News Wikileaks creates diplomatic crisis

[CRGreathouse]

He didn't expose *truth*, he interfered with the delicate balance of diplomacy. He posted private messages. He's edangered everything that we hope to achieve for world peace. He's a moron. He's already a disgrace to mankind.

Exposing corruption is one thing, destroying relations between countries that could lead to world peace is abysmally stupid.

Interfered with a delicate balance, certainly. Foolhardy, no doubt. But it's not obvious to me even what the *sign* of the net effect will be, positive or negative.

 

[talk2glenn]

Though Wikileaks claims to have used similar methods to get in touch with the DoD as they tried initially to go through the NYT.

Wikileaks has made a number of unsubstantiated claims. In my opinion, the organization has no credibility. On the other hand, the United States government has strong credibility, as does the Times, and they both reject Wikileaks' claim. According to the government, no effort was made to contact them prior to the release of the Afghanistan and Iraq documents, and there is no evidence suggesting otherwise. Assange can claim he is a fairy from ya-ya land. Until I've seen his wings, I'm not going to believe it.

BUT it appears that its still contested whether or not Wikileaks, through the NYT, contacted the DoD about reviewing the material.
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/08/20/wikileaks

Again, Glenn Greenwald has about as much credibility as Assange here. His argument is that the New York Times is lying because it is buddy-buddy with the Pentagon. The New York Times. It's absurd on its face, and entirely unsubstantiated. Notice the word opinion in the url.

Wikileaks(WL) claims to have tried to get to DoD through NYT, but its all so unclear.

How is it unclear? Wikileaks is making the claim, and offering no evidence. The claim is denied by the other parties involved (the government and the Times). It's pretty clear to me.

Because if it's truly in the best interest of the US's operatives to be able to censor what is going to be released, the US should do so?

Protocol used by the Times, the Post, and every other reputable organization when dealing with subjects like this is to turn over copies of the leaked material to the government for review and reccomendation. The government then returns its suggestions to the outlet, which obliges or ignores. Wikileaks was asking the government to give it the names of persons it wanted protected, and an explanation for why they should be protected. This is an abusrd position. Forget for a moment that the government cannot legally comply with that request - why in the hell would it??

And I don't think it would undermine any criminal case. Its akin to a hostage situation. Just because you give the kidnappers food and water during negotiations doesn't mean you approve of what they're doing. Its all about damage control, which I think the pentagon knows really isn't all that much.

Whether you think it would or not is irrelevant. To build a criminal case on the unauthorized release of classified materials, the government must show that the possessor knew that the material was classified, knew that its release could harm the United States, did not attempt to return the material to the United States (unilaterally or on request), and was not given implicit permission to retain the information.

This is why State demanded, publicly and in writing, that Assange return the data while reminding him that its release would be damaging prior to its release. Nobody thought he would; it's all part of building a solid case.

Obviously, then, cooperating with Assange in publishing the data - and voluntarily releasing additional, related classified materials to him as part of that cooperation - would do serious damage to the governments claim that the release was criminal, damaging, and unauthorized.

 

[Mathnomalous]

Agreed. Sometimes accepting that you don't understand what you aren't privy to is the smartest thing to do.

More accurately, I am required to accept that an exclusive group of people holding insider knowledge will not allow me to analyze that knowledge (even though how that knowledge is used may affect me), but regardless, I must trust them because this exclusive group is working for my benefit.

My role is to play the obedient, dumb worker bee and never question authority and those supposedly smarter than me. Mr. Assange broke this rule, no? The man broke a delicate balance, the social contract between the powerful and the less powerful, the intelligent and the dumb.

At some point this farce we call the modern world will come crashing down. I hope it happens sooner, rather than later.

 

[rootX]

More accurately, I am required to accept that an exclusive group of people holding insider knowledge will not allow me to analyze that knowledge (even though how that knowledge is used may affect me), but regardless, I must trust them because this exclusive group is working for my benefit.

My role is to play the obedient, dumb worker bee and never question authority and those supposedly smarter than me. Mr. Assange broke this rule, no? The man broke a delicate balance, the social contract between the powerful and the less powerful, the intelligent and the dumb.

At some point this farce we call the modern world will come crashing down. I hope it happens sooner, rather than later.

Political/History professors often write books using best available information. When governments declassify information; this further improves their analysis. But I believe it is left to governments when they should make information public. Sometimes, unharmful information is kept secret just to maintain pride/false sense of stability e.g. China. I am against that but I agree that some information can harm innocents.

 

[Evo]

My role is to play the obedient, dumb worker bee and never question authority and those supposedly smarter than me. Mr. Assange broke this rule, no?

Stupid people do stupid things. No one has accused Assange of being intelligent.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I have not seen anything serious in these leaks yet.

I don't know how damaging the worst of it is, but at a minimum, by many accounts it will only serve to impede or chill diplomatic relations, which is in no one's interest.

I have also heard that people will die because of Assange. If there is highly sensitive information involved, we may never even know specfically what information causes the most concern. One classic response to information leaks is to flood the field with disinformation.

Rumors were flying today that Assange is actually working for the US and Israel.

