7 ms·

You've had a lot of insightful comments about this isssue, and although I tend to disagree with your conclusions, I think the quality of your analysis/argument

You've had a lot of insightful comments about this isssue, and although I tend to disagree with your conclusions, I think the quality of your analysis/argument has been superb. I'd respond with only two points: First, if Assange makes it harder to keep things secret, then less will be kept secret. This will have good and bad consequences, but I think it's safe to say that strict control of information (secrecy + focused propaganda) is a tool that despots rely upon heavily. That open democracies rely upon it can be viewed (as you seem to view it) as a necessity, or (as I view it) as an excess. Assange is risking his own skin by doing this. Surely one or more of the governments could/would arrange for his assassination. Which is why this essay puzzles me. This sort of right wing critique will fuel the fire that has helped Assange publicize his mission, and will have the effect of making wikileaks just go away much harder. Keep in mind that so far the secrets being leaked are not particularly revealing in terms of their information content. The harsh words by government officials are because the leaked information might cause the public to question its propaganda message about the war. What I have come to realize from all of this is just how tightly intertwined a war effort is with propaganda, and to a lesser extent secrecy. Assange just may put a huge hole in the ability of modern governments to do easily achieve the level of secrecy/propaganda necessary to get a comfortable, complacent yet principled people to approve of mass slaughter.

DanielBMarkham 16y ago
I upvoted you because I agree all the way to your last sentence, and your reply works with or without it. Here's an interesting thought experiment. What if Assange were releasing secrets about how the agriculture department did experiments in the 50s that ended up killing farmers? Hell, everybody would be hailing him as a hero. How about if he were releasing docs about how people were killed because they threatened to release secrets about something back in the 80s? Same deal. You can keep playing this game, with various subject matter. But at the end of the day you get (I think) to two points. 1) Assange is a political figure, making political statements by what he chooses to release or not (no matter all the hoopla over theory, the underlying point is very political as you can easily see by the comments in this thread), and 2) Assange is using leaks to take on a current issue that involves the difficult decision to go kill a bunch of people (mass slaughter as you call it, but whether good or evil, it's a damn serious thing) That makes him more than a newspaper. He's more like his own nation-state. As such, and since he is interjecting himself into the middle of a war, I would be curious as to what kind of Navy and Army he has -- or where his UN representation is. Nation-states get to play with the big boys because they can take the punches. I don't think he can. Assuming the Afghan war is "mass slaughter" and that some terrible evil is being confronted, this system of governmental control does not work. It's not a matter of how bad the U.S. is, or how bad the war is, or how bad anything is. You can't fix it by playing the Wikileaks game. That means that the argument is over. Assange loses. For those wanting change, he ain't it. For those wanting truth, he ain't it -- you're only going to get what fits his model of truth. For those wanting change , he ain't it. The remedy is worse than the disease. That's why I engaged on this thread. This _is_ a systems issue. We could turn the tables 180 degrees on the Afghan war -- I could oppose and you support -- and my comments would still hold. It's not a matter of how bad the war is or how governments use information to control public opinion. Great topics, sure, but this is about that. Getting folks thinking about the particulars of the information distracts them from the larger picture by making them emotionally, well, irrational. And I hate to say this, because I know it will just heat things up, but I'm done here, and it relates to your comment about war and propaganda, so one final thought: I think you have to decide whether or not you are at war with the status quo. Not just angry about stuff, but at war with it -- willing to have people killed to support your position. If you are, then you support the leaks, wave your hands around and stamp your feet and talk about civilians killed and how it justifies Assange. This -- the idea that informants and such killed is unprovable and/or irrelevant, is war talk. If you are not at war, then you can still support ending the war -- just on different terms than using Wikileaks. I will protest with you, I will write editorials, I will call for constitutional change. I'll go and march. But I am not at war with this country. I do not support risking lives of informants and operatives simply because I might be morally outraged at the war. I am morally outraged with many parts of what my country does, and I feel in many ways it is hurting its own citizens in awful ways in a misguided effort to create the perfect society. I am a staunch libertarian. But I will not support the deaths of others to advance my personal views -- the only place for that sort of support for violence is the polls.
