Ellsberg: “EVERY attack now made on WikiLeaks and Julian Assange made against me

[Vekseid]

An article written by his son and signed by him: http://www.ellsberg.net/archive/public-accuracy-press-release#more-451

...

As part of their attempt to blacken WikiLeaks and Assange, pundit commentary over the weekend has tried to portray Assange’s exposure of classified materials as very different from — and far less laudable than — what Daniel Ellsberg did in releasing the Pentagon Papers in 1971. Ellsberg strongly rejects the mantra “Pentagon Papers good; WikiLeaks material bad.” He continues: “That’s just a cover for people who don’t want to admit that they oppose any and all exposure of even the most misguided, secretive foreign policy. The truth is that EVERY attack now made on WikiLeaks and Julian Assange was made against me and the release of the Pentagon Papers at the time.”

...

Meanwhile, it's not enough that the rape charges against Assange appear to be entirely groundless, one of the women actually has CIA ties.

Sweden still hasn't charged him with a crime.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/08/wikileaks-rape-allegations-freedom-of-speech

Many women in both Sweden and Britain will wonder at the unusual zeal with which Julian Assange is being pursued for rape allegations (Report, 8 December). Women in Sweden don't fare better than we do in Britain when it comes to rape. Though Sweden has the highest per capita number of reported rapes in Europe and these have quadrupled in the last 20 years, conviction rates have decreased. On 23 April 2010 Carina Hägg and Nalin Pekgul (respectively MP and chairwoman of Social Democratic Women in Sweden) wrote in the Göteborgs-Posten that "up to 90% of all reported rapes never get to court. In 2006 six people were convicted of rape though almost 4,000 people were reported". They endorsed Amnesty International's call for an independent inquiry to examine the rape cases that had been closed and the quality of the original investigations.

Assange, who it seems has no criminal convictions, was refused bail in England despite sureties of more than £120,000. Yet bail following rape allegations is routine. For two years we have been supporting a woman who suffered rape and domestic violence from a man previously convicted after attempting to murder an ex-partner and her children – he was granted bail while police investigated.

There is a long tradition of the use of rape and sexual assault for political agendas that have nothing to do with women's safety. In the south of the US, the lynching of black men was often justified on grounds that they had raped or even looked at a white woman. Women don't take kindly to our demand for safety being misused, while rape continues to be neglected at best or protected at worst.

I think we're approaching another of those 'Emperor has no clothes' moments.

[Revolverman]

Is anyone truly surprised the Rape charges were utter bullshit? I'm surprised they didn't try to jump up some child molestation charges since that really gets people up in arms.

[Jude]

Not so much utter bullshit as manipulation of extremist feminist rape laws.  It's certainly not an unusual tactic to take someone in by charging them with something that would never stick in court in order to keep them until you decide what exactly you're going to do.

As far as the CIA connection goes, it's important that anyone who's formulating an opinion on this situation actually click the article and read it.  The connection isn't as insidious and outright damning as the summation of it is.

[Callie Del Noire]

I think that it's a case of he said/she said. I think that if Assange truly was willing to do the 'right thing' and unleash the papers like he did, he should be ready to expect some consequences. There is an abundant level of expectation when a reporter does the 'right thing' and exposes a scandal or publishes papers. It is ridiculous to assume that you can 'publish and be damned' attitude and put those things out there, assume there will be consequences.

Several of the folks listed on that webpage paid the price for their honesty and integrity.  To assume that he could simply go on living his life without a change is foolish and possibly a bit arrogant on the behalf of Assange.

As for the rape charges, I'm getting the feeling that the authorities want to hear and investigate HIS side of things. He bolted from the country fairly quick, and that isn't seen as the action of an innocent man.

[Zeitgeist]

Isn't there a problem with equating Ellsberg's 'Pentagon Papers' and Assange's Wikileaks dump?

The way I see it, the 'Pentagon Papers' were leaked to uncover and reveal a specific issue, problems relating to the decision making in regards to the Vietnam War. The Wikileaks dump was indiscriminate, and had no particular cause behind it under than the naive belief that everything our government(s) do should be completely transparent, all of the time. As if there is no room for decorum, subtlety and etiquette.

I can't say whether or not he broke any laws, but whoever gave him the information certainly did in my opinion. And I think it's doubtful one Army Private was behind it all.

No, I think it's incredibly naive to think this Assange is anything but an opportunist. He is not a 'whistle blower'.

[Callie Del Noire]

Isn't there a problem with equating Ellsberg's 'Pentagon Papers' and Assange's Wikileaks dump?

The way I see it, the 'Pentagon Papers' were leaked to uncover and reveal a specific issue, problems relating to the decision making in regards to the Vietnam War. The Wikileaks dump was indiscriminate, and had no particular cause behind it under than the naive belief that everything our government(s) do should be completely transparent, all of the time. As if there is no room for decorum, subtlety and etiquette.

I can't say whether or not he broke any laws, but whoever gave him the information certainly did in my opinion. And I think it's doubtful one Army Private was behind it all.

No, I think it's incredibly naive to think this Assange is anything but an opportunist. He is not a 'whistle blower'.

I agree, but I'm betting he doesn't see himself that way. Right now he's being 'put down by THE man.' and he's going to play that card to the hilt. I really don't see him measuring up to the moral bravery of any of the folks on that list. He did it for press for his sight and like you said the misguided thought that everyone everywhere must be able to know everything about everyone at anytime.

Privacy, personal or group, (aside from possibly his own) doesn't exist.

[Vekseid]

Not so much utter bullshit as manipulation of extremist feminist rape laws.  It's certainly not an unusual tactic to take someone in by charging them with something that would never stick in court in order to keep them until you decide what exactly you're going to do.

As far as the CIA connection goes, it's important that anyone who's formulating an opinion on this situation actually click the article and read it.  The connection isn't as insidious and outright damning as the summation of it is.

It's more amusing than anything. "Oh great, this is going to fly with the left." It's not enough that she threw a party for him after the incident, stuff like that begs the question "Okay, so why did she come forth?"

Isn't there a problem with equating Ellsberg's 'Pentagon Papers' and Assange's Wikileaks dump?

