4 ms·

NYT: The Decision to Publish Diplomatic Documents (obtained from wikileaks)

11 points by credo 16y ago

gte910h 16y ago
I get the idea to publish war documents....it helps shed light on the war, might make it end sooner. I don't necessarily agree with it, but I understand it. I don't get the publishing of diplomatic documents. I've not had time to read though the entire contents yet, but this just seems like it might CAUSE war, not end it.
- br1 16y ago
  War and diplomacy are just different instances of state policy. The same arguments for/against transparency apply to both.
- credo 16y ago
  The chances of this publication causing a war are close to zero I think there is a public interest in knowing how many government decisions are made, a public interest in knowing that (as per a source of the American embassy) the Chinese politburo was behind the attack on Google etc.
  - hugh3 16y ago
    The most potentially war-causing bits are the sensitive bits about Iran. Having various other countries in the Middle East on the record as saying nasty things about Iran might severely damage intra-middle-east relations, perhaps making war less avoidable in the future. (It might, of course, have completely the opposite effect, but it's still analogous to firing bullets into a crowd at random and hoping they only hit bad guys.)
    - MichaelSalib 16y ago
      Do you really believe that the Iranian government didn't already know what various other middle eastern governments thought of it? I mean, is your assumption that American government officials, with their outstanding history of sophisticated and successful intelligence gathering in the middle east (read: failure without end) have been more successful than the Iranian regime at local intelligence gathering? That seems...fanciful, and perhaps indicative of western arrogance. More to the point, this whole notion that the current Iranian regime would start a war for no other reason than because some other government said mean things about it is...not terribly well supported by evidence.
      - hugh3 16y ago
        Do you really believe that the Iranian government didn't already know what various other middle eastern governments thought of it? Ah, but diplomacy is so often less about who knows what and so often about who has plausible deniability. Iran knows that the Saudis hate them. And the Saudis know that the Iranians know that they hate them and so forth. But to have it publicly acknowledged and on the record that they hate each other makes things more difficult if they ever need to cooperate. For instance, now that the Saudis are officially on the record as saying the US should bomb Iran, we can rule out the possibility of using the Saudis as a go-between or an "honest broker" for some kind of negotiated settlement with the Iranians. Not that it was necessarily going to happen, but the possibility is pretty much ruled out due to the embarrassment it would cause all round. It's not that Iran is going to attack Saudi Arabia because the King said mean things; it's just that the Saudis and the Iranians can no longer pretend publicly that they don't hate each other. That's just one example, there's any number of other ways that bringing unpleasant truths to the surface can spoil already-weak relationships, as anyone who has ever been in a weak relationship can tell you.
        MichaelSalib 16y ago
        the Saudis and the Iranians can no longer pretend publicly that they don't hate each other. Why not? Everyone with a brain already knew that the Saudi regime hate the Iranian regime. The cables do nothing to change that. And really, the fact is, Saudi Arabia's King's opinions on Iran have zero bearing on whether the US invades Iran. I don't see what exactly distinguishes your claims about the probability of war increasing due to this "revelation" from magical thinking. That's just one example, there's any number of other ways that bringing unpleasant truths to the surface can spoil already-weak relationships, as anyone who has ever been in a weak relationship can tell you. I don't think that one's love life or startup business experience really equips the average person to correctly understand international diplomacy. You say this is just one example: OK, please list some more. Or flesh out this one to the point where it actually makes sense.
    - cabalamat 16y ago
      > Having various other countries in the Middle East on the record as saying nasty things about Iran might severely damage intra-middle-east relations I'm sure the Iranian government and diplomatic corps know that Arab governments don't like them, even if those governments have been reluctant to say so publicly. It's not exactly a secret that Arab countries were financing Iraq in its war against Iran, for example.
steve19 16y ago
What I want to know is what US news organizations turned down the offer to publish the information on ethical grounds. My guess: none. I wonder how the journalists, editors and bosses of the NY Times would like it if a dump of their email server was released on The Pirate Bay. None of their emails are "noforn" or "secret".
- ugh 16y ago
  The New York Times is not part of the government.
  - steve19 16y ago
    "To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strawman http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strawman
    - ugh 16y ago
      I’m merely pointing out that you can’t treat leaking of documents from companies and the government the same way. That’s not a straw man, you really seem to claim that government and company leaks should be judged in the same way. I’m obviously very sure that you are aware that the New York Times is not part of the US government, my point was not that you do not know that, my point was that because of that fact you can’t really compare the two.
quattrofan 16y ago
Looks like the NYT are going to dilute it, you can get it all here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/the-us-embassy-cables http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/the-us-embassy-cables
- thadk 16y ago
  This seems like a flawed idea--if anyone publishes the uncensored cables then you can diff it and find the redacting and they have exposed even more information about information priorities. Keep voting this link up, as important to read as the release itself.

