hold them responsible for their actions (they do, but once in office, the politicians can and sometimes do act contrary to their voters wishes. That can result in them being a one term politician.) 2; that their voting record will not be brought up. In today's tech information enviroment, anything you say and vote for will be brought up. Bet on that.


Would I trust someone like that? Not really, but not all politicians are like that and there are checks in place to take care of the worst of it. There are forces active that are working to clean up the excesses. Enough people are watching them to make sure of that.

What sort of forces?  I'm honestly curious.

[Callie Del Noire]

What sort of forces?  I'm honestly curious.

The media for one. Do you honestly think that an elected official could get away with blatantly lying to his constituents without the media turning it into the a full blown circus. One of the reasons that people who were nationally unpopular (like.. the Late Senator Helms, or on the other side of the scales Senator Kennedy) were able to stay in their elected offices were that they served their voters. Did the nation as a whole like them? Nope.

These men stayed in office because they were seen to be serving their districts. Growing up in North Carolina I saw that a lot. I remember more than a few folks saying 'Jesse Helms is a f-ing SOB, but he's OUR SOB."

There are special interests, who are MORE than happy to point out a politician's feet of clay when they go against the people who supported them.

There are the watchdog groups who monitor politician actions and the growth of the internet has actually made it VASTLY easier for a politician's voting record and actions in office to be tracked. Making a law, proposing an act and every other action that they do leaves a paper trail and the US does very well to make most of it transparent to the public with very little lag.

If you want to know what an elected offical thinks or believes, you can check their website, call their offices in their district and check the above mentioned websites.

[Will]

I thought we were talking about classified information, not voting records or ideology.  A politician's website isn't going to help me very much there.

[Callie Del Noire]

I thought we were talking about classified information, not voting records or ideology.  A politician's website isn't going to help me very much there.

You were asking about the 'forces' Zak was explaining to Kate, I merely offered a clearer explanation of that.

[kylie]

      We were talking about how to interpret the impact of release of classified information.  Without a broader claim about American politics (or the state of affairs wherever you wish to measure that impact), it's pretty amorphous.  The US system has some mechanisms for constituents to speak back.  However, there are some issues with this. 

       First, if you respond to Kate by saying that voters do get to decide, how much effect do those votes generally have on the role of the US in the world?  I'm not sure there is such a massive divide here between our parties in how the US treats the rest of the world.  I suppose at one level:  Democrats might be somewhat more likely to pause before declaring the policies of other states to amount to incomprehensible evils or grounds for timeless animosity, to expand foreign aid, to intervene for humanitarian reasons, or to deal with global warming.  However, at a broader level, neither party has fundamentally changed US policy in terms of maintaining global economic inequality, reserving the right to intervene for quite arbitrary reasons in the affairs of foreign governments, or even lately with regard to rendition and telling the whole history of torture after 9/11.  At this level, voters are not even very educated about such things largely as a result of propaganda and federal policy in such things as immigration and education programs. 

      Second, Voters have shown themselves easily manipulated by mass advertising campaigns, fear rhetoric, the timing of economic trends, and general apathy.  Then at least at the presidential level, we might throw in election fraud...

      Third, it is not necessarily true that voters will kick someone out even when they pull a 180 degree turn on a particular issue -- often more than once.  They do not always pay attention that long.  They often decide that some combination of percentages (perhaps a gut feeling) on other issues is more important for them than this one big flaw.  Politicians also misrepresent the issues and what they have actually done.  Then, some of the issues are so technical that the politicians are not very clear themselves.  The details are buried in thousands of pages of documents.  Congressional rules and what is or is not possible under them are esoteric matters for most people. 

      Fourth, yes we were talking about confidential to classified information.  How many elected representatives are fully briefed on all of these matters, until a scandal has already brewed?  How many of them would say "I wasn't on that committee" or "I wasn't privy to that information," and perhaps honestly so?  Many of the matters in question were carried out by appointed officials (at the top levels of agencies) or by career agents with a specific portfolio.  I'm not sure it's always clear that the answer is to go after your congressman, the Secretary of State, or the President.  That might make a little sense in situations say where Hillary signs for apparently just anyone to grab diplomats' credit card numbers and passwords given the opportunity.  Still, it's not entirely clear that it's precisely an elected official putting stuff in play.

