4 ms·
Do you honestly think that Americas military secrets prevent its manipulation and exploitation by foreign powers? If anything, the fact of Americas military-in
by mmjaa 7y ago
Do you honestly think that Americas military secrets prevent its manipulation and exploitation by foreign powers?
If anything, the fact of Americas military-industrial-pharmacuetical complex covering up crimes against humanity (torture program) and real war crimes (every twenty minutes) makes American leaders even more susceptible to corruption and influence by non-democratically elected actors, state or otherwise.
You'd rather the country be run by shady Blackwater types protected by ultimate state secrecy than have to deal with state diplomacy as its always been?
Wikileaks exposed pretty clear cases of war crimes and crimes against humanity where the laws and policies and "ethics" of the situation are very well documented, and are very well understood among the sovereign states which ratified them. These are clear crimes we are talking about.
The American military-industrial-pharmaceutical complex is inconvenienced by these crimes being exposed - not the American people, in whose names these acts are committed, and who bear ultimate responsibility for the actions of their state.
Knowing what is being done in your name by your government representatives is a good thing - you cannot be a responsible citizen otherwise.
- Retra 7y agoFirstly, I never said having secrets prevents all manipulation and exploitation. But if someone is going to war with your country, the last thing you want is for all your infrastructure, movements, and communications to become public knowledge. Furthermore, the argument I was responding to failed to allow any nuance or qualification to the reasons the government keeps secrets. Certainly there is a big difference between broad policy decisions or matters of chain of responsibility than there is between tactical information and contextual data collection. I understand government secrecy for the latter, but not the former. I certainly am not going to conflate the two, even as I concede that one is necessary and the distinction hard to enforce.
- mike10010100 7y agoYou know, this was really quite the disproportionate reply that in no way answered the poster's question, but I have to say that this line takes the cake. > You'd rather the country be run by shady Blackwater types protected by ultimate state secrecy than have to deal with state diplomacy as its always been? Secrecy has always been a part of state diplomacy. What world do you love in that this is not the case?
- mmjaa 7y ago>Secrecy has always been a part of state diplomacy. And this is why the world is perpetually at war. Those who have the power to stop the war-mongers (The People) don't have any idea what is really going on - thus diplomacy has been usurped from most democracies around the world, and is thus: broken.
- mike10010100 7y ago> And this is why the world is perpetually at war. No, that's because we have an entire industrial complex surrounding making war profitable. We had state secrets far before then and there were very long periods of peace.
- mmjaa 7y agoIt is only possible to perpetuate America's criminal wars through state secrecy. If the American people knew the truth about these military incursions, they would be utterly outraged. It is secrets that keep the one true power - the American people - from doing something, effective, about the out of control military-industrial complex.
- mike10010100 7y ago> If the American people knew the truth about these military incursions, they would be utterly outraged The many, many, many times things have leaked with absolutely no major public reaction would show that to be false.