Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community  

Go Back   Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community > The Academy > Tilted Politics


 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 12-09-2010, 01:40 PM   #161 (permalink)
 
roachboy's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: essex ma
you know, debaser, were the state department cables the only information to be leaked i might be closer to agreement---this despite the fact that as i read through and about them i think that it was, in fact, a very great service that was performed through their release because a lot of what has been happening in the world internationally is clearer for it. and you'd think that would be a good thing in a democratic system, since the people are supposed to be in a position to make informed decisions about political questions. of course i am under no illusions...the united states is not in fact such a system...but it talks the talk and now has to eat the words.

this is a big problem internationally, btw. the us is taking it in the face **for their reaction** to the leak. not for the leak. for their reaction to it.

but the iraq documents in particular revealed clear evidence of what i take to be war crimes carried out by people within the bush administration.

no wonder the conservative elite wants this sort of thing stopped.
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite
roachboy is offline  
Old 12-09-2010, 01:48 PM   #162 (permalink)
Sir, I have a plan...
 
debaser's Avatar
 
Location: 38S NC20943324
I am not being snide, I really have not had the chance to look at the documents in question in any real depth. Which incidents/documents are you refering to? If they do show misconduct, then I applaud their release. However, I still have to question the logic behind the release of the documents that have no such relevence.

Just because I help an old lady across the street does not excuse me from selling heroin to her grandson.
__________________

Fortunato became immured to the sound of the trowel after a while.
debaser is offline  
Old 12-09-2010, 01:56 PM   #163 (permalink)
 
roachboy's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: essex ma
the iraq documents shows the whole pattern of condoning torture, of reporting it when witnessed in the context of a system that assured there'd be no investigation, etc. it outlines the implications of the bush administrations (bogus) legal position on the question of torture; similarly with the rendition process; similarly with guantanomo.

there hasn't even been a chilcot commission in the united states (the state cables reveal information about the extent to which chilcot was constructed to protect american interests, btw...) no investigation of how this was possible, no attempt to tail back the expansive claims to executive impunity advanced by the bush people. nothing.

in that, i think wikileaks performed a valuable service.

on the afghanistan leaks, i think there is alot of interesting and disturbing information that should have been public from the outset--one can argue about where the line would be drawn optimally---but it's clear that the pentagon's post-vietnam strategy of total information management and a massive over-reaching of the legitimate uses of classification of information has to be pushed back. and wikileaks has demonstrated something of why and how that's the case.

the state cables are interesting, like i've been saying. they repay reading about. then there's a conversation to be had, maybe.
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite
roachboy is offline  
Old 12-09-2010, 02:41 PM   #164 (permalink)
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
 
Willravel's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by debaser View Post
What great scandal or corruption was outed?
Many. One of the most recent is how the United States and China worked together behind the scenes to sabotage the climate summit. There are numerous scandals and instances of corruption outed by this leak.
Quote:
Originally Posted by debaser View Post
How does publishing a list of sensitive sites benefit the democratic process?
First and foremost, it demonstrates in no uncertain terms that basically every government classifies in instances that have nothing to do with imperative state secrets and saving lives. Overuse of secrets is inherently anti-democratic in the most fundamental way: if the voting public is having the wool pulled over our eyes on pivotal issues, we vote without all the facts. Free press is part of our democracy. Free speech is part of our democracy.

Whole books could be written on how wikileaks serves democracy.
Willravel is offline  
Old 12-09-2010, 05:27 PM   #165 (permalink)
immoral minority
 
ASU2003's Avatar
 
Location: Back in Ohio
Quote:
Originally Posted by Willravel View Post
You'll choose Obama and Biden and Hillary and Rahm (or now what's-his-face)? I call bullshit. You're just being anti-left for the sake of being anti-left. You see what the liberals on the internet are supporting and choosing the opposite. Wikileaks is all about small, transparent, accountable government, which is the absolute central tenant of Republicanism, and suddenly the right is opposed to it? Give me a break.
I don't see this as a right vs. left issue. The handling of it hasn't been that bad, and seems like Wikileaks is just playing it up for attention by releasing them slowly on the site, but all of them in a torrent file. And I want to see government accountable and small, yet there are secrets that need to be kept from the general public and foreign nations.

I'm not saying that Wikileaks should go away anymore, just that they should be professional journalists (or work with them) and figure out what the public should know of crimes being committed or politically unfavorable choices being made. But not just putting a bunch of random things on-line which may not mean anything to 99.9% of the population, but is critical for the other .1% to find out. And over-classification isn't a crime, yet security managers need to be the ones checking it out.
ASU2003 is offline  
Old 12-09-2010, 06:21 PM   #166 (permalink)
Sir, I have a plan...
 
debaser's Avatar
 
Location: 38S NC20943324
Quote:
Originally Posted by Willravel View Post
Many. One of the most recent is how the United States and China worked together behind the scenes to sabotage the climate summit. There are numerous scandals and instances of corruption outed by this leak.
I think the word you are looking fo is shitty, not corrupt. States act in their own rational self interest, and perhaps the US and China feel that it is not in theirs to participate in the climate summit. This may be a shocker, but countries do not always do what they say, or say what they do...

Now if you could show me a memo that demonstrated that the administration acted only after accepting a payoff from the oil industry or somesuch, I will join you with torches at the gate...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Willravel View Post
First and foremost, it demonstrates in no uncertain terms that basically every government classifies in instances that have nothing to do with imperative state secrets and saving lives. Overuse of secrets is inherently anti-democratic in the most fundamental way: if the voting public is having the wool pulled over our eyes on pivotal issues, we vote without all the facts. Free press is part of our democracy. Free speech is part of our democracy.

Whole books could be written on how wikileaks serves democracy.
And undermines it.

Do we overclassify? You bet. I have to deal with it every day, and it is a major pain in the ass. Is it for the purposes of denying you your rights? Absolutely not. Information is generally classified at the lowest, most operational levels and continues to be classified as it becomes part of larger issues not because there is an evil scheme to hide problems from the voter (though that is a "convenient" side effect), but because it is an arduous process to declassify anything that has been classified. There are people whos sole job it is to declassify information. They are pitted against the entire lower tiers of the government beaurocracy, all of whom are classifying stuff like mad.