     Fifth, assuming we did vote with an informed opinion on those issues in an election that was not highly manipulated through a mass market...  And then, if changing out elected officials does mitigate abuses by leading to changes in other officials...  There is still time lag.  How long would it take for a new leader to replace the policies or people in question?  Could they do it in one term and would it be fully institutionalized in two?  In the meantime, the shady stuff continues or has been swept under the rug so we don't know quite how to avoid it next time there is a similar problem (witness vanished torture tapes).  Then if the public is actually watching, it might take them a couple more years (or many) to evaluate whether the change in leaders really resulted in technical changes and whether those really created a situation they prefer.  Meanwhile, sixteen other issues pop up or the economy turns sour, they forget and/or vote that administration back out anyway. 

     

[Bayushi]

First, if you respond to Kate by saying that voters do get to decide, how much effect do those votes generally have on the role of the US in the world?  I'm not sure there is such a massive divide here between our parties in how the US treats the rest of the world.  I suppose at one level:  Democrats might be somewhat more likely to pause before declaring the policies of other states to amount to incomprehensible evils or grounds for timeless animosity, to expand foreign aid, to intervene for humanitarian reasons, or to deal with global warming.  However, at a broader level, neither party has fundamentally changed US policy in terms of maintaining global economic inequality, reserving the right to intervene for quite arbitrary reasons in the affairs of foreign governments, or even lately with regard to rendition and telling the whole history of torture after 9/11.  At this level, voters are not even very educated about such things largely as a result of propaganda and federal policy in such things as immigration and education programs.

I probably won't be the first "conservative" (I'm more Libertarian) to say this, but GW Bush was not a conservative. His actions ran the gamut of the political spectrum. His religious stance stood far right, while his fiscal policy was far left.

The problem with things like Federal policy on things like immigration and education is that Big Daddy Government says one thing, then does another. We have Federal laws regarding immigration enforcement, which are not followed. Then there are abominations like No Child Left Behind.

Second, Voters have shown themselves easily manipulated by mass advertising campaigns, fear rhetoric, the timing of economic trends, and general apathy.  Then at least at the presidential level, we might throw in election fraud...

Wizard's First Rule: People are stupid. People can be made to believe any lie because they want to believe it is true, or because they are afraid that it is true.

Third, it is not necessarily true that voters will kick someone out even when they pull a 180 degree turn on a particular issue -- often more than once.  They do not always pay attention that long.  They often decide that some combination of percentages (perhaps a gut feeling) on other issues is more important for them than this one big flaw.  Politicians also misrepresent the issues and what they have actually done.  Then, some of the issues are so technical that the politicians are not very clear themselves.  The details are buried in thousands of pages of documents.  Congressional rules and what is or is not possible under them are esoteric matters for most people.

*cough* Arlen Specter *cough* Not to mention John McCain.

Fourth, yes we were talking about confidential to classified information.  How many elected representatives are fully briefed on all of these matters, until a scandal has already brewed?  How many of them would say "I wasn't on that committee" or "I wasn't privy to that information," and perhaps honestly so?  Many of the matters in question were carried out by appointed officials (at the top levels of agencies) or by career agents with a specific portfolio.  I'm not sure it's always clear that the answer is to go after your congressman, the Secretary of State, or the President.  That might make a little sense in situations say where Hillary signs for apparently just anyone to grab diplomats' credit card numbers and passwords given the opportunity.  Still, it's not entirely clear that it's precisely an elected official putting stuff in play.

We have Congressional Oversight committees. Things such as Rendition and 'enhanced interrogation' MUST go through Oversight before being put into play.

For Congress critters that sit on the Oversight committees to claim that they weren't told is horse manure. I'm looking at you, Pelosi.

Fifth, assuming we did vote with an informed opinion on those issues in an election that was not highly manipulated through a mass market...  And then, if changing out elected officials does mitigate abuses by leading to changes in other officials...  There is still time lag.  How long would it take for a new leader to replace the policies or people in question?  Could they do it in one term and would it be fully institutionalized in two?  In the meantime, the shady stuff continues or has been swept under the rug so we don't know quite how to avoid it next time there is a similar problem (witness vanished torture tapes).  Then if the public is actually watching, it might take them a couple more years (or many) to evaluate whether the change in leaders really resulted in technical changes and whether those really created a situation they prefer.  Meanwhile, sixteen other issues pop up or the economy turns sour, they forget and/or vote that administration back out anyway.