The way I see it, the 'Pentagon Papers' were leaked to uncover and reveal a specific issue, problems relating to the decision making in regards to the Vietnam War. The Wikileaks dump was indiscriminate, and had no particular cause behind it under than the naive belief that everything our government(s) do should be completely transparent, all of the time. As if there is no room for decorum, subtlety and etiquette.

Revealing the extent of government corruption and malfeasance is the claimed goal.

Wikileaks has a history of indiscriminately releasing information. A year and a half ago they released the 'secret rituals' of about a half dozen college frats/sororities. A year later and Assange was bitching about why people didn't pick stuff like that up on their own.

I can't say whether or not he broke any laws, but whoever gave him the information certainly did in my opinion. And I think it's doubtful one Army Private was behind it all.

Assange is not a US citizen and therefore is not subject to US law in any fashion. Nor could he be - the freedom of the press is in the first amendment. It would be extremely difficult to get Lieberman's douchebaggery to stick without filling the court with clones of Clarence Thomas.

As I mentioned in Trieste's thread, Assange got much of his initial information by sponsoring web proxies and Tor exit nodes. His lack of ethics is not exactly in a great deal of dispute. Even the government admits that Bradley Manning is the sole suspect in the cable releases, however. This is, largely, a result of overclassification and network integration on the government's part.

It's not like the government doesn't realize its fault in this.

No, I think it's incredibly naive to think this Assange is anything but an opportunist. He is not a 'whistle blower'.

I think it's incredibly naive to reduce the man to one word, personally. He's part of the old 'information wants to be free' guard. And most of the media is ignoring his own skill set and resources.

[Vekseid]

This is to say nothing of the fact that Wikileaks has offered to have the Pentagon help redact what gets released, and the government has refused.

Thus, the Department of Defense will not negotiate some "minimized" or "sanitized" version of a release by WikiLeaks of additional U.S. Government classified documents. The Department demands that nothing further be released by WikiLeaks, that all of the U.S. Government classified documents that WikiLeaks has obtained be returned immediately, and that WikiLeaks remove and destroy all of these records from its databases.

Wikileaks is not a United States organization. Wikileaks is a foreign organization. It has no need to give any sort of respect to the United States Government. It chose to, even though it did not have to, and was spurned. It would be difficult for the United States Government to even claim that WikiLeaks was operating outside of the law even if it was an American organization, as it is doubtful if that portion of the law would hold up to constitutional review.

Wikileaks, act least recently, is acting in a far more mature and respectable fashion than the US Government is. If you look at the documents from China, for example, you will note that identities have been carefully redacted.

I can't say I find all of the releases to be terribly relevant - but that is a problem from two angles.

One, from the US Government's end, a lot of material was classified that should not be. At the very least, some sort of delayed review could have been presented. If everything is classified, then nothing is, and then you get mass releases like this, most of which are little more than putting egg on a lot of people's faces, not often those of the US.

From Wikileaks side, so much of the material being trivial hurts them, too, as it makes it harder to pick out stuff that is actually damning. They haven't released a single percent of those documents, yet, so 'indiscriminant' is not an appropriate term for these most recent releases. They're picking out newsworthy bits and releasing them in bundles with silly stuff. It would be better, certainly, if they picked out the newsworthy bits and put a ten-year hold on the rest.

But the Government has its own culpability in this mess, and it's clear that this is how the rest of the world is considering it, in private if not in public.

[Zeitgeist]

Revealing the extent of government corruption and malfeasance is the claimed goal.

Wikileaks has a history of indiscriminately releasing information. A year and a half ago they released the 'secret rituals' of about a half dozen college frats/sororities. A year later and Assange was bitching about why people didn't pick stuff like that up on their own.

Seems like to me he's throw the whole mess against the wall and hopes something will stick, rather than calling attention to a particular grievance. I'd have more respect for the effort if it was to uncover or reveal a particular incident.

Assange is not a US citizen and therefore is not subject to US law in any fashion. Nor could he be - the freedom of the press is in the first amendment. It would be extremely difficult to get Lieberman's douchebaggery to stick without filling the court with clones of Clarence Thomas.

I didn't suggest he broke US laws, or that he is a US citizen. Perhaps he broke international laws, but I can't say as I'm no expert in that area. Lieberman isn't alone, Feinstein, a stalwart California liberal Democrat has been calling for his head also.

As I mentioned in Trieste's thread, Assange got much of his initial information by sponsoring web proxies and Tor exit nodes. His lack of ethics is not exactly in a great deal of dispute. Even the government admits that Bradley Manning is the sole suspect in the cable releases, however. This is, largely, a result of overclassification and network integration on the government's part.

I'm unconvinced the leak started and stopped with Manning and Assange. It would be to the government's best interest to say it was only Manning and that they have him in custody. It stretches credulity one low ranking enlisted serviceman would have both this level of access and able to get away with siphoning off this amount of information.

I think it's incredibly naive to reduce the man to one word, personally. He's part of the old 'information wants to be free' guard. And most of the media is ignoring his own skill set and resources.

Sure, he's a bit more nuanced than one word, but in my opinion he's undeserving of any kind of positive platitudes.

[Vekseid]

Seems like to me he's throw the whole mess against the wall and hopes something will stick, rather than calling attention to a particular grievance. I'd have more respect for the effort if it was to uncover or reveal a particular incident.

Most people would prefer the dross to be cut. Wikileaks has begun to realize this (with the slow releases), but most of it should simply held and released after it's dated for historical purposes.

Openleaks, launching on Monday, is supposedly planning on having a 'less reckless' policy. We'll see.

I didn't suggest he broke US laws, or that he is a US citizen. Perhaps he broke international laws, but I can't say as I'm no expert in that area. Lieberman isn't alone, Feinstein, a stalwart California liberal Democrat has been calling for his head also.

I'm not aware of any international law restricting any sort of disclosure whatsoever. Most of it doesn't focus on individual actions. The idea of nations is starting to get fuzzy, anyway.

I think the people calling for his head ought to be careful what they wish for.

I'm unconvinced the leak started and stopped with Manning and Assange. It would be to the government's best interest to say it was only Manning and that they have him in custody. It stretches credulity one low ranking enlisted serviceman would have both this level of access and able to get away with siphoning off this amount of information.

...are you familiar with SIPRNET?

Regardless, the military isn't blaming everything on him - he's only a person of interest in the Afghan war logs, for example.