Example:

An Army private (not the treasonous kind) sits at a secret computer creating documents from patrol debreifs in Iraq. He is 19 years old, and wishes to avoid being shit on and/or missing dinner, both of which can be caused by pissing off his platoon sergeant. He has been told that he has the authority to determine the classification level (up to secret) of any document he creates. He has also been told that any information that comes off of his computer is to be treated as secret as a matter of course. The shit on a shingle and XBOX are calling. What do you think he is going to do once he is done with a routine patrol debreif that contains NO classified material whatsoever?

Yep.

Now if anyone wants to use the information contained in that report they must hold a secret clearance or , if they wish to release it to individuals who do not hold clearances, they must take it to the proper declassification authority. In that case that authority is the US Army. The Army has people trained and authorized to declassify information. There are about 2 of them for every 4500 soldiers. They must review the document and view it in the both current and possible future operational contexts before deciding to declassify it.

But wait! There's more...

Let's pretend that patrol gave a pump to a village so they could grow whatever the fuck grows in that godforsaken shithole. A state department dude thinks that's pretty cool, and puts it in his report which also contains information from the CIA on friendly villages in the area which was classified to prevent removal of said village elders heads.

Now to declassify the report you must go through a "Interagency Security Classification Appeals Panel" (ISCAP henceforth), which as the name suggests, is not the simplest of procedures.


/example


Now the system above needs work, and there are abuses by those who wish to hide their malfeasance. That being said, do you really think that the answer to the problem is some shithead with an axe to grind simply dumping a ton of documents onto the internet? I think not.

You also bring up democracy. You need to realize that for you to have your utopian demopcracy, a lot of other people are going to have to suffer. For example I present the paper regarding US bombing of Yemeni targets and Ali Abdullah Saleh's boozing.

Saleh is a shitty leader. But what is the alternative? Anger over this cable could lead to his removal which will strengthen AQAP, probably to the point where nominal control of the country will slip to them. Now Will, I assume you do not want violent fundamentalists running Yemen, nor would anyone in Yemen if they really thought about it. Sure, no music or smiling or fun is all well and good, but when they start hanging women for talking to non-relatives I start to draw the line (unless they are accusing Julian Assange of rape, in that case the bitches had it coming).

Meh, I'm rambling. I guess what it comes down to is this. Countries need secrets just like they need armys. If they don't have them, some other country that does will destroy them and take what is theirs.

Are we to trust a criminal (Australian/Ex-hacker) to determine what secrets we as a country keep? Do you really think this will lead to a more transparent government?

I think it will lead to a far more draconian classification system that will not only prevent the proper dissemination of information to the public, but hamper the very agencies that make use of it legitimately on a day to day basis...
__________________

Fortunato became immured to the sound of the trowel after a while.
debaser is offline  
Old 12-09-2010, 06:47 PM   #167 (permalink)
Junkie
 
dogzilla's Avatar
 
Location: New York
Quote:
Originally Posted by Willravel View Post
You'll choose Obama and Biden and Hillary and Rahm (or now what's-his-face)? I call bullshit. You're just being anti-left for the sake of being anti-left. You see what the liberals on the internet are supporting and choosing the opposite. Wikileaks is all about small, transparent, accountable government, which is the absolute central tenant of Republicanism, and suddenly the right is opposed to it? Give me a break.
No. I mean the people in the military or security agencies who have the responsibility for classifying the information and who have the background to understand why material should be classified.

There is no way you are going to convince me that anyone on the wikileaks staff or any journalist has the detailed timely information they need to decide if information needs to be classified.

There's also no way that you are going to convince me that publishing a list of worldwide sites that are key to national security interests has anything to to with government transparency.

Last edited by dogzilla; 12-09-2010 at 06:51 PM..
dogzilla is offline  
Old 12-09-2010, 08:07 PM   #168 (permalink)
 
roachboy's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: essex ma
what makes you think that assange is personally making these decisions, debaser, when the fact of the matter is that wikileaks has assembled a coalition with some of the major media outlets in the world, all of which are fully co-operating with wikileaks in the redaction and contextualizing of the information? all wikileaks is, really, is a conduit. that's it.
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite
roachboy is offline  
Old 12-09-2010, 09:44 PM   #169 (permalink)
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
 
Willravel's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by debaser View Post
I think the word you are looking fo is shitty, not corrupt. States act in their own rational self interest, and perhaps the US and China feel that it is not in theirs to participate in the climate summit. This may be a shocker, but countries do not always do what they say, or say what they do...

Now if you could show me a memo that demonstrated that the administration acted only after accepting a payoff from the oil industry or somesuch, I will join you with torches at the gate...
I'm not getting in a semantic debate over the word 'scandal', debaser. The two largest polluters in the world secretly teamed up, something relatively uncommon, to undermine a global initiative that could have consequences for hundreds of years. That's a big deal whether you understand and accept climate science or not. BTW, Shell has infiltrated and has significant control of the Nigerian government, a Texas company pimped little boys to stone Afghani police, etc. etc. etc. but these aren't the point.

This is the point, debaser:

This is wikileaks. Wikileaks is a check to balance out power that's wildly one-sided in this world. You and I have almost no power whatsoever, but because of organizations like wikileaks, we get some of the power that's taken from us back. They're giving us the tools to determine if the power we're giving up should be given up, so we can decide with all of the information if the government or corporations really are working in the best interest of the people. In that way, its truly democratic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by debaser View Post
And undermines it.

Do we overclassify? You bet. I have to deal with it every day, and it is a major pain in the ass. Is it for the purposes of denying you your rights? Absolutely not.
No offense, but I think you're being naive. Classified documents about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan would have meant a solid Kerry win in 2004. Don't fool yourself: those in power use secrecy as a way to maintain and grow their power at your expense.

Quote:
Originally Posted by debaser View Post
Now the system above needs work, and there are abuses by those who wish to hide their malfeasance. That being said, do you really think that the answer to the problem is some shithead with an axe to grind simply dumping a ton of documents onto the internet? I think not.
Wikileaks (not Assange) is hosting information leaked by someone else. It's a media outlet. They've demonstrated they have no axe to grind and the documents they've 'dumped' have all been vetted by experts and the offer was even made to have the US government go through them just to be sure. That request was denied.
Quote:
Originally Posted by debaser View Post
You also bring up democracy. You need to realize that for you to have your utopian demopcracy, a lot of other people are going to have to suffer. For example I present the paper regarding US bombing of Yemeni targets and Ali Abdullah Saleh's boozing.

