Wikileaks

[Yoadm]

I'm not sure you can ever label diplomatic cables as personal and informal. Trying to force them into the "private and informal" sphere just because you see little value in it or think it damages relations between countries does unfortunately not change that.

Umm, not everything coming out of an individual's mouth is 'official' or formal just because he holds a government job. Two government workers speaking their opinion is not a formal assesment. Even a formal assesment does not nesseceraly have to become automatically public for everyone to see, considering many of them can damage countries relations. In both cases, there might be a minority of those conversations that compromise human rights and I would support their being exposed for a greater cause. Exposing everything? Hardly justified.

While workers have a right to privacy, what you state as part of your work is not considered private and informal. Also, expressing oneself informally does not necessarily mean that the information or the purpose is private and informal. It seems there is a lot of confusion over these two.

The purpose is irrelevant. He is still an individual stating his opinion or having a conversation. Just because he holds a government job or is a low ranking diplomat does not mean he has no right to privacy. If a diplomat ends a meating with a German delagate, and speaks his mind of the conversation, does that have to be private? Everything ever said between government officials and diplomats? It's absurd.

[Old Nan]

Personal conversations between diplomats, for instance. Not official reports.

Which they knew were recorded and would eventually be made publicly accessible anyway, no?

Umm, not everything coming out of an individual's mouth is 'official' or formal just because he holds a government job. Two government workers speaking their opinion is not a formal assesment.

Formal? No. Official? Yes, absolutely. How could work done on behalf of the office for which these people worked not be official? These aren't logs of their Solitaire games we're talking about, but assessment and planning about work-related issues.

It's absurd.

Why? Yes, that the individuals are employed by an ostensibly democratic government does make them different from those who aren't. Governments are necessary evils, not forces for good; that's the entire point of democracy. Making those evil people uncomfortable is nothing but a plus.

[Yoadm]

Which they knew were recorded and would eventually be made publicly accessible anyway, no?

Obviousely not in the near future, considering the delicate art of diplomacy. Or should every opinion, comment, formal/informal or offhanded be public to everyone? Why not put Army military plans up to public scrutiny? Contingency plans? Launch codes? Where do you put the limit?

Formal? No. Official? Yes, absolutely. How could work done on behalf of the office for which these people worked not be official?

For instance, there is an official statement coming out of an embassy. Prior to it, workers in the embassy debate, share opinions, in order to either form this document or not. One is an official statement, the others are not.

Why? Yes, that the individuals are employed by an ostensibly democratic government does make them different from those who aren't. Governments are necessary evils, not forces for good; that's the entire point of democracy. Making those evil people uncomfortable is nothing but a plus.

Which 'evil' people? That people who work in the government know that nothing they say will stay private? That they cannot form any strategy without anyone (including the country's enemies) knowing about it? That's not democracy, that has a touch of anarchy in it.

[Old Nan]

Or should every opinion, comment, formal/informal or offhanded be public to everyone?

If you work for a government, sure.

Why not put Army military plans up to public scrutiny? Contingency plans? Launch codes? Where do you put the limit?

What, are we at war?

For instance, there is an official statement coming out of an embassy. Prior to it, workers in the embassy debate, share opinions, in order to either form this document or not. One is an official statement, the others are not.

One is a pronouncement; the other is not. Both are official.

Which 'evil' people?

Weren't you the one beating the "organizations are made up of individuals" drum? People who work for evil are evil.

that has a touch of anarchy in it.

Aw, shucks.

[Yoadm]

All of it should be open until further notice. There's nothing in the constitution that says the government is allowed to have secrets.

And don't quote me Reynolds, either.

Ok so nuclear launch codes allso have to be public? Army contingency plans? Secret projects? Key government military technology?

So what?

So this has nothing to do with public knowledge, it's informal, a private opinion.

What enemies? Any enemies we have at this point are products of secrecy and idiotic empire building.

Any army, for instance, has contingency plans, both offensive and defensive. The US army, for instance, has a plan that, in case the Pakistani army collapses, it takes controll of their nuclear installations to prevent them falling to the hands of militants. Do you think the specifics of these plans should be public for everyone? How far do you take this?

