wikileaks: the diplomacy dump. - Page 2 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

roachboy · 11-30-2010, 12:31 PM

loquitor---

so wait a minute: if i am argue that in the context of certain political actions it is ok to violate the law, your response is to say that therefore all rule of law is out the window and we'll on a downhill trail toward barbarism?

strange, but the motivation (as i understand it) for leaking alot of these documents--on afghanistan & iraq in particular--was that you have a political regime in the united states that's all sanctimonious about the rule of law except when it restricts the united states itself. as hegemon, the rules that the little people live by don't apply. all that matters is that the violations be kept secret (the procedure for "reporting" torture instituted by rumsfeld springs to mind, but then again alot of the criminal actions of the bush administration spring to mind)....and when documentation comes out that blows the lid off these sanctimonious claims about the "rule of law" you start talking about the "crime" of trafficking in stolen information?

seems absurd to me. like the sort of thing that'd be political/theatrical suicide to try to act on for the united states.

this newest leak is perhaps more easily actionable because the information is, up to now, less explosive because the obama administration seems to actually have a bit less cavalier attitude toward law and other such than did the bush administration.

but the same logic applies.

i would think the damage done to american credibility by trying to prosecute wikileaks would far outweigh any possible advantage.

and you can't get around the point about rhetoric. at the moment, where's the bluster about criminal action and prosecution coming from?
this isn't rocket science.

Willravel · 11-30-2010, 12:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by loquitur

Will, I don't know who in the State Dept is responsible for (de)classification decisions. Clearly they are over-classifying, but that's to be expected in a bureaucracy. Overclassifying satisfies two imperatives: it covers the bureaucrat's ass and increases his/her power. So it's a twofer. Welcome to the iron law of big organizations. It does not follow, however, that therefore someone self-appointed gets to make the decision. It means State needs better procedures.

Indeed, they are over-classifying. That it's to be expected of bureaucracy does not mean that it's admissible, though. State secrets are inherently anti-democratic and historically are often used in the service of injustice. One of my favorite JFK quotes seems to speak to the issue:

Quote:

Originally Posted by JFK

We are not afraid to entrust the American people with unpleasant facts, foreign ideas, alien philosophies, and competitive values. For a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people."

In an open and free society (yes, yes, that's a very vague term, but I think you take my meaning), that which is classified should only be done so in the most dire of situations. Much of what was leaked of the classified diplomatic cables is petty and stupid (a.k.a. normal behavior of high ranking government officials) and would never endanger anyone, rather simply bruising a few egos and showing how diplomatic sausage is made.

Let me ask you this: if a job not being done by those tasked to do it is important enough, can it not be argued that someone else not tasked with doing said job is excused, to a certain degree, in doing it? In other words, are there not instances where the question of legality is trumped by the issue of the common good?

Wes Mantooth · 11-30-2010, 01:09 PM

I can appreciate somebody trying to fight the good fight against the US govt, striking a blow for the little guy, standing up to the man and all that but we do need to draw lines and their should be penalties for crossing them. If we don't there would be no way any information could ever be classified or made confidential, which for better or worse is a necessity.

I agree that the US government needs to be more transparent and in a way they are bringing this sort of thing on themselves but simply leaking information at random with thought or concern for the fallout or ramifications is just irresponsible. There needs to be some sort of consensus somewhere over what can and can't be released and there does need to be safe guards against potentially dangerous or damaging info falling into the wrong hands.

Perhaps these leaks will get the ball rolling in the direction of more transparency and ultimately wont cause any harm but there is no way we can continue to abide by this sort of thing happening over and over again.

roachboy · 11-30-2010, 01:12 PM

i think this "there ought to be some kinda prosecution" business is funny.

meanwhile, the rules of the game internationally, and the notion of what investigative journalism is and how it's organized, is getting changed by how wikileaks is operating.

Quote:

WikiLeaks a media game changer
By: Keach Hagey
November 29, 2010 07:22 PM EST

After the New York Times published stories based on the WikiLeaks’ Iraq war logs in October next to a tough profile of the organization’s founder, the paper’s public editor concluded that the paper had taken a “reputational risk in doing business with WikiLeaks, though it has inoculated itself somewhat by reporting independently on the organization.”

But that independent reporting got the paper left out of getting advance access to the latest round of leaked cables, despite being originally told that it would get them, New York Times Editor Bill Keller told POLITICO.

“Back when we got the original archive — the Afghanistan and Iraq war reports — the understanding was that the same group, Guardian, NYT and Der Spiegel, would eventually get the cables,” Keller said. “Why [WikiLeaks founder Julian] Assange chose to cut us out, he never explicitly said. He has a rather lengthy bill of grievances against the Times, which he has voiced in public, to journalists at the European papers and to me by phone.”

Assange thought the Times’ profile of Bradley Manning, who is suspected of providing the documents to WikiLeaks, “paid insufficient attention to Manning’s political motivation,” Keller said, and “strongly disliked John Burns’s piece on the internal strains within WikiLeaks.” Keller added, “I think he was unhappy with something the editorial page said about him.”

So, in one of the back story’s strangest twists, the Times had to get the leaked cables through something akin to a second leak — obtaining them from the Guardian of London. Guardian investigative editor David Leigh told Yahoo’s Michael Calderone that the British paper handed over the source material because British law "might have stopped us through injunctions [gag orders] if we were on our own." Keller told readers in a Q & A Monday that the Guardian “considered it a continuation of our collaboration on earlier WikiLeaks disclosures.”

Either way, such international collaboration on a major story is unprecedented in the history of journalism and points to the new role that elite news organizations play in the Internet age — in this case, as conduits of material originally obtained not by their own investigative journalists but by others, such as WikiLeaks.

The big papers wouldn’t have the material without WikiLeaks. And WikiLeaks wouldn’t get the international exposure — and, perhaps more important, the credibility — that comes from having its material published in the world’s most important newspapers.

But the Times has come under some criticism from readers for the arrangement. One reader called it “disgusting” that the Times would act as a “media partner” to WikiLeaks, which Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.) wants to have designated as a “foreign terrorist organization.” Others wondered what the Times gave up by agreeing to work with WikiLeaks, after other news organizations declined early access because they did not want to abide by confidentiality agreements.

Keller defended the paper’s decision, saying that “WikiLeaks is not a ‘media partner’ of the Times” and that the paper “signed no agreement of any kind, with WikiLeaks or anyone else.” While WikiLeaks did not get a look at the Times’ stories in advance, the Times did try to influence what WikiLeaks plans to put up on its site over the course of this week.

Keller acknowledged the Times has “no control over what WikiLeaks will do” but said the paper told WikiLeaks and the other papers in possession of the cables about the State Department’s concerns, as well as the Times’ plans to edit out sensitive material. “The other news organizations supported these redactions,” Keller said. “WikiLeaks has indicated that it intends to do likewise — and as a matter of news interest, we will watch their website to see what they do.”

