Wikileaks

[Cantabile]

Scott Bakker just had an article on the Wikileaks fiasco published here: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/opinion/wikileaks-not-all-hypocrisies-are-equal/article1821262/

The father of ancient cynicism, Diogenes, became famous for decrying human hypocrisy. The ancient Greeks were so impressed they began calling him kunikos, from which the word cynicism is derived.

Nowadays, the Internet has replaced the Grecian agora; WikiLeaks has taken up Diogenes’s mantle. As the largely pedestrian nature of the documents becomes apparent, more and more pundits seem to be questioning the significance of the massive disclosure. Who could be surprised that administration officials talk one way to their international counterparts and another among themselves? This is what humans do.

Think about this in terms of your own family. Sure, you complain about your mother-in-law, and odds are, she has a pretty good sense of the things you say. Then, for whatever reason, your sister-in-law decides to tell her something that you said. What do you do?

Cringe. Curse. Then begin saying things about your sister-in-law.

No one is surprised – yet everyone is scandalized. Why?

Because so much of human communication is strategic in nature. Whether we realize it or not, we speak to the future as much as we speak to one another. We spin. We recruit. We delegitimize perceived competitors. We fudge to leave room for future rationalizations. And at some level, we always understand that we are talking on the record, so we parse our words accordingly.

You curse because your sister-in-law has robbed you of the ability to deny those assumptions, which is just to say, the ability to pretend. She has, in fact, done real damage to your familial status and prestige. Rob a person of their ability to pretend and you rob them of real social power.

She is sure to take the moral high ground, saying things like, “I’m sorry. I just assumed you weren’t the kind of person who talked behind other peoples’ backs.” No one, after all, advertises themselves as a pretender.

And you, for your part, will also take the moral high ground and accuse her of betraying the family trust. Instinctively, you will understand that the more you undermine her reputation, the more you will be able to repair your own.

Some members of the family will take sides. But most will try to stay above the fray by saying strategic things. Far and away the biggest question will be, “Why the hell did you tell her anything in the first place?”

In other words, “How could this leak have happened?”

Given what we now know about human nature, we can safely assume there will always be a chasm between our public ideals and our private actions, be they institutional or individual. This just means that pretense is a crucial background feature of the human game. Hypocrisy is literally inescapable. Demonizing it on principle, the way Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks, is prone to do, is simply another way to secure prestige through verbal posturing.

So, should we just shake our heads with a here-we-go-again sigh?

The fact remains: When you damage an individual’s or institution’s ability to strategically communicate, you damage their ability to realize their social ambitions. This means this latest WikiLeaks disclosure is anything but insignificant. It also means the question of whether WikiLeaks has done a good or bad thing really comes down to what you think of the U.S. administration’s agenda.

The same goes for you and your sister-in-law. Maybe you’re honestly trying to spare your mother-in-law her feelings. Maybe you’re angling for a larger slice of the inheritance pie.

Not all hypocrisies are equal. Even when they come in batches of 250,000.

The line about the chasm between our ideals and actions strikes a chord; human nature does indeed seem to dictate that this will always exist, yet that seems more a product of socialization than any innate quality of our species. If we are stripped of our ability to pretend and deceive, then our actions are forced to coincide with our ideals, otherwise we risk standing out as hypocrites, liars, or worse That is the vital value I see in a resource like Wikileaks: if dirty laundry is shoved in the public's face, it might just force the government to wash it. Obviously this doesn't have much meaning for trivial details that are posted in leaks, but documents that directly show that the government's actions are not aligned with their ideals, or their claims, should be screamed out from the mountaintops. The more secrecy you grant, the more room for corruption and abuse you allow.

[Kouran]

While I will in no way make excuses for some of the things our diplomats write about. I will say putting everything out there can and will cause damage. For example, the President of Yemen talking with Gen Petraeus where he agrees with American missile strikes against AQAP.

Look we all know the US is hitting Al-Queda targets in Yemen, but having written proof that the President of Yemen agreed to them, when in the parlimint he has denied all knowledge is going to make recruiting for AQAP easier. People will die becuase of this document.

There is transparent government and then there is stupidity, which this sort of release falls under.

[Guest Raidne]

Bakker's analogy holds up as a study in the American diplomat's relationship with other countries, but not at as commentary on the American citizen's relationship with the government, unless he is such a cynic that he thinks that the appearance of an informed electorate is all that is necessary for a functioning Democratic Republic.

