Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post - changing how you think about afghanistan: a massive leak of military documents.

roachboy · 08-13-2010, 04:35 PM

yeah, see i am not sure it's so easy. if you assume the committment on the part of wikileaks is to a more democratic information environment, so to more openness, to less secrecy....i find that acceptable as a justification for releasing the documents.

but that doesn't mean they should just be put out there as they are. so you ask yourself: who can help edit these to minimize the damage to actual people on the ground in 2010, given that the most recent of the documents is from early 2009...clearly the institution that originated them would be most competent.

so if the ethical question is resolved in the direction of democratic information flows that obviates the question of official classifications. to my mind it does. but it **doesnt** eliminate the questions that have to do with endangering people. so they approached the dod. at that point, the people in the department had a choice: what's more important really? maintaining the formal stance concerning secrecy or actually protecting people's lives. the choice is clear.

i think it was a cynical and absurd choice on the part of the dod.
like it or not they are already complicit in any damage that comes from the release because they were given the option of helping with the editing of damaging information and they chose not to take it.
so now they want to act as though the problem is that the releases endanger people? bullshit.
it's not that the releases don't endanger people--without dod's help in figuring out how to edit them, there's little doubt they do endanger people.
the issue is the tactical choice the department of defense made, given that strategically they were already fucked.
they chose to endanger people on the ground in afghanistan so they had something to complain about.
it's entirely institutional self-interest thats at play here.
dod doesnt really give a shit about the people on the ground.
if they did, they would have protected them by editing the documents.

but they didnt.

the real question is, though, about what constitutes a democracy, what kind of information is required, what the "consent of the people" means. i think americans are so used to being fed marketing shit that they've forgotten that there's a difference between marketing shit and information. this reminds them, helps them remember. it's good for the health of the system as a whole. and the damage it causes in theater is the responsibility of both the people who released the documents AND the department of defense, which is complicit already whether they like it or not.

but here's the bottom line: dod was simply outsmarted.
and when things were on the line, they made a stupid choice.
i have no sympathy for them.
and it's not like the care about the people on the ground really.
if they cared about that, the people on the ground wouldnt be on the ground. not there anyway.

and maybe that's the underlying point.

08-13-2010, 04:35 PM	#67 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	yeah, see i am not sure it's so easy. if you assume the committment on the part of wikileaks is to a more democratic information environment, so to more openness, to less secrecy....i find that acceptable as a justification for releasing the documents. but that doesn't mean they should just be put out there as they are. so you ask yourself: who can help edit these to minimize the damage to actual people on the ground in 2010, given that the most recent of the documents is from early 2009...clearly the institution that originated them would be most competent. so if the ethical question is resolved in the direction of democratic information flows that obviates the question of official classifications. to my mind it does. but it doesnt eliminate the questions that have to do with endangering people. so they approached the dod. at that point, the people in the department had a choice: what's more important really? maintaining the formal stance concerning secrecy or actually protecting people's lives. the choice is clear. i think it was a cynical and absurd choice on the part of the dod. like it or not they are already complicit in any damage that comes from the release because they were given the option of helping with the editing of damaging information and they chose not to take it. so now they want to act as though the problem is that the releases endanger people? bullshit. it's not that the releases don't endanger people--without dod's help in figuring out how to edit them, there's little doubt they do endanger people. the issue is the tactical choice the department of defense made, given that strategically they were already fucked. they chose to endanger people on the ground in afghanistan so they had something to complain about. it's entirely institutional self-interest thats at play here. dod doesnt really give a shit about the people on the ground. if they did, they would have protected them by editing the documents. but they didnt. the real question is, though, about what constitutes a democracy, what kind of information is required, what the "consent of the people" means. i think americans are so used to being fed marketing shit that they've forgotten that there's a difference between marketing shit and information. this reminds them, helps them remember. it's good for the health of the system as a whole. and the damage it causes in theater is the responsibility of both the people who released the documents AND the department of defense, which is complicit already whether they like it or not. but here's the bottom line: dod was simply outsmarted. and when things were on the line, they made a stupid choice. i have no sympathy for them. and it's not like the care about the people on the ground really. if they cared about that, the people on the ground wouldnt be on the ground. not there anyway. and maybe that's the underlying point. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite Last edited by roachboy; 08-13-2010 at 04:41 PM..