Such collaboration by major media organizations across international borders — both in agreeing to work together in publishing the material and in agreeing what material should be kept out — is new for journalism.

“I know of no international efforts like this, a global kind of collaboration,” said Mark Feldstein, a professor at George Washington University’s School of Media and Public Affairs and author of “Poisoning the Press: Richard Nixon, Jack Anderson and the Rise of Washington's Scandal Culture.”

“It’s unprecedented and to be commended. The volume of the material that WikiLeaks obtained is unprecedented, so to tackle a subject this complicated is going to take more resources. And just as everything else has gone global — crime and multinational corporations — so we are starting to see the beginning of a more global investigative journalism," he said.

The collaboration began in June, when Nick Davies, a senior contributor to the Guardian, tracked down Assange in Brussels and suggested that the paper would devote a team to researching stories within WikiLeaks’ cache of documents, Clint Hendler reported in the Columbia Journalism Review. Assange suggested that The New York Times and Der Spiegel be involved as well. Editors from the three papers agreed to a deal in which they’d keep the documents under wraps for a few weeks and publish simultaneously with WikiLeaks.

The result was the July 25 story of the Afghanistan war logs. A similar process was used in the release of the Iraq war logs last month and in Sunday’s release of the U.S. Embassy cables, though the list of papers had expanded to include Spain’s El Pais and France’s Le Monde.

It might have expanded even further had CNN and The Wall Street Journal agreed to sign the confidentiality agreements that WikiLeaks required in exchange for advance access.

CNN reported that it “declined a last-minute offer to discuss advance access to some of the documents because of a confidentiality agreement requested by WikiLeaks that CNN considered unacceptable.” A spokesperson for CNN would not go into specifics on the unacceptable terms of the requested agreement.

The Wall Street Journal also declined an offer of access made about a week ago, Russell Adams and Jessica E. Vascellaro reported. “We didn't want to agree to a set of pre-conditions related to the disclosure of the WikiLeaks documents without even being given a broad understanding of what these documents contained," a spokeswoman for the paper said.

The five newspapers that did get advance access had been looking at the cables for some time. The Guardian has had access to them since August, while the Times has been reviewing them for “several weeks.”

Part of that review process, in both papers' cases, included a process of redaction in consultation with U.S. officials.

“We have edited out any information that could identify confidential sources — including informants, dissidents, academics and human rights activists — or otherwise compromise national security,” Keller wrote in response to readers’ questions. “We did this in consultation with the State Department, and while they strongly disapprove of the publication of classified material at any time, and while we did not agree with all of their requests for omission, we took their views very seriously indeed.”

Both papers shared their redactions with each other, and with WikiLeaks, in hopes that the organization would make similar choices. WikiLeaks could not be reached for comment.

This kind of negotiation with U.S. officials has not always been part of the history of large leaks. The New York Times’ release of the Pentagon Papers in 1971, the most frequently cited precedent for the WikiLeaks revelations, had no input at all from the government, according to David Rudenstine, a professor of law at Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law and author of “The Day the Presses Stopped: A History of the Pentagon Papers Case.”

“In the Pentagon Papers case, The New York Times kept the fact that it had the Pentagon Papers secret from everybody, including the government,” he said. “The fear at the Times, in April, May and June of 1971, was that the government would find out that it had these documents and seek through the FBI to perhaps recover them. And so perhaps as a result, the Times took extraordinary steps to keep the stories confidential.”

He added that the Times “thought that they had more than adequate capacity to make these judgments without going to the government,” as did The Washington Post in its Pentagon Papers stories.

At the time, the Times was generally lauded for its courage in exposing a bad war.

More recent history does have the Times holding stories containing major revelations over government concerns, as was the case when the paper held the NSA warrantless surveillance story from 2004 until 2005, a move that provoked criticism because the story could have had an effect on the 2004 presidential elections.

But the deals the papers strike with WikiLeaks makes such holding impossible. The scope of action available to the papers is limited: They can provide context and verification, but they can’t stall or kill the story.

After the leak of the Afghan war documents, New York University professor Jay Rosen noted that this arrangement alters the role the press has traditionally played.

“Notice how effective this combination is,” he said. “The information is released in two forms: vetted and narrated to gain old-media cred and released online in full text, Internet style, which corrects for any timidity or blind spot the editors at Der Spiegel, the Times or the Guardian may show.”

Pointing to a request from the Times to WikiLeaks, urging the site to withhold harmful material from its website, Rosen wrote: “There’s the new balance of power, right there. In the revised picture we find the state, which holds the secrets but is powerless to prevent their release; the stateless news organization, deciding how to release them; and the national newspaper in the middle, negotiating the terms of legitimacy between these two actors.”

WikiLeaks a media game changer - Keach Hagey - POLITICO.com

no wonder fox et al have their panties in a bunch. they loose.

Willravel · 11-30-2010, 01:16 PM

It does make sense that something like wikileaks would come along after it's clear that traditional media is broken in a way that they can't fix themselves.

roachboy · 11-30-2010, 01:18 PM

and notice the cooperation with us government authorities prior to the release in the redacting.

so what's all this nonsense about compromising security and endangering lives exactly?
and the point of calls for prosecution?

Wes Mantooth · 11-30-2010, 01:41 PM

And this sort of thing is going to happen more frequently as long as the media continues to ignore its responsibility and the us govt becomes needlessly more secretive. I do however see glaring problems in encouraging random people to dig up dirt on the government and get it out there for the sake of getting it out there, but as long as people are adhering to the law then its no big thing.

If laws were broken in the process of getting/publishing this info then prosecute if not then let it be.

thesurgeon · 11-30-2010, 04:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wes Mantooth

If laws were broken in the process of getting/publishing this info then prosecute if not then let it be.

Well there is now an Interpol initiative for his arrest...

Willravel · 11-30-2010, 04:41 PM

The rape charges are childish and even if successful will ultimately only make Assange into an even more powerful personality.

RogueGypsy · 11-30-2010, 04:51 PM

Here's a great interview with Noam Chomsky on this topic. It's worth a read.

Excerpt:

"Noam Chomsky: WikiLeaks Cables Reveal "Profound Hatred for Democracy on the Part of Our Political Leadership"
Chomsky

In a national broadcast exclusive interview, we speak with world-renowned political dissident and linguist Noam Chomsky about the release of more than 250,000 secret U.S. State Department cables by WikiLeaks. In 1971, Chomsky helped government whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg release the Pentagon Papers, a top-secret internal U.S. account of the Vietnam War. Commenting on the revelations that several Arab leaders are urging the United States to attack Iran, Chomsky says, "latest polls show] Arab opinion holds that the major threat in the region is Israel, that’s 80 percent; the second threat is the United States, that’s 77 percent. Iran is listed as a threat by 10 percent," Chomsky says. "This may not be reported in the newspapers, but it’s certainly familiar to the Israeli and U.S. governments and the ambassadors. What this reveals is the profound hatred for democracy on the part of our political leadership." "

The rest of the article can be found here:

Noam Chomsky: WikiLeaks Cables Reveal "Profound Hatred for Democracy on the Part of Our Political Leadership"

dogzilla · 11-30-2010, 05:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

horseshit, dogzilla. as usual.