 

[humanino]

I find it amazing how so many people jump on the side of governments who are currently manipulating world top agencies such as interpol to put their hand on Assange. This is done in broad daylight to everybody's knowledge and nobody questions it ? How come US people are so prompt to jump at "big government" but do not care about those doings ?

 

[Evo]

I find it amazing how so many people jump on the side of governments who are currently manipulating world top agencies such as interpol to put their hand on Assange. This is done in broad daylight to everybody's knowledge and nobody questions it ? How come US people are so prompt to jump at "big government" but do not care about those doings ?

I don't find the support for the interpol warrant. That seems weird to me. Apparently Sweden has weird sex laws. That's a different thread.

The wrongs he's done with the leaked documents is altogether a different issue.

 

[humanino]

That's a different thread.

I understand that this is discussed in another thread on PF. However, I think the most important revelation is that if you scare people enough, they will accept anything from the government. Nothing we did not know, really...

 

[Proton Soup]

I don't know how damaging the worst of it is, but at a minimum, by many accounts it will only serve to impede or chill diplomatic relations, which is in no one's interest.

I have also heard that people will die because of Assange. If there is highly sensitive information involved, we may never even know specfically what information causes the most concern. One classic response to information leaks is to flood the field with disinformation.

Rumors were flying today that Assange is actually working for the US and Israel.

well, one thing is for certain. people will die, with or without Assange. what is not certain is whether less or more will die without Assange. or whether theirs or ours.

but how much any of this matters, i don't know. i seriously doubt this crap isn't stuff that practically everyone in most world governments doesn't already know. even that stuff mentioned earlier in the thread about US/Pakistan/India. those governments know what's going on. but it's the citizens who are supposed to remain ignorant.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I find it amazing how so many people jump on the side of governments who are currently manipulating world top agencies such as interpol to put their hand on Assange. This is done in broad daylight to everybody's knowledge and nobody questions it ? How come US people are so prompt to jump at "big government" but do not care about those doings ?

It would seem there is general agreement among various governments that Assange is doing harm. Why would you support someone who seeks to cripple diplomatic efforts for peace and economic stability?

So far the only damning information that I've seen about the US is that we let this stuff get out. It isn't like he has exposed any great crimes. It isn't like he is accomplishing anything other than reducing the chances for peace and prosperity - and possibly putting some unknown number people in jeopardy.

We do need to have secrets. If that is the complaint - that we should have no secrets - then I would have to argue that this is an unrealistic expectation.

 

[Evo]

well, one thing is for certain. people will die, with or without Assange.

I think the really unfortunate part is that the people that may be harmed as a result of the release are people that decided to trust the US to help rid themselves of the Taliban. I feel that the US let them down in that their private information was able to be obtained by some nut in the US military. That the sensitive information was obtained through the (alleged) assistance of wikileaks and then made public just makes it more horrific for these people. What did these people do to deserve to be made targets by Assange?

 

[Office_Shredder]

Who is a target? If this information is so accessible, identify someone living in Afghanistan who works with the US covertly

 

[Evo]

Who is a target? If this information is so accessible, identify someone living in Afghanistan who works with the US covertly

It's in the information that was released, that's not disputed, it's a fact. Are you seriously expecting someone on here to have names and addresses?

 

[Office_Shredder]

It's in the information that was released, that's not disputed, it's a fact. Are you seriously expecting someone on here to have names and addresses?

If it's released, then the information is available. I would more so expect a political figure or organization making these claims of direct harm to look at the documents released and identify who is being targeted because of this rather than a forum member

 

[Evo]

If it's released, then the information is available. I would more so expect a political figure or organization making these claims of direct harm to look at the documents released and identify who is being targeted because of this rather than a forum member

That's been done by authorities months ago, it's been reported in the news months ago, we've discussed it months ago. Did you miss the news reports?

 

[zomgwtf]

I understand that this is discussed in another thread on PF. However, I think the most important revelation is that if you scare people enough, they will accept anything from the government. Nothing we did not know, really...

I swear the case in Sweden has been going on a lot longer than any leak about America has occured. It seems unlikely to me that America has a hand in interpol, hell they don't follow international law and they don't give up peoples in America wanted because of international law.

They would get him themselves if they wanted him, **** some stupid international force ********, they know that **** was failed from the beginning.

 

[Office_Shredder]

That's been done by authorities months ago, it's been reported in the news months ago, we've discussed it months ago. Did you miss the news reports?

I thought Proton Soup was specifically talking about the diplomatic cables, which were only released a week ago so I don't think were discussed months ago.

As an aside though, if you know of posts here or news reports that identify specific harm caused to people by the Wikileaks releases at any point in time I would like to see those for curiosity's sake

 

[Evo]

I know that there were documents released months ago, I search and find threads made months ago, but I don't see a post (or a news report) that says "Mohammed Ali of Kabul was slain today after his identity was released by wikileaks".

Maybe nothing that specific exists, but it should be acknowledged that a blanket statement of "releasing documents will expose people" isn't satisfactory. If a post was made that addressed this issue a couple months ago, just link it and I'll be satisfied.