Saleh is a shitty leader. But what is the alternative? Anger over this cable could lead to his removal which will strengthen AQAP, probably to the point where nominal control of the country will slip to them. Now Will, I assume you do not want violent fundamentalists running Yemen, nor would anyone in Yemen if they really thought about it. Sure, no music or smiling or fun is all well and good, but when they start hanging women for talking to non-relatives I start to draw the line (unless they are accusing Julian Assange of rape, in that case the bitches had it coming).
I hate to break it to you, but this was all fairly well known long before the leak. The cable is a bit more public here in the states than, say, al Jazeera or Haaretz, but really people pretending like this is a big deal stinks of red herring.
Quote:
Originally Posted by debaser View Post
Meh, I'm rambling. I guess what it comes down to is this. Countries need secrets just like they need armys. If they don't have them, some other country that does will destroy them and take what is theirs.

Are we to trust a criminal (Australian/Ex-hacker) to determine what secrets we as a country keep? Do you really think this will lead to a more transparent government?

I think it will lead to a far more draconian classification system that will not only prevent the proper dissemination of information to the public, but hamper the very agencies that make use of it legitimately on a day to day basis...
You're allowing the complete fuckwad morons on Fox News to blur the reality of this situation. They're trying to make it about Assange, but he's basically just a figurehead. The dump has nothing at all to do with Assange aside from the fact he's one cog of many in the machine of wikileaks. Assange is not a criminal, he's not an egomaniac, and he's not the issue. The issue is the documents.

I cannot say this enough: ignore Orly, Beck, Libaugh, Hannity and their ilk. This isn't a right/left thing, they're corrupt liars and anyone who listens to them will end up with a warped and incorrect understanding of reality. Ignore them.
Willravel is offline  
Old 12-09-2010, 10:28 PM   #170 (permalink)
Sir, I have a plan...
 
debaser's Avatar
 
Location: 38S NC20943324
Quote:
Originally Posted by Willravel View Post
This is the point, debaser:
Handjobs from asian girls?

Quote:
Wikileaks is a check to balance out power that's wildly one-sided in this world. You and I have almost no power whatsoever, but because of organizations like wikileaks, we get some of the power that's taken from us back. They're giving us the tools to determine if the power we're giving up should be given up, so we can decide with all of the information if the government or corporations really are working in the best interest of the people. In that way, its truly democratic.
BS. They are giving you information that you have no business knowing at that level of detail which simply reinforces the way you believed anyway. The purpose of REAL journalists is to provide information in a way that is not harmful to the source and puts it in proper context. Wikileaks fail.

Quote:
No offense, but I think you're being naive. Classified documents about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan would have meant a solid Kerry win in 2004. Don't fool yourself: those in power use secrecy as a way to maintain and grow their power at your expense.
Sigh...

Reread my post.

Quote:
Wikileaks (not Assange) is hosting information leaked by someone else. It's a media outlet. They've demonstrated they have no axe to grind and the documents they've 'dumped' have all been vetted by experts and the offer was even made to have the US government go through them just to be sure. That request was denied.
He is the founder of Wikileaks, so I hold him responsible. It is as much of a "media outlet" as Photobucket. It was also making available documents to the agents of nations hostile to the United States, in direct violation of United States law. Why would any government, or individual, essentially help someone hock goods that had been stolen from them?

Quote:
I hate to break it to you, but this was all fairly well known long before the leak. The cable is a bit more public here in the states than, say, al Jazeera or Haaretz, but really people pretending like this is a big deal stinks of red herring.
So at the beginning of your post they were game changing tools to restore democracy, and now they are no big deal? Which one is it? My beef is that they were classified and could damage our foriegn policy, which, despite your personal greivances, has probably done more good than ill over the years.

Quote:
You're allowing the complete fuckwad morons on Fox News to blur the reality of this situation. They're trying to make it about Assange, but he's basically just a figurehead. The dump has nothing at all to do with Assange aside from the fact he's one cog of many in the machine of wikileaks. Assange is not a criminal, he's not an egomaniac, and he's not the issue. The issue is the documents.
In 1992, he pleaded guilty to 24 charges of hacking and was released on bond for good conduct after being fined AU$2100.
If he is not an egomaniac then why has he threatend to release more damaging documents without even the amature redaction attempted on the earlier ones? It seem an awful lot like he is making it about himself. Add to that the legion of scriptkittys that are basking in his 15 minutes, and I think it is pretty hard to separate the man from his creation. Remember also that he has the final word as to what is published on his site.

Quote:
I cannot say this enough: ignore Orly, Beck, Libaugh, Hannity and their ilk. This isn't a right/left thing, they're corrupt liars and anyone who listens to them will end up with a warped and incorrect understanding of reality. Ignore them.
I do not watch Fox News, or any of the people you named.
__________________

Fortunato became immured to the sound of the trowel after a while.

Last edited by debaser; 12-09-2010 at 10:30 PM..
debaser is offline  
Old 12-10-2010, 12:26 AM   #171 (permalink)
immoral minority
 
ASU2003's Avatar
 
Location: Back in Ohio
Quote:
Originally Posted by Willravel View Post
I'm not getting in a semantic debate over the word 'scandal', debaser. The two largest polluters in the world secretly teamed up, something relatively uncommon, to undermine a global initiative that could have consequences for hundreds of years. That's a big deal whether you understand and accept climate science or not. BTW, Shell has infiltrated and has significant control of the Nigerian government, a Texas company pimped little boys to stone Afghani police, etc. etc. etc. but these aren't the point.
I support them going through them and finding this information (if it exists). Write articles, ask tough questions, dig deeper. Any criminal or shady behavior is fair game. And diplomatic decisions that go against what a politcian campaigned on is fair game. Any corporate meddling in diplomatic affairs is fine too (Visa & MC in Russia...)

Yet I think that there are some in there that the public doesn't care to know, shouldn't know, or doesn't want to know.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Willravel View Post
. Wikileaks is a check to balance out power that's wildly one-sided in this world. You and I have almost no power whatsoever, but because of organizations like wikileaks, we get some of the power that's taken from us back. They're giving us the tools to determine if the power we're giving up should be given up, so we can decide with all of the information if the government or corporations really are working in the best interest of the people. In that way, its truly democratic.
I don't always want the diplomats to have to be worrying about elections and pissing off the voters if they offer something or get something in return for better treaty terms.

