4 ms·

Daniel, Thanks for the thoughtful post. The logical stretch I think you commit is that you view consent or dissent as largely black and white. I'd argue that

Daniel, Thanks for the thoughtful post. The logical stretch I think you commit is that you view consent or dissent as largely black and white. I'd argue that it is our civic duty to dissent about all things we disapprove of, both at the ballot box and in our day to day lives. That entails that we break any laws we disagree with, etc. Of course, the limit to this is the willingness we each have to risk the consequences (if any) of breaking laws. I don't think we are somehow bound to support or obey all laws just because we haven't yet gotten to the point of renouncing our citizenship or packing up and leaving. In a majoritarian system like ours, the minority is constantly unhappy. Since we are nearly constantly in the run-up to an election, we must publicize our dissent in order to participate in the democratic process. Again, civil disobedience puts the individual at risk, so I agree with your point that a person must accept the consequences of his/her actions, but I strongly disagree with the idea that we should accept the majoritarian conclusion of the moment and feel bad about speaking out against bad laws and bad policies. On the issue of secrecy, I don't hold the belief you describe. Sure, some secrecy is inevitable (and probably helpful). But the US today has way too much. We learned that the military was keeping things secret that bore no relevance to the battle but only to the perception of the battle by the American public. That's not secrecy, that's propaganda by omission. I think in order to claim that the Wikileaks people are jerks, you have to explain why you think it was appropriate for the US Government to reply that "we don't negotiate" when offered the ability to redact whatever it thought might prevent any harmful consequences of the leaked info. In my view, this response is just as grating as when George W Bush crossed his arms and proclaimed "We don't negotiate with Terrorists" as he attempted to escalate things with Iran.

DanielBMarkham 16y ago
Grandalf, I see lots of shades of gray. I think they're all covered under option 2. As far as how the U.S. should have responded, I don't think they had much of a choice: the State Department couldn't tell whether one doc should be secret or not even on a good day. Even with an order from the president it would have been physically impossible for them to go through those docs. Not to mention the precedent it would set -- very bad thing there. Yes, the U.S. has too much secrecy. Let's vote to fix it. Or let's leak selected stories to fix it. But let's not come up with plans to massively overwhelm the government with tons of formerly secret documents. Not only is it not productive, it is taking up a position of control over other people's lives that we are not entitled to, and it is deciding that the entire thing is so broken as to be worthy of attack. That's not a very good way to get your point across, no matter how right or wrong you are.
- grandalf 16y ago
  Well, I think there is a built-in bias around issues like this. Because rationally, everyone realizes that some secrets are quite reasonable and do save lives, so the notion of leaking that information sounds quite wrong. This is why I think the impact of the leaks was profound. Suddenly this abstract concept that so many of us had treated with reverence and respect turned out to have been severely misused. I can personally state that I would never have dreamed that some of the things that were revealed would ever actually take place. Is it really possible that in 2010 the US Government can lie to its citizenry about such important things? Note that propaganda against US Citizens is forbidden by law, and the leaks revealed a massive propaganda campaign. Only through leaks of this kind can the public accurately understand that there is a need to rein in the use of secrecy (and propaganda) by the government. When kept in the abstract, secrecy is a great tool of statecraft, warcraft, etc. So the only way we could be rational about this was to see firsthand just what is going on. It's true there might have been a more delicate way to introduce the leaked information, but the biggest threat to Wikileaks' credibility is the notion that it selectively filters/omits information to serve its own political goals. With such a large leak, it becomes almost inevitable that a fledgling Wikileaks resort to leaking such large amounts b/c it currently lacks the credibility to do anything but.
  - DanielBMarkham 16y ago
    Grandalf you are making a "greater good" argument. (and a very good one at that) I'm simply saying that part of my arrangement with my government is to conduct our business like it always has, with leaks, scandals, and voting. I do not like the way things have been going: we're turning into a secrecy state that actively deceives it's citizens. But I feel that the way we make changes is the most optimum for the people involved at the current time. Perhaps you are unhappy with my arrangement, but it is my arrangement and not yours. I do not come to your country and interfere with your arrangement. Now feel free to carry on with your outrage about the lying and propaganda and such. Run videos of soldiers killing innocents. Run ads and make leaks to convince me that my relationship with my government is bad. Do all the things in a free society that help us find our mistakes and fix them. I might disagree with you, but I completely support your right (and obligation even) to make a moral case to others that some wrong needs fixing. But short-circuiting the system does not do that.

DanielBMarkham 16y ago

Grandalf, I see lots of shades of gray. I think they're all covered under option 2. As far as how the U.S. should have responded, I don't think they had much of a choice: the State Department couldn't tell whether one doc should be secret or not even on a good day. Even with an order from the president it would have been physically impossible for them to go through those docs. Not to mention the precedent it would set -- very bad thing there. Yes, the U.S. has too much secrecy. Let's vote to fix it. Or let's leak selected stories to fix it. But let's not come up with plans to massively overwhelm the government with tons of formerly secret documents. Not only is it not productive, it is taking up a position of control over other people's lives that we are not entitled to, and it is deciding that the entire thing is so broken as to be worthy of attack. That's not a very good way to get your point across, no matter how right or wrong you are.

grandalf 16y ago
Well, I think there is a built-in bias around issues like this. Because rationally, everyone realizes that some secrets are quite reasonable and do save lives, so the notion of leaking that information sounds quite wrong. This is why I think the impact of the leaks was profound. Suddenly this abstract concept that so many of us had treated with reverence and respect turned out to have been severely misused. I can personally state that I would never have dreamed that some of the things that were revealed would ever actually take place. Is it really possible that in 2010 the US Government can lie to its citizenry about such important things? Note that propaganda against US Citizens is forbidden by law, and the leaks revealed a massive propaganda campaign. Only through leaks of this kind can the public accurately understand that there is a need to rein in the use of secrecy (and propaganda) by the government. When kept in the abstract, secrecy is a great tool of statecraft, warcraft, etc. So the only way we could be rational about this was to see firsthand just what is going on. It's true there might have been a more delicate way to introduce the leaked information, but the biggest threat to Wikileaks' credibility is the notion that it selectively filters/omits information to serve its own political goals. With such a large leak, it becomes almost inevitable that a fledgling Wikileaks resort to leaking such large amounts b/c it currently lacks the credibility to do anything but.
- DanielBMarkham 16y ago
  Grandalf you are making a "greater good" argument. (and a very good one at that) I'm simply saying that part of my arrangement with my government is to conduct our business like it always has, with leaks, scandals, and voting. I do not like the way things have been going: we're turning into a secrecy state that actively deceives it's citizens. But I feel that the way we make changes is the most optimum for the people involved at the current time. Perhaps you are unhappy with my arrangement, but it is my arrangement and not yours. I do not come to your country and interfere with your arrangement. Now feel free to carry on with your outrage about the lying and propaganda and such. Run videos of soldiers killing innocents. Run ads and make leaks to convince me that my relationship with my government is bad. Do all the things in a free society that help us find our mistakes and fix them. I might disagree with you, but I completely support your right (and obligation even) to make a moral case to others that some wrong needs fixing. But short-circuiting the system does not do that.