So some writer who apparently lives in China, might have written an article or two about politics, and has a blog is a credible expert on the operations and qualifications of the diplomatic corps. Somehow I think Sarah Palin might have more credibility than this guy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

so this is the apparatus itself that's being embarrassed here.

Two questions.
Just who is this 'apparatus' accountable to? Who is she accountable to? Hint: It's not George Bush.

---------- Post added at 08:50 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:02 PM ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by mixedmedia

then why put so much emphasis on it if it's just an arbitrary, or worse, a speculative thing?

The report about exposing how the Yemen govt provided cover for a US military operation is one example of what could be a problematic disclosure. One article I read described how this was ammo for Al Queda, telling Yemeni citizens their government lied and couldn't be trusted.

I read another article about how people who had been giving tips to the US, expecting that information to remain secret may no longer be willing to do so because that info might show up on Wikileaks next. So now the US might miss out on useful information.

From the news reports I read, quite a bit of this material is stupid, juvenile commentary. However, if someone is provided enough bits and pieces of seemingly disconnected information, they can draw a complete picture from that info.

Once of the bits of corporate nonsense I get to deal with about once a year is a mandatory information security class where they warn us about stuff like discussing even bits and pieces of confidential info in public because people can start putting the pieces together. I don't think the story is much different with governments, politics and intrigue.

---------- Post added at 08:52 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:50 PM ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willravel

The rape charges are childish and even if successful will ultimately only make Assange into an even more powerful personality.

This guy can dream about how powerful he is while he's spending time in jail. I note with some interest his unwillingness to have his personal info disclosed all over the internet.

The_Dunedan · 11-30-2010, 05:52 PM

Quote:

The rape charges are childish and even if successful will ultimately only make Assange into an even more powerful personality.

Unless they turn out to be true, of course. Swedish cops don't exactly have a reputation for going off half-cocked on things like this, and if the CIA (or God Forbid the FSB, GIGN or Mossad) wanted him dead or discredited, he'd either be dead already or have been caught red-handed with the proverbial "dead girl or live boy."

As for Mr. Chomsky, while I admire his style and verve nobody has ever been able to convince me that Democracy is a -good- thing. As a consequence, I cannot see why a "hatred for Democracy" should perforce be an inherently bad thing. I personally detest Democracy: Democracy gave us the French Revolution, Bill Clinton, George Bush (take your pick) and the current imbecile, with all their attendant lunacies: in return it took Socrates and Lysander Spooner and Henry Thoreau and Ralph Emerson and Hunter S. Thompson, whom it either murdered with glee or buried with false tears and the reward of cultural castration. I don't call that a fair trade.

dogzilla · 11-30-2010, 05:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

and notice the cooperation with us government authorities prior to the release in the redacting.?

I read an article about how Wikileaks went to the State dept asking for assistance in redacting this information and got turned down.

The Obama adminiration would be even more of a clown show if they assisted with redacting in light of all the public protesting they have been doing over this.

---------- Post added at 08:59 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:54 PM ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by ASU2003

Access to classified info is the same now as it was under Bush. There are major flaws in the system, but you can't blame the Obama administration for this.

Why not? Protection of classified information is the responsibility of the agency that owns it. Every single agency in the executive branch reports to Obama. So it's not George Bush's fault, it's not Bill Clinton's fault. It's the fault of he current president for not insisting this information be protected properly.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ASU2003

It isn't just creating keys, it is only having classified documents accessible and readable from secure systems that is the biggest flaw. Having USB ports is flaw #2.

Yes, there's more to it than keys. Logged access to protected files, no confidential info on computers with removable media or internet connections, etc, etc. Obama failed.

Willravel · 11-30-2010, 06:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Dunedan

Unless they turn out to be true, of course. Swedish cops don't exactly have a reputation for going off half-cocked on things like this, and if the CIA (or God Forbid the FSB, GIGN or Mossad) wanted him dead or discredited, he'd either be dead already or have been caught red-handed with the proverbial "dead girl or live boy."

I'll just leave this here. The Swedish cops aren't really involved beyond an investigation which has lead Sweden's chief prosecutor to state, "I don't think there is reason to suspect that he has committed rape." Not only that, but there are substantial holes in the stories of the accused which have not been reconciled.

mixedmedia · 11-30-2010, 06:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dogzilla

The report about exposing how the Yemen govt provided cover for a US military operation is one example of what could be a problematic disclosure. One article I read described how this was ammo for Al Queda, telling Yemeni citizens their government lied and couldn't be trusted.

I read another article about how people who had been giving tips to the US, expecting that information to remain secret may no longer be willing to do so because that info might show up on Wikileaks next. So now the US might miss out on useful information.

From the news reports I read, quite a bit of this material is stupid, juvenile commentary. However, if someone is provided enough bits and pieces of seemingly disconnected information, they can draw a complete picture from that info.

Once of the bits of corporate nonsense I get to deal with about once a year is a mandatory information security class where they warn us about stuff like discussing even bits and pieces of confidential info in public because people can start putting the pieces together. I don't think the story is much different with governments, politics and intrigue.

This really doesn't explain why the fact that it happened during Obama's administration is so significant. It could have happened anytime during the last few decades. Just saying, 'he's the president, so he takes the blame' doesn't really say anything substantive or unique against the guy. Being that it could have happened to any one of several different presidents. Where's the fun in that?

The_Dunedan · 11-30-2010, 06:44 PM

Quote:

I'll just leave this here. The Swedish cops aren't really involved beyond an investigation which has lead Sweden's chief prosecutor to state, "I don't think there is reason to suspect that he has committed rape." Not only that, but there are substantial holes in the stories of the accused which have not been reconciled.

Bit behind the times, aren't you?

[link]http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/nov/18/interpol-arrest-warrant-julian-assange-wikileaks-rape[/quote]

[link]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/01/julian-assange-rape-inves_n_701578.html[/quote]

But all this is really irrelevant. I should probably set aside this threadjack. Sorry, folks.

Willravel · 11-30-2010, 07:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Dunedan

Bit behind the times, aren't you?