*you* need to keep yourself informed if you want to discuss this. If you are expecting a list of names and addresses of the people that were exposed, you're out of touch with reality. The US is not going to post a hit list for those that don't have the files. I personally posted a very comprehensive article about what was in the released files.

But since you can't manage to google this, here's a quickly googled article for you. From now on, please invest some time in keeping informed if you wish to participate, it's not too much to ask.

WikiLeaks Reportedly Outs 100s of Afghan Informants

Hundreds of Afghan civilians who worked as informants for the U.S. military have been put at risk by WikiLeaks' publication of more than 90,000 classified intelligence reports which name and in many cases locate the individuals, The Times newspaper reported Wednesday.

Click here to see The Times article, but note, it's behind a subscription firewall.

The article says, in spite of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange's claim that sensitive information had been removed from the leaked documents, that reporters scanning the reports for just a couple hours found hundreds of Afghan names mentioned as aiding the U.S.-led war effort.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503543_162-20011886-503543.html

 

[Mathnomalous]

It would seem there is general agreement among various governments that Assange is doing harm. Why would you support someone who seeks to cripple diplomatic efforts for peace and economic stability?

I doubt world nations are working together to achieve peace and economic stability, at least not for all humans. It seems to me those efforts are aimed at ensuring the people at the top remain at the top and existing organizations continue to exist.

If we lived in a peaceful and economically stable world, there would be no need for governments, armies, banks, even police departments; all citizens would follow the law and act in an economically responsible manner. The fact that those institutions exist clearly indicates there is no real interest in behaving in such a fashion, thus the entire system is built on the premise people will behave dishonestly and irresponsibly.

World peace and economic stability? As simple as dropping all weapons and forgiving all debts; naive yet beautifully simple.

If it's released, then the information is available. I would more so expect a political figure or organization making these claims of direct harm to look at the documents released and identify who is being targeted because of this rather than a forum member

No one of any significant importance (to the US Government) will die as a consequence of the release. The ones most likely to die are going to be low level people who pass low level information along; people passing high level information will likely be protected. If people do end up dead, the USG takes blame for a short while but those deaths will be quickly forgotten or pushed aside.

Remember when Valerie Plame's name was dropped as a CIA operative? I am certain people died as a consequence of that disclosure yet the traitors who leaked that information are still alive and happy. Business continued as usual.

 

[Evo]

I doubt world nations are working together to achieve peace and economic stability, at least not for all humans. It seems to me those efforts are aimed at ensuring the people at the top remain at the top and existing organizations continue to exist.

If we lived in a peaceful and economically stable world, there would be no need for governments, armies, banks, even police departments; all citizens would follow the law and act in an economically responsible manner. The fact that those institutions exist clearly indicates there is no real interest in behaving in such a fashion, thus the entire system is built on the premise people will behave dishonestly and irresponsibly.

World peace and economic stability? As simple as dropping all weapons and forgiving all debts; naive yet beautifully simple.

Diplomatic ties are also aimed at preventing certain countries from going out of control. It's a very complex situation. You don't seem to understand this. How many years have you been studying or closely following world affairs? This shouldn't be a surprise.

 

[Mathnomalous]

Diplomatic ties are also aimed at preventing certain countries from going out of control. It's a very complex situation. You don't seem to understand this. How many years have you been studying or closely following world affairs? This shouldn't be a surprise.

You are correct, if we make it clear countries "going out of control" means making sure China, for example, does not start building ICBMs that might target the US. The purpose of diplomatic ties is to maintain the status quo and not necessarily improving things. It is a "you scratch my back, I will scratch your back" kind of thing.

The reality is everyone has a different idea of what world peace, economic stability, and all those other flowery ideals are; China wants world peace Chinese style, the US wants world peace US style, Germany wants world peace German style, and so on. Diplomacy comes in and tries to fit as many of these styles inside a "box." Except, that those diplomatic efforts usually benefit the people at the top, and the people below them receive a diminishing "trickle down" effect.

There is enough money and food in the world to educate and feed every human, at least to a decent level. That this does not happen means there is little interest in making it happen.

 

[Mathnomalous]

And once again, Wikileaks simply uncovered a secret world of backroom deals and secret handshakes and lay it out for all to see. Only the most naive of diplomats truly believed he or she was dealing with doves; these people are aware of the unwritten rules of the game. Now, the rules were written for all to read. And the rats hate that.

Edit: I keep reading this "harm to international relations" nonsense. What countries will suffer negative consequences that they have not been suffering already? Will Canada suddenly cease to deal with the US? Will Germany stop talking to the US? Will Saudi Arabia hate Israel even more (as if it makes a difference)? Will Iran cease and desist from obtaining nukes because other Middle East countries think it should not obtain them?

"Hey, US, we suspected you were a jerk before and there was lots of evidence you were a jerk, but now some Swede leaked some documents that we probably already knew about showing you were a jerk, so we are not going to play with you anymore, except we will but in secret. Jerk."

 

[Reshma]

Not witout a cost: WikiLeaks: Pakistan quietly approved drone attacks, U.S. special units

I don't think that's earth-shattering news, either, but it does put Pakistan's government officials on the spot.

