What about Wikileaks and US Foreign Policy Practices?

[uwe]

Kicking off one of our sensible discussions here ...

Is this a storm in a tea cup or something more fundamental? None of the quotes I read of what people within the State Department think of politicians in other countries struck me as particularly shocking. Some are true, some funny, some are superficial, some say more about the person who holds the particular opinion and some are plain wrong. The whole gamut of human judgements and misjudgements. I don't see US foreign policy coming to an end with it.

The other question is more difficult to me: Should Wikileaks and newspapers be allowed to publish/print all of this? Does the balance always go in favor of informing the public, do I really need to know what, say, the US Secretary of State confidentially thinks about, say, the Russian Prime Minister? It might be embarrassing for Hillary, yes, and insulting to Dmitry, but would my freedom of information really be challenged if I didn't know?  It's not like Wikileaks has uncovered some grand evil scheme we should all know about, basically the stuff that has now come out is educated gossip, in parts entertaining, but hardly of vital neccessity for political transparency and democratic control.

Or am I missing something?

Uwe

[Denis]

I was listening to an interview with a news analyst yesterday who indicated that many of the comments and observations by state department personnel have already been in the news. Some of these documents in this latest release apparently date back to 1966 and for those, I don't see much that could be damaged by their release. The newer documents could be problematic, but to me the real problem here is that it's becoming impossible to keep secrets because too many people want to make the headlines or gain reputations for themselves by "scooping" everyone else.

It is my firm belief that if this trend of releasing secret documents took place in 1944, the Normandy invasion would have utterly failed due to some self-centered jerk releasing classified information.

[dadagoboi]

This Wikileaks idiocy is a welcome diversion by all who would prefer we not focus on our real problems.  Just part of the 'bread and circuses' of an empire in serious decline.  I've always believed that if my ass is on the line I have the right to know everything about the situation.

Uve, in your world who would get to decide what the public should be allowed to hear?

Denis, I appreciate your comment about D-Day.  I also remember the Pentagon Papers and their importance in ending the Viet Nam war.

[OldManC]

I'm not too bothered by the contents of the documents. I didn't need them to know that bureaucrats can be petty little tyrants. I thought the Arab stuff was interesting (and I'll stop now because I don't want to be the one to kill this thread).

One issue I do have is with the precedent that has been set over the last few years with this type of stuff. The NYT was in high dudgeon a while back, explaining that they would never consider releasing information that was gotten in an illegal manner, but they seem not to have had a problem releasing information that damaged an administration they didn't like or creating and driving whole stories with narratives they know to be false or at least misleading. Again, not a surprise.

I think they should prosecute the hell out of the guy who leaked classified documents and tighten the hell out of the Keystone Cop organizations that allowed this stuff to leak in the first place. The real story to me is the ineptitude of the agencies that are supposed to keep this stuff secret. Talk about an utter failure. It's a good thing we don't rely on those guys to keep the U.S. safe from those who would do us harm. Wait a minute...

Edit: I mean they should prosecute the guy who leaked it to Wikileaks. Julian Assange should go down for the rapes he seems fond of committing. Then again, I heard he might have some Russian documents to leak, and we know what happens to reporters who mess with Putin...

[uwe]

"Uve, in your world who would get to decide what the public should be allowed to hear?"

That is a very good question and I'm not sure of the answer. 

I'm between all fences. If stuff is really crucial and shows the wrongdoings of a government I'm the first to be for a release - legal or not -, the press as a guardian of freedom. But those judgements and reports by diplomats, were they ever a threat to our freedom or to the legality of government? They were just doing their job like all diplomats of any country (should) do. Publishing them brings the State Department in a difficult position, but where's the benefit? I'm not that anarchistic that any trouble created for any government automatically pleases me.

As regards the quotes from Arab heads of state on Iran and Iraq: I'm not surprised. I knew already before that Arabs hate Iranians (read: Persians) and the non-Arab majority in Iraq (read: yet more Persians) and vice versa. No love lost between them. And that the Iranians/non-Arab Iraqis harbor a cultural and even ethnic/biological superiority bias towards their southern neighbors which they deem to be either backward or upstarts with no deep cultural history to speak of (at least when compared to former Persian Empires), but some oil wells to finance their lack of taste with.

[Dave W]

I'm in favor of full and open disclosure. The more the better.