Not at all. No charge has been laid against Assange, he's simply wanted for questioning.

roachboy · 11-30-2010, 07:19 PM

righto. the reason it is significant that this is happening under the obama administration is that the ultra-right imagines there's a benefit to be derived from it. that's all there is to it. if it were otherwise we'd be talking about these leaks in context and linking the actions of this administration to the largely criminal actions of the bush administration and finding that the obama administration, while centrist and problematic for that in many ways, is a VAST improvement over the clownshow that was the bush administration. but that discussion would not rebound to the benefit of the right, so they want to impose a different conversation, one based on not remembering things and false premises and, basically, stupidity. but that's how the right rolls. stupid shit for stupid people. like a pie made from stupid.

i'm not going to waste my time on most of dogzilla's nitwit points...the exception is: i think the shangai scrap blog piece is interesting. i think it raises an interesting angle. it's something to consider. *but* i also noted it was a blog piece (duh)...and i also noted that all i know about the writer is the self-identification he provides (duh)...and i posted the piece with the caveat that it is an interpretation (duh) based on information this person has access to anecdotally (duh) that allows for the cables that he specifically cites to be situated and various plausible meanings or implications to be drawn from them. so it's a maybe window onto why state is reacting as they are.

but rather than address the information and/or reasoning, you, dogzilla, attack the source in a one-dimensional way as if that's adequate.

it isn't.

try a bit harder.

sheesh, the intellectual laziness that's acceptable amongst conservatives...amazing....

it's also kinda funny, in a stomach turning kinda way, that the right feels it's ok to attach assange personally as if that takes care of the content of what wikileaks has released. facile, stupid business it seems like to me. like you'd rather believe that he is personally responsible for the information in the way people used to think walter cronkite personally made up the news. because he's the face of delivery.
fucking grow up.
jesus.

loquitur · 11-30-2010, 07:55 PM

there's some speculation that the data dump was deliberate. Do you think the people running State now are that clever?

Shauk · 11-30-2010, 08:01 PM

This whole thing reeks as a mass psyops on our society by government to use as a scapegoat as leverage to censoring the internet. Land of the Free, my ass. Considering Homeland is already seizing domains, guess that's not really news.

roachboy · 11-30-2010, 08:05 PM

it could be. what this does is reframe some central debates. for example, it entirely displaces the center of the debates about iran, which had previously been centered on bush administration dick-waving to the total exclusion of persian gulf countries (israel is not one of those)...it changes the public perception of pakistan in an interesting way as well, making it far more complicated and problematic (assuming that you haven't been looking...) than it may have been perceived as being. it's interesting to think on it that way.

i wouldn't say deliberate...but i would not be surprised to learn that it was known and approved of in a tacit way. tacit in the sense of "dont ask me any questions about those documents that you are releasing officially because i cannot have any position except but to oppose them...o take out that name would you? not good if she's outed...""

Willravel · 11-30-2010, 10:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by loquitur

there's some speculation that the data dump was deliberate. Do you think the people running State now are that clever?

I doubt it. Next thing you know you'll be blaming the government for 9/11. And let's just be honest: that's silly.

ASU2003 · 11-30-2010, 10:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dogzilla

Yes, there's more to it than keys. Logged access to protected files, no confidential info on computers with removable media or internet connections, etc, etc. Obama failed.

No computer connected to the internet is secure. There are other secondary networks, but that seems to be encrypted and secure.

This problem started 30 years ago when the first desktop computers came on the scene. Papers are very well secured, and you would have to drill out a safe, or just be able to grab a few reports at a time. Now with large capacity USB drives that are pretty small, someone can download hundreds of thousands of documents and not even look for anything or care what they got. If there is a cover-up, a 9-11 inside job (is anything about this in these cables?), corruption, or any abuses of power that is one thing, but this isn't the right way to do it.

The only thing Obama failed at was preventing the release of these documents once he knew they had been released. If Wikileaks 'went away', I think that would send a strong message against doing this in the future. But, at the same time, it is needed because regular news won't do anything like this, the right-wing news is so biased that even if they are right it sounds like they have ulterior motives, and documentary films take years to come out and still don't get to the bigger questions.

And yes the media does have problems, yet I don't want to have to read 250,000 pages to find out what is one possible truth. Yes, media researchers should have an oversight role to keep the government honest and accountable, yet throwing everything out and letting the bad people in the world know what we are planning and thinking isn't the right way to do it.

dogzilla · 12-01-2010, 02:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

but rather than address the information and/or reasoning, you, dogzilla, attack the source in a one-dimensional way as if that's adequate.

it isn't.

try a bit harder.

sheesh, the intellectual laziness that's acceptable amongst conservatives...amazing....

I learned a long time ago that one of the first things you do is look at the background and credentials of the person posting the article. There's very likely little value in reading say an article on nuclear thermodynamics written by Jessica Simpson.

Similarly, there's little value in reading an article posted by a blogger with little or no interaction with the diplomatic corps describing one or two incidents in China and extrapolating that to the whole State dept.

This isn't the first time I caught you posting a dubious article and claiming it was representative of the whole or that it was the gospel truth.

So much for 'intellectual laziness'

roachboy · 12-01-2010, 03:38 AM

i framed what i said pretty tightly. this is far from the only such information concerning the professional/permanent levels of state being out of touch in problematic ways...and if you think about the Problem that's raised by the release of this material, it originates with and goes back to the middle-to-upper levels of the state department, so to political appointees and the permanent staffs.

in the blog entry, the case is clear cut. in many other situations, it's not so. there are good people who do good work. there are people who lack language skills required to do more than skim over the surface of where they are, to sort out true from false and so forth. it's a problem, but it's a problem for anyone working for any government, really.

i spent a few years living in france. it took quite a while to begin to figure out how folk actually live and the longer i was there the less i knew (because the modes of generalizing i started with no longer works and because i knew actual people instead of types...you know the drill...) so maybe there's a problem with rotating people through assignments.

this is not an everything sucks line of argument btw. it is a speculative line that's aimed at trying to understand something of the chicken little act we've been getting since monday, particularly from those professionals of chicken little on the right.

roachboy · 12-01-2010, 06:25 AM

this link:

http://cryptome.org/0002/ja-conspiracies.pdf

takes you to an essay by julian assange, "state and terrorist conspiracies."

it tells you alot about how the political world operates in assange's view, the role and possibilities of tactical operations like wikileaks etc.

the idea is to disrupt the functioning of an "invisible government" which he talks about using the language of conspiracy (for better or worse) but which could just as easily be described using categories like oligarchy.

an excerpt:

Quote:

To radically shift regime behavior we must think clearly and boldly for if we have learned anything, it is that regimes do not want to be changed. We must think beyond those who have gone before us, and discover technological changes that embolden us with ways to act in which our forebears could not. Firstly we must understand what aspect of government or neocorporatist behavior we wish to change or remove. Secondly we must develop a way of thinking about this behavior that is strong enough carry us through the mire of politically distorted language, and into a position of clarity. Finally must use these insights to inspire within us and others a course of ennobling, and effective action.