And once again, Wikileaks simply uncovered a secret world of backroom deals and secret handshakes and lay it out for all to see. Only the most naive of diplomats truly believed he or she was dealing with doves; these people are aware of the unwritten rules of the game. Now, the rules were written for all to read. And the rats hate that.

Edit: I keep reading this "harm to international relations" nonsense. What countries will suffer negative consequences that they have not been suffering already? Will Canada suddenly cease to deal with the US? Will Germany stop talking to the US? Will Saudi Arabia hate Israel even more (as if it makes a difference)? Will Iran cease and desist from obtaining nukes because other Middle East countries think it should not obtain them?

I agree with BobG and Mathnomalous.

I just don't understand the hoopla over "deterioration of international relations". I also doubt whether the leaks will affect the US diplomatic relations with other nations (barring North Korea or Iran, of course), certainly not with its strongest allies and some its recent allies like India. I think it is extremely unlikely that nations would abandon critical economic ties or trade relations over some leaked files.

United States Ambassador Timothy J Roemer on Friday hailed India's response to leaks by WikiLeaks of the secret U.S. Embassy memos.

At a press conference here, Mr. Roemer said, “the Indian government has been highly responsible, very constructive, extremely mature in their comments and reactions.”

Referring to Mr. Obama's declaration of support to India becoming a permanent member of the UNSC, he said the President's actions and decisions “speak boldly” of the U.S. policies. The partnership of the U.S. with India was not only indispensable but also defining.

http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/article929916.ece

Other aspects of the leaked files, such as details on the Russian Government and its alleged mafia links, is not particularly "news" for the Russians.

These reports from leaked memos are embarrassing; but the fallout for the Kremlin is likely to be minimal. At home, Russian TV is being highly selective about what it reports about Wikileaks - there was no mention of a mafia state in the main TV news bulletins.

But even if there had been, Russian viewers are unlikely to have been surprised by that. Many people here assume that is the case. Even President Medvedev in his state of the nation address this week conceded that law enforcement agencies and organs of power were merging with the criminal world.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11893886

 

[Borek]

Not witout a cost: WikiLeaks: Pakistan quietly approved drone attacks, U.S. special units

I don't think that's earth-shattering news, either, but it does put Pakistan's government officials on the spot.

Luckily, so far nothing like that happened, but such information can easily lead to rioting mob on the street. As I wrote earlier - stupid cartoons were enough for about 100 people to loose their lives. Same could happen now. If you don't see it, you are just lacking imagination.

 

[humanino]

Just to clarify

Why would you support someone who seeks to cripple diplomatic efforts for peace and economic stability?

I never said I support him. I said that I do not support the arrest warrant. It is not an independent question. The governments demonstrate that if they want to do wrongdoings, they can do it in broad daylight without much criticism. Their answer to the situation is remarkable. As a consequence, I am not sure they really need to "have secrets".

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I doubt world nations are working together to achieve peace and economic stability, at least not for all humans. It seems to me those efforts are aimed at ensuring the people at the top remain at the top and existing organizations continue to exist.

The two goals are not necessarily mutually exclusive. I accept both statements as true. Not everyone is working towards the same goals, but I think most people agree that peace and prosperity are generally in their best interest.

If we lived in a peaceful and economically stable world, there would be no need for governments, armies, banks, even police departments; all citizens would follow the law and act in an economically responsible manner. The fact that those institutions exist clearly indicates there is no real interest in behaving in such a fashion, thus the entire system is built on the premise people will behave dishonestly and irresponsibly.

People do behave dishonestly and irresponsibly. I don't see your point.

World peace and economic stability? As simple as dropping all weapons and forgiving all debts; naive yet beautifully simple.

Did I say anything about it being simple? You are putting words in my mouth and rather blatently so.

No one of any significant importance (to the US Government) will die as a consequence of the release.

How do you know that?

The ones most likely to die are going to be low level people who pass low level information along; people passing high level information will likely be protected.

How do you know that?

If people do end up dead, the USG takes blame for a short while but those deaths will be quickly forgotten or pushed aside.

It would seem that you are the one putting any potential deaths aside as insignificant.

Remember when Valerie Plame's name was dropped as a CIA operative? I am certain people died as a consequence of that disclosure yet the traitors who leaked that information are still alive and happy. Business continued as usual.

Does that suppose that I agree or that it changes the argument? I have said before that I think Bush and Cheney et al should be tried for war crimes. Two wrongs don't make a right.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

And once again, Wikileaks simply uncovered a secret world of backroom deals and secret handshakes

It is naive to think things can be any other way.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Just to clarifyI never said I support him. I said that I do not support the arrest warrant. It is not an independent question. The governments demonstrate that if they want to do wrongdoings, they can do it in broad daylight without much criticism. Their answer to the situation is remarkable. As a consequence, I am not sure they really need to "have secrets".

Why are you are assuming that he didn't rape anyone? I don't know if this is a matter of various governments targeting this guy, or if he really raped someone [or if there is reasonable suspicion], but I don't see how anyone can know that.

I think there are limits to what we should allow, but any government has [ideally] the specific job of protecting its citizens. If Assange is doing real harm, then it would be appropriate to take action. I don't see how that is wrongdoing.

