Wikileaks story

[Flax]

 

[JoanOfArc]

Cui prodest? Its done to damage political credibility of president Obama and his administration etc...

 

[Qvist]

Very young people have a hard time dealing with unfairness and injustice. So do I. I know this is the way the world works, but there is a difference between not needing to know the fine points of my country's diplomatic tactics, or the salaries of my colleagues at work, and having the right and the desire to know if gross crimes against humanity are being carried out by my country, in my name and purportedly in my best interests--which they are not. I also demand to know that I work for an ethical firm. I walked out of the first job I'd had in nearly a year, because I discovered they were routinely and happily breaking federal laws regarding taxation and immigration. I refuse to participate in that.

I live in a country which insists it can't afford to pay for basic healthcare for everyone, while it spends billions carrying out mass murder to benefit corporate interests. That's not acceptable to me. If taking that view makes me sound like a spoiled, whiny toddler, so be it.

That's praiseful damnation. Unfortunately, this was not the sense in which I complained of childishness. I am not talking about an unwillingness to participate in injustice even if it is normalised, which is an attitude I wholeheartedly applaud and share (I hope - I have yet to have it put to the test, fortunately). My point was directed against your (and not only your) idea that there is a problem per se with information being kept classified and the notion that this somehow represents a crucial shortage of transparency. This is, to put it gently, rather divorced from the realities of life - not in the sense of being hopefully idealistic, but in the sense of having failed to acknowledge a basic and self-evident trait of how the world works.

Everyone who has a job handles information that needs to be kept confidential. If you're a teacher you have sensitive information about parents and students. If you're a nurse you have sensitive information about patients. If you work in the office of a small construction company you know things about tender bids and contracts that could crucially damage your company if it gets in the wrong hands. Even a lowly gas station janitor knows things about cash deposit routines and burglar alarms that could potentially be very harmful in the wrong hands. In short - the idea that free and full access to information represents some form of normality or even an attainable or desirable ideal is nonsense.

No one can operate a large organisation for any purpose without confidentiality of information. Certainly not the government of one of the world's largest and most advanced countries, and most definitely not a diplomatic organisation. Without it, you are defenseless, crippled and unable to either exchange or process information. Again, it would be very much like social life if someone could read every thought you had on your forehead.

Of course, there is a legitimate issue involved between the inescapable need for confidentiality of information and the public's need to be aware of information affecting it - and naturally above all when it comes to a government, which is the direct representative of the public. Note that government officials do not arbitrarily withhold whatever information they like. There is legislation guiding classification of documents, and you can only do so for specific reasons and on a case to case basis. There is no self-evident point of where to strike the balance, but my point here is that you don't even acknowledge the issue - you just assume that there should be total transparency, and that any limitation to that is inherently problematic.

Sorry. You are quite honestly one of my favorite posters around here, I am quite sure your poetry is not bloody awful and I do not mean to be so rude. Still, I must speak frankly. Or at least I choose to. I guess it must be what Worm once colorfully referred to as my "thriving ego".

 

[Qvist]

Okay. I see your distinction and accept the validity of your criticism. In dumping the documents indiscriminately, Assange was foolish and maybe he deserves a long prison sentence, complete with daily shower visits from Big Bubba over in Cell Block D.

In the interest of not appearing too agreeable , I'll throw out this little nugget: while I essentially agree with you that a handful of rogue actors should not be applauded for recklessly endangering the "international system", I do think Assange, for all his sins, has perhaps provided us all a moment to weigh the value of said system. As with the financial crisis of 2008, everyone ought to at least entertain the following question, even if just for a second: "Is saving a system this corrupt truly preferable to a global meltdown?"

As a parent you will think that a fatuous question, I'm sure. It is merely a question.

Well, I'll keep it brief: Yes, it is preferable to a global meltdown. By a very big margin. But then, you know how I feel about meltdowns. But seriously, it doesn't seem that corrupt really, does it? I might have missed something, but what I've caught have been mainly a couple of questionable cases regarding a combat action in Iraq and treatment of terrorism suspects which at least doesn't really represent anything very new - and the UN gathering of personal information thing which is of course slightly scandalous but hardly earth-shattering.