It fits with our new media narrative though - out with Palin and Fox's message to charge Assange with treason and summarily execute him, and in with the Obama administration's strategy of marginalizing him and his information.

Just to give this some context, from The Daily Beast, 9 Most Shocking WikiLeaks Secrets. To summarize that would be:

(1) Yemen pretends that U.S. drone bombs are theirs.

(2) China hacked Google, gmail accounts of dissidents, the computers of Americans, and the Dalai Lama's computer

(3) Hillary asked diplomats to spy and report back credit card numbers, email addresses, cellphone numbers, and DNA of the members of the U.N. Security Council, including the Secretary General, in violation of the 1946 convention of privileges and immunities of U.N. member states

(4) Shadowy gifts and business deals between Berlusconi and Putin

(5) Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah asked for a U.S. strike on Iran

(6) Afghani Vice President Ahmed Zia Mussaud came through the UAE with $52 million - in cash (obviously carrying heavy implications that he's completely corrupt, related to the drug trade, or arms dealing, or other totally unsavory activities of which we are apparently totally aware as we apparently didn't care)

(7) U.S. offers foreign governments favors and cash payouts to take Guantanamo detainees (not really what I thought Obama had been promising....)

(8) U.S. and South Korea are making plans to reuinte the Koreas

(9) The U.S. thinks Angela Merkel is totally lame....okay, that one fits. :)

[Arthmail]

To be honest, i find the one about the vice-president of Afghanistan the most disturbing one. I was friends with the Calgary Herald journalist killed in Afghanistan last year, and another family friend was killed there as a soldier.

I think we have long known the amount of corruption that happens during war time situations like this, especially with all of the money that is being thrown at the situation.

But that these things are occuring, that there seems to be little desire to stop them, only says to me that our situation there is untenable. I appreciate this leak, because i think things like this should be a clarion call to take a deeper look to see if this "war" is worth a shit.

I happen to think its not.

As a side note, i'm deeply suspicious of the sudden rape charges against Assange. This is too convenient, to be honest, and given what i have read of both accusations, they seem too similar. That is not to say that it cannot be true, but the cynical part of me looks at the situation and has severe doubts.

[alguien]

Wow, my "but we don't actually TALK about Aunt Harriet's drinking problem" comment was surprisingly parallel with Bakker's line of reasoning.

[Guest Raidne]

As a side note, i'm deeply suspicious of the sudden rape charges against Assange. This is too convenient, to be honest, and given what i have read of both accusations, they seem too similar. That is not to say that it cannot be true, but the cynical part of me looks at the situation and has severe doubts.

They are so similar that I'm inclined to think that it all happened at the same time? I'm not so sure about the comments against the veracity of the charges - this kind of thing happens really often without the perpetrator understanding in the slightest that it's any kind of crime. If I was a gambler, I'd bet that he did it.

Botched assassinations, DNA collection, warmongering, and CHANGE YOU CAN BELIEVE IN are not supported by me, so this seems to be spot on.

I don't think the leaks have been damaging to the U.S. in the slightest, with the exception that they may have contributed toward the destablization of Yemen and Pakistan, and I imagine the latter is not something you're really in favor of.

[Cantabile]

(1) Yemen pretends that U.S. drone bombs are theirs.

(2) China hacked Google, gmail accounts of dissidents, the computers of Americans, and the Dalai Lama's computer

(3) Hillary asked diplomats to spy and report back credit card numbers, email addresses, cellphone numbers, and DNA of the members of the U.N. Security Council, including the Secretary General, in violation of the 1946 convention of privileges and immunities of U.N. member states

(4) Shadowy gifts and business deals between Berlusconi and Putin

(5) Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah asked for a U.S. strike on Iran

(6) Afghani Vice President Ahmed Zia Mussaud came through the UAE with $52 million - in cash (obviously carrying heavy implications that he's completely corrupt, related to the drug trade, or arms dealing, or other totally unsavory activities of which we are apparently totally aware as we apparently didn't care)

(7) U.S. offers foreign governments favors and cash payouts to take Guantanamo detainees (not really what I thought Obama had been promising....)

(8) U.S. and South Korea are making plans to reuinte the Koreas

(9) The U.S. thinks Angela Merkel is totally lame....okay, that one fits. :)

I do believe a lot of unnecessary documents get released in these dumps, but when significant revelations occur too, like those points, then I believe it justifies the release as a whole. How anyone can think most of those things should be classified and not known by the public is beyond me.

