roachboy

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

debaser

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.

__________________

roachboy

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

Willravel

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.
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.

ASU2003

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.

debaser

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...

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...

__________________

dogzilla

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.

roachboy

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

Willravel

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.
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.

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.
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.
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.

debaser

Handjobs from asian girls?

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.

Sigh...

Reread my post.

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?

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.

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.

I do not watch Fox News, or any of the people you named.

__________________

ASU2003

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.

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.

There is no way that Obama would have sent someone to work on the cables. Could you imagine to news stories about that?

mrmacq

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 ----------

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 ----------

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

Willravel

You're welcome to post like that, but I've not read any of your posts because they're a pain to read.

mrmacq

"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 ----------

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 ----------

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

debaser

When was the last time you were in Iraq son?


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.

"They" being the foreign fighters from Syria, Yemen, Somalia, Chechnya, etc. who are chopping off heads and floating them down the Tigris?

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.


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...

__________________

silent_jay

...

Baraka_Guru

debaser

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 ----------

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.)

__________________

KirStang

Yea...as I stated earlier as anonymous poster..the cost benefit analysis isn't quite working out for me either.

silent_jay

...

Willravel

debaser

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.

__________________

silent_jay

...

debaser

Yawn, it seems to me there used to be an ignore feature for people like you...

__________________

silent_jay

...

Willravel

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.

silent_jay

...

debaser

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...

__________________

dippin

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?

debaser

Well, to it's credit, the US hasn't had a Bulgarian poke Assange with an umbrella yet...

__________________

mixedmedia

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

Willravel

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

Baraka_Guru

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:

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

mixedmedia

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

loquitur

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.

roachboy

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:

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

loquitur

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.

Willravel

I want to end the wars. Am I just lacking in ingenuity?

filtherton

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.

debaser

Me too. I don't think this is gonna help.

__________________