[MinDonner]

These are all very noble sentiments, but sadly with little practical application into the actual real world that we all live in. We shouldn't have nukes, so the launch codes should be public? We shouldn't be involved with [insert issue here], so everyone ought to know what contingency plans there are in case of disasters? This is pie-in-the-sky stuff, Coco, and deserves as much attention as a non-American saying something like "well Americans shouldn't have a gun culture in the first place" in a gun control thread. That horse has bolted long ago, and all the "shoulds" in the world are not going to change that.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Coco,

Be prepared for the "Necessary and Proper clause". It gives the feds the power to do those things "necessary and proper" to utilize the power given to them in the Constitution. Thus, as defense of the US is a power granted to the Federal Government it is arguable that a degree secrecy is "necessary and proper" to the accomplishment of the task of defending the US from foreign and domestic enemies.

(This doesn't mean I don't agree we should be able to have access to this information just that there is a Constitutional argument for the existence of laws protecting "State Secrets").

[Yoadm]

Yes, yes, yes, yes.

Again, give me some legal justification for holding this information secret.

For the same reason some private information stays secret: That it can harm people, a lot of people. Do you believe the US plan to defend south korea should be open to all, including NK? Do you think people should be able to know the inner security of US military facilities thereby being able to compromise them? What about the codes for the US's computers, ICBM fleet, etc? Where does it stop?

They are civil servants, public servants, and thus their views should be public.

Their private views are their own.

We shouldn't be in Afghanistan, we shouldn't be in Pakistan, so yes, I think all plans should be released to the public.

Yes yes, everything the US government does is bad. But say Pakistan disintegrates due to no fault of the US, and it has a plan to prevent nuclear weapons from falling to the taliban. Should the world know the intricacies of that plan?

[Lyanna Stark]

For the same reason some private information stays secret: That it can harm people, a lot of people. Do you believe the US plan to defend south korea should be open to all, including NK? Do you think people should be able to know the inner security of US military facilities thereby being able to compromise them? What about the codes for the US's computers, ICBM fleet, etc? Where does it stop?

Isn't this really comparing apples to oranges, needless flailing, etc etc?

WikiLeaks hasn't released any codes, so I don't think this is relevant at this time to discuss. A "What If?" scenario isn't really either. "But what if they release my bank details??" is the same sort of thinking. The shouting about how people are dying because of the leak is also so far not proven to be true. As I have stated before: the sky isn't falling. I checked yesterday and I checked today, it's still there.

Coco:

Yeah, because the current state of unstable Pakistani politics, say, the Pakistani judicial system, has nothing to do with US support for Musharraf.

Tssh tssh you are ruining the dramatic impact by inserting a Healthy Dose of Reality. Shame on you. :)

[Lyanna Stark]

Heh, what I guess I don't understand is this insistence that:

- these state secrets are actually making us safer.

- There are secret "contingency plans" out there that will keep us safe

It's pretty evident that we aren't safer for having gobs of state secrets, and that any contingency plans the military or the Pentagon or whoever has are completely ineffectual or, even make the problem worse (esp Katrina and the BP spill).

I completely agree.

If nothing else, the cables show that a lot of situations are actually stuff that isn't handled easily and where there are no contingency plans what so ever. Iraq is definitely case in point, apart from the ones you listed above. How that was ever convieved to be a good idea, or even a vaguely average idea is beyond me.

To me, it shows that presidents, prime ministers and people in power are after all just people like you and I; they're mere mortals after all. Even world politics is very much based on the human condition and there are no sekrit and uber-special plans for all sorts of things.

Also, having been around the corporate circus for a while, we all know how well planning documents actually work out, on average. Hint: not ever 100% and often just not at all. Why would world politics be different? It's just more of the same, but on a bigger scale. Kind of reassuring in an odd sort of way. :)

It seems people are basing their views on popular culture when it comes to these things more often than not.

[Yoadm]

I'm sure the people who were crushed by rubble and fire in the Twin Towers and the Pentagon would love to know how SEEEEECRIT documents detailing the secret funding of the mujahideen in Afghanistan benefited them.

As for Korea, I don't think we should be there.

Please, feel free to cite me a cable that compromises US security.

You don't have to convince me that alot of covert government action is bad, but the extreme opposing view is just as bad. Your premise goes that the US is allways the bad guy, and if it acted well, no one would attack it or want to harm it, thus there is no need for any kind of covert security. That is not the case. Without the state's ability to keep anything secret, enemies know precisely if you are following them, your plans, your defence plans, your diplomatic ovatures, everything. There has to be regulation, but there is a limit to making everything public for everyone to see.