Every government is run by liars, and nothing they say should be believed -- I.F. Stone

The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly, is to fill the world with fools. -- Herbert Spencer

He who wishes to deceive will never fail to find willing dupes. -- Nicolo Machiavelli

In times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act. -- George Orwell

Every time we have a thread like this, no matter how civil it stays, other posting on the forum falls off quite a bit. Every time. It can't be a coincidence. I think it turns some people off and makes some people stay away, maybe for good.

[lowend1]

Apparently this Assange character thinks everyone should be held accountable for what they say and do - except him.

[gweimer]

Apparently this Assange character thinks everyone should be held accountable for what they say and do - except him.

As much as a dirtbag as the guy seems to be, he's only the recipient of this info, and is using his site to make things public.  He set up the site to serve as a voice for whistleblowers everywhere.  Brandon Manning, the US soldier that did the actual downloading of the files, should be the focus of full scrutiny and prosecution.

What I found interesting is that CNN was going through some of the content on the air this morning, which, to me, doesn't make them all that much different than Wikileaks.  Although, they went out of their way to say that the information they presented wasn't from Assange's site (the analyst said he got it from The Guardian), it doesn't really change the fact that they made a public broadcast out of it.  PLUS - the bit they aired was the tidbit indicating that China is getting fed up with North Korea, the "spoiled child".

[dadagoboi]

I'm in favor of full and open disclosure. The more the better.

Every government is run by liars, and nothing they say should be believed -- I.F. Stone

The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly, is to fill the world with fools. -- Herbert Spencer

He who wishes to deceive will never fail to find willing dupes. -- Nicolo Machiavelli

In times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act. -- George Orwell

Every time we have a thread like this, no matter how civil it stays, other posting on the forum falls off quite a bit. Every time. It can't be a coincidence. I think it turns some people off and makes some people stay away, maybe for good.

Great quotes and a telling observation.

[lowend1]

Brandon Manning, the US soldier that did the actual downloading of the files, should be the focus of full scrutiny and prosecution.

Agreed - but I still find it difficult to believe that a PFC had access to info on that scale

[gweimer]

Agreed - but I still find it difficult to believe that a PFC had access to info on that scale

No kidding.  According to what they were saying on CNN (take it for what it's worth), he was pretending to listen to CDs, and was burning the files instead.  I take it, since then, the military has disabled writing to external drives/media (something financial companies did a while back), now requires 2 people to be present for data transfer, and some other pretty standard security measures in today's world.  I'm sure the backroom investigations are as bad as the public side of this.  The sad thing about this is that if Manning's real issue was his treatment as a gay in the military, and his leaking of some of this stuff has some potential harm to soldiers and the country, there's a real chip on that guy's shoulder.  There has to be all sorts of better ways to deal with personal rage and indignation.

[Psycho Bass Guy]

My feelings are conveyed quite effectly by the following statement:

This Wikileaks idiocy is a welcome diversion by all who would prefer we not focus on our real problems.  Just part of the 'bread and circuses' of an empire in serious decline.  I've always believed that if my ass is on the line I have the right to know everything about the situation.

...as to the politics of the situation, if the State Department cannot do its job in the face of common knowledge, it is far too ineffective. Is the infromation being made public embarassing? Of course it is, but this is the equivalent of a teenage boy's mother finding a Playboy under the bed: everyone already knows the content and that content is easily attained by any party that requires it. State just doesn't want to hear the lecture.

[eb2]

Devil's advocate: Assange appears to be a reckless jerk, but how do we know he has any bad sexual behavior in his background?  What is the source of that info? 

[lowend1]

Devil's advocate: Assange appears to be a reckless jerk, but how do we know he has any bad sexual behavior in his background?  What is the source of that info? 

Kind of hard to follow - August - originally stemming from an incident in Sweden, charges (rape molestation, coercion) were filed on the part of two women, then some were dropped. Case was reopened in September - as of a couple weeks ago, an international arrest warrant was issued, with Interpol now in on the hunt. Assange's whereabouts are unknown.

[drbassman]

I agree that, at some point, we have a right to know how our government functions behind the scenes.  To think we have the right to know everything when the info could compromise current military actions or national security is just plain stupid.  Sometimes governments lie to protect the innocent and those in harm's way, sometimes they lie to protect the guilty (themselves).