4 ms·

I can't say I have a lot of pity for Wikileaks. I feel -- and you guys are welcome to trash me on this and I'm sure you will -- that taxpayers have paid billio

I can't say I have a lot of pity for Wikileaks. I feel -- and you guys are welcome to trash me on this and I'm sure you will -- that taxpayers have paid billions of dollars to our government to perform diplomacy. And diplomacy always involves the keeping of secrets. It did 500 years ago, and it will 500 years from now. So no matter how much arm-waving you want to do about freedom and truth, nations still have to have secrets. And while I oppose the secrecy state that we've created, it's the taxpayers that have created it, not wikileaks. It's our monster to tame. Assange neither represents us nor has our best interests in mind. Assange is no representative of freedom or honor in my book. In my book he's a low-life self-promoting pimp of anarchy, and I imagine what goes around will certainly come around to him. If you want to leak a few documents about the Iraq war as part of informing the public that it's not going well, then fine, more power to you. Hell I'll contribute to your defense fund. The truth has to be free. But if you're going to dump all the state department cables from countries all over the planet on the internet, then you have attacked my country. And while I'm all with you and fully support getting to an open society, that doesn't even begin to forgive an act of war like this. This discussion has gotten to absolutes -- people are arguing that everything needs to be open. Other people are arguing that everything must be secret. The truth is that neither position is going to work, and I have to say I'm pretty pissed at Assange at taking such a serious issue like openness and crapping all over it. He's done more harm to his own cause with this than his opponents could ever help to accomplish. For the next ten years we'll have story after story trickle out about what harm this has caused. It will make a nice backdrop to even further draconian security measures. There is a space between anarchy and the security state. Let's find that spot and live there.