Of course we need secrets. I have no idea how anyone would think otherwise. For example, are we to reveal our plans for WWIII? We pray that we never need them, but we would be stupid to assume it will never happen, or not to be prepared. To reveal these plans to potential future enemies would be absurd.

 

[Proton Soup]

I think the really unfortunate part is that the people that may be harmed as a result of the release are people that decided to trust the US to help rid themselves of the Taliban. I feel that the US let them down in that their private information was able to be obtained by some nut in the US military. That the sensitive information was obtained through the (alleged) assistance of wikileaks and then made public just makes it more horrific for these people. What did these people do to deserve to be made targets by Assange?

we kill more civilians than the insurgents do

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualties_of_the_War_in_Afghanistan_(2001–present)

maybe we need to be stopped from doing that

 

[Evo]

we kill more civilians than the insurgents do

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualties_of_the_War_in_Afghanistan_(2001–present)

maybe we need to be stopped from doing that

So specifically naming innocent people so that they can become targets is ok because...?

Let's also keep the two different issues in their respective threads please.

 

[Proton Soup]

So specifically naming innocent people so that they can become targets is ok because...?

Let's also keep the two different issues in their respective threads please.

i don't think i said that. there are plenty of wrongs to go around.

yes, we've already been through this once.

 

[Burnsys]

WikiLeaks Reportedly Outs 100s of Afghan Informants

Hundreds of Afghan civilians who worked as informants for the U.S. military have been put at risk by WikiLeaks' publication of more than 90,000 classified intelligence reports which name and in many cases locate the individuals, The Times newspaper reported Wednesday.

Click here to see The Times article, but note, it's behind a subscription firewall.

The article says, in spite of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange's claim that sensitive information had been removed from the leaked documents, that reporters scanning the reports for just a couple hours found hundreds of Afghan names mentioned as aiding the U.S.-led war effort.

USG fault, for using civilians as informants. It's a war. if they are using them as informants, they know there are risks associated to it.

 

[Burnsys]

Luckily, so far nothing like that happened, but such information can easily lead to rioting mob on the street. As I wrote earlier - stupid cartoons were enough for about 100 people to loose their lives. Same could happen now. If you don't see it, you are just lacking imagination.

People has the right to mob and riot in the street.
And the people that government is representing has the right to know what their government is doing.

 

[CRGreathouse]

I don't find the support for the interpol warrant. That seems weird to me. Apparently Sweden has weird sex laws.

That Assange may have violated a (minor) Swedish law is one thing, but that Interpol has a warrant out for him -- apparently in violation of their charter -- is another, and speaks strongly to US interference (perhaps via the UK or other EU member). That seems quite relevant to the thread, no?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Paypal just cut off Wikileaks.

 

[Mathnomalous]

People has the right to mob and riot in the street.
And the people that government is representing has the right to know what their government is doing.

One would think this would be the case but in reality the objective is giving the common person just enough rights so they will not challenge the status quo, that is, the common person will not challenge the people in power.

In theory, diplomats represent the interests of their nation. When a Chinese diplomat meets with a US diplomat, all the Chinese diplomat needs to do is check the mood of the US public towards the particular issue the Chinese diplomat wishes to discuss with the US diplomat; so, one would expect all the cards are already on the table and the negotiation is more or less straightforward. Except that what seems to take place are a series of back room deals that we are told we cannot understand and must stay out of. Well, how do I know my interests were properly represented? Unless, of course, my interests only matter in "spirit" and only the interests of the powerful and well-connected matter.

I am appalled and disturbed by the notion that the "average person on the street cannot understand" what takes place in international politics. Using that logic, one may prove the average person on the street is also incapable of understanding global economics, politics, complex social issues of the day, etc. Driving that false notion to its logical conclusion, one may say the average person on the street is incapable of understanding what goes no in his or her life and therefore only the "elite" deserve to rule.

And this is our world today. A world where a man who presented truth is accused of disrupting "social order." A world where challenging those in power is enough justification to call for that man's execution.

 

[Burnsys]

One would think this would be the case but in reality the objective is giving the common person just enough rights so they will not challenge the status quo, that is, the common person will not challenge the people in power.

In theory, diplomats represent the interests of their nation. When a Chinese diplomat meets with a US diplomat, all the Chinese diplomat needs to do is check the mood of the US public towards the particular issue the Chinese diplomat wishes to discuss with the US diplomat; so, one would expect all the cards are already on the table and the negotiation is more or less straightforward. Except that what seems to take place are a series of back room deals that we are told we cannot understand and must stay out of. Well, how do I know my interests were properly represented? Unless, of course, my interests only matter in "spirit" and only the interests of the powerful and well-connected matter.

I am appalled and disturbed by the notion that the "average person on the street cannot understand" what takes place in international politics. Using that logic, one may prove the average person on the street is also incapable of understanding global economics, politics, complex social issues of the day, etc. Driving that false notion to its logical conclusion, one may say the average person on the street is incapable of understanding what goes no in his or her life and therefore only the "elite" deserve to rule.