No offense, but I think you're being naive. Classified documents about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan would have meant a solid Kerry win in 2004. Don't fool yourself: those in power use secrecy as a way to maintain and grow their power at your expense.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Willravel View Post
Wikileaks (not Assange) is hosting information leaked by someone else. It's a media outlet. They've demonstrated they have no axe to grind and the documents they've 'dumped' have all been vetted by experts and the offer was even made to have the US government go through them just to be sure. That request was denied.
There is no way that Obama would have sent someone to work on the cables. Could you imagine to news stories about that?
ASU2003 is offline  
Old 12-11-2010, 04:47 PM   #172 (permalink)
Upright
 
Location: lotus land 3rd igloo on the right
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cimarron29414 View Post
mrmacq,

So it is how you post. Fair enough:

The
trouble
is
that
it
makes
your
post
......
well
just a tad overboard

however
you might be surprised to learn

i also talk like this
nay think as such

blame it on the military
where the one side of the tech manuals
was devoted to that other
official language
after twenty
im used to reading only the left hand side
(aint this fun?)
and again
sorry it bothers you so early

---------- Post added at 04:24 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:06 PM ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by roachboy View Post
figures that the ultra-right would see in this an excuse to threaten one of their favorite Persecuting Others in the ny times.

it makes sense, given that one of the main consequences of the leaks about iraq and afghanistan is evidence for a strong case against members of the bush administration for war crimes.

clearly the problem is the ny times.

---------- Post added at 04:43 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:20 PM ----------

addition: here's a pew research poll regarding popular reaction in the us to wikileaks.

Public Sees WikiLeaks as Harmful - Pew Research Center


it appears that people still like to like what they're told they like to like in the way they're told they like to like those things.
Six-in-ten (60%)

well thak crap they cleared that up
(for those of us losy in the maths)

of those paying attention to the story say they believe the release of thousands of secret State Department communications harms the public interest. About half that number (31%) say the release serves the public interest, according to the latest News Interest Index survey conducted Dec. 2-5 among 1,003 adults.

Yet the public makes a distinction between WikiLeaks itself and the press' handling of the document release.

While nearly four-in-ten (38%) of this group say news organizations have gone too far in reporting the confidential material, a comparable number (39%) say the media has struck the right balance. Just 14% say news organizations have held back too much of the classified material.

oh hang on
39s bigger than 38 aint it?
yet they wrote it this way?

lions and tigers and bears
oh my

---------- Post added at 04:47 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:24 PM ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by debaser View Post
Before we get too much hyperbole in here let me just state this:


There is a balance that needs to be struck between totalitarianism and anarchy, and this is not it. What great scandal or corruption was outed? How does publishing a list of sensitive sites benefit the democratic process?

I am all for whistleblowing that solves a problem, but this has done no such thing. It is in all respects like a kid copying his sisters diary and hanging it up around the high school.

---------- Post added at 06:28 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:25 PM ----------



And what lie was that?
why simple
we no longer wear the white hats
havent for awhile now
we cheat steal and lie
all to further our gain
at others expense
after all it wouldnt be a big deal
if all that was being exposed
was the truth
oh hold on
it is
the truth

well shit
can we circle those wagons tighter?
will it help?

nah
lets just give him life imprisonment
then continue on saying how bad chinas track record is

keep those fingers pointing
my friends

keeps the boogieman under the bed at bay
__________________
never stop questioning,curiosity has its own rewards
mrmacq is offline  
Old 12-11-2010, 04:58 PM   #173 (permalink)
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
 
Willravel's Avatar
 
You're welcome to post like that, but I've not read any of your posts because they're a pain to read.
Willravel is offline  
Old 12-11-2010, 06:01 PM   #174 (permalink)
Upright
 
Location: lotus land 3rd igloo on the right
Quote:
Originally Posted by debaser View Post
I think the word you are looking fo is shitty, not corrupt. States act in their own rational self interest, and perhaps the US and China feel that it is not in theirs to participate in the climate summit. This may be a shocker, but countries do not always do what they say, or say what they do...

Now if you could show me a memo that demonstrated that the administration acted only after accepting a payoff from the oil industry or somesuch, I will join you with torches at the gate...



And undermines it.

Do we overclassify? You bet. I have to deal with it every day, and it is a major pain in the ass. Is it for the purposes of denying you your rights? Absolutely not. Information is generally classified at the lowest, most operational levels and continues to be classified as it becomes part of larger issues not because there is an evil scheme to hide problems from the voter (though that is a "convenient" side effect), but because it is an arduous process to declassify anything that has been classified. There are people whos sole job it is to declassify information. They are pitted against the entire lower tiers of the government beaurocracy, all of whom are classifying stuff like mad.

Example:

An Army private (not the treasonous kind) sits at a secret computer creating documents from patrol debreifs in Iraq. He is 19 years old, and wishes to avoid being shit on and/or missing dinner, both of which can be caused by pissing off his platoon sergeant. He has been told that he has the authority to determine the classification level (up to secret) of any document he creates. He has also been told that any information that comes off of his computer is to be treated as secret as a matter of course. The shit on a shingle and XBOX are calling. What do you think he is going to do once he is done with a routine patrol debreif that contains NO classified material whatsoever?

Yep.

Now if anyone wants to use the information contained in that report they must hold a secret clearance or , if they wish to release it to individuals who do not hold clearances, they must take it to the proper declassification authority. In that case that authority is the US Army. The Army has people trained and authorized to declassify information. There are about 2 of them for every 4500 soldiers. They must review the document and view it in the both current and possible future operational contexts before deciding to declassify it.

But wait! There's more...



I think it will lead to a far more draconian classification system that will not only prevent the proper dissemination of information to the public, but hamper the very agencies that make use of it legitimately on a day to day basis...
"Let's pretend that patrol gave a pump to a village so they could grow whatever the fuck grows in that godforsaken shithole.

hmmmm
unthinking asumptions
we shall let it pass
though it smacks of ignorance
"the fertile cresent"
http://visav.phys.uvic.ca/~babul/Ast...sopotamia1.gif


A state department dude thinks that's pretty cool, and puts it in his report which also contains information from the CIA on friendly villages in the area which was classified to prevent removal of said village elders heads."

so what?
ya figure their so dumb
(your opposition)
as to not figure out which tribal leaders
dont wish to progress?

where do you think this is?
alabama?

now heres the deal dude
they just want the invaders out
wouldnt you?

they werent doing that badly
before you decided your presence was needed
(whole other ball of wax)

---------- Post added at 05:44 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:21 PM ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by debaser View Post
y, which, despite your personal greivances, has probably done more good than ill over the years.