- grandalf 16y ago
  I apologize for my hyperbole in the choice of words "mass slaughter" to describe the war. The intent was to describe the war only in terms of its casualties rather than in terms of its stated or unstated political goals (since this is the nerve that Wikileaks touches). I don't disagree with your points, and I think you articulate some aspects quite well. True Assange is a political figure. He is also the founder of an institution. To date we have not seen the rise of a virtual institution with this sort of political significance, nor have we seen one that exists independently of a state or party. We seem to disagree on the issue of supporting Wikileaks as an act of civil disobedience. In my opinion, we are not morally obligated to obey unjust laws. Of course, we may be made to suffer the consequences of disobedience, but I do not (as you seem to) imbue the law with any special moral significance just because it's the law. Let me remind you that it is illegal for the US to propagandize Americans. I'd argue that some of the information that is being declared "secret" is simply information that the government wants withheld for propaganda purposes. So without Wikileaks, what check or balance exists to prevent this misuse of secrecy for propaganda? I'm curious if you think this is a reasonable question to ask and what you think the answer is. To address your broader critique of Wikileaks, I'd argue that Assange is building a very ambitious institution, and it's currently imperfect. Some of your critiques apply only to the young incarnation of Wikileaks and (I'd expect) will go away once/if the institution manages to gain additional credibility, experience, and stability. One quote of yours really intrigues me: Getting folks thinking about the particulars of the information distracts them from the larger picture by making them emotionally, well, irrational. This suggests that you think that a member of the public judging the appropriateness/worth of the war would be more rational if he/she ignored all the messy noise offered by the leaks and focused only on the government's official story of how/why the war should continue. If not, then I'm curious how you'd advise the rational citizen to assess the status/progress/worth of a war effort such as the current US involvement in Afghanistan.
  - DanielBMarkham 16y ago
    I figured you were using "mass slaughter" as a way to describe the general situation in a war in terms that resonate. We are on the same page. We have not seen the rise of the institution like this, and I predict that the nation-states will go to war with these institutions, and quickly. Not sure if it will be a shooting war -- but these things usually turn out that way. Are we morally obligated to obey unjust laws? Woof. That's a can of worms. If I had to cook up an answer, I'd start with "Declaration of Independence" and throw in a little "Letter from a Birmingham Jail" to the mix. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Declaration_of_Independence http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Declaration_of_In... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letter_from_Birmingham_Jail http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letter_from_Birmingham_Jail Jefferson makes the case that we owe the state our obedience as long as the state keeps its end of the bargain. I think it's reasonable to say two things here. 1) Jefferson's time was simpler, with tremendously fewer laws, and 2) disobedience that may involve the death of someone is of a different nature than that which may not. (see earlier comment) MLK begins with this more complex world and addresses your question -- unjust laws. Key quote here: One who breaks an unjust law must do so openly, lovingly, and with a willingness to accept the penalty. Both are great examples of great men thinking through difficult problems. I side with Jefferson a bit more than MLK, simply because I think you can moralize yourself into a snit over just about anything. But MLK is saying that even if you're right, there's no free pass: you still owe the larger society something. As to your final point, I should have been clearer. I have no problem at all with war in all its messiness being displayed all over the place. This is the way it should be. What I object to is the selective use of images -- coffins coming off planes, no information for months and then a dump of collateral damage videos -- any one of a dozen "dirty tricks" that involve manipulating the viewer. During the American Civil War, we had photography for the first time. There were some god-awful battlefield images shown to the public. But oddly enough, nothing much happened. People are very capable of understanding the brutality of war. I don't think it's much of a secret. I'm very conflicted on Afghanistan. From the half-dozen COIN books I've read, we're going to have to make peace with the Taliban. But Karzai is something of a cross between a rabid badger and a skunk -- he's selling us out as we speak. I don't have an opinion right now, frankly. I supported Iraq and Afghanistan because I honestly felt that in the 10-20 year time period, less lives would be lost by taking action. I also felt from a personal perspective that it was better to give nation-building a shot rather than carpet-bombing from afar. I still feel that was a good call. But I feel that strategically, in Afghanistan at least, the scales are tipping. The military we have -- few boots with lots of cool high tech and a tendency towards kinetic fighting -- simply doesn't match the terrain or battle in Afghanistan, no matter how hard we try to patch it up. I think the average citizen, especially when it comes to fighting, should read. A lot. I understand what Karzai is doing and why. I understand what we're doing. I understand why civilians get killed. Wikileaks is just data. Data presented for the shock of impact. Understanding always beats data.