And this is our world today. A world where a man who presented truth is accused of disrupting "social order." A world where challenging those in power is enough justification to call for that man's execution.

Well said.
For example,i think i have the right to know if the us gov, has a "http://46.59.1.2/cable/2007/12/07BUENOSAIRES2345.html"" who disguise themselves as "Independent journalists"

And if the "Average" people "cannot understand..." then from that to " the average people is not qualified to vote" is only a very small step.

 

[JaredJames]

I put this in the other thread in response to Ivan, I've moved it now to here as it's a bit more relevant and just linked to it:

There was a BBC news report today:

China leadership 'orchestrated Google hacking'

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-11920616

Now, perhaps the 'who' wasn't so well known but is this really a surprise?

This is from an article almost a year before the 'leaks', a statement from Google itself:

Google said Tuesday the company and at least 20 others were victims of a "highly sophisticated and targeted attack" originating in China in mid-December, evidently to gain access to the e-mail accounts of Chinese human rights activists.

http://articles.cnn.com/2010-01-12/tech/google.china_1_google-search-engine-david-drummond?_s=PM:TECH

Chinese human rights activists where targetted. Any person who didn't think the Chinese government had anything to do with this are deluded. It was clear from the onset that it was a very specific attack and who was most likely behind it. So much so, that Google pulled out of China completely (not in that article, but they did in the end).

Aside from confirming what most of us already suspected, is this really new or shocking information?

Perhaps there are a few bits of info within the masses that are rather horrifying in content, but so far all I've seen has simply made me go "and you didn't think this was the case?".

 

[Fra]

That Assange may have violated a (minor) Swedish law is one thing

Let's just not that so far someone so claims. This isn't established.

And given how many enemies, and how much money his enemies have and what methods they are proven to use to gain their goals in other cases - I personally think the probability that someone is just trying to construct accusations is pretty high IMHO. In my eyes Assange is completely and fully innocent until proven guilty beyond doubt. Anyone accusing his is rather the prime suspect in this situation.

You can have different opinon on wether the leaks are good or bad. Clearly it has some bad effects (at least in the short term). But I'm personally more surprised how world leaders chose to react by condemning spreading of information rather than condemning what is beeing reported.

Some things that has been reported is enlightening, and the damaged admittedly caused by the release of this information, should teach us a lesson that it's really not a tenable situation to assume that it's possible to keep information from leaking. Information tend to leak, that's reality. Because of technical weakness but also because of humans involved.

So the lesson may be that a tenable development must not build on too much hidden information. A "world stability" that is conditional upon keeping certain information secret simply isn't good. It's rather a good way to construct a bomb. It's won't go off unless there is a leak, but to think that it will never leak is just not rational.

/Fredrik

 

[pftest]

I am appalled and disturbed by the notion that the "average person on the street cannot understand" what takes place in international politics. Using that logic, one may prove the average person on the street is also incapable of understanding global economics, politics, complex social issues of the day, etc.

Isnt that actually so? Most people do not understand global economics, politics, etc.

Driving that false notion to its logical conclusion, one may say the average person on the street is incapable of understanding what goes no in his or her life and therefore only the "elite" deserve to rule.

Most people do not understand programming languages either, but from this it doesn't logically follow that they have no understanding of anything in their lives. And they certainly shouldn't program software for others (that may be used in hospitals, airtraffic control, etc). Its an area of expertise that without the relevant knowledge can lead to disaster.

A hypothetical scenario:

Country A has oil, but needs metal.
Country B has metal, but needs oil.
Country C has nothing, but needs metal+oil.

A and B are enemies, and will not exchange goods.
A and B will also not exchange goods with other countries that deal with their enemies.

So country C does the following:
C secretly gives metal to A, in exchange for oil.
C secretly gives oil to B, in exchange for metal.
C charges both a bit extra, so it can keep some the goods for to itself.

Now all countries have what they want.
However, if all deals must be visible for everyone to see, none of the countries get what they need.

 

[Mathnomalous]

Isnt that actually so? Most people do not understand global economics, politics, etc.

It seems even the people who supposedly understand global economics, politics, etc. do not understand those areas well since economic collapses, political crises, wars, and other social ills continue to occur. And these people are the ones allegedly at the "helm of the ship."

Most people do not understand programming languages either, but from this it doesn't logically follow that they have no understanding of anything in their lives. And they certainly shouldn't program software for others (that may be used in hospitals, airtraffic control, etc). Its an area of expertise that without the relevant knowledge can lead to disaster.

Just because most people do not understand programming does not mean they should never receive a chance to learn how to program or at least observe how programming is done. I am not suggesting any random person off the street should be sent to Iran to talk international nuclear policy.

If someone does not understand a process, the appropriate solution is to inform and educate that person, not blocking off access or observation to said process.

A hypothetical scenario:

Country A has oil, but needs metal.
Country B has metal, but needs oil.
Country C has nothing, but needs metal+oil.

A and B are enemies, and will not exchange goods.
A and B will also not exchange goods with other countries that deal with their enemies.

So country C does the following:
C secretly gives metal to A, in exchange for oil.
C secretly gives oil to B, in exchange for metal.
C charges both a bit extra, so it can keep some the goods for to itself.