[Callie Del Noire]

I'm not aware of any international law restricting any sort of disclosure whatsoever. Most of it doesn't focus on individual actions. The idea of nations is starting to get fuzzy, anyway.

I think the people calling for his head ought to be careful what they wish for.

Lieberman and Feinstien aren't known for moderating their impulses or even thinking them through. You can't expect them to do so now. I find it amazing that that the Democrats scream for tighter measures like what they are calling for, then wring their hands and lament when the republicans do the same.

...are you familiar with SIPRNET?

Regardless, the military isn't blaming everything on him - he's only a person of interest in the Afghan war logs, for example.

I am. I've used it, briefly and in a very restricted manner. The thing is the private HAD to have some greater level of access to do his job. It was clear that he used his access to move his agenda up a bit further and grant himself even better access.

[Vekseid]

Lieberman is a textbook narcissist, the only party he has any loyalty to is himself. John Ensign and Scott Brown are cosponsoring his law, anyway. It's not just democrats, obviously.

[Callie Del Noire]

Lieberman is a textbook narcissist, the only party he has any loyalty to is himself. John Ensign and Scott Brown are cosponsoring his law, anyway. It's not just democrats, obviously.

True.. but I always find it funny that these PARTICULAR Democrats (and unaffiliated) always wring their hands years down the line when things turn out 'bad' because of their rush to put a law into action without thinking (or letting the special interests 'help' them think)

[Kate]

He is australian and I think he is a hero.

Concerning ethics - that is highly subjective - to some its unethical to hide the truth.
even if he broke a law - and i dont think he did, if he exposes abuse or more fundamental issues concerning governments being unetical systematically - i think the ends justify the means and more some.

unfortunately the current political stance by the australian head of state sided with a hard-line american government stance.

Australia's stance with america on most hot political issues is disapointing, for some reasons australia looks to us as what it feels it wants to be and beleives they are friends they are not really. the us has time and time again broken agreemetns with australia, and the ansus treaty also doesnt really mean much it has a clause ".. if its in america's interest" effectively that means "we will help you australia ... as long as we were going to do it anyway regardless".

the stuff about it jeapodising peoples lives if the information is free - it could easily be said that more could be in jeapody if such things stay secret - and such abuses of secrecy (depending on the content of other documents) stay acceptable in our culture.


One big problem with things being "justified as secret" is that someone other than you is making the decision on what you shouldnt know.

[Callie Del Noire]

He is australian and I think he is a hero.

Concerning ethics - that is highly subjective - to some its unethical to hide the truth.
even if he broke a law - and i dont think he did, if he exposes abuse or more fundamental issues concerning governments being unetical systematically - i think the ends justify the means and more some.

I disagree with him being a hero. Do I think he's done anything illegal? No. I don't see how my country can prosecute him for revealing information another party gave him. He didn't receive the material in the US, and he's not a citizen. The thing is he's not a hero, he didn't do like Ellsberg did and specifically point out a conspiracy going on within the government, he didn't step up and say 'this is wrong'. He took a bunch of confidential documents and tossed them into the worldwide web and shouted 'oh look what we got to show how the US really thinks of everyone!' Which isn't true. A lot of confidential communications between various DIPLOMATS doesn't show how we think of people. It simply impedes the ability of other states to trust our diplomats to keep things in confidence. Trust, as I said before, is the currency that diplomacy works with. If you can't be trusted to keep things confidential, people won't deal with you. Without people to talk to, you can't build trust between people and nations.

Australia's stance with america on most hot political issues is disapointing, for some reasons australia looks to us as what it feels it wants to be and beleives they are friends they are not really. the us has time and time again broken agreemetns with australia, and the ansus treaty also doesnt really mean much it has a clause ".. if its in america's interest" effectively that means "we will help you australia ... as long as we were going to do it anyway regardless".

the stuff about it jeapodising peoples lives if the information is free - it could easily be said that more could be in jeapody if such things stay secret - and such abuses of secrecy (depending on the content of other documents) stay acceptable in our culture.

I'm sorry that the current diplomatic relations between your country and mine are not too good on your side of things. I honestly don't know how much of that is the fault of the government and how much of it is perception. The Australians I met while in the Navy were great folks, and I enjoyed my 10 days in Australia and Tasmania greatly.

Do you think that the Australian government will want to trust a diplomatic corp who can't be relied upon to keep things discreet between governments?

One big problem with things being "justified as secret" is that someone other than you is making the decision on what you shouldnt know.

Following your comments, it would have been a BAD thing for President Nixon to go to China secretly meet with them like he did. Nixon, a hard core anti-communist president, went to China to start up a diplomatic process with them. Something that even he wouldn't have been able to do if there had been this 'information must be free' outlook that you think is best.

Secrecy has to part of the diplomatic process, and the way that some information is handled inside and outside government. Could you honestly expect to achieve any measure of success with antagonistic governments like North Korea if everything is out there for everyone to see? No.

Do you need to know what the opening demands an antagonistic government makes in a treaty negotiation? Or how about the frequencies that we use for listening to terrorists? Or the time windows of our spy satellites over specific areas? Or what frequencies our radios work and how we encypher them?

There is a limit to 'need to know' for a reason. Assange and his friends don't see any limits on privacy. None. Not that between governments, not secrets a business might wish to keep and definitely NOT what right (or expectation of) to privacy for the average man on the street. Of course, I'm sure that it fully applies to THEM though.

Ellsberg did a dangerous thing, stood up to a government and showed ACTUAL conspiracy and lies to Congress and the American people. Assange and his friends at Wikileaks simply released a huge pile of documents that did nothing to change the process and most likely made it harder for the American Government to conduct diplomatic actions through out the world.

Not to mention the fact that some of these disclosures will interrupt/disrupt investigations, talks, trust building and so on. How long will it be before the folks who DID get mentioned in the released documents are willing to trust the diplomats for fear of some future leak like this. 

[Dingo]

This matter reeks of something bigger even if Assange did rape the women. After all, what the leader or founder of an organization does personally, should not reflect an organization as a whole. So the whole rape charges are whether true or false, trumped up for some bigger purpose.

As for the whole purpose behind WikiLeaks I am of two minds. On one side I believe in true freedom of information. On the other side. There definitely are some things I don't want to know.