.
holy crap dude

1954

Guatemala — CIA overthrows the democratically elected Jacob Arbenz in a military coup. Arbenz has threatened to nationalize the Rockefeller-owned United Fruit Company, in which CIA Director Allen Dulles also owns stock. Arbenz is replaced with a series of right-wing dictators whose bloodthirsty policies will kill over 100,000 Guatemalans in the next 40 years.

off to a great start

1954-1958

North Vietnam — CIA officer Edward Lansdale spends four years trying to overthrow the communist government of North Vietnam, using all the usual dirty tricks. The CIA also attempts to legitimize a tyrannical puppet regime in South Vietnam, headed by Ngo Dinh Diem. These efforts fail to win the hearts and minds of the South Vietnamese because the Diem government is opposed to true democracy, land reform and poverty reduction measures. The CIA’s continuing failure results in escalating American intervention, culminating in the Vietnam War.

oh theres more

1956

Hungary — Radio Free Europe incites Hungary to revolt by broadcasting Khruschev’s Secret Speech, in which he denounced Stalin. It also hints that American aid will help the Hungarians fight. This aid fails to materialize as Hungarians launch a doomed armed revolt, which only invites a major Soviet invasion. The conflict kills 7,000 Soviets and 30,000 Hungarians.

oh my
the track record

1957-1973

Laos — The CIA carries out approximately one coup per year trying to nullify Laos’ democratic elections. The problem is the Pathet Lao, a leftist group with enough popular support to be a member of any coalition government. In the late 50s, the CIA even creates an "Armee Clandestine" of Asian mercenaries to attack the Pathet Lao. After the CIA’s army suffers numerous defeats, the U.S. starts bombing, dropping more bombs on Laos than all the U.S. bombs dropped in World War II. A quarter of all Laotians will eventually become refugees, many living in caves.

god but we is impressed

oh hang on
you didnt know this?

---------- Post added at 06:01 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:44 PM ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Willravel View Post
You're welcome to post like that, but I've not read any of your posts because they're a pain to read.
so i trust you wont be blaming me
when ya miss something ive posted?

oh
call me slow
could have sworn ya said ya havent read any

no disrespect guys (gals)
but its how i write
its how i get my thoughts out
the only way i know how

i trust respect is a two way street?
__________________
never stop questioning,curiosity has its own rewards
mrmacq is offline  
Old 12-12-2010, 09:02 AM   #175 (permalink)
Sir, I have a plan...
 
debaser's Avatar
 
Location: 38S NC20943324
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrmacq View Post
"the fertile cresent"
When was the last time you were in Iraq son?


Quote:
ya figure their so dumb
(your opposition)
No, they're receiving their money from outside sources. AQI is not internally funded, and takes both money and direction from outside sources, sources that now have local intelligence thanks to leaks like this.

Quote:
now heres the deal dude
they just want the invaders out
wouldnt you?
"They" being the foreign fighters from Syria, Yemen, Somalia, Chechnya, etc. who are chopping off heads and floating them down the Tigris?

Quote:
they werent doing that badly
before you decided your presence was needed
(whole other ball of wax)
I decided no such thing. Iraq was a huge mistake, but it is the reality with which we must now deal. Aside from providing people like you with a smug sense of satisfaction, these leaks have done nothing but made life much more difficult for the men and women trying to patch that country up enough for us to get out.


Quote:
holy crap dude

1954

Guatemala — CIA overthrows the democratically elected Jacob Arbenz in a military coup. Arbenz has threatened to nationalize the Rockefeller-owned United Fruit Company, in which CIA Director Allen Dulles also owns stock. Arbenz is replaced with a series of right-wing dictators whose bloodthirsty policies will kill over 100,000 Guatemalans in the next 40 years.

off to a great start

1954-1958

North Vietnam — CIA officer Edward Lansdale spends four years trying to overthrow the communist government of North Vietnam, using all the usual dirty tricks. The CIA also attempts to legitimize a tyrannical puppet regime in South Vietnam, headed by Ngo Dinh Diem. These efforts fail to win the hearts and minds of the South Vietnamese because the Diem government is opposed to true democracy, land reform and poverty reduction measures. The CIA’s continuing failure results in escalating American intervention, culminating in the Vietnam War.

oh theres more

1956

Hungary — Radio Free Europe incites Hungary to revolt by broadcasting Khruschev’s Secret Speech, in which he denounced Stalin. It also hints that American aid will help the Hungarians fight. This aid fails to materialize as Hungarians launch a doomed armed revolt, which only invites a major Soviet invasion. The conflict kills 7,000 Soviets and 30,000 Hungarians.

oh my
the track record

1957-1973

Laos — The CIA carries out approximately one coup per year trying to nullify Laos’ democratic elections. The problem is the Pathet Lao, a leftist group with enough popular support to be a member of any coalition government. In the late 50s, the CIA even creates an "Armee Clandestine" of Asian mercenaries to attack the Pathet Lao. After the CIA’s army suffers numerous defeats, the U.S. starts bombing, dropping more bombs on Laos than all the U.S. bombs dropped in World War II. A quarter of all Laotians will eventually become refugees, many living in caves.

god but we is impressed

oh hang on
you didnt know this?
Know what? Your first four Wikipedia hits? Several of my relatives were killed in the '56 revolution (which would have happened with or without US promises of aid), but I appreciate you using it as a talking point. I never said the US foreign policy was perfect, or even enlightened. I just said it did more good than harm. Have you forgotten the SOVIETS? We did some really shitty stuff in the name of fighting them, but look at the alternatives...
__________________

Fortunato became immured to the sound of the trowel after a while.
debaser is offline  
Old 12-12-2010, 09:11 AM   #176 (permalink)
Her Jay
 
silent_jay's Avatar
 
Location: Ontario for now....
...