Now all countries have what they want.
However, if all deals must be visible for everyone to see, none of the countries get what they need.

Poisoned well.

You seem to assume countries A and B cannot settle their differences in a peaceful and transparent manner. You also seem to assume either country A or country B cannot come up with an alternative solution to their specific problem that does not require the resource either currently needs. Moreover, there could be a country D that solve country A's, B's, or C's problem. Given the way you present the problem, it seems that if neither country is willing to negotiate openly and transparently, then they are essentially committing "suicide."

What disturbs me is that the solutions you suggested, that country C act in a deceptive manner, is the most beneficial one. This is a very dangerous thing you do not seem to grasp, and indeed, many so-called educated people do not seem to understand: that it is acceptable to act in a deceptive manner if that means I get what I want, because, somehow, getting what I want is for the greater good.

 

[Borek]

If someone does not understand a process, the appropriate solution is to inform and educate that person, not blocking off access or observation to said process.

Nobody denies right to education, but the mob tends to react in a knee-jerk mode.

You seem to assume countries A and B cannot settle their differences in a peaceful and transparent manner. You also seem to assume either country A or country B cannot come up with an alternative solution to their specific problem that does not require the resource either currently needs. Moreover, there could be a country D that solve country A's, B's, or C's problem. Given the way you present the problem, it seems that if neither country is willing to negotiate openly and transparently, then they are essentially committing "suicide."

It is quite possible that govs of both countries A and B are well aware of what is going on, but they can't afford to speak directly, because of local nationalisms, local leaders that would prefer war instead of cooperation and so on. Yes, this is a poisoned well.

 

[Mathnomalous]

Nobody denies right to education, but the mob tends to react in a knee-jerk mode.

The "mob" generally obtains the information from the government or the news media. If diplomatic negotiations are carried out secretively, then any information the mob obtains will be filtered in one way or another.

It is quite possible that govs of both countries A and B are well aware of what is going on, but they can't afford to speak directly, because of local nationalisms, local leaders that would prefer war instead of cooperation and so on. Yes, this is a poisoned well.

That means countries A or B need to solve or minimize problems at home before they embark on international diplomacy.

 

[JaredJames]

That means countries A or B need to solve or minimize problems at home before they embark on international diplomacy.

This is all lovely mathnomalous, but it doesn't reflect reality.

I'd point out that just because the way things work is underhanded and sneaky, it doesn't mean anyone accepts it aside from those engaged in it.

I for one disagree with a great many things currently done in the UK, but I simply lack the ability to do anything about it. And as such they continue to happen, I'm certainly not accepting them.

I'm not saying we just let things continue like this and turn a blind eye, but there is a way of highlighting the current problems with how things are done and blanket revealing this data certainly isn't it.

Let's assume the above scenario is real, would publishing a mass of documents to all involved, showing the 'reality' of the situation do more harm than good? For one, it would certainly create tension and could very well be the end of trade between all three.

 

[Mathnomalous]

This is all lovely mathnomalous, but it doesn't reflect reality.

That is because this "reality" is twisted and sick. Any reasonable person understands that before taking on new challenges, present challenges must be overcome. If you can barely feed yourself, you cannot go out and buy a new car; if significant portions of your population live in poverty, you cannot go out and spread democracy to other countries.

I'd point out that just because the way things work is underhanded and sneaky, it doesn't mean anyone accepts it aside from those engaged in it.

I for one disagree with a great many things currently done in the UK, but I simply lack the ability to do anything about it. And as such they continue to happen, I'm certainly not accepting them.

I'm not saying we just let things continue like this and turn a blind eye, but there is a way of highlighting the current problems with how things are done and blanket revealing this data certainly isn't it.

Sure you can. Minimize, and eventually, cease all involvement with the current system. Show proof of the deficiencies of the system to others and convince them to take similar actions to yours. Your local public transit system enforces discriminatory policies? Boycott them (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montgomery_bus_boycott); sure, some people might lose their jobs, but it is actually for the greater good.

Let's assume the above scenario is real, would publishing a mass of documents to all involved, showing the 'reality' of the situation do more harm than good? For one, it would certainly create tension and could very well be the end of trade between all three.

Then all three would essentially commit suicide.

Unless these countries have other options available, I fail to see how anyone benefits from ceasing all trade. What you are suggesting is that even countries act irrationally in the presence of truth, thus the system only works if layers of deception are maintained.

Apparently, diplomacy, politics, finance, and other complex systems are so unsavory, scummy, disgusting, that they must be carried out with the utmost secrecy, and any information must be filtered and cleaned before being released. That transparency and honesty will rarely get anything done because people and nations are so petty, they cannot overcome their irrational emotions.

Deception is prosperity. Honesty is misery.

 

[JaredJames]

That is because this "reality" is twisted and sick. Any reasonable person understands that before taking on new challenges, present challenges must be overcome. If you can barely feed yourself, you cannot go out and buy a new car; if significant portions of your population live in poverty, you cannot go out and spread democracy to other countries.

Yep, about that's right.