Well, if you are an idealist, and I have no reason to doubt it, perhaps the difference between your perspective, and the view espoused by PFTLT and me, comes down to the fact that you're not both an idealist and an American. I think if you were you might have an extra twinge of anger for what's happened here, because it feels an awful lot like a great nation's suicidal self-betrayal. Even in the "glory days" of Reagan I knew America was far from sinless, but there was still a sense that the wrongdoers were just a few misguided good guys who cut one corner too many. The CIA dropped a bag of cash off at a death squad camp in Central America, a wayward patriot sold arms to Iran, Wall Street got filthy rich but it was limited to a few anomalies, and so on. Now I have to read about kidnapping and torture going unpunished by "sane" people in Washington, the Supreme Court lets corporations buy elections, our national psyche is trapped in the loving embrace of a beauty queen who shoots wolves from a helicopter, and the only one talking any sense is a f***ing TV comedian. I find it hard to pardon Assange's actions, yes, but in the present environment I find it even harder to feel any sympathy for the system he has momentarily jolted.

This is a case in which it might be said nobody really has a totally defensible position; difficult to say in the middle of this long night in which all cats are grey.

I can see your point. Maybe it's different as a foreigner. I don't mean to minimise any of these things, but much depends on the overall interpretation you put on them (are they systemic traits or essentially abnormalities?) and how you assess the overall nature of the system. From where I'm standing however, american excesses is not very high on my list of international worries. But I might of course be too sanguine on that point, who knows.

 

[mauve21]

Freedom of information - Yay!
Raping - Boo

 

[PregnantForTheLastTime]

That's praiseful damnation. Unfortunately, this was not the sense in which I complained of childishness. I am not talking about an unwillingness to participate in injustice even if it is normalised, which is an attitude I wholeheartedly applaud and share (I hope - I have yet to have it put to the test, fortunately). My point was directed against your (and not only your) idea that there is a problem per se with information being kept classified and the notion that this somehow represents a crucial shortage of transparency. This is, to put it gently, rather divorced from the realities of life - not in the sense of being hopefully idealistic, but in the sense of having failed to acknowledge a basic and self-evident trait of how the world works.

Everyone who has a job handles information that needs to be kept confidential. If you're a teacher you have sensitive information about parents and students. If you're a nurse you have sensitive information about patients. If you work in the office of a small construction company you know things about tender bids and contracts that could crucially damage your company if it gets in the wrong hands. Even a lowly gas station janitor knows things about cash deposit routines and burglar alarms that could potentially be very harmful in the wrong hands. In short - the idea that free and full access to information represents some form of normality or even an attainable or desirable ideal is nonsense.

No one can operate a large organisation for any purpose without confidentiality of information. Certainly not the government of one of the world's largest and most advanced countries, and most definitely not a diplomatic organisation. Without it, you are defenseless, crippled and unable to either exchange or process information. Again, it would be very much like social life if someone could read every thought you had on your forehead.

Of course, there is a legitimate issue involved between the inescapable need for confidentiality of information and the public's need to be aware of information affecting it - and naturally above all when it comes to a government, which is the direct representative of the public. Note that government officials do not arbitrarily withhold whatever information they like. There is legislation guiding classification of documents, and you can only do so for specific reasons and on a case to case basis. There is no self-evident point of where to strike the balance, but my point here is that you don't even acknowledge the issue - you just assume that there should be total transparency, and that any limitation to that is inherently problematic.

Sorry. You are quite honestly one of my favorite posters around here, I am quite sure your poetry is not bloody awful and I do not mean to be so rude. Still, I must speak frankly. Or at least I choose to. I guess it must be what Worm once colorfully referred to as my "thriving ego".

Yes, but there is a difference between cooperating to protect your workplace, your community, from criminals, and protecting criminals who happen to be your colleagues. I have been weak, perhaps, in not taking stronger action in righting wrongs done by those with whom I have come in contact. It takes tremendous strength just to push away those who are wrong.

