3 ms·

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,

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.
  - DanielBMarkham 16y ago
    "What would the NY Times have done if Manning had sent the cables to it instead of to Wikileaks? Most likely nothing." Agreed. But twist it a bit. What if the NYT had received 100 docs on the subject of prisoner torture: detailed accounts, videos, reports of the problems it was causing. What would be their response then?
    - grandalf 16y ago
      I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Surely if the Times received a completed story with detailed research and corroborating video evidence, it would write some sort of story, but I don't see how this differs from the leaked cable content. The true power of journalism comes from what doesn't get reported. The NYT wrote a story on Assange that referred to his "dwindling supporters" and made no mention of the odd technicalities in the rape case, and presented him as being an egomaniac. All of these may be true (or false) but the article cited no references for any of the negative claims. Also, the leaks are the story. Assange is not the story, as much as tabloids would like him to be.

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.
- DanielBMarkham 16y ago
  "What would the NY Times have done if Manning had sent the cables to it instead of to Wikileaks? Most likely nothing." Agreed. But twist it a bit. What if the NYT had received 100 docs on the subject of prisoner torture: detailed accounts, videos, reports of the problems it was causing. What would be their response then?
  - grandalf 16y ago
    I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Surely if the Times received a completed story with detailed research and corroborating video evidence, it would write some sort of story, but I don't see how this differs from the leaked cable content. The true power of journalism comes from what doesn't get reported. The NYT wrote a story on Assange that referred to his "dwindling supporters" and made no mention of the odd technicalities in the rape case, and presented him as being an egomaniac. All of these may be true (or false) but the article cited no references for any of the negative claims. Also, the leaks are the story. Assange is not the story, as much as tabloids would like him to be.