Julian Assange, “State and Terrorist Conspiracies”

but see for yourself.

this essay:

http://zunguzungu.wordpress.com/2010...y-%E2%80%9Cto-
destroy-this-invisible-government%E2%80%9D/

is pretty good in drawing out the implications of assange's piece and connecting it to wikileaks as a tactic.
and this goes a long way to understanding what's happening with this.

here's another piece:

http://workwithoutdread.blogspot.com...striction.html

i'm far more interested in wikileaks now than i was.
watch and learn, folks. watch and learn.

mixedmedia · 12-01-2010, 09:08 AM

Thanks for those links. It makes the event(s) much more clearly understood.

I can understand qualms about upsetting the status quo. To an extent. But I think it's important for those folks to know exactly what it is that they are rejecting and, as a consequence, what they are accepting.

Knowledge is fundamental.

roachboy · 12-01-2010, 11:50 AM

there's a footnote in assange's essay (which is garbled btw in the pdf...it looks like there are two copies of the first 5 pages of part one that were confused with the second 5 pages of part two...) concerning complicity. you've heard similar things before, but the gist is: if you witness corrupt actions and do nothing, you become yourself corrupt. the endless boredom that greets revelations of war crimes or "collateral damage" or these cables (which is admirably dissected in the article from "work without dread" in the last paragraph by way of a bolano quote) is the same as acquiescence. and maybe, as the same entry concludes, exposing that boredom is in itself a salutary political action.

here's a good piece that develops another angle from simon jenkins:

Quote:

US embassy cables: The job of the media is not to protect the powerful from embarrassment

It is for governments – not journalists – to guard public secrets, and there is no national jeopardy in WikiLeaks' revelations

Simon Jenkins

Is it justified? Should a newspaper disclose virtually all a nation's secret diplomatic communication, illegally downloaded by one of its citizens? The reporting in the Guardian of the first of a selection of 250,000 US state department cables marks a recasting of modern diplomacy. Clearly, there is no longer such a thing as a safe electronic archive, whatever computing's snake-oil salesmen claim. No organisation can treat digitised communication as confidential. An electronic secret is a contradiction in terms.

Anything said or done in the name of a democracy is, prima facie, of public interest. When that democracy purports to be "world policeman" – an assumption that runs ghostlike through these cables – that interest is global. Nonetheless, the Guardian had to consider two things in abetting disclosure, irrespective of what is anyway published by WikiLeaks. It could not be party to putting the lives of individuals or sources at risk, nor reveal material that might compromise ongoing military operations or the location of special forces.

In this light, two backup checks were applied. The US government was told in advance the areas or themes covered, and "representations" were invited in return. These were considered. Details of "redactions" were then shared with the other four media recipients of the material and sent to WikiLeaks itself, to establish, albeit voluntarily, some common standard.

The state department knew of the leak several months ago and had ample time to alert staff in sensitive locations. Its pre-emptive scaremongering over the weekend stupidly contrived to hint at material not in fact being published. Nor is the material classified top secret, being at a level that more than 3 million US government employees are cleared to see, and available on the defence department's internal Siprnet. Such dissemination of "secrets" might be thought reckless, suggesting a diplomatic outreach that makes the British empire seem minuscule.

The revelations do not have the startling, coldblooded immediacy of the WikiLeaks war logs from Iraq and Afghanistan, with their astonishing insight into the minds of fighting men seemingly detached from the ethics of war. These disclosures are largely of analysis and high-grade gossip. Insofar as they are sensational, it is in showing the corruption and mendacity of those in power, and the mismatch between what they claim and what they do.

Few will be surprised to know that Vladimir Putin runs the world's most sensational kleptocracy, that the Saudis wanted the Americans to bomb Iran, or that Pakistan's ISI is hopelessly involved with Taliban groups of fiendish complexity. We now know that Washington knows too. The full extent of American dealings with Yemen might upset that country's government, but is hardly surprising. If it is true that the Pentagon targeted refugee camps for bombing, it should be of general concern. American congressmen might also be interested in the sums of money given to certain foreign generals supposedly to pay for military equipment.

The job of the media is not to protect power from embarrassment. If American spies are breaking United Nations rules by seeking the DNA biometrics of the UN director general, he is entitled to hear of it. British voters should know what Afghan leaders thought of British troops. American (and British) taxpayers might question, too, how most of the billions of dollars going in aid to Afghanistan simply exits the country at Kabul airport.

No harm is done by high-class chatter about President Nicolas Sarkozy's vulgarity and lack of house-training, or about the British royal family. What the American embassy in London thinks about the coalition suggests not an alliance at risk but an embassy with a talent problem.

Some stars shine through the banality such as the heroic envoy in Islamabad, Anne Patterson. She pleads that Washington's whole policy is counterproductive: it "risks destabilising the Pakistani state, alienating both the civilian government and the military leadership, and provoking a broader governance crisis without finally achieving the goal". Nor is any amount of money going to bribe the Taliban to our side. Patterson's cables are like missives from the Titanic as it already heads for the bottom.

The money‑wasting is staggering. Aid payments are never followed, never audited, never evaluated. The impression is of the world's superpower roaming helpless in a world in which nobody behaves as bidden. Iran, Russia, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Yemen, the United Nations, are all perpetually off script. Washington reacts like a wounded bear, its instincts imperial but its power projection unproductive.

America's foreign policy is revealed as a slave to rightwing drift, terrified of a bomb exploding abroad or of a pro-Israeli congressman at home. If the cables tell of the progress to war over Iran or Pakistan or Gaza or Yemen, their revelation might help debate the inanity of policies which, as Patterson says, seem to be leading in just that direction. Perhaps we can now see how catastrophe unfolds when there is time to avert it, rather than having to await a Chilcot report after the event. If that is not in the public's interest, I fail to see what is.

Clearly, it is for governments, not journalists, to protect public secrets. Were there some overriding national jeopardy in revealing them, greater restraint might be in order. There is no such overriding jeopardy, except from the policies themselves as revealed. Where it is doing the right thing, a great power should be robust against embarrassment.

What this saga must do is alter the basis of diplomatic reporting. If WikiLeaks can gain access to secret material, by whatever means, so presumably can a foreign power. Words on paper can be made secure, electronic archives not. The leaks have blown a hole in the framework by which states guard their secrets. The Guardian material must be a breach of the official secrets acts. But coupled with the penetration already allowed under freedom of information, the walls round policy formation and documentation are all but gone. All barriers are permeable. In future the only secrets will be spoken ones. Whether that is a good thing should be a topic for public debate.

US embassy cables: The job of the media is not to protect the powerful from embarrassment | Simon Jenkins | Comment is free | The Guardian

mixedmedia · 12-01-2010, 01:07 PM

I only read part one of the Assange essay. I thought the 'zunga' analysis written in context of the diplomacy leak to be more relevant.

