4 ms·

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

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.
  - grandalf 16y ago
    Interesting points. I suppose it's a question of how far gone one perceives the system to be and whether one has any optimism that the system can heal itself without some sort of added stimulus. What would the NY Times have done if Manning had sent the cables to it instead of to Wikileaks? Most likely nothing. The adversarial relationship between the press and government is a core principle of our democracy, and I think it's because I view Wikileaks as being largely journalistic in nature that I feel that the leaks have strengthened our democracy, though at the cost of weakening our rule of law. But in my opinion the government has already weakened our rule of law by propagandizing us and lying to us. Democracy is a tenuous arrangement between the rulers and the governed. In my view it is a tradeoff between individual sovereignty and rights. When the government squashes those rights by breaking its contract with the people and propagandizing a war, the tenuous arrangement has been disturbed and a self-respecting public will claw back those rights through an exercise of sovereignty... and while this may be at the temporary expense of the rule of law, it is guided by a principle that we ought to consider at least as sacred. So I hope our leaders are appropriately chastened and I hope that your wish of reforms and improvements via the democratic process occurs.
RockyMcNuts 16y ago
1) Sounds like you agree with Wikileaks - they didn't just dump everything, they've released stuff selectively in stages (and therefore been accused of being manipulative ringmasters) 2) Even if their selectivity has not been at the correct point on the grayscale, I don't see how you get from there to the necessity of lethal force. If the survival of the free world were at stake, or even the lives of its supporters, quite possibly. But if an American embarrassed a foreign government that couldn't hold on to its secrets, I don't think we would consider it justified if it used lethal force. We would rightly consider such a government, that thought interfering with its efficient operation was punishable by death, rather extreme and fascist.
- DanielBMarkham 16y ago
  I think it would be very possible to take wikileaks and add a strong ethical code of conduct and things would be much different. But this would require them to move to making a selective case for injustice instead of just trying to tear it all down, and I don't see them making that change any time soon. As for the rest of your comment, please see my other replies.

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.
- grandalf 16y ago
  Interesting points. I suppose it's a question of how far gone one perceives the system to be and whether one has any optimism that the system can heal itself without some sort of added stimulus. What would the NY Times have done if Manning had sent the cables to it instead of to Wikileaks? Most likely nothing. The adversarial relationship between the press and government is a core principle of our democracy, and I think it's because I view Wikileaks as being largely journalistic in nature that I feel that the leaks have strengthened our democracy, though at the cost of weakening our rule of law. But in my opinion the government has already weakened our rule of law by propagandizing us and lying to us. Democracy is a tenuous arrangement between the rulers and the governed. In my view it is a tradeoff between individual sovereignty and rights. When the government squashes those rights by breaking its contract with the people and propagandizing a war, the tenuous arrangement has been disturbed and a self-respecting public will claw back those rights through an exercise of sovereignty... and while this may be at the temporary expense of the rule of law, it is guided by a principle that we ought to consider at least as sacred. So I hope our leaders are appropriately chastened and I hope that your wish of reforms and improvements via the democratic process occurs.

RockyMcNuts 16y ago

1) Sounds like you agree with Wikileaks - they didn't just dump everything, they've released stuff selectively in stages (and therefore been accused of being manipulative ringmasters) 2) Even if their selectivity has not been at the correct point on the grayscale, I don't see how you get from there to the necessity of lethal force. If the survival of the free world were at stake, or even the lives of its supporters, quite possibly. But if an American embarrassed a foreign government that couldn't hold on to its secrets, I don't think we would consider it justified if it used lethal force. We would rightly consider such a government, that thought interfering with its efficient operation was punishable by death, rather extreme and fascist.

DanielBMarkham 16y ago
I think it would be very possible to take wikileaks and add a strong ethical code of conduct and things would be much different. But this would require them to move to making a selective case for injustice instead of just trying to tear it all down, and I don't see them making that change any time soon. As for the rest of your comment, please see my other replies.