6 ms·

While it's completely reasonable for the US to be concerned with preventing breaches of classified information, the problem with the US reaction to the horrors

While it's completely reasonable for the US to be concerned with preventing breaches of classified information, the problem with the US reaction to the horrors and gaffes revealed by Wikileaks is that there has been absolutely zero outrage about them, only the attempt to shoot the messenger. This asymmetry has been a real awakening for me about the level of corruption and moral bankruptcy of the US ruling class, and about the apathy and complicity of the press and the citizenry in general. I think we are already past the inflection point that historians will one day view as similar to the turning points that led to Nazi Germany and other large scale moral failings of humanity. There is a culture of denial and intentional blindness to the consequences of US actions abroad and a terrible enthusiasm for the leaders who initiate these kinds of things.

knowaveragejoe 14y ago
Aside from Collateral Murder, what shocking revelations have come to light as a result of the leaks? Not saying they don't exist, but speculating perhaps some of the 'revelations' weren't so shocking or were even publicly known.
- tptacek 14y ago
  Collateral Murder was not a shocking revelation. The Washington Post ran a transcript of that video, scene for scene, a year before the video was released. The video only shocked people who don't read.
  - s_henry_paulson 14y ago
    Surely you don't believe that everyone reads the Washington Post?
    - tptacek 14y ago
      The Washington Post reported an event in excruciating detail, but its later disclosure by Wikileaks is a "revelation" because nobody reads the news?
      - grandalf 14y ago
        Do you have a link to the original story? A lot depends on how something is framed.
        tptacek 14y ago
        Here's one: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/14/AR2009091403262.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09... It was very annoying to go track this down.
  - tomjen3 14y ago
    There is a difference between reading a description of a video and seeing it.
- grandalf 14y ago
  Some that I think are most significant: - The complicity of US forces in turning over captive Baathists to the provisional Iraqi officials for nearly certain torture. - The revelation that information was classified only to prevent bad news from getting out about the progress of the war effort. This counts as propagandizing the American people. - Lying about civilian death tolls. - ISI complicity with the Taliban.
  - knowaveragejoe 14y ago
    Thank you for actually providing examples. However, I can't help but feel that: * Preventing bad news from getting out about the progress of the war effort is to be expected of any military. * Lying about civilian death tolls is to be expected of any military. * ISI complicity with the Taliban has been speculated for a long time, even before the leaks. Seeing as the religious element of Pakistan sympathizes greatly(read: completely) with their cause, it makes complete sense that it runs high up the chain of command. IMO the only reason they keep up the facade of alliance is because of our money(and, of course, the decently sized Pakistani diaspora who see the fallacy of the fanaticism in their homeland). The first issue you mentioned seems to be the only true revelation to me, shocking or not.
    - grandalf 14y ago
      Things "expected of any military" might actually be crimes. It is against the law for the US Government to propagandize the American people. At present, a few hawkish members of congress are trying to overturn those laws, and clearly both major parties support overturning them in spirit. It's reasonable for a US citizen to support the wars if he/she feels that overall they are the right thing to do. But it's an insult to our democratic process to hide the bad news and then turn supporters into dupes who cheer on the team without having a clue about what is actually going on.
      - knowaveragejoe 14y ago
        > Things "expected of any military" might actually be crimes. Good point, and that's absolutely the case. The question then to me is would anyone be shocked when those things happen anyways regardless of the law? Even if there was an uproar at such revelations, would anyone be held accountable for them? My answer is "no" and "likely not" respectively.
tokenadult 14y ago
I have one friend (a United States citizen) who has spent much of his life living abroad. He has been to dozens of different countries, including the Asian country where I met him. He has not been back to any part of the United States in the last five years, during which time he has been to multiple countries of varied cultural and political background. His reaction to the Wikileaks publication of United States diplomatic "cables" was that his respect for United States diplomats increased enormously. That is my reaction too. United States diplomats have to deal with other governments all over the world, many much more treacherous and duplicitous than the United States government has been even at its worst. Those of us who are Americans who have been abroad, and who thus are especially aware of the consequences of US actions abroad, certainly have our own criticisms of United States policy. We also criticize the actions of United States persons who violate some United States policies, to the harm of foreign persons. But if Wikileaks wanted to so something both constructive for world peace and likely to elicit even more surprised outrage, it should turn its attention to the classified documents of China, of Iran, of Russia, of North Korea, of Belarus, of Venezuela, and of various other dictatorial regimes around the world. AFTER EDIT: The reply two levels down by pdonis correctly summarizes the single standard I apply to all governments: they all ought to act morally, they all fail to act morally from time to time, I oppose all of those failures, and I would especially like to know more about the activities of governments that don't subject themselves to the discipline of free and fair elections, even if it means an organization like Wikileaks has to reveal their secrets.
- grandalf 14y ago
  I also do not consider the diplomatic cables particularly significant, their release mainly creates personal embarrassment to the diplomats who must apologize in person to the victims of their petty and rude remarks found in the cables... in general nothing revealed was outside the bounds of what is reasonable to discuss if one assumes the conversation will be private (humans are gossipy, petty creatures). They do reveal a somewhat unflattering aspect of diplomacy, but nothing that any realist wouldn't have already imagined. The meat is in the Iraq and Afghan war logs, so it sort of irks me when the diplomatic cables are discussed b/c they are mostly just gossip column material.
- deleted 14y ago
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]

knowaveragejoe 14y ago

Aside from Collateral Murder, what shocking revelations have come to light as a result of the leaks? Not saying they don't exist, but speculating perhaps some of the 'revelations' weren't so shocking or were even publicly known.