11 points by credo 16y ago

I get the idea to publish war documents....it helps shed light on the war, might make it end sooner. I don't necessarily agree with it, but I understand it. I don't get the publishing of diplomatic documents. I've not had time to read though the entire contents yet, but this just seems like it might CAUSE war, not end it.

br1 16y ago
War and diplomacy are just different instances of state policy. The same arguments for/against transparency apply to both.
credo 16y ago
The chances of this publication causing a war are close to zero I think there is a public interest in knowing how many government decisions are made, a public interest in knowing that (as per a source of the American embassy) the Chinese politburo was behind the attack on Google etc.
- hugh3 16y ago
  The most potentially war-causing bits are the sensitive bits about Iran. Having various other countries in the Middle East on the record as saying nasty things about Iran might severely damage intra-middle-east relations, perhaps making war less avoidable in the future. (It might, of course, have completely the opposite effect, but it's still analogous to firing bullets into a crowd at random and hoping they only hit bad guys.)
  - MichaelSalib 16y ago
    Do you really believe that the Iranian government didn't already know what various other middle eastern governments thought of it? I mean, is your assumption that American government officials, with their outstanding history of sophisticated and successful intelligence gathering in the middle east (read: failure without end) have been more successful than the Iranian regime at local intelligence gathering? That seems...fanciful, and perhaps indicative of western arrogance. More to the point, this whole notion that the current Iranian regime would start a war for no other reason than because some other government said mean things about it is...not terribly well supported by evidence.
    - hugh3 16y ago
      Do you really believe that the Iranian government didn't already know what various other middle eastern governments thought of it? Ah, but diplomacy is so often less about who knows what and so often about who has plausible deniability. Iran knows that the Saudis hate them. And the Saudis know that the Iranians know that they hate them and so forth. But to have it publicly acknowledged and on the record that they hate each other makes things more difficult if they ever need to cooperate. For instance, now that the Saudis are officially on the record as saying the US should bomb Iran, we can rule out the possibility of using the Saudis as a go-between or an "honest broker" for some kind of negotiated settlement with the Iranians. Not that it was necessarily going to happen, but the possibility is pretty much ruled out due to the embarrassment it would cause all round. It's not that Iran is going to attack Saudi Arabia because the King said mean things; it's just that the Saudis and the Iranians can no longer pretend publicly that they don't hate each other. That's just one example, there's any number of other ways that bringing unpleasant truths to the surface can spoil already-weak relationships, as anyone who has ever been in a weak relationship can tell you.
      - MichaelSalib 16y ago
        the Saudis and the Iranians can no longer pretend publicly that they don't hate each other. Why not? Everyone with a brain already knew that the Saudi regime hate the Iranian regime. The cables do nothing to change that. And really, the fact is, Saudi Arabia's King's opinions on Iran have zero bearing on whether the US invades Iran. I don't see what exactly distinguishes your claims about the probability of war increasing due to this "revelation" from magical thinking. That's just one example, there's any number of other ways that bringing unpleasant truths to the surface can spoil already-weak relationships, as anyone who has ever been in a weak relationship can tell you. I don't think that one's love life or startup business experience really equips the average person to correctly understand international diplomacy. You say this is just one example: OK, please list some more. Or flesh out this one to the point where it actually makes sense.
  - cabalamat 16y ago
    > Having various other countries in the Middle East on the record as saying nasty things about Iran might severely damage intra-middle-east relations I'm sure the Iranian government and diplomatic corps know that Arab governments don't like them, even if those governments have been reluctant to say so publicly. It's not exactly a secret that Arab countries were financing Iraq in its war against Iran, for example.

steve19 16y ago

What I want to know is what US news organizations turned down the offer to publish the information on ethical grounds. My guess: none. I wonder how the journalists, editors and bosses of the NY Times would like it if a dump of their email server was released on The Pirate Bay. None of their emails are "noforn" or "secret".

ugh 16y ago
The New York Times is not part of the government.
- steve19 16y ago
  "To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strawman http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strawman
  - ugh 16y ago
    I’m merely pointing out that you can’t treat leaking of documents from companies and the government the same way. That’s not a straw man, you really seem to claim that government and company leaks should be judged in the same way. I’m obviously very sure that you are aware that the New York Times is not part of the US government, my point was not that you do not know that, my point was that because of that fact you can’t really compare the two.

quattrofan 16y ago

Looks like the NYT are going to dilute it, you can get it all here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/the-us-embassy-cables http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/the-us-embassy-cables

thadk 16y ago
This seems like a flawed idea--if anyone publishes the uncensored cables then you can diff it and find the redacting and they have exposed even more information about information priorities. Keep voting this link up, as important to read as the release itself.