[Quoth]

I don't think the leaks have been damaging to the U.S. in the slightest, with the exception that they may have contributed toward the destablization of Yemen and Pakistan, and I imagine the latter is not something you're really in favor of.

Are they not damaging in the sense of a chilling effect on diplomatic communications, and/or the chilling effect they would presumably have upon those allies aiding US efforts who would likely face some sort of retribution?

[Sariel]

While I will in no way make excuses for some of the things our diplomats write about. I will say putting everything out there can and will cause damage. For example, the President of Yemen talking with Gen Petraeus where he agrees with American missile strikes against AQAP.

Look we all know the US is hitting Al-Queda targets in Yemen, but having written proof that the President of Yemen agreed to them, when in the parlimint he has denied all knowledge is going to make recruiting for AQAP easier. People will die becuase of this document.

There is transparent government and then there is stupidity, which this sort of release falls under.

If I was from Yemen and discovered that my president (perhaps the one I voted for even) had lied not only to the media but also to parliament, especially considering the gravity of what was done, I would be pretty angry. In fact, to me that alone is reason not to vote for him again.

It's not all about the US you know, even though the cables were sent to, or came from the US diplomatic machinery.

[Arthmail]

Raidne....you do realize you have 40 some posts by 9 in the morning, right?

[Guest Raidne]

Raidne....you do realize you have 40 some posts by 9 in the morning, right?

No, I've posted something like 6 posts today. The others are probably from last night where I was bored at home and husband was at his office Christmas party and I did, indeed, overdo it a bit while "watching" Law and Order reruns.

[Guest Raidne]

Are they not damaging in the sense of a chilling effect on diplomatic communications, and/or the chilling effect they would presumably have upon those allies aiding US efforts who would likely face some sort of retribution?

Yesterday I read every single article the NY Times has published on this, along with a lot of stuff from Slate and The Daily Beast, and elsewhere, and it doesn't look that way. Check out this commentary from Robert Gates:

Let me just offer some perspective as somebody who’s been at this a long time. Every other government in the world knows the United States government leaks like a sieve, and it has for a long time....Now, I’ve heard the impact of these releases on our foreign policy described as a meltdown, as a game-changer, and so on. I think those descriptions are fairly significantly overwrought. The fact is, governments deal with the United States because it’s in their interest, not because they like us, not because they trust us, and not because they believe we can keep secrets. Many governments — some governments — deal with us because they fear us, some because they respect us, most because they need us. We are still essentially, as has been said before, the indispensable nation.

“So other nations will continue to deal with us. They will continue to work with us. We will continue to share sensitive information with one another

Note the next "similar" article is "Gates Angry About Defense-Related Leaks" so this is a change of tune, but, I think, true, nevertheless.

[The Iceman of the North]

Seems like the Pentagon have finally taken some steps following the latest Wikileaks leaks.

[Shryke]

Bakker's analogy holds up as a study in the American diplomat's relationship with other countries, but not at as commentary on the American citizen's relationship with the government, unless he is such a cynic that he thinks that the appearance of an informed electorate is all that is necessary for a functioning Democratic Republic.

It fits with our new media narrative though - out with Palin and Fox's message to charge Assange with treason and summarily execute him, and in with the Obama administration's strategy of marginalizing him and his information.

Just to give this some context, from The Daily Beast, 9 Most Shocking WikiLeaks Secrets. To summarize that would be:

(1) Yemen pretends that U.S. drone bombs are theirs.

(2) China hacked Google, gmail accounts of dissidents, the computers of Americans, and the Dalai Lama's computer

(3) Hillary asked diplomats to spy and report back credit card numbers, email addresses, cellphone numbers, and DNA of the members of the U.N. Security Council, including the Secretary General, in violation of the 1946 convention of privileges and immunities of U.N. member states

(4) Shadowy gifts and business deals between Berlusconi and Putin

(5) Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah asked for a U.S. strike on Iran

(6) Afghani Vice President Ahmed Zia Mussaud came through the UAE with $52 million - in cash (obviously carrying heavy implications that he's completely corrupt, related to the drug trade, or arms dealing, or other totally unsavory activities of which we are apparently totally aware as we apparently didn't care)

(7) U.S. offers foreign governments favors and cash payouts to take Guantanamo detainees (not really what I thought Obama had been promising....)