There is actually the BBC series Yes, Minister (and Yes, Prime Minister) which I loved, which perfectly explains how government works. Of course it's comedy, but when one watches it, one can only wonder if there's not a grain of truth hidden in it.

And when I read what some of the US Diplomats wrote about heads of state it actually became much more a reason why you don't want to know.

I have another example, which I'd like to share.

Suppose Diplomat Andersen meets up with President Bernard of Countria. They have a very nice chat. Shake hands, leave a good impression. Then in his report back to his own nation, Andersen writes that he thinks the President is an utter idiot with the mind of a monkey and the looks of a chimpansee. However his chat went pretty well.

Now this very personal report and not the finalized version is leaked to the press.

Of course the press is going to mention what Diplomat Andersen thinks of President Bernard. And that can cause diplomatic incidents. Or at the very least embarrassment from those involved.

But do we really want to know that Diplomat Andersen is in private a very disrespectful man. Or do we actually need to know ?

That's the whole issue that as far as I'm concerned WikiLeaks brings to question.

[Kate]

Do you think that the Australian government will want to trust a diplomatic corp who can't be relied upon to keep things discreet between governments?

THe need for secrecy itself is a sign of an immature aspiration.

Abe lincon vs nixon.

True leaders don't need less and less of them.

"Secrecy has to part of the diplomatic process" => I disagree.


"Could you honestly expect to achieve any measure of success with antagonistic governments like North Korea if everything is out there for everyone to see?"

Yes. "High North Korea, start showing signs your immobilising against the south and i will slap you so fking silly ... now I have vented ... lets talk agreements"


"Do you need to know what the opening demands an antagonistic government makes in a treaty negotiation?"

Need to know ? THat depends on my intention. If I knew the information my intention will chance. I shouldtn be deemed by another if I am needy or not, and even if I was deemed
not needy that doesnt mean I don't deserve to know. These people represent us...
knowing if they are doing so for large issues doesnt have to be assumed.

IDeally the problem is with the voters. Vote people in who adore transparency and hopefully people could get addicted to it.


"Assange and his friends don't see any limits on privacy." => I disagree

I have not heard mention these documents imply Mrs So and so has genital worts
or loves anal sex.

"Ellsberg did a dangerous thing, stood up to a government and showed ACTUAL conspiracy and lies to Congress and the American people. Assange and his friends at Wikileaks simply released a huge pile of documents that did nothing to change the process and most likely made it harder for the American Government to conduct diplomatic actions through out the world."

Releasing documents without interpreting them i think is a larger gift to the public.
It allows others to intepret them as they wish. What he effectively has done is say

"Look at these - What do they all mean ? - you make the decision"

Some are shameful for military / governments... knowing this helps people ask one question
"Is this working ? is this what we wanted ? Do we want something else ? How could this happen ? Can we readdress roles and responsibility accountability etc"

How long will it be before the folks who DID get mentioned in the released documents are willing to trust the diplomats for fear of some future leak like this.

Issues of trust are interesting. Do I trust a diplomat to serve my intentions ? No.
They serve their own unless thigns are transparent. Secrecy gives more optiosn for them to be selfish or not care about those they effect. I think secrecy causes more harm than good

If a diplomat was doing their job properly - any transparency on their actions wouldnt be shameful simply proof of their position. High ranking government roles. Employ people who follow the transparent process.

[Oniya]

Tell me something - if you were seeing a psychiatrist, would you think it was right for transcriptions of your sessions to be publicly disseminated?  Medical ethics say they cannot be.  Likewise with priests and confessionals, attorneys (or solicitors) and clients and conversations between husbands and wives - there is a certain expectation of privacy in these relationships.  Without that expectation of privacy, the free exchange of information that allows those relationships to function.

I would submit that diplomats enter negotiations with the same expectation of privacy

[Zakharra]

THe need for secrecy itself is a sign of an immature aspiration.

Abe lincon vs nixon.

True leaders don't need less and less of them.

"Secrecy has to part of the diplomatic process" => I disagree.


Issues of trust are interesting. Do I trust a diplomat to serve my intentions ? No.
They serve their own unless thigns are transparent. Secrecy gives more optiosn for them to be selfish or not care about those they effect. I think secrecy causes more harm than good

If a diplomat was doing their job properly - any transparency on their actions wouldnt be shameful simply proof of their position. High ranking government roles. Employ people who follow the transparent process.

Honestly, that's a pretty stupid belief. There needs to be some secrecy in the diplomatic process, and especially in the military and espionage. Being too transparant weakens your hand a lot, and it gives the enemy more information about your intentions.

Any nation that ran as transparant as you seem to wish, would not last more than five years before being brought down.

[Kate]

For what you dream or intend or believe Zakharra, im sure secrecy is necessary.

A cornerstone of society to last more than 5 years.

[Silverfyre]

No offense, Kate, but I think you need to go back to your government and history classes and learn the basics before voicing an opinion that is based on optimistic assumptions about human nature and poltiics.  A society that gives forth all its information and exists in a state of complete transparency is not going to be around for very long in this world.  Human beings lie, it's a basic part of our nature.  Anyone who claims otherwise and seeks to say that their nation or society is completely honest is full of shit.

History proves that to be true time and time again.

[Kate]

Im sure the doubts of civillians governing themselves without squabbling so much nothing would be decided was thought of by kings
when the idea of democracy was proposed.

Yet even with this "flaw" of each having a voice and being represented - stuff gets done

What if even with the trapps and "flaws" of transparency - stuff could get done ?

[Silverfyre]

Im sure the doubts of civillians governing themselves without squabbling so much nothing would be decided was thought of by kings
when the idea of democracy was proposed.

Yet even with this "flaw" of each having a voice and being represented - stuff gets done

What if even with the trapps and "flaws" of transparency - stuff could get done ?

Show me evidence where this has happened and maybe I could agree with you.

[Zakharra]

For what you dream or intend or believe Zakharra, im sure secrecy is necessary.

A cornerstone of society to last more than 5 years.

I live in the real world, not a dreamland of fairtales.

Im sure the doubts of civillians governing themselves without squabbling so much nothing would be decided was thought of by kings
when the idea of democracy was proposed.

