Raoul's China Saloon (V5.0) Beta
The Bar Room => The BS-Wrestling Pit => Topic started by: Calach Pfeffer on December 01, 2010, 03:34:56 AM
-
Breath of fresh air or callous killers by proxy of informants and collaborators?
I don't know how many people ended up dead because the "Afghan Diaries" were wikileaked, but "breath of fresh air" seems to sum up the diplomatic cables affair.
But then I suppose people will end up dead because of that too and we'll have to keep breathing the same old governmental exhaust as newspapers serve up daily.
-
International heros and near-saviours of mankind in my book. consider that the gov't agencies (=secret police) who object most to the publication of sensitive materials are the first to tap phones, spy on the internet, shut down inconvenient internet chatsites and web pages, and snoop into other people's private affairs in general. What goes around comes around, and these people have had it coming for a long, long time.
Killers by proxy? Who is killing whom? Seems to me that game has been going on for millenia, and I don't believe anyone in that game has clean hands. For the Americans, this is at most a minor bump on a very uneven road.
-
I don't think it is quite that simple. Sure, governments do all sorts of stupid things and routinely lie about their reasons. In principle, exposing some of their machinations is obviously a good thing.
However, all these diplomatic cables were classified "secret". There are heavy penalties in almost any country for exposing such stuff, always have been, and there's a reason for that. You can bet the US government are looking hard for whoever gave this stuff to WL; it must have been someone with a high clearance, violating an oath of secrecy. They will no doubt cause them very serious grief when they find them.
Of course, there's a tendency to over-classification, government minions trying to keep everything secret. That needs to be resisted.
But some things in diplomacy do need to be private. For example, the Chinese and US governments have both taken public stances on various issues, but what they say to each other in private may be different from their public stance. Without some privacy, discussion or negotiation become very difficult. If everything a Chinese official says to the US embassy (or at least everything important enough to be reported to Washington) is going to become public on WL, it becomes very difficult for him to say anything except perhaps to parrot the public Party Line.
Also, some exposures risk lives or wars. Publish information on what the US are getting from Afghan informants, and perhaps the other side will figure out who the informants are. Of course, that gets the informants killed; even a wrong guess can get someone killed. Publish a cable quoting a major Arab leader asking the US to attack Iran, and you might get that leader assassinated or even start yet another mid-East war.
Wikileaks may be up against heavier opposition soon:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-11-30/moscows-bid-to-blow-up-wikileaks-russians-play-by-different-rules/
-
However, all these diplomatic cables were classified "secret". There are heavy penalties in almost any country for exposing such stuff, always have been, and there's a reason for that. You can bet the US government are looking hard for whoever gave this stuff to WL; it must have been someone with a high clearance, violating an oath of secrecy. They will no doubt cause them very serious grief when they find them.
The gov't already has him, they caught him about 7 months ago (It's the same guy that gave the war documents.) And actually he wasn't a high level or clearance guy. It was a private first class, which I believe is the LOWEST level!
He brought in a CD-RW to his computer in Iraq (where he was stationed) that said Lady Gaga. He erased the songs, downloaded all the files (which, it turned out was accessible to 2.5 million people) and walked away without anyone looking at him twice.
He has been in solitary for awhile and next year he will be court marshalled.
I talked about the whole thing this week in my newspaper reading classes, which was interesting. One thing it showed was the difference between freedom of speech in the US vs. China! I mean, you can't even get to wikileaks here without a VPN! And China Daily has been quite mum despite all the Chinese/N. Korean revelations revealed!
-
From possibly not the most authoritative of sources (http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/41618.html), there's no current evidence that anyone was killed as a result of the Afghan Diaries, and approximately 3 million people had clearance to view the "cables".
Pffft, all sorts of new stuff happens when new information arrives, especially if it is NOT doctored information. This seems like a good thing to me. And if secrecy or privacy is needed for negotiation, get married.
I think it's true that when all negotiations are public, those negotiations become very complex. There is indeed a pressure to simplify them BY TELLING THE TRUTH! A great many other voices will clamor for attention and to mock, but if the truth is the standard, then what really is there available to mock?
"Hey, Kim Jong-Il, we think you're overweight and short! We don't want to feed your people either! Suck it, bro!"
"Oh yeah? Well, I have lots of maybe-weapons that I shall now brandish as if real!"
"Keep sucking it, bro!"