Policies can be changed in the time it takes to draft the new policies. As for staffers and bureaucrats and other officials, well, that's the danger of creeping bureaucracy. We keep getting piled under more and more bureaucracy, and there rarely seems to be an end in sight. The overall size of government needs to be drastically reduced. Yesterday.

[Kate]

It's possible, and not that hard, to get the voting record of any member of Congress.  If a politician runs on a 'health care reform' platform, and then consistently votes against health reform, he or she doesn't get elected the next year.

- Because the actions are transparent

As for "Freedom of Information", Kate, NO, you do NOT have the right to know what the CIA is doing. They have Congressional Oversight, which means people clamoring for transparency at the one organization that should not be 'transparent' need to stop complaining. It's not happening.

- Not within current legistlation. I was debating what should be, not what is.

You seem to be working under several assumptions, Kate. 1; that their constituants do not hold them responsible for their actions (they do, but once in office, the politicians can and sometimes do act contrary to their voters wishes. That can result in them being a one term politician.) 2; that their voting record will not be brought up. In today's tech information enviroment, anything you say and vote for will be brought up. Bet on that.

= A process Which Wikileaks aids not hinders.

Would I trust someone like that? Not really, but not all politicians are like that and there are checks in place to take care of the worst of it. There are forces active that are working to clean up the excesses. Enough people are watching them to make sure of that.

- Wikileaks being one of them.

I thought we were talking about classified information, not voting records or ideology.  A politician's website isn't going to help me very much there.

- Classified information. Hmm, personally I think the more mature a society gets the less information would be deemed classified. Assuming its an fundamental for a stable progressive society is ... an assumption, a choice. Is there a need for classified information RIGHT now ? While having Nukes one can launch remotely using some weird key ? Yes. Going forward however is what I was thinking wiki-leaks saga's could aid in.

Wiki-leaks = Champion.

[Silverfyre]

Is there a need for classified information RIGHT now ?

Wiki-leaks = Champion.

Yes. Absolutely yes.  If we don't classify certain types of information, which includes certain government records, then people are going to use it for terrible means against innocent people.  Plain and simple.  It has happened in history, it will happen again.  Really, Kate, what kind of a dream world do you live in where such transparency of information can be accomplished?  Show me one real world incident where this has proven successful and not just some metaphysical dribble that makes very little sense.

[Kate]

Show me one real world incident where this has proven successful and not just some metaphysical dribble that makes very little sense.

- Little sense for those of such attitude.

Slavery was deemed an unavoidable aspect of the world while other countries adopted it.

If your nation was to compete admits others developing so fast using slave labor, what choice did one have ?

There was a time none could imagine it conceivable that a powerful society couldn't be based on some very firmly placed "lower classes"

Egypt, Rome and later colonial pushes proved the success of this methodology.

No example of a powerful society that didn't do likewise existed. When it was proposed in English parliament that slavery should be abolished 
the retort was simple, for a stable, powerful and competitive nation to exist, slavery was unavoidable.

How did it disappear ?

[kylie]

       Akiko, I'm not sure if you're looking for a separate debate about who has kept how many of the worst secrets, or just chiming in to say the left as well as the right has them.  For my part, I was not trying to say that only the right-ish range of the spectrum has kept a few nasty secrets.  In fact, I said exactly the opposite in a wave to ongoing issues with rendition (we could add Guantanamo under that area) and Hillary. 

      For the present discussion:  If the left as well as the right has some management and honesty issues, if bureaucracy is bigger than the average administrator's or the average voter's field of view, that's another bunch of potential reasons that maybe we should be interested in other parties (perhaps often enough, foreign entities) pointing out when the government's laundry has been remaining dirty in recent history (or today).

[Zakharra]

- Classified information. Hmm, personally I think the more mature a society gets the less information would be deemed classified. Assuming its an fundamental for a stable progressive society is ... an assumption, a choice. Is there a need for classified information RIGHT now ? While having Nukes one can launch remotely using some weird key ? Yes. Going forward however is what I was thinking wiki-leaks saga's could aid in.

Wiki-leaks = Champion.

I'll say that is what you want it to be. Unfortunately, that type of society is unlikely to ever exist.  For it to happen, people would have to stop being.. well, People, and from different nations/groups. No wars would exist, no violence or need for police, secret services and intelligence agencies.  Highly unlikely to ever exist.