I can't explain again: yes, there is a purpose to discretion and a certain amount of secrecy, but I can't fault Assange, really. He's half shit-kicker and half Savior, and I'll salute the Savior half first.

Well, I'll keep it brief: Yes, it is preferable to a global meltdown. By a very big margin. But then, you know how I feel about meltdowns. But seriously, it doesn't seem that corrupt really, does it? I might have missed something, but what I've caught have been mainly a couple of questionable cases regarding a combat action in Iraq and treatment of terrorism suspects which at least doesn't really represent anything very new - and the UN gathering of personal information thing which is of course slightly scandalous but hardly earth-shattering.

I can see your point. Maybe it's different as a foreigner. I don't mean to minimise any of these things, but much depends on the overall interpretation you put on them (are they systemic traits or essentially abnormalities?) and how you assess the overall nature of the system. From where I'm standing however, american excesses is not very high on my list of international worries. But I might of course be too sanguine on that point, who knows.

Well, thank you. Maybe it is, in part, American egotism that makes me more worriful of what my country is doing. But I see it as a bigger picture: White American Christian overreaching--I think many of us do see and fear Bush's modern Crusade. We (in New York) live among Muslims and Jews and nonbelievers and Orthodox of all stripes, and we really want a world in which each of us can live and believe (and personally I think the deepest thinkers among us believe that we are all worshipping the same, multiparous God) as we see fit. American reaching into the Middle East is not about religion; it is only about Money, but they are perfectly willing to use religion as a tool to accomplish economic domination over critical resources. This is unspeakably vile, and a complete bastardization of everything any true believer believes.

I'm glad to know you think you may be being too sanguine about it--I wish I could be so too. I think we are really concerned that if this little bit was so easily revealed, there are far worse details lurking just around the corner.

Freedom of information - Yay!
Raping - Boo

Comfortable oversimplification of the day: win. Thank you.

 

[Anaesthesine]

I think that this story is one of the most important sociopolitical events of the 21st century; I think it's a turning-point in human history.

Plus, we get cool new words like "hacktivism" and "hacklash."

 

[Worm]

Sorry, I just saw this after the bump.

Well, I'll keep it brief: Yes, it is preferable to a global meltdown. By a very big margin. But then, you know how I feel about meltdowns. But seriously, it doesn't seem that corrupt really, does it? I might have missed something, but what I've caught have been mainly a couple of questionable cases regarding a combat action in Iraq and treatment of terrorism suspects which at least doesn't really represent anything very new - and the UN gathering of personal information thing which is of course slightly scandalous but hardly earth-shattering.

I don't think anyone's had the time to go through all the documents yet. What I know of so far-- as in the instance I cited above, in which some memos seem to show that top U.S. officials knew of and permitted (for awhile) the abduction of an innocent man-- is important because they trace the corruption to the highest levels. To do so is vitally important. Think of how damaging the truth of Watergate was to Richard Nixon. To know of the boss's wrongdoing, and in some cases to perpetrate it, can decide whether a regime can survive or not. A small but significant number of WikiLeaks documents might tell us something about our government.

Also, even if one holds that the sort of statecraft exposed by the documents is perfectly legitimate in itself, it is at the very least troubling that the United States continues to use its power unilaterally in a strong-armed fashion. This isn't America's world to toss around anymore. (It never was.) Americans need to know what's going on so they can perhaps try and change the direction of foreign policy, because right now we're headed down the same path as the Soviets in the mid-80s. This objection isn't a "smash the system" objection, I hope it's clear. It really is misguided foreign policy, pressuring governments, ignoring facts, tampering with international judiciaries. We need to know what's going on. We knew beforehand, but the documents lend more weight to any critique of the government we might make, either as jovial anarchists or serious-minded policy wonks.

I can see your point. Maybe it's different as a foreigner. I don't mean to minimise any of these things, but much depends on the overall interpretation you put on them (are they systemic traits or essentially abnormalities?) and how you assess the overall nature of the system. From where I'm standing however, american excesses is not very high on my list of international worries. But I might of course be too sanguine on that point, who knows.