"Yankee devils! I just want to keep power and control lots of slaves! Suck this! *launches nuke*"
"We're all sucking it n--*boom*"
The truth will set you free
(of this mortal coil)
-
yeah i think the leaks about nkorea was pretty irresponsible
-
Interesting. Sweden has gone to Interpol and they've issued an international warrant for Assange on "sex crimes": http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/11/assange-interpol/
-
yeah i think the leaks about nkorea was pretty irresponsible
Why? If they don't think China will really back them, maybe they'll be less confidently aggressive.
I like that people get to know what our "leaders" really think. Would have been nice to have a leaked document a decade ago that said, "Shrub, Saddam ain't got shit [WMDs], so we'd better bomb the crap out of him BEFORE people figure out he's helpless or remember 9/11 was masterminded by Bin Laden."
on the other hand it could make them more desperate and force their hand
most of the stuff i found reassuring because it's kind of what everyone thought anyway, i just thought with a situation so sensitive running the risk of affecting it negatively could be very serious
-
yeah i think the leaks about nkorea was pretty irresponsible
In what way? Did this disclose anything to the NK regime that it didn't already know?
[Hmmm... I recall an episode of Yes Minister where the foreign secretary has to come to Hacker's office to be informed of the latest international development because his TV isn't working. Maybe NK is run like a 1980's britcom? That would explain a few things]
I submit that we the people are the last to be reliably informed. That's no accident. Knowledge is power, and power to the people.
-
yeah i think the leaks about nkorea was pretty irresponsible
I totally respect you as a person, but I disagree with your opinion. < Sentence re-framed by Raoul >
As for the topic at hand, I think Julian Assange and Wikileaks did the right thing. My hat's off to them. It's nice to see people with balls left in this world.
-
I'm just happy to see that I've managed to keep my secret plans for world conquest from getting leaked. I'd hate to have to unleash my brigades of assault hamsters on innocent civilians . . . until the time is right.
uuuuuuuuuu
Vote Lunatic for World Dictator - or face my furry minions! ahahahahah
-
russia today. i'm surprised noone is a bit worried by them pissing off these diverse people. i'm still a bit torn because while the principle is good, sometimes diplomacy is needed also
like with russia which is a very powerful country run by a man I personally don't like
< Edits by Raoul. "sometimes diplomacy is needed also." >
-
General Yo to y'all....
Keep it sweet, Pete. Disagree all you want with someone's opinions...just do so without disparaging the person posting those opinions.
If you wanna get an argument that's all personal and ugly, that's cool.
Just shag on over to Dave's ESL Cafe, hold your nose, and start blasting away! bfbfbfbfbf
Not doing this stuff is part of what distinguishes US from...shudder...THEM. aaaaaaaaaa
And we just plain ol' ain't gonna become THEM. aaaaaaaaaa
Also...might want to show some restraint when talking about other countries and their leaders. You never know...we might just have members from those countries. :wtf:
-
NZ way down the WikiLeaks queue
Whistle-blower WikiLeaks has dumped another load of secret American cables on the internet this morning and for the fourth day running, there is nothing from the US Embassy in Wellington.
WikiLeaks claims that 1500 cables from Wellington are included in the 250,000 despatches they have.
Currently they are publishing around 30 a day.
That means the public might read the Wellington US Embassy's assessment of just elected Prime Minister John Key around the time he celebrates his 72nd birthday in 2033.
In 2033 it will be revealed to the world that New Zealand is actually the Power behind the powers. For the first time you will learn that:
* the President of the USA has to rise at 5am each day to receive his orders from the Prime Minister of NZ
* in so doing he is obliged to face South while holding a can of Lion Beer in his right hand
* the 'problem' in Korea at the moment is part of a marketing programme for the Rugby World Cup to be held in NZ next year. You can expect Phase II (Engagement and Annihilation) of the campaign to start on 11.01.11. The US is not expected to take part as they have real problems with dates like this.
* the recent problems of the Australian cricket team can be traced to someone from NZ Intelligence substituting Marmite for Vegemite at team breakfasts. The side effects (increased physical capacity and virility) led to some pretty bizarre scenes at the Gabba. Were you at the game Kangaroo?
* there is a secret tunnel between No.10 Downing Street and the NZ embassy in London. Through this, special food packs are delivered to the British Govt. In return the British Govt has promised to not favour NZ with another royal visit.
* NZ has offered refugee status to any Canadian accused of being an American.
-
NZ way down the WikiLeaks queue
...
* NZ has offered refugee status to any Canadian accused of being an American.
Great stuff, but when you quote such things, please include the url.
-
please include the url.
sorry - http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/4415037/NZ-way-down-the-WikiLeaks-queue
-
General Yo to y'all....