DanielBMarkham 16y ago

I upvoted you because I agree all the way to your last sentence, and your reply works with or without it. Here's an interesting thought experiment. What if Assange were releasing secrets about how the agriculture department did experiments in the 50s that ended up killing farmers? Hell, everybody would be hailing him as a hero. How about if he were releasing docs about how people were killed because they threatened to release secrets about something back in the 80s? Same deal. You can keep playing this game, with various subject matter. But at the end of the day you get (I think) to two points. 1) Assange is a political figure, making political statements by what he chooses to release or not (no matter all the hoopla over theory, the underlying point is very political as you can easily see by the comments in this thread), and 2) Assange is using leaks to take on a current issue that involves the difficult decision to go kill a bunch of people (mass slaughter as you call it, but whether good or evil, it's a damn serious thing) That makes him more than a newspaper. He's more like his own nation-state. As such, and since he is interjecting himself into the middle of a war, I would be curious as to what kind of Navy and Army he has -- or where his UN representation is. Nation-states get to play with the big boys because they can take the punches. I don't think he can. Assuming the Afghan war is "mass slaughter" and that some terrible evil is being confronted, this system of governmental control does not work. It's not a matter of how bad the U.S. is, or how bad the war is, or how bad anything is. You can't fix it by playing the Wikileaks game. That means that the argument is over. Assange loses. For those wanting change, he ain't it. For those wanting truth, he ain't it -- you're only going to get what fits his model of truth. For those wanting change , he ain't it. The remedy is worse than the disease. That's why I engaged on this thread. This _is_ a systems issue. We could turn the tables 180 degrees on the Afghan war -- I could oppose and you support -- and my comments would still hold. It's not a matter of how bad the war is or how governments use information to control public opinion. Great topics, sure, but this is about that. Getting folks thinking about the particulars of the information distracts them from the larger picture by making them emotionally, well, irrational. And I hate to say this, because I know it will just heat things up, but I'm done here, and it relates to your comment about war and propaganda, so one final thought: I think you have to decide whether or not you are at war with the status quo. Not just angry about stuff, but at war with it -- willing to have people killed to support your position. If you are, then you support the leaks, wave your hands around and stamp your feet and talk about civilians killed and how it justifies Assange. This -- the idea that informants and such killed is unprovable and/or irrelevant, is war talk. If you are not at war, then you can still support ending the war -- just on different terms than using Wikileaks. I will protest with you, I will write editorials, I will call for constitutional change. I'll go and march. But I am not at war with this country. I do not support risking lives of informants and operatives simply because I might be morally outraged at the war. I am morally outraged with many parts of what my country does, and I feel in many ways it is hurting its own citizens in awful ways in a misguided effort to create the perfect society. I am a staunch libertarian. But I will not support the deaths of others to advance my personal views -- the only place for that sort of support for violence is the polls.