Yet even with this "flaw" of each having a voice and being represented - stuff gets done

What if even with the trapps and "flaws" of transparency - stuff could get done ?

And not one society has ever lasted except with some secrecy. In diplomacy you literally cannot say to the other person what you truly think of them or their group/nation. You have to be polite and try not to offend them.  Every single government has secrets in their diplomatic, military and and espionage circles. 

You cannot be completely transparent. That is a very stupid thing to do since you can bet the people you are talking to will not be transparent. They'll take your lack of secrets and ram them down your throat.

[Kate]

"Show me evidence where this has happened and maybe I could agree with you."
=> things shouldnt have to be proven elsewhere first before it is attempted.

" I live in the real world, not a dreamland of fairtales."
=> you live in the world as it currently believing what you beleive.

I lean towards entertaining what it could be and do not choose to believe the current system is the peak of the social model for humanity.

I beleive utopia is possible, i dont beleive utopia is an objective or a possibility with the current system.

" And not one society has ever lasted except with some secrecy. In diplomacy you literally cannot say to the other person what you truly think of them or their group/nation. You have to be polite and try not to offend them.  Every single government has secrets in their diplomatic, military and and espionage circles.   You cannot be completely transparent. That is a very stupid thing to do since you can bet the people you are talking to will not be transparent. They'll take your lack of secrets and ram them down your throat."

Not one society has lasted at all. All are in a state of flux and change. In diplomacy you dont HAVE to say what you truely think to anyone, you can however assume your role is transparent and act accordingly. Some people can be completely transparent. Those who are transparent among people who are not come over as more genuine - they can be trusted to be themselves what they are is played on the table - they are a known entity - people are drawn to it. lack of secrets is not a flaw - having them needing to maintain them assuming they stay so is a weakness

[Silverfyre]

Then by all means, gather your followers and attempt it.  Let me know how that little social experiment goes.  I'm sure there are plenty of "believers" out there that will follow your idea of a transparent society without question.  I'll stay over here in my "skeptics" camp and continue to view the world without rose tinted glasses. 

[Star Safyre]

Not disclosing one's weakness is a vital aspect of military, dating back to the very beginnings of the history of governments.  Establishing a strong government which is able to defend its citizens and resources must be the victor in matters of war.  Winning wars or succeeding in preventing the start of war because of a strong defense is critical to the continued existence of a state.

Disguising one's weakness and giving the illusion of strength are fundamental aspects of winning war and establishing peace.  Some quotes from The Art of War state it best:

"If you know both yourself and your enemy, you can win a hundred battles without a single loss."
"All warfare is based on deception."
"Never will those who wage war tire of deception."


The entirety of the codes of morality for the individual cannot be applied to the state.

[Silverfyre]

The entirety of the codes of morality for the individual cannot be applied to the state.

And if they were, we'd be living in a fascist state.  Hitler tried it and look what happened there.  Do you think that the opposite could hold serenity and peace for others?  No.  People are going to disagree and never reach a true consensus and thus, deception will be born out of even the best national intentions.  Completely transparent countries are a myth, plain and simple. 

[Zakharra]

"Show me evidence where this has happened and maybe I could agree with you."
=> things shouldnt have to be proven elsewhere first before it is attempted.

" I live in the real world, not a dreamland of fairtales."
=> you live in the world as it currently believing what you beleive.

I lean towards entertaining what it could be and do not choose to believe the current system is the peak of the social model for humanity.

I beleive utopia is possible, i dont beleive utopia is an objective or a possibility with the current system.

" And not one society has ever lasted except with some secrecy. In diplomacy you literally cannot say to the other person what you truly think of them or their group/nation. You have to be polite and try not to offend them.  Every single government has secrets in their diplomatic, military and and espionage circles.   You cannot be completely transparent. That is a very stupid thing to do since you can bet the people you are talking to will not be transparent. They'll take your lack of secrets and ram them down your throat."

Not one society has lasted at all. All are in a state of flux and change. In diplomacy you dont HAVE to say what you truely think to anyone, you can however assume your role is transparent and act accordingly. Some people can be completely transparent. Those who are transparent among people who are not come over as more genuine - they can be trusted to be themselves what they are is played on the table - they are a known entity - people are drawn to it. lack of secrets is not a flaw - having them needing to maintain them assuming they stay so is a weakness

Kate, do you even know how to use the quote function?  Reading your posts is more than a little confusing the way you have them structured.

Anyways..  Dreams are nice, but you need to make live in the real world, this world first. You can work towards a utopia (which is always a dream, there's never a true utopia since it would be perfect and could never be improved upon.)  and try to get there, but first you have to deal with the world you live in now.

Whether I believe in it or not, this is the way the world works. That is FACT, not belief, but fact.

Your vision of transparaency is.. lacking, for a better term. Are you assuming that all of the diplomat's cards are on the table? What about intelligence efforts his side does on the other side? Should that be set out too  or should you be open about everything? Should the diplomat make the correspondance avalible to  the other side too?

A person can be trusted to be honest and open, polite and such, but that person is also very likely to keep snarky opinions to themselves. Other wise if what they really thought, it might hurt their reputation as an honest person.   After all, what would you rather have? An honest and polite person, or an honest and very blunt spoken, possibly rude, person?

[Trieste]

Honestly, that's a pretty stupid belief. There needs to be some secrecy in the diplomatic process, and especially in the military and espionage. Being too transparant weakens your hand a lot, and it gives the enemy more information about your intentions.

Any nation that ran as transparant as you seem to wish, would not last more than five years before being brought down.

Calling something a 'stupid' belief is neither helpful nor progressive. It's mainly just hurtful. If you're going to denounce a belief, please use words that are a little more constructive such as 'uninformed', or I could even see the utility of 'naive'. "That's a stupid belief" is the equivalent of calling someone a poopiehead.

So please be more constructive. Thanks.

[Oniya]

* Oniya is beginning to suspect that her post on the reason behind 'privileged communication' got lost in the sauce.

[Callie Del Noire]

* Oniya is beginning to suspect that her post on the reason behind 'privileged communication' got lost in the sauce.

It didn't. Not by me. I just don't know what I can say that would contribute to the conversation right now. I'm a bit confused at some of the statements here and how they could be formed.