Wiki-leaks is running the edge of what a lot of people would consider good. By the messages and information it does release, sooner or later something will be dropped in the internet that is very damaging and will get a lot of people killed.

[Silverfyre]

- Little sense for those of such attitude.

Slavery was deemed an unavoidable aspect of the world while other countries adopted it.

If your nation was to compete admits others developing so fast using slave labor, what choice did one have ?

There was a time none could imagine it conceivable that a powerful society couldn't be based on some very firmly placed "lower classes"

Egypt, Rome and later colonial pushes proved the success of this methodology.

No example of a powerful society that didn't do likewise existed. When it was proposed in English parliament that slavery should be abolished 
the retort was simple, for a stable, powerful and competitive nation to exist, slavery was unavoidable.

How did it disappear ?

You make little sense as it is with your comparison.  Really, how is that even valid for what I asked?  You have yet to give us any real world examples of where your ideas for societies and transparency have been successful.  If you can't back up your points with facts and only speculation and honest to god confusing statements, then why are you even trying to counter agree a valid point?

[Callie Del Noire]

- Little sense for those of such attitude.

Slavery was deemed an unavoidable aspect of the world while other countries adopted it.

If your nation was to compete admits others developing so fast using slave labor, what choice did one have ?

There was a time none could imagine it conceivable that a powerful society couldn't be based on some very firmly placed "lower classes"

Egypt, Rome and later colonial pushes proved the success of this methodology.

No example of a powerful society that didn't do likewise existed. When it was proposed in English parliament that slavery should be abolished 
the retort was simple, for a stable, powerful and competitive nation to exist, slavery was unavoidable.

How did it disappear ?

Uh Kate, how does that apply to Silverfyre's question? You're citing ancient history and society when he was asking for an example of a real world modern totally transparent society that works.

[Kate]

Is there a need for classified information RIGHT now ? While having Nukes one can launch remotely using some weird key ? Yes. Going forward however is what I was thinking wiki-leaks saga's could aid in.

Wiki-leaks = Champion.

was my original quote

Is there a need for classified information RIGHT now ?

Wiki-leaks = Champion.

- was her "take" on my quote

leaving

While having Nukes one can launch remotely using some weird key ? Yes. Going forward however is what I was thinking wiki-leaks saga's could aid in.

- out intentionally

- which is principal to the context of my statement.

[Inerrant Lust]

WikiLeaks: Terrorists or Champions of the Truth?

Neither.

Self-serving, self-righteous, ignorant gossip-mongers.

Is there a need for classified information RIGHT now ?

Yes.

Yes. There is.

While total government secrecy without oversight is naturally abhorrable...

The exact opposite (complete government transparency) is, quite frankly, stupid. Suicidal. Self-defeating.

Democracy is one of the frailest, most powerless government in existence. The closer you come to true democracy, the closer you get to literally empowering your enemies to destroy it (Precedence: Democratic Germany empowered Adolf Hitler to create a totalitarian state... because of the public support of the masses, ORDINARY PEOPLE LIKE YOU AND ME AND YOUR MOM AND MY UNCLE AND SO ON...!)

Given the fact that Wikileaks has not simply been shut down (despite it being constitutionally legal to do so, given the contract that they signed NOT to disclose this information), we're already empowering people who undermine the government's international gravity and diplomatic pull. So.. thanks for making us look internationally retarded, Wikileaks. Russia and China doesn't have this kind of problem.

Speaking of segues, So let's look at China. They censor the crap out of their country. While morally deplorable, they are in fact much more stable than they would be otherwise. (Not that I'm saying China's particularly prosperous, but they are more stable for censoring their people than they would be if they didn't.)

See how the North Vietnamese yesterday and the Insurgency today use our own media to demonize the war and demoralize the people at home? Both wars have been tactically successful, albiet phyrrically due to the impossibly-defined strategic goals and public dissent. A totalitarian dictatorship would not suffer such dissent. War is cruel and ugly, and for that reason Democracy will never be good at it. We're simply not playing by the same rules and we're suffering for it. You can't have a clean war and a successful war at the same time, but the coddled public refuses to accept this fact and expects us to have both.