Keep it sweet, Pete. Disagree all you want with someone's opinions...just do so without disparaging the person posting those opinions.
If you wanna get an argument that's all personal and ugly, that's cool.
Just shag on over to Dave's ESL Cafe, hold your nose, and start blasting away! bfbfbfbfbf
Not doing this stuff is part of what distinguishes US from...shudder...THEM. aaaaaaaaaa
And we just plain ol' ain't gonna become THEM. aaaaaaaaaa
Also...might want to show some restraint when talking about other countries and their leaders. You never know...we might just have members from those countries. :wtf:
no offence to any russian people with my pre-edit post
i like russian people whatever i think of your government (i'm not a big fan of any government tbh....
-
I think Assange has done the world a favor. I'm sure some negatives will fall out of this data dump, but the harm it prevents is immeasuable. The U.S. gov't for one, has been overturning governments, assassinating leaders and generally been a wart on the ass of self-determination for over a century. If they think what they do might now be revealed to the general public some day...great. I'm sick and tired of the meddling our presidents have done in the names of people like myself and so many others without accountability let alone repercussion.
-
good summary of the fallout (so far)
http://waxy.org/2010/11/wikileaks_cablegate_roundup/
-
I was wondering some about the difference between wikileaking and real journalism. Real journalism has a better title, anyway. (Seriously, "wikileaks"?) Real journalism is measured, paced if you will, revelatory in stages. It also usually has some relatively direct relationship to news as it is currently happening. Real journalism has an editorial voice too. The cables being released at present are being chosen, but are they being presented in context? (Well, when I say "presented in context", I mean are they part of some story which has a definite journalist's voice. The answer to that is no.) It's embarrassing stuff, but all journalism embarrasses to some extent. Or at least, that's what they'd have us believe. It seems really what wikileaks does is break the conventional relationships the fourth estate has with the actual powers that be. Wikileaks, like Dear Julian himself, is antagonistic by virtue of not developing some more positive protagonistic role.
That actually might be a good thing. It suggests Dear Julian doesn't want to be Dear leader. If he wanted to be in charge, he'd at least try to make some kind of relationship with the little people. Instead he's all about "the truth", for better or worse.
That makes him an anarchist? Probably not. He seems to believe that truth creates order.
And his mum loves him.
And rape.
-
I was wondering some about the difference between wikileaking and real journalism.
I think the question is "Does Assange's data dumps bring us closer to what good journalism used to be?". Much, if not most, of these facts would be known by journalists in the 'old days' when journalists actually made and developed sources. For various financial, political and other reasons that just doesn't happen today. Instead they parrot what they're fed by the institutions that they are supposed to be watch-dogging to begin with. What we get is controlled press releases masquarading as investigative stories and embedded correspondants totally beholden to the people they cover. A crazy "Stockholm Syndrome" has set in where the journalists get chummy with those they are covering because to make them mad would mean they would be cut off completely. Add to that the consolidation of media outlets and you have so much profit at stake and so little diversity that the result is a mere echo chamber of talking points put out by the targets of the "investigations" themselves.
-
THIS JUST IN:
Julian Assange Fired From IT Job At PentagonDecember 1, 2010 | ISSUE 46•48
Article ToolsEmail EmailTo:
From:
ARLINGTON, VA—With officials describing his publication of sensitive U.S. State Department documents as "the last straw," Wikileaks founder Julian Assange was asked to resign from his position as the Pentagon's IT coordinator Monday. "We gave him his first warning after the whole Iraq and Afghanistan war diaries thing, and strike two was when he forwarded that video montage of Nicolas Cage yelling to the entire staff," Defense Department human resources director Curtis Shannon said. "But we just can't overlook this latest offense. Even if he's the only one who knows where the spare USB cables are." At press time, Assange had already been invited to interview for an IT position at the Central Intelligence Agency.
THE ONION
-
THIS JUST IN:
Julian Assange Fired From IT Job At PentagonDecember 1, 2010 | ISSUE 46•48
Article ToolsEmail EmailTo:
From:
ARLINGTON, VA—With officials describing his publication of sensitive U.S. State Department documents as "the last straw," Wikileaks founder Julian Assange was asked to resign from his position as the Pentagon's IT coordinator Monday. "We gave him his first warning after the whole Iraq and Afghanistan war diaries thing, and strike two was when he forwarded that video montage of Nicolas Cage yelling to the entire staff," Defense Department human resources director Curtis Shannon said. "But we just can't overlook this latest offense. Even if he's the only one who knows where the spare USB cables are." At press time, Assange had already been invited to interview for an IT position at the Central Intelligence Agency.