[Zakharra]

Calling something a 'stupid' belief is neither helpful nor progressive. It's mainly just hurtful. If you're going to denounce a belief, please use words that are a little more constructive such as 'uninformed', or I could even see the utility of 'naive'. "That's a stupid belief" is the equivalent of calling someone a poopiehead.

So please be more constructive. Thanks.

That's acceptible. I'd go with naive though. Kate seems to be any but uninformed. More like a willing disbelief in seeing how things really are.

Tell me something - if you were seeing a psychiatrist, would you think it was right for transcriptions of your sessions to be publicly disseminated?  Medical ethics say they cannot be.  Likewise with priests and confessionals, attorneys (or solicitors) and clients and conversations between husbands and wives - there is a certain expectation of privacy in these relationships.  Without that expectation of privacy, the free exchange of information that allows those relationships to function.

I would submit that diplomats enter negotiations with the same expectation of privacy

I can agree with that.

[Kate]

". Kate seems to be any but uninformed. More like a willing disbelief in seeing how things really are."

I find myself on the other side of the grain compared to the majority of views in the politics and religious threads.

How thing "really are", the "truth" or what is right or which "right" is more releavent is subjective, and depends a lot on your belief patterns and intentions.

Belief patterns color what they see or deduce we all wear rose colored classes for them.

[Serephino]

All right, let's go this route...

Do you tell the truth, and nothing but the truth all day every day?  Do you tell everyone exactly what you think?  Do you keep secrets that are confided to you, or do you tell everyone?  If a friend of yours was a blabber mouth, would you trust them with anything?

There are lots of people I don't particularly like, but have to deal with.  If I told them everything I thought about them all the time it would cause lots of unnecessary stress.  Instead I'm civil and polite, then later bitch to anyone who will listen.  Those people don't say anything either, because that would cause an issue too.   

Just because it's governments involved doesn't mean that basic social rules don't apply.  It would be nice if we knew a little more than we do, but no, complete transparency would not be a good thing.  When you play poker you don't show everyone your cards do you?  If it was made public that we were investigating country D for doing something they shouldn't, then country D will get better at hiding it.

Look around you.  The honor system doesn't work that well.  No matter what sample of the human population you look at, there will be at least one person who has done something they shouldn't, and lied about it.  If people behaved all the time we wouldn't need police.  It's not a pleasant side of human nature, but it is reality.

How do you propose catching the rule breakers if they know every move you make?  Like for instance, say I wanted to steal a DVD from Walmart.  I know they have a lot of security cameras that are always on in the electronics department.  I also know that there are magnetic strips inside the cases.  If I really wanted to, I could find ways around those things.  Of course I also know that they have security guards walking around pretending to be customers (was told this by a cashier).  I don't know who they are though, so they might catch me.

The same thing applies with governments.  If it was public knowledge that a bunch of different countries suspected Saudi Arabia of setting fire to their own oil rigs to drive up prices, and per their request we were setting up surveillance in certain locations on certain dates, I guarantee you we would find nothing because they would know we were watching them.  And if they had been doing it, we would never know, and never be able to prove it.   

[Zakharra]

I find myself on the other side of the grain compared to the majority of views in the politics and religious threads.

How thing "really are", the "truth" or what is right or which "right" is more releavent is subjective, and depends a lot on your belief patterns and intentions.

Belief patterns color what they see or deduce we all wear rose colored classes for them.

That is..   Kate, wether you believe it or not, how nations and the world operates isn't a 'truth', it is thee truth. Things are as they are right now. A cold hard and often ugly fact. You can work to change them but to say that it's merely a perception of belief is very foolish. Just because you don't believe it to be so doesn't mean you're right. The truth you so gleefully ignore will come up and  slap you alongside the head.

I do admit you are very good as obfuscating facts and mixing things up. you keep muddying the waters, so to speak and it confuses people. I imagine that getting a straight answer out of you is very hard.

Simple to say that there are things the government, military and industries need to keep secret. None of them could ever survive for very long if everythng was made public and transparent.

[Star Safyre]

Kate: Would you advocate nuclear launch codes being made available to the criminally insane?

[Callie Del Noire]

Kate: Would you advocate nuclear launch codes being made available to the criminally insane?

Or the private keys everyone's emails, routers and such so that the hackers can do as they wish with the internet?

I'm still reeling a bit at implications of a 'privacy free' world. No protection from anyone trying to do you harm. Is there a 'need to know' the world at large to know the root certificate of say.. the regional power grids, rail control lines, aircraft control networks?

[Kate]

We have a social structure based on assuming secrecy is needed to manage - likelihoods of internal conflict and external conflicts. Laws and so on, punishment options etc.

For say the punishment process to occur, some police operations have to be kept secret from the crims up until the point of a bust.

For internal conflicts to be resolved, some intentios of focus of one party has to be kept secret from the other while they build up a momentum.

For external conflicts to be resolved, some intentions and operations of the military (eg nuke codes)need to be kept secret.

I am not saying that the culture is ready to release all secrecy in a heart beat, for a culture to be transparent many of these things have to be readdressed and focuses, authoritiy, perhaps even ownership revisited. The tools we have in our current culture would make the current step of "nothing is secret" disasterous. I am not saying we are ready for true secrecy yet. Just that some examples of when secrecy facilitates actions against what the culture desires means that secrecy is perhaps not the answer to deveopement. My hope is soon new governing models are proposed - which are debated and a phased approach for the adoption of one which seems to be in agreement with many leads of anthropology / psychology etc are met that can resolve these conflicts in an integrated matter not a top down or with crude tools  - ie remove "we have a tool for what if it gets out of control - which is an implicit thread constatnly, but its an all or nothing thing mainly other than the threat stuff - "

[Oniya]

Let me try a concrete example.  I enjoy my time here on Elliquiy.  I have threads that range from the Light/Romantic to the Extreme, but within site guidelines.  Let's say I apply for a position teaching math to fourth graders (in this fairy world where I could pass the psychology part of the teaching cert, and get over my paralyzing fear of large groups of people under 4'6" tall).  Would you, Kate, agree that it would be advantageous in any culture for my activities here on Elliquiy to be transparently available to the people who are looking over my application for that teaching position?