(8) U.S. and South Korea are making plans to reuinte the Koreas

(9) The U.S. thinks Angela Merkel is totally lame....okay, that one fits. :)

Man, that's not even a good list. They totally missed the CIA capturing and holding a German citizen for 4 months because he had the same name as someone they were looking for. And then the US basically blackmailed the German government into letting the CIA agents go and forgetting about it.

(7) U.S. offers foreign governments favors and cash payouts to take Guantanamo detainees (not really what I thought Obama had been promising....)

Important thing here, I think those detainees he was asking them to take off the US's hands were their own citizens. That's the way it's rumored to have worked with Canada anyway.

They were trying to get foreign governments to clear out Guantanamo since the US's wouldn't do it.

[Guest Raidne]

Man, that's not even a good list. They totally missed the CIA capturing and holding a German citizen for 4 months because he had the same name as someone they were looking for. And then the US basically blackmailed the German government into letting the CIA agents go and forgetting about it.

It's from the Daily Beast. I'm sure we could make changes.

Least surprising leak? "Canadians feel unimportant on global stage, enjoy TV shows that vilify Americans."

Important thing here, I think those detainees he was asking them to take off the US's hands were their own citizens. That's the way it's rumored to have worked with Canada anyway.

I'm not sure about all that. Despite what Canada apparently thinks we think about them, I think we know better than to ask Canada to do something like that.

In reading up on that, you know what else should be on that list of surprising revelations? "U.S. declines to implant Guantanamo detainees with electronic tracking chips."

Anyway, here's what we're looking for:

In a global bazaar of sorts, the American officials sweet-talked and haggled with their foreign counterparts in an effort to resettle the detainees who had been cleared for release but could not be repatriated for fear of mistreatment, the cables show.

"Resettle." Plus, I don't think we have a lot of detainees who were originally from the Maldives or Kiribati.

...the Bush administration offered the Pacific nation of Kiribati “an incentive package” of $3 million to take 17 Chinese Muslim detainees.

And then there are the screw-ups...

The United States repatriated other detainees for prosecution at home. Afghanistan, however, granted pretrial releases to 29 out of 41 such former detainees from Guantánamo, allowing “dangerous individuals to go free or re-enter the battlefield without ever facing an Afghan court,” diplomats in Kabul complained in a July 2009 cable.

Nice.

Also, WTF, the Saudis have a terrorist rehabilitation program?

Several cables shed light on the Saudis’ rehabilitation program. A March 2009 dispatch estimated that the program had processed 1,500 extremists, including 119 former detainees. That cable put the “recidivism rate” at 8 to 10 percent, arguing that “the real story of the Saudi rehabilitation program is one of success: at least 90 percent of its graduates appear to have given up jihad and reintegrated into Saudi society.”

The NY Times coverage on all this has really been astoundingly good. It's like they are finally able to report all this stuff they weren't allowed to talk about before.

[Shryke]

I'm not sure about all that. Despite what Canada apparently thinks we think about them, I think we know better than to ask Canada to do something like that.

What do you mean? The US captured and just tried a Canadian citizen that the Harper government has repeatedly refused to try and help. The rumors before the leak started were that the US had strongly, strongly urged Harper to take him off the US's hands.

"Resettle." Plus, I don't think we have a lot of detainees who were originally from the Maldives or Kiribati.

Man, I wouldn't pretend to think where the US wouldn't be kidnapping people from.

But missed the part about "resettling". Not a bad idea though.

[Guest Raidne]

What do you mean? The US captured and just tried a Canadian citizen that the Harper government has repeatedly refused to try and help. The rumors before the leak started were that the US had strongly, strongly urged Harper to take him off the US's hands.

By "that," I meant take detainees that are not Canadian. You should go to the NY Times and read the articles - it's informative stuff. There's a lot of simplification and unclarity in the reporting in other American media outlets.

[Guy Kilmore]

Also, WTF, the Saudis have a terrorist rehabilitation program?

MPR had a bunch of stories about that last winter. Here is one, but there are couple of others on their site.

http://minnesota.publicradio.org/features/npr.php?id=123661284

[Commodore]

Raidne and others might enjoy this debate over Wikileaks

[Happy Ent]

Raidne and others might enjoy this debate over Wikileaks

Godwined just before the end. Point for Assange.