Well, I'm not surprised at the U.S. not being high on your list of worries. We're a tottering, cracked, diseased giant about ready to topple.

 

[Dave]

Okay. Stop. This is post #56 in this thread. From post #57 onward, please specify whether you are arguing about one of the following:

1) The tiny percentage of WikiLeaks documents which paint a damning portrait of U.S. foreign policy.

or

2) The overwhelming majority of WikiLeaks documents which do nothing but embarrass the United States' diplomatic apparatus and needlessly cause harm.

or here's an idea. Why don't you accept that you can't define the terms of the argument? You're not even attempting to present a balanced view here. Which needless harm are you more worried about? The potential problems that may be caused or the actual reign of terror inflicted on us by the past two administrations.

 

[Qvist]

or here's an idea. Why don't you accept that you can't define the terms of the argument? You're not even attempting to present a balanced view here. Which needless harm are you more worried about? The potential problems that may be caused or the actual reign of terror inflicted on us by the past two administrations.

Haha. I hope for your sake Dave that you don't ever get to find out what "Reign of Terror" actually is.

 

[Qvist]

Sorry, I just saw this after the bump.



I don't think anyone's had the time to go through all the documents yet. What I know of so far-- as in the instance I cited above, in which some memos seem to show that top U.S. officials knew of and permitted (for awhile) the abduction of an innocent man-- is important because they trace the corruption to the highest levels. To do so is vitally important. Think of how damaging the truth of Watergate was to Richard Nixon. To know of the boss's wrongdoing, and in some cases to perpetrate it, can decide whether a regime can survive or not. A small but significant number of WikiLeaks documents might tell us something about our government.

Also, even if one holds that the sort of statecraft exposed by the documents is perfectly legitimate in itself, it is at the very least troubling that the United States continues to use its power unilaterally in a strong-armed fashion. This isn't America's world to toss around anymore. (It never was.) Americans need to know what's going on so they can perhaps try and change the direction of foreign policy, because right now we're headed down the same path as the Soviets in the mid-80s. This objection isn't a "smash the system" objection, I hope it's clear. It really is misguided foreign policy, pressuring governments, ignoring facts, tampering with international judiciaries. We need to know what's going on. We knew beforehand, but the documents lend more weight to any critique of the government we might make, either as jovial anarchists or serious-minded policy wonks.



Well, I'm not surprised at the U.S. not being high on your list of worries. We're a tottering, cracked, diseased giant about ready to topple.

No more than a small fraction of the documents have been published yet. I'm not going to go into a debate in detail about the spanish case, but I will just say that there is nothing unusual about one country attempting to persuade another of the merits of their position in an international issue on which they don't agree.

 

[Qvist]

I think that this story is one of the most important sociopolitical events of the 21st century; I think it's a turning-point in human history.

Plus, we get cool new words like "hacktivism" and "hacklash."

What, the point at which activism just threw off all restraint or pretense of being linked to some sort of un-personal idea, world-view or analysis and committed itself fully to leading a jolly pirate's life on the high seas of information warfare, where truth and meaning belongs to he who can get himself heard and don the sacred mantle of Nemo?

Give me enough rope. Please.

 

[Dave]

Haha. I hope for your sake Dave that you don't ever get to find out what "Reign of Terror" actually is.

They are ruling through fear.

 

[Anaesthesine]

What, the point at which activism just threw off all restraint or pretense of being linked to some sort of un-personal idea, world-view or analysis and committed itself fully to leading a jolly pirate's life on the high seas of information warfare, where truth and meaning belongs to he who can get himself heard and don the sacred mantle of Nemo?

Give me enough rope. Please.

I'm not saying that Assange is a savior, I'm just saying that he let the genie out of the bottle for good. Assange set his sights on destroying the whole notion of secrecy, and even if he's locked up, there is a never-ending supply of information warriors who can and will take his place. This is a revolution.

I happen to agree with you on this subject: I had family involved in intelligence gathering, I know that good people who act in good faith often depend on secrecy. It's a childish notion that full disclosure is always a good thing.