Yeah, because the current state of unstable Pakistani politics, say, the Pakistani judicial system, has nothing to do with US support for Musharraf.

You will always find cases where the US is at fault and always point a finger. In some places that is not the case, and in others it is utterly irrelevant because even if the US made mistakes, it has to protect itself. So, say the US is partly to blame for the situation in Pakistan, should it then not have a covert defence option in case terrorists receive, for instance, a Pakistani nuclear weapon?

[Yoadm]

Isn't this really comparing apples to oranges, needless flailing, etc etc?

WikiLeaks hasn't released any codes, so I don't think this is relevant at this time to discuss. A "What If?" scenario isn't really either. "But what if they release my bank details??" is the same sort of thinking. The shouting about how people are dying because of the leak is also so far not proven to be true. As I have stated before: the sky isn't falling. I checked yesterday and I checked today, it's still there.

Im giving you an extreme example because people here who support wikileaks support full disclosure of everything governmental. Naturally I gave them a worst case scenario.

Thing is, in international relations, defence, etc.. sometimes you can't share your plans with the whole world. The US could never have opened up China to the world in the late 70's without years of covert negotiation, since China would never have been ready to admit the relationship prior. The Oslo peace agreements between Israel and the PLO were, at first, secret because the Palestinians would have lynched their leadership prior to that. The PLO had to wait untill it could present a comprehensive peace deal or it would never have worked. Indeed, prior to what coco thinks, there are countries which are agressive and the US is not always at fault. Other countries need to plan to defend themselves from them, thus they can't disclose all of their diplomatic, defence or economic plans to everyone. What about dissidents in Iran cooperating with the west. Should their names be published aswell? Or alternatively should the correspondence be published for the world to see? Saying that everything can be open requires a eutopic world where there are no revisionists states and everyone wants everyone's best interest. It is naive and silly.

Btw: I fully support disclosure of specific information, like human rights abuses or illegal activity. Opening up everything without any agenda hurts people.

[Yoadm]

Where are the cables about Iranian dissidents?

(Incidentally, I knew you'd drop Iran as an example. Too bad Iran hasn't had an aggressive war since the Islamic Revolution, and their most significant war was, ZING!, fomented by the good old USA and Saddam Hussein himself )

Skipped the last two paragraphs above because they were directed to another member, and I do feel we are both at an impass. No, I didn't say cables about Iranian dissidents were published... yet, but according to your philosophy that everything should be published, even such incidents are fair game. Also, though Iran has not engaged in an agressive war (in the last 200 years infact), it has engaged in many neo-colonialist escapades in Lebanon and Iraq.

[Swordfish]

Which ones are those? The only country in the past 60 years I can think of that didn't have our hands in it is Yugoslavia, and that's probably debatable.

The obvious elephant in the room here is Canada. Friggin canuckistan......

;)

[Old Nan]

Thing is, in international relations, defence, etc.. sometimes you can't share your plans with the whole world. The US could never have opened up China to the world in the late 70's without years of covert negotiation, since China would never have been ready to admit the relationship prior. The Oslo peace agreements between Israel and the PLO were, at first, secret because the Palestinians would have lynched their leadership prior to that. The PLO had to wait untill it could present a comprehensive peace deal or it would never have worked. Indeed, prior to what coco thinks, there are countries which are agressive and the US is not always at fault. Other countries need to plan to defend themselves from them, thus they can't disclose all of their diplomatic, defence or economic plans to everyone. What about dissidents in Iran cooperating with the west. Should their names be published aswell?

Well, all of those diplomatic endeavors have been good for totalitarian one-worlders. For the rest of us? Not so much. Got better examples?

[gryphon strike]

Obviousely not in the near future, considering the delicate art of diplomacy. Or should every opinion, comment, formal/informal or offhanded be public to everyone? Why not put Army military plans up to public scrutiny? Contingency plans? Launch codes? Where do you put the limit?

For instance, there is an official statement coming out of an embassy. Prior to it, workers in the embassy debate, share opinions, in order to either form this document or not. One is an official statement, the others are not.

Which 'evil' people? That people who work in the government know that nothing they say will stay private? That they cannot form any strategy without anyone (including the country's enemies) knowing about it? That's not democracy, that has a touch of anarchy in it.

Then it would be best if the Government involved were to actually use it's security in the correct manner, ie all embassy comments being encoded at the same level as all military communications. Not to mention the fact that one of the reasons these "diplomats" ( ROFLMAO) are well paid to keep their opinions on these things to themselves other than in official reports. The nature of many of these leaks shows just how truly pathetic they are at their job.