Even more concrete:  I have a roommate that I often have 'differences in opinion' about.  I have no likely candidates to replace this person, and in the current economy, it is necessary for me to have a roommate.  As a result, I frequently come on here and vent about the situation (because I can't afford a shrink).  What would be the advantage to those conversations which I presume to be private being released to the public?  If I were to take these issues to an actual shrink, I would have a legal expectation of privacy.  What would be the advantage for transcriptions of my therapy sessions to be transparently released to anyone (including that roommate) who wanted to look at them?

As I mentioned in my previous post, there are certain relationships (confessor/penitent, solicitor/client, husband/wife, doctor/patient) where the presumption of confidentiality is necessary to maintain the communication that nurtures that relationship.  If I thought that my confessor was blabbing about everything I told them, I wouldn't feel comfortable confessing to them.  If I thought that my counterpart in an embassy was blabbing about everything I told them, I would most certainly not tell them everything.  The suspicion that whatever I told them would be transparently available within moments of telling them would be harmful to any negotiations that we were working on.

[Callie Del Noire]

We have a social structure based on assuming secrecy is needed to manage - likelihoods of internal conflict and external conflicts. Laws and so on, punishment options etc.

For say the punishment process to occur, some police operations have to be kept secret from the crims up until the point of a bust.

For internal conflicts to be resolved, some intentios of focus of one party has to be kept secret from the other while they build up a momentum.

For external conflicts to be resolved, some intentions and operations of the military (eg nuke codes)need to be kept secret.

So, given that the examples we used for why secrecy should be preserved in some instances, you're okay with in a general sort of way but when we cite specific areas you're against them?

[Kate]

Callie you do have a point.

It is justified if the ends justify the means... the "right" of him doing so will be retrospective.

What I mean by that is "if we are not ready for it and he does this" it

a) Is "bad" for the current methodology we have - concerning stability (faith in government - letting them do their job with the aces they have being played like no tomorrow)
b) Is a valuable stepping stone for the next evolution of democracy (because it gives us insights proving secrecy isnt doing what we have put faith in it being used for - its being exploited in a way that is against why what we beleive and pay governemnts to see done properly ).

WE ARE PAYING TAX FOR SOMETHING.

WHAT ?

Are we getting it ?

How do we know if we are ?

What signs to we look for to indicate we are not ?

I personally lean towards "b" being more releavent.

Some lean towards "a" being more releavent.

For "b" his actions are vital.

[Callie Del Noire]

Callie you do have a point.

It is justified if the ends justify the means... the "right" of him doing so will be retrospective.

What I mean by that is "if we are not ready for it and he does this" it

a) Is "bad" for the current methodology we have - concerning stability (faith in government - letting them do their job with the aces they have being played like no tomorrow)
b) Is a valuable stepping stone for the next evolution of democracy (because it gives us insights proving secrecy isnt doing what we have put faith in it being used for - its being exploited in a way that is against why what we beleive and pay governemnts to see done properly ).

WE ARE PAYING TAX FOR SOMETHING.

WHAT ?

Are we getting it ?

How do we know if we are ?

What signs to we look for to indicate we are not ?

I personally lean towards "b" being more releavent.

Some lean towards "a" being more releavent.

For "b" his actions are vital.

Okay.. to use your logic (If I'm following it right), the disclosure of NOC (No Offical Cover) Valerie Plame by sources within the White House to the media was a GOOD thing. Since it was clearly a secret and thus needed to be disclosed.

Okay.. I can refute that easily enough.

1. The disclosure in the media revealed to the world the identity of a real world spy, Valerie Plame. Instantly putting her and her family at risk to the people she had dealt with in the past, since they now had a name and face to put to possible past failures and leaks.

2. As a NOC agent, Plame's job in the CIA was to recruit people to give her information that foreign governments didn't want the US to know. Research into weapons of mass destruction, smuggling of arms/controlled goods, atrocities, negotiations/interactions with terrorists groups and such. Some of these agents did it for money, power, influence, the desire to make their country a better place, and any of a number of reasons from there.

You know what happened to said 'recruits' in some countries in the Middle East and Africa after her name came up? Some, possibly the lucky ones, of the ones that could be linked to her were possibly shot. Others lived short but eventful lives of torture and pain before dying. Others might have seen their family and friends killed before being killed themselves.

All because a 'unneeded' secret, according to you, was revealed. Secrecy is NOT an evil. It isn't always a method of 'covering up the MAN's actions'. Sometimes it is the methods needed to find out the RIGHT things and to SAVE people.

Why was Plame outed? Because her husband, who was unaware of her unofficial role as a NOC for the CIA, was doing his due diligence as an elected official and opposed the US' justification for entering Iraq at that time. Some TOOL in the White House (and I don't think it was 'Scooter' Libby) decided that he was above the rules and protections we give to our agents and their contacts and outed her.

A lot of outrage was given about outing Plame, but the media said little or nothing about what might have happened to the men and women she worked with and who trusted her to keep their identities secret (which according to you isn't 'right').

I'm sorry. It is nice to wish for a world like you think we can have, but the road to it is far from being done. The places you live and go might be in the modern 21st century and ready for it, but the world as a whole isn't much more civilized than what it was in the 1800s on a cultural standard. Anyone who looks into the actions of the Taliban, various groups in Asian and Africa and South America can see a lot of examples of bandit kings gone big thanks to modern weaponry.

[Will]

I think it's pretty clear that there are things that should stay classified.  The problem, for me, is who gets to decide what those things are.  Doesn't it seem like a conflict of interest for the government to decide what government information is too sensitive for the public?  I suspect many, many things have been classified for no good reason, or even for very bad reasons.  Manipulating public opinion, saving face, etc... these are not reasons to keep information under wraps, are they?  And yet, there's no real way to stop it.

I just wish there were a way to choose between the extremes of "information must be free!" and letting the government classify whatever they deem unnecessary to the public.  Sadly, I don't have a clue what that way would be, but I consider both of those extremes to be a little naive.  One side believes that "honesty is the best policy," so to speak, while the other believes that "father knows best."

[OldSchoolGamer]

I have some sympathy for the argument that some things should remain secret.  But in a way, WikiLeaks is just karma, chickens coming home to roost.  In an era where I have to disclose my complete financial history just to get a frakking cell phone...and can get turned down or charged outrageous fees if it's not to the corporate state's liking...well, perhaps those who created the corporate state now know what it's like to live in a goldfish bowl.  Turnabout is fair play.