grandalf 16y ago
I apologize for my hyperbole in the choice of words "mass slaughter" to describe the war. The intent was to describe the war only in terms of its casualties rather than in terms of its stated or unstated political goals (since this is the nerve that Wikileaks touches). I don't disagree with your points, and I think you articulate some aspects quite well. True Assange is a political figure. He is also the founder of an institution. To date we have not seen the rise of a virtual institution with this sort of political significance, nor have we seen one that exists independently of a state or party. We seem to disagree on the issue of supporting Wikileaks as an act of civil disobedience. In my opinion, we are not morally obligated to obey unjust laws. Of course, we may be made to suffer the consequences of disobedience, but I do not (as you seem to) imbue the law with any special moral significance just because it's the law. Let me remind you that it is illegal for the US to propagandize Americans. I'd argue that some of the information that is being declared "secret" is simply information that the government wants withheld for propaganda purposes. So without Wikileaks, what check or balance exists to prevent this misuse of secrecy for propaganda? I'm curious if you think this is a reasonable question to ask and what you think the answer is. To address your broader critique of Wikileaks, I'd argue that Assange is building a very ambitious institution, and it's currently imperfect. Some of your critiques apply only to the young incarnation of Wikileaks and (I'd expect) will go away once/if the institution manages to gain additional credibility, experience, and stability. One quote of yours really intrigues me: Getting folks thinking about the particulars of the information distracts them from the larger picture by making them emotionally, well, irrational. This suggests that you think that a member of the public judging the appropriateness/worth of the war would be more rational if he/she ignored all the messy noise offered by the leaks and focused only on the government's official story of how/why the war should continue. If not, then I'm curious how you'd advise the rational citizen to assess the status/progress/worth of a war effort such as the current US involvement in Afghanistan.
- DanielBMarkham 16y ago
  I figured you were using "mass slaughter" as a way to describe the general situation in a war in terms that resonate. We are on the same page. We have not seen the rise of the institution like this, and I predict that the nation-states will go to war with these institutions, and quickly. Not sure if it will be a shooting war -- but these things usually turn out that way. Are we morally obligated to obey unjust laws? Woof. That's a can of worms. If I had to cook up an answer, I'd start with "Declaration of Independence" and throw in a little "Letter from a Birmingham Jail" to the mix. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Declaration_of_Independence http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Declaration_of_In... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letter_from_Birmingham_Jail http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letter_from_Birmingham_Jail Jefferson makes the case that we owe the state our obedience as long as the state keeps its end of the bargain. I think it's reasonable to say two things here. 1) Jefferson's time was simpler, with tremendously fewer laws, and 2) disobedience that may involve the death of someone is of a different nature than that which may not. (see earlier comment) MLK begins with this more complex world and addresses your question -- unjust laws. Key quote here: One who breaks an unjust law must do so openly, lovingly, and with a willingness to accept the penalty. Both are great examples of great men thinking through difficult problems. I side with Jefferson a bit more than MLK, simply because I think you can moralize yourself into a snit over just about anything. But MLK is saying that even if you're right, there's no free pass: you still owe the larger society something. As to your final point, I should have been clearer. I have no problem at all with war in all its messiness being displayed all over the place. This is the way it should be. What I object to is the selective use of images -- coffins coming off planes, no information for months and then a dump of collateral damage videos -- any one of a dozen "dirty tricks" that involve manipulating the viewer. During the American Civil War, we had photography for the first time. There were some god-awful battlefield images shown to the public. But oddly enough, nothing much happened. People are very capable of understanding the brutality of war. I don't think it's much of a secret. I'm very conflicted on Afghanistan. From the half-dozen COIN books I've read, we're going to have to make peace with the Taliban. But Karzai is something of a cross between a rabid badger and a skunk -- he's selling us out as we speak. I don't have an opinion right now, frankly. I supported Iraq and Afghanistan because I honestly felt that in the 10-20 year time period, less lives would be lost by taking action. I also felt from a personal perspective that it was better to give nation-building a shot rather than carpet-bombing from afar. I still feel that was a good call. But I feel that strategically, in Afghanistan at least, the scales are tipping. The military we have -- few boots with lots of cool high tech and a tendency towards kinetic fighting -- simply doesn't match the terrain or battle in Afghanistan, no matter how hard we try to patch it up. I think the average citizen, especially when it comes to fighting, should read. A lot. I understand what Karzai is doing and why. I understand what we're doing. I understand why civilians get killed. Wikileaks is just data. Data presented for the shock of impact. Understanding always beats data.