Once this stuff hits the public it is out there so they have no right to try and charge Assange or persecute him.

I have doubts about the charges from Sweden for one reason only and that is that when originally reported the Swedish police investigated and dropped the charges. Now that there has been another release of information through wikileaks they suddenly regard the charges as valid?

If Assange did indeed commit rape then he needs to spend a long time in gaol. The thing is it is Swedens police force that has caused many people to doubt and I doubt a conviction is possible in a fair court.

[Yoadm]

Then it would be best if the Government involved were to actually use it's security in the correct manner, ie all embassy comments being encoded at the same level as all military communications. Not to mention the fact that one of the reasons these "diplomats" ( ROFLMAO) are well paid to keep their opinions on these things to themselves other than in official reports. The nature of many of these leaks shows just how truly pathetic they are at their job.

Once this stuff hits the public it is out there so they have no right to try and charge Assange or persecute him.

I have doubts about the charges from Sweden for one reason only and that is that when originally reported the Swedish police investigated and dropped the charges. Now that there has been another release of information through wikileaks they suddenly regard the charges as valid?

If Assange did indeed commit rape then he needs to spend a long time in gaol. The thing is it is Swedens police force that has caused many people to doubt and I doubt a conviction is possible in a fair court.

Im not arguing about whether he should be charged or not. That would depend on the specific information leak they charge him with. My argument is against those who think nothing may stay secret. Imo, it's a bit of an exaggeration.

[Lord Mord]

Secrecy is what keeps us from addressing our world as it really is. It's a kind of dishonesty; you're rejecting not only the fact the secret you're keeping is actual, exists as a fact, but also that it is in real and obvious conflict with your objectives. It's make-believe. In the main, we, especially we on this board, sneer and shout and otherwise rail against cognitive dissonance, but somehow geopolitics or the rather ominous sounding "national security" makes bullshitting a moral imperative.

It's not that secrecy never benefits anyone, or doesn't in the short term help more people than it hurts, only that as with most shortcuts it represents a moral failure. I can't be bothered to legislate this, I'll let some judge strike it down. This roughly falls under the idea of interstate commerce, so, yeah, Congress has the power to regulate it. If the income you keep are going to create jobs anyway, if they're going to be given away to charities anyway, then I may as well tax it and do the same with it just to make sure it gets done and properly. If I told my spouse about having gone out bowling when I said I was in a meeting, it's just going to drag us into an argument, we'll eventually get past it, and things will be fine, so let's just skip ahead to where things are fine and I won't say anything.

If I admit to the American people I cannot reasonably prove the existence of WMDs in Iraq, they may resist going to war. Now, when I go there and we're successful, they're going to appreciate the move I made anyway, and besides, I think I'm pretty sure those weaons are there, so I may as well just say that they are and clean up my mess later.

There is some room between an imperative to disclose and an imperative to withhold, but eventually we're better off knowing the truth anyway, and premature disclosure, while perhaps actionable in some cases, is never much of an actual crime.

[Lyanna Stark]

Im giving you an extreme example because people here who support wikileaks support full disclosure of everything governmental. Naturally I gave them a worst case scenario.

ORLY?

Which ones in support of Wikileaks are supporting full disclosure of everything governmental? Who are they and where did they say so? I am more in support than against, and I think you'll find that's not my view. If you want to stab strawmen, be my guest, but please be aware that is what you are doing.

Im not arguing about whether he should be charged or not. That would depend on the specific information leak they charge him with. My argument is against those who think nothing may stay secret. Imo, it's a bit of an exaggeration.

I find it obvious that unless it can be shown that there is a particular and pressing need for a piece of information to be secret, it should be, by default, public. That means that the default state for Government information should be public, and never secret. A lot of the "secrets" out is either about people in power lying, or about them losing face. I don't think that warrants secrecy because as Lord Caspen pointed out, it's just a type of moral failure.

By the way, I am really looking forward to the banks being ripped to shreds. They do so badly deserve it.

[Yoadm]

ORLY?

Which ones in support of Wikileaks are supporting full disclosure of everything governmental?

Coco, the guy I was replying to...

I find it obvious that unless it can be shown that there is a particular and pressing need for a piece of information to be secret, it should be, by default, public. That means that the default state for Government information should be public, and never secret.

Like undercover cops, for instance?