In "Counterinsurgency’s Impossible Trilemma," Dr. Lorenzo Zambernardi, an Italian academic now working in the United States, clarifies the tradeoffs involved in counterinsurgency operations.[20] He argues that counterinsurgency involves three main goals, but in real practice a counterinsurgent needs to choose two goals out of three. Relying on economic theory, this is what Zambernardi labels the "impossible trilemma" of counterinsurgency. Specifically, the impossible trilemma suggests that it is impossible to simultaneously achieve: 1) force protection, 2) distinction between enemy combatants and noncombatants, and 3) the physical elimination of insurgents.

According to Zambernardi, in pursuing any two of these three goals, a state must forgo some portion of the third objective. In particular, a state can protect its armed forces while destroying insurgents, but only by indiscriminately killing civilians as the Ottomans, Italians, and Nazis did in the Balkans, Libya, and Eastern Europe. It can choose to protect civilians along with its own armed forces instead, avoiding so-called collateral damage, but only by abandoning the objective of destroying the insurgents. Finally, a state can discriminate between combatants and noncombatants while killing insurgents, but only by increasing the risks for its own troops, as the United States and ISAF did in Afghanistan under the leadership of Gen. Stanley McChrystal. So a country must choose two out of three goals and develop a strategy that can successfully accomplish them, while sacrificing the third objective.

Zambernardi’s theory posits that to protect populations, which is necessary to defeat insurgencies, and to physically destroy an insurgency, the counterinsurgent’s military forces must be sacrificed, risking the loss of domestic political support.

Popular Support, the currency that Democracy runs on. So... basically, only totalitarian dictatorships can really accomplish a successful counter-insurgency. If someone popped into office right now and started steamrolling over the insurgency in Iraq and Afghanistan and actually DID completely destroy the insurgency... Americans would vote the guy out of office because he sacrificed a few too many soldiers to do so.

Not that I agree with the war, I just think that if you're going to do something; you better damn well do it RIGHT. No half-ass pussy-footing around. People will die.

Not every secret is some evil conspiracy. Hell, most of the secrets the government keeps are to protect its' people from real, physical EXTERNAL threats, not to protect the bureaucracy itself or some crap like that.

Do you think it's a good idea to put on a map where all the major government facilities are? No, it's not. It's not even a good idea to put on a map where power plants and dams are. So some secrets are good secrets. Most secrets are good secrets. If you're in a fight with someone, do you tell him you're going to aim for his left knee in the opening bout? NO.

Problem is, who decides what's vital to national security and what isn't? Not some self-righteous tool on Wiki-leaks and not the same easily manipulated general public that elected Hitler. So in short... someone who has worked long hours for a good portion of his or her life trying to catch the bad guys and protect the guys wearing the boots downrange. He doesn't get paid very much... and hardly ever gets recognized for all the lives he's saved because his job is top secret.

You'll just have to trust him to make the right choice.

And if you simply CANNOT trust your government... then weaken it. Expose its' secrets so that you can weaken democracy from within. Tell the insurgent that we're about to capture him because we've been using magic wands to divine his location, so he can simply stock up on magic wand defeating devices instead of the magic bean defeating devices he's been using since before you clued him in on our use of magic wands....

Phew. That was a lame metaphor. ANYWAYS!

Wikileaks.

This act has weakened America far beyond whatever benefit the 'illumination of truth' could have ever possibly made.

I'm a pretty big anarchist (considering my profession...), but Wikileaks is self-serving exploitation veiled in truth-seeking nobility.

Besides... The Media is more slimy and dangerous than the government. Rather than merely keeping secrets, the Media is selectively picking and choosing what information is being fed to the public.

The Media is a business, with the interest of self-preservation. Self-preservation is accomplished by making money and staying financially secure.

The Government's interest is also self-preservation... but self-preservation is accomplished through conducting successful political actions and upholding public support.

I'll put my money on the big guys upstairs.

Unless the two assholes join idealogical forces to promote themselves and exploit the public...

In short?

If you want total transparency, you can have it, sure... but at the cost of the government that granted it to you.

[Silverfyre]

was my original quote
- was her "take" on my quote

leaving
- out intentionally

- which is principal to the context of my statement.

You can't even get my gender right with the shiny tag that reads "Knight" under my name so how do you think I'm going to take you seriously over such a heady discussion point?  Yeah, I think I've said my peace here. There is no convincing the blind.

[Trieste]

... which is one of the fallacies we ask people to avoid in the sticky at the top.

I think this probably needs a lock for a while, guys.