Is WikiLeaks wrong.  Perhaps.  So here's my song of sympathy for the corporate state, played on this instrument:

[Will]

The image isn't working, so I'm just going to assume it's the world's smallest violin.

[OldSchoolGamer]

The image isn't working, so I'm just going to assume it's the world's smallest violin.

Indeed it is.   ;D  Fits in the palm of one's hand with room to spare.

[Star Safyre]

I figured it was a violin or one of these:



Regardless, yes, I concede there is certainly a conflict of interest by allowing the government to decide what and what not should be considered secret.  I think the human factor plays a great deal into this though; we forget that the same "government" (regardless of the degree of its democracy) is still created and staffed by human beings.  Throughout history, individuals who feel morally obligated will disclose government secrets, and it is these people the world champions in history.  The same can be said for those who do so for power, glory, and greed, though we remember them as traitors.  Same actions, very different motivations.  Teasing out these motivations is a job for the international court system or historians. 

[Callie Del Noire]

That is why you have oversight groups, both outside the normal government channels and within congress. Closed hearings are often done to explain to a certain few congressmen/senators how the money is being spent, who is doing what and to ensure someone who (nominally) doesn't have a vested interest in the outfit at hand knows what is going on.

The system isn't perfect, but dropping a quarter of a million documents on Wikileaks isn't the same as Ellsberg spending a LOT of time trying to get the Pentagon Papers dropped into the minutes of a congressional or senatorial debate. The man tried long and hard to work within the system, talked to a LOT of elected officials before going to the New York Times.

Too many people these days seem intent on saying the system is totally broken without even trying.

[Serephino]

I won't claim that there aren't abuses going on.  Even with oversight groups I'm sure there's bribery and what not happening.  Still, the average person doesn't understand the workings of government and diplomacy.  All we can really do is keep ourselves aware.  The clues are what is in public knowledge. 

Thanks to modern media we are more informed now than our grandparents.  Of course that also means that false information can be put out there too, so you kind of have to take everything with a grain of salt.  You can go online and look up what Congress votes on.  I think they even televise things, though I'd only watch something like that if I had trouble sleeping.   

[Oniya]

You can go online and look up what Congress votes on.  I think they even televise things, though I'd only watch something like that if I had trouble sleeping.   

They do.  CNN has a camera on both the House and the Senate.  Unfortunately, it doesn't air when the insomniacs need it most.  ;)

[Serephino]

Yes, that's it.  I couldn't remember the name of the network. 

[Star Safyre]

C-SPAN is the channel.  It's so interesting to the average American viewer that I heard that some cable companies, rather than shut off service for non-payment, make it the only channel available.  Apparently, being only able to watch C-Span is enough to make people pay their bills instead of watch their legislators at work.  Great to know what Americans do with what transparency we're offered.

[Oniya]

Gee, that's the one channel I didn't try to pull in when they cut me off the other day (since remedied).

[Jude]

C-SPAN is the channel.  It's so interesting to the average American viewer that I heard that some cable companies, rather than shut off service for non-payment, make it the only channel available.  Apparently, being only able to watch C-Span is enough to make people pay their bills instead of watch their legislators at work.  Great to know what Americans do with what transparency we're offered.

I always find C-Span fascinating, then again I'm weird.  It's amazing to see what our government at work is like.  All of the unnecessary formality and procedure in the Senate makes the stereotypical mystically-traditionalist Japanese Businessman from American movies look like a fat guy in a stained WWF t-shirt, unkept mullet, neckbeard, and beer-helmet attending a private dinner with Pope Palpatine.

[Star Safyre]

When I used to teach Government, we would read the Constitution, and it says in the Constitution that all citizens must be granted access to the discussions which take place in the House and Senate.  The students, high school seniors, were always amazed when I told them that that boring channel of the big room with all the guys in suits wandering around is actually their lawmakers and that the Constitution guarantees us access to what happens in there.

[Will]

Well, to be fair, most if it IS just people in suits wandering around.  I know they're doing important things, but really, if you have time in your day to watch them stand around and wait for voting to start or finish, I envy you.

[ColdBloodedJellyDoughnut]

I've read everyone's opinion (thank god for speed reading) and I've been following the news of wikileaks avidly and there was only one conclusion I could come to: If Mr Assange really had the rights and best intentions of the world in mind he would have remainded anonymous. Instead he has published documents that show nothing more than the fact that American embassadors are incompetent and endangered the lives of troops in a war he has nothing to do with. All the while he lives on a plush estate with his wealthy supporters, bleating about freedom of speech.

It had nothing to do with freedom of speech, and if he was surprised by the rape allegations, he is a bigger idiot than I thought.

What annoyed me the most about his reaction to those allegations was when he said something akin to: 'Silly women getting hysterical over nothing'. Perhaps the allegations are completely untrue, but that reaction just made him look like a bigger pig.

[Kate]

some documents apparently imply australia's ambassador management also has a few embrassing issues

[Star Safyre]

If Mr Assange really had the rights and best intentions of the world in mind he would have remainded anonymous. Instead he has published documents that show nothing more than the fact that American embassadors are incompetent and endangered the lives of troops in a war he has nothing to do with. All the while he lives on a plush estate with his wealthy supporters, bleating about freedom of speech.

I think he makes a good foil to Deep Throat.

[Callie Del Noire]

I think he makes a good foil to Deep Throat.

I prefer to think of Assange as 'The bloody Tool'.

[Trieste]

I think he makes a good foil to Deep Throat.

*wonders how many google hits Star got on 'deep throat' before being able to find the correct one* :P

[Silverfyre]

I prefer to think of Assange as 'The bloody Tool'.

Add an "S" to "Tool" and you got my thoughts on him.

[Star Safyre]

*wonders how many google hits Star got on 'deep throat' before being able to find the correct one* :P

Actually, my google-fu was strong that day, and I got what I wanted on the first hit.  (Though I think it makes up for the other day when I was looking for "female drow" and found M/M porn.   Seems all roads on the internet lead to buttsex.  ::) )

I prefer to think of Assange as 'The bloody Tool'.

My non-phonetically reading brain keeps reading his name as "AssAnger".  I've refrained from mentioning it before, because, well, being mature and all that jazz.   ::)