Last edited by silent_jay; 02-07-2011 at 02:51 PM..
silent_jay is offline  
Old 12-12-2010, 09:23 AM   #177 (permalink)
warrior bodhisattva
 
Baraka_Guru's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: East-central Canada
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Baraka_Guru is offline  
Old 12-12-2010, 09:40 AM   #178 (permalink)
Sir, I have a plan...
 
debaser's Avatar
 
Location: 38S NC20943324
Quote:
Originally Posted by silent_jay View Post
Oh yes, the red scare, watch out for those big bad Soviets (see it can be typed in a normal size, but I guess the bigger the size, the bigger the scare tactic), but hey, as long as they were stopped, it justifies all the bad things the US did, quite the comical position to take really. As for US foreign policy doing more good than harm, that's up in the air, to me, US foreign policy causes more problems than it solves, but, hey as long as the world police are happy, I guess all is good in the world......
It's easy to brush it off now, isn't it? But the fact remains that for all the hideous, fucked up shit the US has done, the Soviets had us beaten hands down.

Why am I even bothering responding to this pablum? Do you really put the Soviet Union on the same moral footing as the US?

---------- Post added at 02:40 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:38 PM ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru View Post
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
This is the root of the problem, isn't it...

I'm not sure what the answer is, but I'm fairly certain this isn't it. (edit- "This" being the uncontrolled leaking of sensitive information.)
__________________

Fortunato became immured to the sound of the trowel after a while.

Last edited by debaser; 12-12-2010 at 09:49 AM..
debaser is offline  
Old 12-12-2010, 10:07 AM   #179 (permalink)
Future Bureaucrat
 
KirStang's Avatar
 
Yea...as I stated earlier as anonymous poster..the cost benefit analysis isn't quite working out for me either.
KirStang is offline  
Old 12-12-2010, 10:55 AM   #180 (permalink)
Her Jay
 
silent_jay's Avatar
 
Location: Ontario for now....
...

Last edited by silent_jay; 02-07-2011 at 02:50 PM..
silent_jay is offline  
Old 12-12-2010, 12:21 PM   #181 (permalink)
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
 
Willravel's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru View Post
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Willravel is offline  
Old 12-12-2010, 01:28 PM   #182 (permalink)
Sir, I have a plan...
 
debaser's Avatar
 
Location: 38S NC20943324
Quote:
Originally Posted by silent_jay View Post
That's a question you'll have to ask yourself, must have warranted an answer, although, I suspect you probably enjoy pablum.

Both have/had done their fair share of shitty things, both have caused problems, one continues to cause problems, what moral footing I put them both on doesn't really matter, your mind is made up, as long as it's Team America, no matter how bad, it's alright in your books.

I'll leave you to enjoy your pablum, a treat for you from Canada.
It's ok lad, I'm used to being pidgeonholed into stereotypes by the weak minded. It seems that taking a position that isn't absolutist these days is far more offensive to the sheep on both sides of the fence than simply coloring an issue black and white and walking the party line. Enjoy your snow.
__________________

Fortunato became immured to the sound of the trowel after a while.
debaser is offline  
Old 12-12-2010, 02:59 PM   #183 (permalink)
Her Jay
 
silent_jay's Avatar
 
Location: Ontario for now....
...

Last edited by silent_jay; 02-07-2011 at 02:50 PM.. Reason: spelling
silent_jay is offline  
Old 12-12-2010, 03:29 PM   #184 (permalink)
Sir, I have a plan...
 
debaser's Avatar
 
Location: 38S NC20943324
Yawn, it seems to me there used to be an ignore feature for people like you...
__________________

Fortunato became immured to the sound of the trowel after a while.
debaser is offline  
Old 12-12-2010, 04:24 PM   #185 (permalink)
Her Jay
 
silent_jay's Avatar
 
Location: Ontario for now....
...

Last edited by silent_jay; 02-07-2011 at 02:50 PM..
silent_jay is offline  
Old 12-12-2010, 04:24 PM   #186 (permalink)
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
 
Willravel's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by debaser View Post
Why am I even bothering responding to this pablum? Do you really put the Soviet Union on the same moral footing as the US?
The was no "good guy" in the cold war, just two competing powers doing everything they could to end up on top. There's no "we were better than them" argument to be made because we both ended up hurting and killing a hell of a lot of people for no good reason.
Willravel is offline  
Old 12-12-2010, 04:28 PM   #187 (permalink)
Her Jay
 
silent_jay's Avatar
 
Location: Ontario for now....
...

Last edited by silent_jay; 02-07-2011 at 02:49 PM..
silent_jay is offline  
Old 12-12-2010, 04:42 PM   #188 (permalink)
Sir, I have a plan...
 
debaser's Avatar
 
Location: 38S NC20943324
Quote:
Originally Posted by Willravel View Post
The was no "good guy" in the cold war, just two competing powers doing everything they could to end up on top. There's no "we were better than them" argument to be made because we both ended up hurting and killing a hell of a lot of people for no good reason.
Maaaaaaaybe...

No one can deny that both powers acted in their own self interest, but at the very least the US was constrained to some small degree by the it's citizens. The Soviets acted in spite of, and often against their own populace. And yes, I know that someone will bring up Kent State and the McCarthy travesty, but these were aberations in a country otherwise at least nominally held to the rule of law...
__________________

Fortunato became immured to the sound of the trowel after a while.
debaser is offline  
Old 12-12-2010, 05:31 PM   #189 (permalink)
Crazy, indeed
 
Location: the ether
Quote:
Originally Posted by debaser View Post
Maaaaaaaybe...

No one can deny that both powers acted in their own self interest, but at the very least the US was constrained to some small degree by the it's citizens. The Soviets acted in spite of, and often against their own populace. And yes, I know that someone will bring up Kent State and the McCarthy travesty, but these were aberations in a country otherwise at least nominally held to the rule of law...
What the US did or did not do against its own population is sort of irrelevant when it comes to its international policy, isn't it?

And when comparisons between two superpowers start to boil down to who killed fewer millions of people, it is kind of hard to claim any moral superiority, isn't it?

Finally, how does it work? I mean, shutting down wikileaks, torturing, regime change, etc. etc. all in the name of "democracy" and "freedom" is a bit of an oxymoron, isn't it?
dippin is offline  
Old 12-12-2010, 05:39 PM   #190 (permalink)
Sir, I have a plan...
 
debaser's Avatar
 
Location: 38S NC20943324
Well, to it's credit, the US hasn't had a Bulgarian poke Assange with an umbrella yet...
__________________

Fortunato became immured to the sound of the trowel after a while.
debaser is offline  
Old 12-12-2010, 06:25 PM   #191 (permalink)
has all her shots.
 
mixedmedia's Avatar
 
Location: Florida
Quote:
a country otherwise at least nominally held to the rule of law...
I can't help but find it a little funny that in the process of defending America against wikileaks one has to admit what it is that they are actually defending. It's just one more step, brother.
__________________
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
mixedmedia is offline  
Old 12-12-2010, 06:37 PM   #192 (permalink)
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
 
Willravel's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by debaser View Post
Maaaaaaaybe...