Like you've said, I find myself to be much more interested in Wikileaks now that I've read these articles. It's not about whistle blowing, but about revolution. And a potentially peaceful one at that. I'm afraid I'd have to throw the full weight of my support behind that.

I think everyone should read them. I assume that alot of the concern, at least among reasonable people, is that with these leaks we are heading into unknown territory with unknown consequences. That fear, even if I don't accept it, is something that at least I can understand. But in reality, if we are going along not knowing whether what we see and hear - what we are told - is real or not, is that really so much of a different place to be? Myself, I prefer to know the truth.

dogzilla · 12-01-2010, 05:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

here's a good piece that develops another angle from simon jenkins:

US embassy cables: The job of the media is not to protect the powerful from embarrassment | Simon Jenkins | Comment is free | The Guardian

Simon is correct. It is the government's responsibility to protect classified information. That includes throwing people like the Wikileaks crowd in jail or in front of a firing squad when they get caught disclosing classified government information.

Also, Julian Assange's attempts to justify why he broke the law, while possibly interesting are irrelevant. If he wants to play anarchist or whatever else he thinks he is, then he should be willing to pay the price.

Willravel · 12-01-2010, 06:08 PM

In what was has Julian Assange broken the law? Wikileaks is a media outlet and thus is legally allowed to publish classified information.

Quote:

The courts have made clear that the First Amendment protects independent third parties who publish classified information. Prosecuting WikiLeaks would be no different from prosecuting the media outlets that also published classified documents. If newspapers could be held criminally liable for publishing leaked information about government practices, we might never have found out about the CIA's secret prisons or the government spying on innocent Americans. Prosecuting publishers of classified information threatens investigative journalism that is necessary to an informed public debate about government conduct, and that is an unthinkable outcome.

Prosecuting WikiLeaks For Publishing Documents Would Raise Serious Constitutional Concerns, Says ACLU | American Civil Liberties Union

samcol · 12-01-2010, 06:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willravel

In what was has Julian Assange broken the law? Wikileaks is a media outlet and thus is legally allowed to publish classified information.

Prosecuting WikiLeaks For Publishing Documents Would Raise Serious Constitutional Concerns, Says ACLU | American Civil Liberties Union

I did not know this about the first amendment, thanks Will.

Willravel · 12-01-2010, 07:07 PM

No problemo. I didn't know until this morning. It makes sense, though, as free speech is in part about an informed public being necessary for a free society. Knowledge is power and only through free speech can knowledge spread unhindered. It's an elegant system we have.

dogzilla · 12-02-2010, 03:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willravel

In what was has Julian Assange broken the law? Wikileaks is a media outlet and thus is legally allowed to publish classified information.

Prosecuting WikiLeaks For Publishing Documents Would Raise Serious Constitutional Concerns, Says ACLU | American Civil Liberties Union

He's divulged classified information. If that has compromised national security or led to the death of anyone who provided that information to the US government then he should be prosecuted for that.

SecretMethod70 · 12-02-2010, 03:42 AM

dogzilla: Wrong, the person who gave him the information should be prosecuted for it. There's a difference.

mixedmedia · 12-02-2010, 04:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dogzilla

Simon is correct. It is the government's responsibility to protect classified information. That includes throwing people like the Wikileaks crowd in jail or in front of a firing squad when they get caught disclosing classified government information.

Also, Julian Assange's attempts to justify why he broke the law, while possibly interesting are irrelevant. If he wants to play anarchist or whatever else he thinks he is, then he should be willing to pay the price.

I have a fabulous idea.
Since we're all in our happy place making up laws to be broken so we can trot certain 'bad people' out to be shot, why not think of it this way:

How about whenever a politician stands up in front of us all and lies, tries to make something look like something its not or participates in covering up important information that it is our right to have, why don't we line those guys up in front of a firing squad instead?! are you with me?!

That way all you bloodthirsty types can still get your bang-bangs on and the rest of us can start enjoying the transparent government that we've supposedly had all along (only we haven't) making cocky little non-American types like Julian Assange obsolete.

Everybody wins!
wick, wick, whack.

/naturally, this moment of dripping sarcasm should not be confused with mixedmedia's actual sentiments, ideas, feelings or desires.

roachboy · 12-02-2010, 04:17 AM

interesting. so in this scenario, government has a job and media has a job, but citizens, who are parts of a democratic polity i understand, don't have a job---like to be informed, to make informed decisions---and so have no interest really in accurate information. it's ok to lie to the polity it's ok to manage them. because american democracy really is that paper-thin. and the irony, i suppose (were there even surprise about this) is that it's the conservatives who claim to be all about democracy in america (except when it's politically inconvenient at which point democray becomes mob rule or communism somehow except when it's convenient when it becomes what the united of states stands for) who are in this place yelling: I DONT WANT TO KNOW ALL THIS STUFF I'M NOT LISTENING LA LA LA SHOOT JULIAN ASSANGE.

i dont get it.

dogzilla · 12-02-2010, 04:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mixedmedia

I have a fabulous idea.
Since we're all in our happy place making up laws to be broken so we can trot certain 'bad people' out to be shot, why not think of it this way:

There's no laws being made up. The guy who handed over the information broke laws about releasing classified information. Maybe it's PFC Manning, who the military will deal with soon enough, maybe it's somebody else, who should also be dealt with.

The people running wikileaks could have just turned the classified info back to the government, along with the name of the person who gave it to them if they knew that.

Or they could create a second violation of the laws against releasing classified information by releasing the documents themselves.

They chose the second and deserve to be prosecuted out of existence.

If the NY Times somehow obtained a detailed military plan for some action in Afghanistan and published that, I really doubt that free speech laws would protect them form that. I think national security law would take precedence.

---------- Post added at 07:44 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:42 AM ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

interesting. so in this scenario, government has a job and media has a job, but citizens, who are parts of a democratic polity i understand, don't have a job---like to be informed, to make informed decisions---and so have no interest really in accurate information. it's ok to lie to the polity it's ok to manage them. because american democracy really is that paper-thin. and the irony, i suppose (were there even surprise about this) is that it's the conservatives who claim to be all about democracy in america (except when it's politically inconvenient at which point democray becomes mob rule or communism somehow except when it's convenient when it becomes what the united of states stands for) who are in this place yelling: I DONT WANT TO KNOW ALL THIS STUFF I'M NOT LISTENING LA LA LA SHOOT JULIAN ASSANGE.

i dont get it.

Where's the outrage that wikileaks hasn't published any of Al Queda's classified information?