THE ONION
Or maybe THE ONION can hire him to start up
....wait for it.....
Wikileeks.org
-
bkbkbkbkbk
-
Did you see the Daily Show about this where they say not to get wikileaks confused with wookieleaks and showed a picture of chewbacca pissing on a car. Heh heh heh.
(Not to mention the hilarious fact that they keep calling it a "data dump" which makes me giggle like a 14 year old.)
-
WikiLeaks and the Perils of Oversharing (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/06/business/media/06link.html?src=busln)
^ people write such shit sometimes. A lot of communication occurs outside the mind so the inner life ceases to be?
I'm puzzled. Western culture, or the broader public morality that goes roughly with speaking English, includes transparency as a value. And also includes the need for privacy in diplomacy?
Actually, I'm still not getting the idea of diplomacy. Convenient omission of detail for the greater purpose of smoother communication (combined presumably with an earnest promise to oneself to at some point come back to the omitted detail and incorporate it somehow into the way things work)? Such a program works for some, I guess. Probably it works for those who do indeed make (and make good on) that earnest, yet secret, promise to come back one day to what was skipped over.
Does diplomacy ever come back to the truths it smooths over? When exactly do we get to call some countries murderous and some right? Long after it has happened? Who makes the record so we can remember?
Meh, it all seems treacherous. I know it's legitimate. And it plays into the strengths of some kinds of people and some kinds of projects. And this is or isn't the same as saying it undermines the efforts of other kinds of people and creates opportunity for corruption elsewhere?
-
its doublethink
so now lying to everyone is called diplomacy, so the word diplomacy is meaningless. it's like the word 'values' is now meaningless. it's ok tho, language and humanity are way way ahead of them
-
"In wartime, truth is so precious that she should always be attended by a bodyguard of lies." Winston Churchill
-
On the other hand, there can be stuff one is not ready to say yet. Such as, say, when conferring with a partner on how to deal with the people on the other side of the negotiating table. I only just now remembered that one may sometimes want to allow that such privileged communication can exist. And I guess that's where governments can rightly say Wikileaking is, well... mean-spirited, I guess.
So lets talk principal-agent conflicts. In theory, we, the people, are the principals, and our governments are our agents. Naturally, they don't work just for us. We may have elected them to their positions, but now their positions are theirs, not, it would seem, ours. So....
Meh. I don't know. If we are to know what they're doing, someone has to tell us. Or we have to seek the information ourselves. Or do enough government work of our own to be entitled to know what they're up to. Or just let them do what they do.
But wikileaking lets everyone know. Not just the principals in one or two countries. Leaking secrets removes from the secret-holders some measure of power. Pragmatically it's better that our side have at least as much power as is needed to keep our side viable. Maybe even enough power to keep our side prosperous. But could eschewing the power of secrets and embracing the apparently crippling effect of openness in fact make us stronger? Strength in principle is one thing, and perhaps not a good thing if it entails weakness in practice. So....... has Julian ruined us all?
-
Keep in mind that Assange withheld much information he considered to be threatening as did the news outlets. This was not just a data dump of ALL material as is being said in many quarters.
Yes, I agree some secrets need to be kept, but I'm glad to see him flush out the system once lest the diplomats get too comfortable in their shroud of secrecy and self-importance.
-
WikiLeaks' War on Secrecy: Truth's Consequences (http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2034276-1,00.html)
Excerpt:
None of that makes Obama and Assange allies. Quite the opposite. Obama is finding that rebuilding the credibility of government generally is difficult; shoring up the credibility behind government secrecy is even harder. Assange isn't making his job easier. The massive cable leak, says Clinton, "puts people's lives in danger, threatens national security and undermines our efforts to work with other countries to solve shared problems." The leak has also led the U.S. to tighten, not loosen, its security protocols. After consulting with the White House in the run-up to the WikiLeaks dump, State temporarily cut the link between its NCD database and SIPRNet. CentCom has reimposed its restrictions on using removable media, is newly requiring that a second person approve the download of classified information to an unsecure device and is installing software designed to detect suspicious handling of secrets.