No one can deny that both powers acted in their own self interest, but at the very least the US was constrained to some small degree by the it's citizens. The Soviets acted in spite of, and often against their own populace. And yes, I know that someone will bring up Kent State and the McCarthy travesty, but these were aberations in a country otherwise at least nominally held to the rule of law...
I didn't have the fortune to be born in the 1940s or 1950s to see this stuff for myself. What I know of the cold war is a combination of three things: historical records, discussions with people living during those times, and patterns in human/governmental behavior that I've lived through. The historical record is sketchy because some facts seem open to interpretation. How prevalent were psyops in the United States during the cold war? How wide was support for our various military excursions relating to halting the spread of communism or aiding the spread of capitalism? How many people actually died, particularly in foreign jungles most people my age have never even heard of? Personal details are illuminating, and you can guess at the bias of the storyteller, but the scope of information is narrow. Learning about Vietnam from an uncle certainly carries with it highly specific details of the life of an Army grunt in a terrible war, but it doesn't exactly fill in the blanks or question marks left by the historical record. The most reliable thing I have at my disposal is how people and government have behaved in my lifetime, because neither has really changed for a long time. I know what psyops look like because I get inundated with it daily to the point where there are topics which I should know clearly that I can't even begin to understand. I know that fear can motivate people to abject hatred and murderous rage even at the most innocent people on the planet. I know that the mob is petty, vindictive, and with sufficient power is very easy to control. When I look at the historical record and personal retelling through the lens of what I know, the cold war was about powerful, corrupt people fighting over even more power by using the little people as pawns. Soviet, American, it was all the same shit. The fact that the Soviet Union collapsed is not some indicator that the United States was more righteous or that the American people are more free, but rather that one power was going to win and the other lose, which is the nature of competition.

If one reason could be pulled from the thousands as the biggest reason for the country's collapse, it was oligarchy. America didn't have any more or less oligarchy in the 1980s than the USSR, in fact we have more in 2010 than the Soviets had immediately before collapsing, it's just that we don't have the same competition going on that we had then.

imho

/threadjack
Willravel is offline  
Old 12-14-2010, 09:36 AM   #193 (permalink)
warrior bodhisattva
 
Baraka_Guru's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: East-central Canada
An interesting development

I suppose this means that the core idea behind WikiLeaks, as well as the actions that arise from it, is decidedly not about Assange.

Introducing OpenLeaks:

Quote:
Breakaway WikiLeaks staff form new service
DOUG SAUNDERS
LONDON— From Tuesday's Globe and Mail
Published Monday, Dec. 13, 2010 7:35PM EST
Last updated Tuesday, Dec. 14, 2010 6:39AM EST

Of all the legal, sexual and financial charges levelled against WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange in recent days, the most damaging – and surprising – may be that he is doing a disservice to whistleblowers.

Yet this is exactly how a group of the document-leaking website’s core staff, including the man who until a few weeks ago was its second-in-command, characterize the 39-year-old Australian as they have announced their break from his organization to create a new service, OpenLeaks, which they say will offer three things WikiLeaks has never managed: transparency, a direct link to the media and lack of celebrity.

“One of the main issues we see with WikiLeaks today,” said Daniel Domscheit-Berg, the 32-year-old German who had been Mr. Assange’s right-hand man and spokesman, “is that it has become too much about self-promoting the project and self-promoting people involved with the project, which is rather distracting from the content of the documents.”

Even as the United States pursues efforts to shut down WikiLeaks and its sources of financing for having negotiated the leak of 250,000 secret diplomatic cables and hundreds of thousands of military communiqués from the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, WikiLeaks is collapsing internally under charges from Internet activists and whistleblower advocates that it has become a promotional vehicle for Mr. Assange that no longer helps whistleblowers.

The defection of a handful of core staff – who reportedly include most of the computer-literate people who have assisted Mr. Assange in the past two years – illustrates deep division between those who believe the purpose of WikiLeaks is to make government and other organizations more transparent by exposing their inner communications, and those, such as Mr. Assange, who have a more ideological mission.

Mr. Assange’s anti-American predisposition has become a concern to some Internet activists, who see his political prejudices and personal vendettas as having tainted the group’s image of neutral transparency.

He recently told a Swedish television documentary that he sees the leaks as “actions that are a corrective to injustice,” a claim that annoyed those who prefer to see WikiLeaks as a conduit that can be used to help any disgruntled employee with a cause.

There is concern that the organization’s neutrality and its value to future whistleblowers have been tainted by Mr. Assange’s recent arrest on sex-crime accusations originating in Sweden – which have yet to result in criminal charges or to be questioned in court – as well as his frequent press releases and speeches denouncing those exposed in the leaks.

In response, OpenLeaks was founded as a completely invisible organization. People will be able to post documents to its confidential site and choose a range of media outlets, unions and other groups who can receive them without knowing the identity of the sender. It will be up to the recipients to judge, filter, publish and publicize the leaks, and OpenLeaks will play no active role.

This, in the view of the dissidents, is what WikiLeaks was meant to be from the beginning, until Mr. Assange’s personal motives interfered.

WikiLeaks began with the intention of publishing leaked documents on the Web itself; this was how it attained some of its earlier successes, such as the 2007 revelation that Kenyan president Daniel arap Moi had embezzled funds or the October, 2009, publication of the full membership list of the far-right British National Party.

But its founders soon discovered that its online audience was too small to reach the sort of mass audience needed for the leaks to have an effect. It also lacked the editing and analysis skills needed to turn raw documents into useful information.

So when it received a huge trove of government documents this year, allegedly from U.S. Army Private Bradley Manning, WikiLeaks took on a new role as a middleman operation, poised between whistleblowers and the media organizations that publish their leaks. Mr. Assange became a dealmaker rather than a publisher, and his negotiating style came to be dominated by his personal tastes and beliefs.

It was around this time that founding staff began to defect. Mr. Domscheit-Berg, who until late September was the public face of WikiLeaks under the nom de plume Daniel Schmitt, was suspended by Mr. Assange after suggesting that the founder take a lower profile and allow new leaks to be accepted while processing Mr. Manning’s trove. (WikiLeaks has not accepted any new documents since the summer.)