Or are maybe the wikileaks people a bunch of cowards who are afraid something bad will happen to them if they do that?

mixedmedia · 12-02-2010, 04:56 AM

PFC Manning doesn't work for Wikileaks anymore than Deep Throat worked for the Washington Post. From what I've seen, the popular legal consensus seems to be that there's not a damn thing they can do about Wikileaks other than try to squash them out of existence by intimidating service providers from giving them server space. There's a lot of talk about this and that propelled by a lot of bluster, but talk is cheap. Especially in America, it seems. Which for some reason you seem to be totally comfortable with.

roachboy · 12-02-2010, 05:01 AM

and there's apparently a split happening within the wikileaks group between assange, who decided to pursue a us-centered approach for tactical reasons, and the others who see the mission of wikileaks as transnational. so there are folk within wikileaks who think that megaleaks should be administered widely. so i don't see your point.

meanwhile:

Quote:

Aldous Huxley “feared that what we love will ruin us.” Citing Neil Postman, he reproduces a dialectic between the authors of 1984 and Brave New World:

What Orwell feared were those who would ban books. What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one. Orwell feared those who would deprive us of information. Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egoism. Orwell feared that the truth would be concealed from us. Huxley feared that the truth would be drowned in a sea of irrelevance.

American Psychosis: What happens to a society that cannot distinguish between reality and illusion?… | Project World Awareness

11-30-2010, 12:31 PM	#41 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	loquitor--- so wait a minute: if i am argue that in the context of certain political actions it is ok to violate the law, your response is to say that therefore all rule of law is out the window and we'll on a downhill trail toward barbarism? strange, but the motivation (as i understand it) for leaking alot of these documents--on afghanistan & iraq in particular--was that you have a political regime in the united states that's all sanctimonious about the rule of law except when it restricts the united states itself. as hegemon, the rules that the little people live by don't apply. all that matters is that the violations be kept secret (the procedure for "reporting" torture instituted by rumsfeld springs to mind, but then again alot of the criminal actions of the bush administration spring to mind)....and when documentation comes out that blows the lid off these sanctimonious claims about the "rule of law" you start talking about the "crime" of trafficking in stolen information? seems absurd to me. like the sort of thing that'd be political/theatrical suicide to try to act on for the united states. this newest leak is perhaps more easily actionable because the information is, up to now, less explosive because the obama administration seems to actually have a bit less cavalier attitude toward law and other such than did the bush administration. but the same logic applies. i would think the damage done to american credibility by trying to prosecute wikileaks would far outweigh any possible advantage. and you can't get around the point about rhetoric. at the moment, where's the bluster about criminal action and prosecution coming from? this isn't rocket science. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

11-30-2010, 01:09 PM	#43 (permalink)
Wes Mantooth Junkie Location: Tennessee	I can appreciate somebody trying to fight the good fight against the US govt, striking a blow for the little guy, standing up to the man and all that but we do need to draw lines and their should be penalties for crossing them. If we don't there would be no way any information could ever be classified or made confidential, which for better or worse is a necessity. I agree that the US government needs to be more transparent and in a way they are bringing this sort of thing on themselves but simply leaking information at random with thought or concern for the fallout or ramifications is just irresponsible. There needs to be some sort of consensus somewhere over what can and can't be released and there does need to be safe guards against potentially dangerous or damaging info falling into the wrong hands. Perhaps these leaks will get the ball rolling in the direction of more transparency and ultimately wont cause any harm but there is no way we can continue to abide by this sort of thing happening over and over again. __________________ “My god I must have missed it...its hell down here!”

11-30-2010, 01:18 PM	#46 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	and notice the cooperation with us government authorities prior to the release in the redacting. so what's all this nonsense about compromising security and endangering lives exactly? and the point of calls for prosecution? __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

11-30-2010, 01:41 PM	#47 (permalink)
Wes Mantooth Junkie Location: Tennessee	And this sort of thing is going to happen more frequently as long as the media continues to ignore its responsibility and the us govt becomes needlessly more secretive. I do however see glaring problems in encouraging random people to dig up dirt on the government and get it out there for the sake of getting it out there, but as long as people are adhering to the law then its no big thing. If laws were broken in the process of getting/publishing this info then prosecute if not then let it be. __________________ “My god I must have missed it...its hell down here!”

11-30-2010, 04:51 PM	#50 (permalink)
RogueGypsy Insane Location: The Great NorthWet	Here's a great interview with Noam Chomsky on this topic. It's worth a read. Excerpt: "Noam Chomsky: WikiLeaks Cables Reveal "Profound Hatred for Democracy on the Part of Our Political Leadership" Chomsky In a national broadcast exclusive interview, we speak with world-renowned political dissident and linguist Noam Chomsky about the release of more than 250,000 secret U.S. State Department cables by WikiLeaks. In 1971, Chomsky helped government whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg release the Pentagon Papers, a top-secret internal U.S. account of the Vietnam War. Commenting on the revelations that several Arab leaders are urging the United States to attack Iran, Chomsky says, "latest polls show] Arab opinion holds that the major threat in the region is Israel, that’s 80 percent; the second threat is the United States, that’s 77 percent. Iran is listed as a threat by 10 percent," Chomsky says. "This may not be reported in the newspapers, but it’s certainly familiar to the Israeli and U.S. governments and the ambassadors. What this reveals is the profound hatred for democracy on the part of our political leadership." " The rest of the article can be found here: Noam Chomsky: WikiLeaks Cables Reveal "Profound Hatred for Democracy on the Part of Our Political Leadership" __________________ Methods, application and intensity of application vary by the individual. All legal wavers must be signed before 'treatment' begins. Self 'Medicating' is not recommend. However, if necessary, it is best to have an 'assistant' or 'soft landing zone' nearby. Any and all legal issues resulting from improperly applied techniques should be forwarded to: Dewy, Cheatum & Howe, Intercourse, PA 17534. Attn: Anonymous.

11-30-2010, 01:16 PM	#45 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	It does make sense that something like wikileaks would come along after it's clear that traditional media is broken in a way that they can't fix themselves.

11-30-2010, 04:41 PM	#49 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	The rape charges are childish and even if successful will ultimately only make Assange into an even more powerful personality.

11-30-2010, 07:19 PM	#58 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	righto. the reason it is significant that this is happening under the obama administration is that the ultra-right imagines there's a benefit to be derived from it. that's all there is to it. if it were otherwise we'd be talking about these leaks in context and linking the actions of this administration to the largely criminal actions of the bush administration and finding that the obama administration, while centrist and problematic for that in many ways, is a VAST improvement over the clownshow that was the bush administration. but that discussion would not rebound to the benefit of the right, so they want to impose a different conversation, one based on not remembering things and false premises and, basically, stupidity. but that's how the right rolls. stupid shit for stupid people. like a pie made from stupid. i'm not going to waste my time on most of dogzilla's nitwit points...the exception is: i think the shangai scrap blog piece is interesting. i think it raises an interesting angle. it's something to consider. but i also noted it was a blog piece (duh)...and i also noted that all i know about the writer is the self-identification he provides (duh)...and i posted the piece with the caveat that it is an interpretation (duh) based on information this person has access to anecdotally (duh) that allows for the cables that he specifically cites to be situated and various plausible meanings or implications to be drawn from them. so it's a maybe window onto why state is reacting as they are. but rather than address the information and/or reasoning, you, dogzilla, attack the source in a one-dimensional way as if that's adequate. it isn't. try a bit harder. sheesh, the intellectual laziness that's acceptable amongst conservatives...amazing.... it's also kinda funny, in a stomach turning kinda way, that the right feels it's ok to attach assange personally as if that takes care of the content of what wikileaks has released. facile, stupid business it seems like to me. like you'd rather believe that he is personally responsible for the information in the way people used to think walter cronkite personally made up the news. because he's the face of delivery. fucking grow up. jesus. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

11-30-2010, 07:55 PM	#59 (permalink)
loquitur Junkie Location: NYC	there's some speculation that the data dump was deliberate. Do you think the people running State now are that clever?