vaksel 16y ago
I feel like they are allowed to keep their secrets provided they don't make something secret just because it might make them look bad or because it's illegal. Remember, everything they do...they do in our name.
- DanielBMarkham 16y ago
  Look I have no problem with taking drastic action against the government for keeping too many secrets. But this is a bridge too far. This is like using a nuclear bomb to put out a city that is on fire. It's not going to have the effect that its supporters want. Quite the opposite.
  - vaksel 16y ago
    Wikileaks was willing to have the government trim the truly dangerous parts. The government decided against that, because they "didn't want to give Wikileaks legitimacy". Wikileaks is a news service, not a terrorist organization...you can negotiate with them. Expecting them to do say what you want, is not journalism...that's PR.
    - DanielBMarkham 16y ago
      Egads, man. Listen to yourself. The government has too many secrets. That's a given. I firmly support making society more open. But when you come into possession of all the state department cables, you're participating in a theft. Now maybe its a theft for wondrously good reasons we can all agree to, but it's still a theft. You are a thief. Perhaps you are a thief for a good cause, but your role in this matter is not super-hero, its a thief for a good cause. You can't go back and say that since wikileaks was willing to negotiate with the government they stole from and the government wasn't that somehow this makes a total dump more palatable. That sounds completely crazy in my book. Look at it this way: what's the state department going to do? Go through each doc and censor out things they don't like? Do you have any idea how long it would take the state department to do that, even if they were ordered to? Hell, they can't figure out what's classified or not right now, without a gun to their head. It's not like threatening to release all their communications is going to make the agency more functional. And let's say through some magic they decided that yes, they would vet the papers and somehow managed to do that. Let's additionally assume that they perfectly and totally vetted them -- no detail is left in there that at any point in the future is going to jeopardize U.S. interests. That's an impossible thing in itself, but let's imagine they do. At this point you have an agency actively participating in disseminating information that it has previously and publicly said was non-distributable. What? Were they lying then? Or are they lying now? The entire purpose of the state department is to engender and promote trust among fellow nations. Even if it's a "correct" result in yours and my book, even if the state department itself wants to do it, you simply can't take the diplomatic branch of the government and completely change the way it works overnight. It would be total chaos. Nope, the government is stuck not being able to vet those docs, and for about a dozen different good reasons. That doesn't mean that docs shouldn't be released, just that assuming that vetting could happen is too much. I have immense sympathy for this cause, but continuing to defend Assange like this is going to go nowhere. You can't steal something from a crook and then complain that the crook isn't helping you organize the things you stole. Two wrongs don't make a right. To suggest that somehow wikileaks is off the hook for responsibility simply because they offered the U.S. a chance to vet the docs isn't to look into the matter in much detail. It's just throwing stuff out there in hopes that some of it will stick. Like I said, I'm 99% with everybody in their complaints about secrecy. So I'll close this thead. No point in making much of it. If you've decided that wikileaks is good, you'll just keep throwing out things and I'll just keep showing you how they don't apply. No need to do that. I have no desire to get into a debate or argument. I just wanted to clarify that this idea that keeps getting peddled that somehow it's better because of the vetting offer just doesn't fly for me at all.
- jbester 16y ago
  By law, information may not be classified merely because it would be embarrassing or to cover illegal activity. Information may only be classified to protect national-security objectives/interests. I imagine this release is more contentious since it undoubtedly contains sources, methods, and likely personal opinions of the diplomatic corps and the clandestine services operating under the guise of the diplomatic corp.
  - DanielBMarkham 16y ago
    My guess is that to the average person nothing much of import will be revealed -- but I could be wrong. In either case, I don't think the short-term fallout is important. What's completely insane (in my view) is that the diplomacy corps of the United States may have just been damaged beyond repair. It could take a generation or more to recover from this, and it could hurt a hell of a lot of people. Even if you hate the United States, that's a lot of collateral damage on the path to openness. There are a lot of very serious things going on in the world, and people have spent their entire lives getting into position to help nations come to agreement over various things. These do sneaky things, sure, but they also prevent wars. Getting rid of them by exposing all of their reports and identities is whacked, not to mention the damage to foreign governments when it comes out who has been secretly helping whom. The far-reaching impact could truly be mind-boggling in scale. And it wouldn't surprise me at all to see it all being greeted with silence from around the world -- there's really no point in anybody making a spectacle of reacting. I can't help but feel that this is going to be very destabilizing to a lot of nations. And U.S. secrecy is not going to be affected at all. If anything it will just increase to more insane levels beyond where it already is.
    - lukeschlather 16y ago
      I think there's a lot of value in all our cards being on the table, for everyone. We are playing at just about every table, and this is not a zero-sum game. I think one of the most important things to recognize here is that we're not the only ones whose cards have been revealed. It sounds like there's verification the Chinese government was behind the attacks against Google, Yahoo and the rest. That's a big deal, and it could hurt China. I also think that in general, having a clear understanding of US goals makes it easier to come up with creative solutions that benefit all. It does also potentially make it easier to screw the US over - but frankly that's difficult to do, and I'd say given the power the US wields, any direct action against US interests comes with strong likelihood that it's a net negative for both the opposing power and the US. Win-win situations, when you can come up with them, carry far less risk. But you can't come up with win-win situations when people are holding their cards close to their chest.
- btilly 16y ago
  I feel like they are allowed to keep their secrets provided they don't make something secret just because it might make them look bad or because it's illegal. But if we let them keep their secrets, how do we learn enough about their motivations to figure out when they are abusing it? Human nature being what it is, if they have the right to make whatever they want secret, they will DEFINITELY use the right to cover up things that make them look bad or are illegal. Classic case in point, United States v. Reynolds, the case that established the state secrets privilege. When the documents were finally declassified, the only real "secrets" in the report were evidence of serious errors that would have greatly helped the lawsuit against the government.
Jach 16y ago
> It's our monster to tame. It is my feeling that this monster cannot be tamed, but must be slain, and the most horrible thing that could be constructed from its corpse must also be destroyed. But everyone has their own opinion, and I'll agree that absolutist argument can poison the waters of common ground.
kmfrk 16y ago
I also agree that somewhere indeterminable there's a line to be crossed. But until I find that line I defer to my juvenile glee of seeing the American government submit to their own (ridiculous) privacy policy: If you don't have anything to hide, all your private, personal and professional life are belong to us.

vaksel 16y ago

I feel like they are allowed to keep their secrets provided they don't make something secret just because it might make them look bad or because it's illegal. Remember, everything they do...they do in our name.