I tend to think that the Iraq War could have been prevented had Wikileaks been around: it was a trumped-up war and everyone knows it. I think that absolute transparency would prevent many debacles that we don't even know are brewing, and I agree with the notion that bad actors always act in secret. I also think that some debacles are averted by secrecy - that good actors sometimes act under cover, and that absolute transparency has the potential to derail good work. Information will not necessarily set us free.

That said, I have to agree with Worm and PFLT: America is a highly radicalized, dangerous place. The neocon doctrine of preemptive war is still espoused by people who may wield power relatively soon. All that stands between bad actors and another war of convenience may well be full disclosure.

 

[M-in-Oz]

If the information was so sensitive then why was it available for so many people to have access to.
Ex-CIA officer Ray McGovern said on ABC radio that it is quite easy for diplomatic secrets to be put in 'code word channel' for protection but "Colin Powell who was secretary of state caved in and left 2.5 million privates and sergeants in on state department traffic all because of 9/11 and because someone told him that everything needed to be shared.

He knew better than that. And yet you see him going ahead and releasing those cables; it was unconscionable but that's what happened. In no way could a private in eastern Baghdad have gotten access to those cables, were it not for Colin Powell saluting smartly and saying "oh yeah you can have all my diplomatic traffic up to and including secret level".

The other issue I am interested in/worried about is the lack of assistance from the Australian govt. towards an Australian citizen. While my government believes in freedom of information, democracy, innocence until proven guilty - they have left Assange without help and condemned him in their media statements.

 

[Raphael Lambach]

Wikileaks founder Julian Assange freed on bail

What d'you think?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12005930

 

[Qvist]

Allegations of a "Swedish vendetta" fall on their own lack of basic plausibility. Sweden has rule of law, he'll get a fair hearing. Maybe he's guilty, maybe he isn't, in any case it's something else than the Wikileaks thing.

 

[Raphael Lambach]

it's incredible that only seven vehicles of communication have access on the wiki's docs and two of them are Brazilian (the two biggest Brazilian's journals ).

 

[Black Cloud]

Julian Assange: 4

Job +8
Hair +6
Sexual Health -11
Ex's -4
Accent -5
Brain +10
​

 

[Qvist]

I'm not saying that Assange is a savior, I'm just saying that he let the genie out of the bottle for good. Assange set his sights on destroying the whole notion of secrecy, and even if he's locked up, there is a never-ending supply of information warriors who can and will take his place. This is a revolution.

I happen to agree with you on this subject: I had family involved in intelligence gathering, I know that good people who act in good faith often depend on secrecy. It's a childish notion that full disclosure is always a good thing.

I tend to think that the Iraq War could have been prevented had Wikileaks been around: it was a trumped-up war and everyone knows it. I think that absolute transparency would prevent many debacles that we don't even know are brewing, and I agree with the notion that bad actors always act in secret. I also think that some debacles are averted by secrecy - that good actors sometimes act under cover, and that absolute transparency has the potential to derail good work. Information will not necessarily set us free.

That said, I have to agree with Worm and PFLT: America is a highly radicalized, dangerous place. The neocon doctrine of preemptive war is still espoused by people who may wield power relatively soon. All that stands between bad actors and another war of convenience may well be full disclosure.

I hear you, and as usual you provide food for thought and stern sense. But I don't think you're going to get that revolution. There may be an unending stream of information warriors, but information is in fact very easy to protect so well that it is nearly impossible to get to it. If there is any lasting effects of this, that is going to be it, in my opinion. I have no idea of the details of US communications systems, but I'd be surprised if that couldn't be implemented more or less at a flick of a switch, simply by changing routines. Once you restrict the sort of information that has been leaked here to essentially the people who have a direct need for it, you remove nearly all the risk. Even with more than 2 million people with access, nearly none of whom had any personal involvement with the information produced, there were only one single person who actually leaked. And if you actually devote resources to it, you can easily make things much more difficult still. It makes your system less functional and things more cumbersome, but that's possible to live with if neccessary.