Whether all that will work is an open question. "The world is moving irreversibly in the direction of openness, and those who learn to operate with fewer secrets will ultimately have the advantage over those who futilely cling to a past in which millions of secrets can be protected," says a former intelligence-community official. From the perspective of the U.S. government, which has just seen the unauthorized release of 11,000 secret documents, it may be hard to imagine what that world would look like. But at least one senior government official seems comfortable with where things are headed. Defense Secretary Robert Gates — no stranger to real secrets, since he served as CIA chief and Deputy National Security Adviser under President George H. W. Bush — shrugged off the seriousness of the cable dump Nov. 30. Said Gates: "Is this embarrassing? Yes. Is it awkward? Yes. Consequences for U.S. foreign policy? I think fairly modest."
Not everybody is that nonchalant, which is why the President's real goal is to find a balance between keeping secret what should be secret, making transparent what should be transparent and doing it all in such a way as to augment the effective conduct of government. Potter Stewart had a go at defining such a balance in his Pentagon papers opinion in 1971. "The hallmark of a truly effective internal security system," the Justice said, "would be the maximum possible disclosure, recognizing that secrecy can best be preserved only when credibility is truly maintained." Wise words, from the heart of the American establishment. Words that Assange admiringly cites on the WikiLeaks website.
-
The argument of The Right in favour of surveillance cameras on street corners is that if you have nothing to hide, why would you be worried? It seems those in political power don't consider this applies to themselves. Wikileaks is a surveillance camera catching them selling crystal-meth to twelve-year-olds.
Would it be a good thing to start a poll on this? It seems to be a potential punch-up issue, so perhaps it would be deferential to our benevolent despots to float the issue before going ahead.
-
I have to come down on the side of freedom of information. In theory all of these things are done to protect us and yet we know nothing about it mmmmmmmmmm . I cannot help but feel that if the general population of the world had access to all the information from all sides they would release that we are all fraking idiots and go for a pint agagagagag
As it stands a few people decide what is best for the whole based on variable that only they comprehend.
In my mind the next stage of democracy is complete transparency and if people like Julian Asange and his Wikileaks have to force a few hands to move us in that general direction then so be it.
I know this is naive etc but the day I loose my naivete is the day I give up all together. We have to dream of a perfect world if we want to make it real!
-
I disagree.
If we want to make it real, we have to dream of an imperfect world. Otherwise we're fs$%&ed
-
The argument of The Right in favour of surveillance cameras on street corners is that if you have nothing to hide, why would you be worried?
There's a good primer on self defense at https://ssd.eff.org/
It seems those in political power don't consider this applies to themselves. Wikileaks is a surveillance camera catching them selling crystal-meth to twelve-year-olds.
There;s actually a technical term for things like videotaping the police in action. It is called sousveillance. In French, very roughly, veillance is looking, sur is over and sous is under.
-
The British House of Lords, by definition one of the most elitist government arms in the world, released a report condemning the amount of public surveillence in the U.K. The august wigwearers claimed that privacy is crucial to individual freedom, the means by which one can live one's life without submitting to the artificial standards of others. In other words, everyone's got something to hide, and rightly so.
I don't see this argument for governments or corporations. On them, IMO, falls the onus to prove why they shouldn't tell us all. I have little power; they have tons.
Wikileaks is the greatest thing to happen to the world since the fall of the Soviet Union. The attempt by the Powers That Be to put us back in the dark, hopefully (to them) for keeps, speaks for itself.
People got embarassed? Good.
-
Wikileaks is the greatest thing to happen to the world since the fall of the Soviet Union.
An American friend of mine had a bumper sticker on his briefcase with two flags, the Soviet hammer & sickle plus the Stars & Stripes, and a caption:
Evil Empires: One down, one to go.
I think that overstates it, and I could think of several more that might be added, but I understand what he meant.
-
I need to slow down on my skim reading. I blame IELTS tests.
Here am I happily skimming a post. (Oh! Is this an ON TOPIC area? It's all so complicated). Anyway, I skim from CONdemning to freeDOM and I just assume this thread is about, well, not 'demningfree'.
So to get back to the subject: Wikileaks has been memorably marvellous in certain respects (the Afghan helicopter murders, for example), but less spectacular in its diplomatic stuff: A told B behind C's back that D was a twat and was also having an affair with B's sister who was known to A's Iraqi friend's brother who is the Minister.... blah blah.
And Assange is, without any shadow of a doubt, an obnoxious cunt (is that allowed here?)
-
And Assange is, without any shadow of a doubt, an obnoxious cunt (is that allowed here?)
Yes, I suppose you could see it that way. But then, obnoxious cunts are the ones who tell the emperor he has no clothes. They are especially obnoxious to the "Uriah Heep's" who think that they are in power. And thank God.