tptacek 14y ago
Collateral Murder was not a shocking revelation. The Washington Post ran a transcript of that video, scene for scene, a year before the video was released. The video only shocked people who don't read.
- s_henry_paulson 14y ago
  Surely you don't believe that everyone reads the Washington Post?
  - tptacek 14y ago
    The Washington Post reported an event in excruciating detail, but its later disclosure by Wikileaks is a "revelation" because nobody reads the news?
    - grandalf 14y ago
      Do you have a link to the original story? A lot depends on how something is framed.
      - tptacek 14y ago
        Here's one: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/14/AR2009091403262.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09... It was very annoying to go track this down.
- tomjen3 14y ago
  There is a difference between reading a description of a video and seeing it.
grandalf 14y ago
Some that I think are most significant: - The complicity of US forces in turning over captive Baathists to the provisional Iraqi officials for nearly certain torture. - The revelation that information was classified only to prevent bad news from getting out about the progress of the war effort. This counts as propagandizing the American people. - Lying about civilian death tolls. - ISI complicity with the Taliban.
- knowaveragejoe 14y ago
  Thank you for actually providing examples. However, I can't help but feel that: * Preventing bad news from getting out about the progress of the war effort is to be expected of any military. * Lying about civilian death tolls is to be expected of any military. * ISI complicity with the Taliban has been speculated for a long time, even before the leaks. Seeing as the religious element of Pakistan sympathizes greatly(read: completely) with their cause, it makes complete sense that it runs high up the chain of command. IMO the only reason they keep up the facade of alliance is because of our money(and, of course, the decently sized Pakistani diaspora who see the fallacy of the fanaticism in their homeland). The first issue you mentioned seems to be the only true revelation to me, shocking or not.
  - grandalf 14y ago
    Things "expected of any military" might actually be crimes. It is against the law for the US Government to propagandize the American people. At present, a few hawkish members of congress are trying to overturn those laws, and clearly both major parties support overturning them in spirit. It's reasonable for a US citizen to support the wars if he/she feels that overall they are the right thing to do. But it's an insult to our democratic process to hide the bad news and then turn supporters into dupes who cheer on the team without having a clue about what is actually going on.
    - knowaveragejoe 14y ago
      > Things "expected of any military" might actually be crimes. Good point, and that's absolutely the case. The question then to me is would anyone be shocked when those things happen anyways regardless of the law? Even if there was an uproar at such revelations, would anyone be held accountable for them? My answer is "no" and "likely not" respectively.

tokenadult 14y ago

I have one friend (a United States citizen) who has spent much of his life living abroad. He has been to dozens of different countries, including the Asian country where I met him. He has not been back to any part of the United States in the last five years, during which time he has been to multiple countries of varied cultural and political background. His reaction to the Wikileaks publication of United States diplomatic "cables" was that his respect for United States diplomats increased enormously. That is my reaction too. United States diplomats have to deal with other governments all over the world, many much more treacherous and duplicitous than the United States government has been even at its worst. Those of us who are Americans who have been abroad, and who thus are especially aware of the consequences of US actions abroad, certainly have our own criticisms of United States policy. We also criticize the actions of United States persons who violate some United States policies, to the harm of foreign persons. But if Wikileaks wanted to so something both constructive for world peace and likely to elicit even more surprised outrage, it should turn its attention to the classified documents of China, of Iran, of Russia, of North Korea, of Belarus, of Venezuela, and of various other dictatorial regimes around the world. AFTER EDIT: The reply two levels down by pdonis correctly summarizes the single standard I apply to all governments: they all ought to act morally, they all fail to act morally from time to time, I oppose all of those failures, and I would especially like to know more about the activities of governments that don't subject themselves to the discipline of free and fair elections, even if it means an organization like Wikileaks has to reveal their secrets.

grandalf 14y ago
I also do not consider the diplomatic cables particularly significant, their release mainly creates personal embarrassment to the diplomats who must apologize in person to the victims of their petty and rude remarks found in the cables... in general nothing revealed was outside the bounds of what is reasonable to discuss if one assumes the conversation will be private (humans are gossipy, petty creatures). They do reveal a somewhat unflattering aspect of diplomacy, but nothing that any realist wouldn't have already imagined. The meat is in the Iraq and Afghan war logs, so it sort of irks me when the diplomatic cables are discussed b/c they are mostly just gossip column material.
deleted 14y ago

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]