Mr. Assange has refused to speak in detail about the defections. “In a tense situation like ours, employees can do bad things and then get suspended by leadership,” he said during a discussion at London’s Frontline club in October.

The founders say that OpenLeaks can operate on little more than €100,000 a year, as it will require no editors or publicists. It will compete with a number of other new whistleblower sites hoping to take advantage of the demise of WikiLeaks.
Breakaway WikiLeaks staff form new service - The Globe and Mail
__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot
Baraka_Guru is offline  
Old 12-14-2010, 09:54 AM   #194 (permalink)
has all her shots.
 
mixedmedia's Avatar
 
Location: Florida
if this were on facebook I would 'like' it. I'm glad to hear this.
__________________
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
mixedmedia is offline  
Old 12-15-2010, 08:20 AM   #195 (permalink)
Junkie
 
loquitur's Avatar
 
Location: NYC
this is actually a vindication of free market principles. Attempts to control people ultimately fail. People usually find a way to do what they want to do. At least most of the time.
loquitur is offline  
Old 12-15-2010, 08:38 AM   #196 (permalink)
 
roachboy's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: essex ma
that's hardly a "free market principle" loquitor.
and there's a lot about this that is specific, in the generational/technological sense... this isn't the deepest piece i've ever seen, but it points to some of the obvious issues:

Quote:

We are Generation Wiki. We are interconnected collaborative creatures, and we like to share. We link and like, comment, post and poke. We Yelp when we're hungry, Skype when we're lonely and Gchat throughout the day. Our cell phone bills are light on minutes and long on data almost every month.

We are the first of our kind. A computer has sat comfortably in some nook of our home for as long as we can remember. We grew up trying to find Carmen Sandiego, and came of age to the beeps and cackles of a 14k modem connecting to America Online. Before we had our own car, before we had our own cash and before we had a fake ID, we had chat rooms, instant messages and inboxes. We had an entire world wide web of possibilities with which to explore beyond the confines of our bedroom walls. Our rebellion was data-driven, a battle cry of zeros and ones where power grew out of the results of a search engine.

We are broadcasters, mini-content creation machines, and this is how we communicate. But while we may share more publicly, we are hardly the open books some claim us to be. Our online profiles reveal little more about our character, competence and intellect than our choice of clothing does, because we know our boundaries, however unspoken. In fact, we are remarkably self-regulating and adept at maintaining privacy, in a very public manner. What we share tends to be topical, trivial and rapidly replaced. The way we share it is marked by a unique etiquette.

We don't SMS the way we email, we won't send a message for what we can comment on and a chat window is not the same as a phone call. We don't type the way we speak and we all understand that. Sometimes, we chastise our parents for not getting it. "No, Mom, text messages are not for conversations!" They are for clarification of questions, confirmation of meetings and the occasional witty witticisms between the sexes. "Don't photo comment on Facebook asking if I ate dinner!" It's simply not the place.

We are aware of these ambiguities of the digital age, and we are comfortable with them. They are the products of a networked world where information is in abundance and easily diffused; it is the only world that we have known. So, imagine how confounding we find the reactions to this WikiLeaks debacle, many of which are so oddly out of date and kneejerk. The email sent by Columbia University's office of career services that made international headlines and the mailing lists of other policy schools, along with similar messages sent to the student bodies of Boston University school of law and Michigan State University James Madison College, is evidence of this reality.

To be sure, no one muzzled our right to free speech, and, contrary to the Village Voice description, Columbia is not "fascist". But the simple truth that someone, somewhere, thought we would do best to keep a lid on it – to say nothing of the statements emanating from Congress and the state department – shows how remarkably misguided the thinking is on this issue.

What seems to be missing is an understanding of what Generation Wiki has known all along about information gone viral: we consume, comment and move on; the story dies when we are done with it. Trying to put the genie back in the bottle is no way to deal with an expose once it has gone online.

Furthermore, WikiLeaks will not be a one-off. Whatever comes of the website, Julian Assange or Bradley Manning does not negate the fact that, in the absence of a far more heavily restricted internet, we live in a WikiLeakable world. No matter how secure our servers, how rigorous our clearance processes or how thorough our legislation, we will never eradicate the human element from security or the technological platforms on which treasure troves of classified documents, corporate secrets or other private data can be obtained and blasted across the public domain.

The million-dollar question that nobody seems to be asking is: where do we go from here? The current strategy of trying to close the barn door after the horse has bolted does not seem terribly effective for the digital age. As students of policy – as Generation Wiki – we'd do well to think of an answer, because those managing the current crisis do not appear to have a good one.
Generation Wiki's web savvy | Ethan Wilkes | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite
roachboy is offline  
Old 12-15-2010, 03:59 PM   #197 (permalink)
Junkie
 
loquitur's Avatar
 
Location: NYC
the free market principle I was talking about is that people will generally find a way to do what they want to do, despite efforts by their "betters" to stop them. Human ingenuity is the great driver of free markets.
loquitur is offline  
Old 12-15-2010, 04:18 PM   #198 (permalink)
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
 
Willravel's Avatar
 
I want to end the wars. Am I just lacking in ingenuity?
Willravel is offline  
Old 12-15-2010, 05:53 PM   #199 (permalink)
Junkie
 
filtherton's Avatar
 
Location: In the land of ice and snow.
Quote:
Originally Posted by loquitur View Post
the free market principle I was talking about is that people will generally find a way to do what they want to do, despite efforts by their "betters" to stop them. Human ingenuity is the great driver of free markets.
I'd say that it's more a characteristic of most successful instances of life than it is a free market principle.

Besides, free markets don't actually exist and in reality-based markets, human ingenuity can be just as much a liability as a blessing. Human ingenuity is arguably responsible for the financial sector shenanigans which brought our economy to its knees.
filtherton is offline  
Old 12-16-2010, 01:26 AM   #200 (permalink)
Sir, I have a plan...
 
debaser's Avatar
 
Location: 38S NC20943324
Quote:
Originally Posted by Willravel View Post
I want to end the wars. Am I just lacking in ingenuity?
Me too. I don't think this is gonna help.
__________________

Fortunato became immured to the sound of the trowel after a while.
debaser is offline  
 

Tags
diplomacy, dump, wikileaks


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 04:19 PM.

Tilted Forum Project

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
© 2002-2012 Tilted Forum Project

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360