11-30-2010, 08:01 PM	#60 (permalink)
Shauk Confused Adult Location: Spokane, WA	This whole thing reeks as a mass psyops on our society by government to use as a scapegoat as leverage to censoring the internet. Land of the Free, my ass. Considering Homeland is already seizing domains, guess that's not really news.

11-30-2010, 08:05 PM	#61 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	it could be. what this does is reframe some central debates. for example, it entirely displaces the center of the debates about iran, which had previously been centered on bush administration dick-waving to the total exclusion of persian gulf countries (israel is not one of those)...it changes the public perception of pakistan in an interesting way as well, making it far more complicated and problematic (assuming that you haven't been looking...) than it may have been perceived as being. it's interesting to think on it that way. i wouldn't say deliberate...but i would not be surprised to learn that it was known and approved of in a tacit way. tacit in the sense of "dont ask me any questions about those documents that you are releasing officially because i cannot have any position except but to oppose them...o take out that name would you? not good if she's outed..."" __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

12-01-2010, 03:38 AM	#65 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	i framed what i said pretty tightly. this is far from the only such information concerning the professional/permanent levels of state being out of touch in problematic ways...and if you think about the Problem that's raised by the release of this material, it originates with and goes back to the middle-to-upper levels of the state department, so to political appointees and the permanent staffs. in the blog entry, the case is clear cut. in many other situations, it's not so. there are good people who do good work. there are people who lack language skills required to do more than skim over the surface of where they are, to sort out true from false and so forth. it's a problem, but it's a problem for anyone working for any government, really. i spent a few years living in france. it took quite a while to begin to figure out how folk actually live and the longer i was there the less i knew (because the modes of generalizing i started with no longer works and because i knew actual people instead of types...you know the drill...) so maybe there's a problem with rotating people through assignments. this is not an everything sucks line of argument btw. it is a speculative line that's aimed at trying to understand something of the chicken little act we've been getting since monday, particularly from those professionals of chicken little on the right. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

12-01-2010, 09:08 AM	#67 (permalink)
mixedmedia has all her shots. Location: Florida	Thanks for those links. It makes the event(s) much more clearly understood. I can understand qualms about upsetting the status quo. To an extent. But I think it's important for those folks to know exactly what it is that they are rejecting and, as a consequence, what they are accepting. Knowledge is fundamental. __________________ Most people go through life dreading they'll have a traumatic experience. Freaks were born with their trauma. They've already passed their test in life. They're aristocrats. - Diane Arbus PESSIMISM, n. A philosophy forced upon the convictions of the observer by the disheartening prevalence of the optimist with his scarecrow hope and his unsightly smile. - Ambrose Bierce

12-01-2010, 01:07 PM	#69 (permalink)
mixedmedia has all her shots. Location: Florida	I only read part one of the Assange essay. I thought the 'zunga' analysis written in context of the diplomacy leak to be more relevant. Like you've said, I find myself to be much more interested in Wikileaks now that I've read these articles. It's not about whistle blowing, but about revolution. And a potentially peaceful one at that. I'm afraid I'd have to throw the full weight of my support behind that. I think everyone should read them. I assume that alot of the concern, at least among reasonable people, is that with these leaks we are heading into unknown territory with unknown consequences. That fear, even if I don't accept it, is something that at least I can understand. But in reality, if we are going along not knowing whether what we see and hear - what we are told - is real or not, is that really so much of a different place to be? Myself, I prefer to know the truth. __________________ Most people go through life dreading they'll have a traumatic experience. Freaks were born with their trauma. They've already passed their test in life. They're aristocrats. - Diane Arbus PESSIMISM, n. A philosophy forced upon the convictions of the observer by the disheartening prevalence of the optimist with his scarecrow hope and his unsightly smile. - Ambrose Bierce Last edited by mixedmedia; 12-01-2010 at 01:10 PM..

12-01-2010, 07:07 PM	#73 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	No problemo. I didn't know until this morning. It makes sense, though, as free speech is in part about an informed public being necessary for a free society. Knowledge is power and only through free speech can knowledge spread unhindered. It's an elegant system we have.

12-02-2010, 03:42 AM	#75 (permalink)
SecretMethod70 Human Administrator Location: Chicago	dogzilla: Wrong, the person who gave him the information should be prosecuted for it. There's a difference. __________________ Le temps détruit tout "Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

12-02-2010, 04:17 AM	#77 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	interesting. so in this scenario, government has a job and media has a job, but citizens, who are parts of a democratic polity i understand, don't have a job---like to be informed, to make informed decisions---and so have no interest really in accurate information. it's ok to lie to the polity it's ok to manage them. because american democracy really is that paper-thin. and the irony, i suppose (were there even surprise about this) is that it's the conservatives who claim to be all about democracy in america (except when it's politically inconvenient at which point democray becomes mob rule or communism somehow except when it's convenient when it becomes what the united of states stands for) who are in this place yelling: I DONT WANT TO KNOW ALL THIS STUFF I'M NOT LISTENING LA LA LA SHOOT JULIAN ASSANGE. i dont get it. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

12-02-2010, 04:56 AM	#79 (permalink)
mixedmedia has all her shots. Location: Florida	PFC Manning doesn't work for Wikileaks anymore than Deep Throat worked for the Washington Post. From what I've seen, the popular legal consensus seems to be that there's not a damn thing they can do about Wikileaks other than try to squash them out of existence by intimidating service providers from giving them server space. There's a lot of talk about this and that propelled by a lot of bluster, but talk is cheap. Especially in America, it seems. Which for some reason you seem to be totally comfortable with. __________________ Most people go through life dreading they'll have a traumatic experience. Freaks were born with their trauma. They've already passed their test in life. They're aristocrats. - Diane Arbus PESSIMISM, n. A philosophy forced upon the convictions of the observer by the disheartening prevalence of the optimist with his scarecrow hope and his unsightly smile. - Ambrose Bierce