DanielBMarkham 16y ago
Look I have no problem with taking drastic action against the government for keeping too many secrets. But this is a bridge too far. This is like using a nuclear bomb to put out a city that is on fire. It's not going to have the effect that its supporters want. Quite the opposite.
- vaksel 16y ago
  Wikileaks was willing to have the government trim the truly dangerous parts. The government decided against that, because they "didn't want to give Wikileaks legitimacy". Wikileaks is a news service, not a terrorist organization...you can negotiate with them. Expecting them to do say what you want, is not journalism...that's PR.
  - DanielBMarkham 16y ago
    Egads, man. Listen to yourself. The government has too many secrets. That's a given. I firmly support making society more open. But when you come into possession of all the state department cables, you're participating in a theft. Now maybe its a theft for wondrously good reasons we can all agree to, but it's still a theft. You are a thief. Perhaps you are a thief for a good cause, but your role in this matter is not super-hero, its a thief for a good cause. You can't go back and say that since wikileaks was willing to negotiate with the government they stole from and the government wasn't that somehow this makes a total dump more palatable. That sounds completely crazy in my book. Look at it this way: what's the state department going to do? Go through each doc and censor out things they don't like? Do you have any idea how long it would take the state department to do that, even if they were ordered to? Hell, they can't figure out what's classified or not right now, without a gun to their head. It's not like threatening to release all their communications is going to make the agency more functional. And let's say through some magic they decided that yes, they would vet the papers and somehow managed to do that. Let's additionally assume that they perfectly and totally vetted them -- no detail is left in there that at any point in the future is going to jeopardize U.S. interests. That's an impossible thing in itself, but let's imagine they do. At this point you have an agency actively participating in disseminating information that it has previously and publicly said was non-distributable. What? Were they lying then? Or are they lying now? The entire purpose of the state department is to engender and promote trust among fellow nations. Even if it's a "correct" result in yours and my book, even if the state department itself wants to do it, you simply can't take the diplomatic branch of the government and completely change the way it works overnight. It would be total chaos. Nope, the government is stuck not being able to vet those docs, and for about a dozen different good reasons. That doesn't mean that docs shouldn't be released, just that assuming that vetting could happen is too much. I have immense sympathy for this cause, but continuing to defend Assange like this is going to go nowhere. You can't steal something from a crook and then complain that the crook isn't helping you organize the things you stole. Two wrongs don't make a right. To suggest that somehow wikileaks is off the hook for responsibility simply because they offered the U.S. a chance to vet the docs isn't to look into the matter in much detail. It's just throwing stuff out there in hopes that some of it will stick. Like I said, I'm 99% with everybody in their complaints about secrecy. So I'll close this thead. No point in making much of it. If you've decided that wikileaks is good, you'll just keep throwing out things and I'll just keep showing you how they don't apply. No need to do that. I have no desire to get into a debate or argument. I just wanted to clarify that this idea that keeps getting peddled that somehow it's better because of the vetting offer just doesn't fly for me at all.
jbester 16y ago
By law, information may not be classified merely because it would be embarrassing or to cover illegal activity. Information may only be classified to protect national-security objectives/interests. I imagine this release is more contentious since it undoubtedly contains sources, methods, and likely personal opinions of the diplomatic corps and the clandestine services operating under the guise of the diplomatic corp.
- DanielBMarkham 16y ago
  My guess is that to the average person nothing much of import will be revealed -- but I could be wrong. In either case, I don't think the short-term fallout is important. What's completely insane (in my view) is that the diplomacy corps of the United States may have just been damaged beyond repair. It could take a generation or more to recover from this, and it could hurt a hell of a lot of people. Even if you hate the United States, that's a lot of collateral damage on the path to openness. There are a lot of very serious things going on in the world, and people have spent their entire lives getting into position to help nations come to agreement over various things. These do sneaky things, sure, but they also prevent wars. Getting rid of them by exposing all of their reports and identities is whacked, not to mention the damage to foreign governments when it comes out who has been secretly helping whom. The far-reaching impact could truly be mind-boggling in scale. And it wouldn't surprise me at all to see it all being greeted with silence from around the world -- there's really no point in anybody making a spectacle of reacting. I can't help but feel that this is going to be very destabilizing to a lot of nations. And U.S. secrecy is not going to be affected at all. If anything it will just increase to more insane levels beyond where it already is.
  - lukeschlather 16y ago
    I think there's a lot of value in all our cards being on the table, for everyone. We are playing at just about every table, and this is not a zero-sum game. I think one of the most important things to recognize here is that we're not the only ones whose cards have been revealed. It sounds like there's verification the Chinese government was behind the attacks against Google, Yahoo and the rest. That's a big deal, and it could hurt China. I also think that in general, having a clear understanding of US goals makes it easier to come up with creative solutions that benefit all. It does also potentially make it easier to screw the US over - but frankly that's difficult to do, and I'd say given the power the US wields, any direct action against US interests comes with strong likelihood that it's a net negative for both the opposing power and the US. Win-win situations, when you can come up with them, carry far less risk. But you can't come up with win-win situations when people are holding their cards close to their chest.
btilly 16y ago
I feel like they are allowed to keep their secrets provided they don't make something secret just because it might make them look bad or because it's illegal. But if we let them keep their secrets, how do we learn enough about their motivations to figure out when they are abusing it? Human nature being what it is, if they have the right to make whatever they want secret, they will DEFINITELY use the right to cover up things that make them look bad or are illegal. Classic case in point, United States v. Reynolds, the case that established the state secrets privilege. When the documents were finally declassified, the only real "secrets" in the report were evidence of serious errors that would have greatly helped the lawsuit against the government.

Jach 16y ago

> It's our monster to tame. It is my feeling that this monster cannot be tamed, but must be slain, and the most horrible thing that could be constructed from its corpse must also be destroyed. But everyone has their own opinion, and I'll agree that absolutist argument can poison the waters of common ground.

kmfrk 16y ago

I also agree that somewhere indeterminable there's a line to be crossed. But until I find that line I defer to my juvenile glee of seeing the American government submit to their own (ridiculous) privacy policy: If you don't have anything to hide, all your private, personal and professional life are belong to us.