Sure you can. Minimize, and eventually, cease all involvement with the current system. Show proof of the deficiencies of the system to others and convince them to take similar actions to yours. Your local public transit system enforces discriminatory policies? Boycott them (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montgomery_bus_boycott); sure, some people might lose their jobs, but it is actually for the greater good.

You mean the current system that provides with basic materials we require to survive? Interesting point of view. Now that is committing suicide.

Then all three would essentially commit suicide.

Commit suicide or be murdered? To commit suicide they would have to release the documents themselves. They don't, someone else does who really speaking doesn't have anything lose. They release the documents and take three countries down. Like I said, there are better ways to go about getting change. Potentially causing countries to crash and burn is not one of them.

Setting a trap and triggering it yourself, causing your own death is suicide. Setting a trap and someone else deliberately triggering it to kill you is murder. Someone else is putting these governments in this situation. Like I keep saying, there are better ways to do this than to dump a load of potentially dangerous files onto the internet.

Unless these countries have other options available, I fail to see how anyone benefits from ceasing all trade. What you are suggesting is that even countries act irrationally in the presence of truth, thus the system only works if layers of deception are maintained.

They don't, but the public could react badly if they found out the truth and it could cause problems in itself. The government doesn't have to cease trading, the public could force it.

Apparently, diplomacy, politics, finance, and other complex systems are so unsavory, scummy, disgusting, that they must be carried out with the utmost secrecy, and any information must be filtered and cleaned before being released. That transparency and honesty will rarely get anything done because people and nations are so petty, they cannot overcome their irrational emotions.

Nations are petty. They will disagree a lot. Common goals are few and far between.

If a bit of secrecy is required to help things along, so be it.

 

[Danger]

Isnt that actually so? Most people do not understand global economics, politics, etc.

Most people do not understand programming languages either, but from this it doesn't logically follow that they have no understanding of anything in their lives. And they certainly shouldn't program software for others (that may be used in hospitals, airtraffic control, etc). Its an area of expertise that without the relevant knowledge can lead to disaster.

A hypothetical scenario:

Country A has oil, but needs metal.
Country B has metal, but needs oil.
Country C has nothing, but needs metal+oil.

A and B are enemies, and will not exchange goods.
A and B will also not exchange goods with other countries that deal with their enemies.

So country C does the following:
C secretly gives metal to A, in exchange for oil.
C secretly gives oil to B, in exchange for metal.
C charges both a bit extra, so it can keep some the goods for to itself.

Now all countries have what they want.
However, if all deals must be visible for everyone to see, none of the countries get what they need.

You can just emulate the USA; make up non-existent weapons of mass destruction as an excuse to invade the country whose resources you want.

 

[pftest]

It seems even the people who supposedly understand global economics, politics, etc. do not understand those areas well since economic collapses, political crises, wars, and other social ills continue to occur. And these people are the ones allegedly at the "helm of the ship."

Just because most people do not understand programming does not mean they should never receive a chance to learn how to program or at least observe how programming is done. I am not suggesting any random person off the street should be sent to Iran to talk international nuclear policy.

Sure, theyre allowed to have the opportunity to learn it all. And after many years of such learning, they will be the politicians and diplomats that we are talking about here. And once someone has learned programming well enough, he will be allowed to program such software. Before that? No.

Poisoned well.

You seem to assume countries A and B cannot settle their differences in a peaceful and transparent manner. You also seem to assume either country A or country B cannot come up with an alternative solution to their specific problem that does not require the resource either currently needs. Moreover, there could be a country D that solve country A's, B's, or C's problem. Given the way you present the problem, it seems that if neither country is willing to negotiate openly and transparently, then they are essentially committing "suicide."

What disturbs me is that the solutions you suggested, that country C act in a deceptive manner, is the most beneficial one. This is a very dangerous thing you do not seem to grasp, and indeed, many so-called educated people do not seem to understand: that it is acceptable to act in a deceptive manner if that means I get what I want, because, somehow, getting what I want is for the greater good.

Youre missing the point: we need only 1 example of a hypthetical situation where secrecy is beneficial for those involved, to falsify the idea that all secrecy is necessarily bad.

Looking at the scenario's you describe above, it seems you are imagining a perfect world, where nations settle their differences peacefully, where everyone benefits in equal amount, etc. Sure, if everyone was always going to remain peaceful, and everyone agreed to share all resources equally, then maybe we can be completely open about everything and it will go ok. But that's just not the world we live in. A single rotten apple, let alone billions of them, and this no longer works.

Its the same as saying that 2 people should never be violent towards each other, and should always talk to resolve issues. But in the real world, one of the two might have paranoid schizophrenia and attack the other, who then has to defend himself with more than just words. Simple example, but it represents a virtually infinite amount of other factors that prevent us from living in a utopia.

 

[Danger]

But in the real world, one of the two might have paranoid schizophrenia and attack the other

And who is the paranoid schizo? His initials begin with U and S.
Evo, I hope you know that I love you more than life itself. I barely know Monique, but have always respected her intelligence and neutrality. In regard to this discussion, she is absolutely correct and your are not. I feel bad about disagreeing with you, but reality knows no borders. The man did nothing wrong other than in the minds of those with something to hide.