Wikileaks: Salvation Through Information?

[TMA_1]

I have mixed feelings about wikileaks, something about the idea seems too dangerous to me. I just dont think the world is ready yet for this kind of exposure of information. I worry that this will eventually affect all internet users negatively, and it will further entrench the secrecy ethos among already corrupt nations. Many folks say the opposite of all I have said, and that there is no way nations can anymore hide secrets from the people... So I could very well be wrong.

One problem I see is that America (and many of it's allies) are not yet in a position to have all of their secrets exposed like this, especially when you have extremely powerful nations as peers who may not have the same interests as America and her allies. What if we allow our governments to become so transparent as to destroy any kind of shielding from a nation or nations that are not so transparent? With a nation or nations that take as much information in as possible, and yet expose almost none in return? I do not think this kind of transparency will exist in all countries at the same level, and since we are not one big happy world family yet, I believe all of our views on these issues are myopic...too short sighted. I just feel many folks are not thinking about this in the long term.

I hope that this all works out for the best. I really hope that this forces upon all good nations a notion that the average citizen is equipped with the same kind of knowledge that only a select few were privy to, and that transparency will clean up all sorts of corruption. I get the feeling though that this is an idealistic fancy, and it may turn out to be dangerous in ways we do not yet know.

[Dante]

"Oh no, people are saying what we actually said instead of what we said we said! Diplomacy isn't supposed to work like that!"

[Andrew]

Wikileaks and the El-Masri case: Innocent CIA torture victim more than just a leaked cable

One of them is Khaled El-Masri, a German citizen of Lebanese descent, and a victim of so-called "extraordinary rendition." He was a car salesman in Germany, a father of six. The CIA kidnapped him by mistake (his name sounds and looks identical to that of an actual terror suspect), and sent off to receive months of torture in Afghanistan.

US government can kidnap whoever they want in the world, and send them off to be tortured.

This info needs to get out.

I'm hoping for some leaks about Canadians who were sent to be tortured.

The upcoming Bank leaks should be interesting. Bank of America is already defending itself saying the leak is not about them. wonder how it will affect the stock of the Bank that gets reported on.

US gov is already telling web hosters not host anything related to wikileaks. WikiLeaks website pulled by Amazon after US political pressure

[athanasios]

It pains when you get exposed and as the World Dictatorship-the Beast you unleash your dogs (=Interpol). Even my life to hide and protect you.

[Dante]

Most of the complaints seem to be that the leaks are dangerous. By implication, it's dangerous for the public to know the truth about what goes on in the corridors of power. That warrants repetition: It is dangerous for the public to know the truth. That is not thought I want governments to hold.

While I'm prepared to accept it in cases of, say, military placements or tactics, diplomacy is another matter entirely. I don't want to be told that foreign policy isn't my concern when it's my foreign policy. A government that isn't answerable to its people is a dictatorship, and how is a government supposed to be answerable for its actions if it keeps the public in the dark regarding exactly what those actions are?

What this issue boils down to is how much of the truth we are prepared to let our elected representitives mask from us. It makes me vaguely nauseous that most of the west's leaders are so uniform in their condemnation. There's very little humility, very little "oops, we got caught doing something bad." Instead they're spitting nails, as though they're the wronged parties here. Nobody's even mentioned accountability, they're so set on their brazen disregard for even pretending to tell the truth.

Well, I for one hope that wikileaks keeps up the good work, and that if it falls, as it probably will, that someone else picks up the torch and carries on. It's a necessary role.

[Andrew]

Canadian politician suggests Wikileaks founder be assassinated

CBC pushes 'anti-American melodrama': WikiLeaks

They think CBC is anti american. I would say that CBC is more pro Canada than other tv channels, but then it is a taxpayer funded tv show, so promoting Canada is kind of a priority...

France wanted 'assistance' on Khadr: WikiLeaks

France wanted to help Khadr more than Canada. Sad that Canada did not care enough for a Canadian citizen (teenager!) that was being held at Guantanamo Bay.

Julian Assange: Is the WikiLeaks Whistle-blower 2010's Person of the Year?

Maybe not Assange, but definitely wikileaks or whistleblowers should be.

[Wolf]

I don't want to be a tremendous dick, but I'm going to be a tremendous dick--I don't think any of WikiLeaks' leaks have actually mattered. They tell a story that the world largely already knows, which I think is a testament, (1) to how well the entire system by which news is learned, disseminated, and digested by common folk works, and (2) to how actually free our governments are, whether they intended to be or not (given their apocalyptically cross reaction to the latest leak, probably the latter, but still, I think it's worth noting). Hell, even a significant majority of the Afghanistan and Iraq papers weren't even secret, and the majority of the diplomatic cables were either declassified or never had been in the first place.

It's funny, I think: no one seemed to care about these stories in and of themselves, but, suddenly, when we attach them to the sexy narrative of "organization of nerds fighting for the Truth!" we care? That's ridiculous. That's the first thing I find interesting: that we only care about a particular fact only if it is connected to a narrative that we can digest.

The second thing that I find interesting or alarming is just how hostile Western governments have reacted to this: the reality is that the releases are things we all largely already knew, or might have had access to, but WIkiLeaks just went to the trouble of organizing it. Frankly, in a lot of ways, the diplomatic cables actually strengthen the U.S.'s position by revealing just how many powers beg it to do their dirty work--that they're also powers that take every chance to poke the U.S. in the eye is a separate hilarity. That Berlusconi does business deals with Russia, or that the French and Germans sometimes have inept ministers? That's not even news. If I were in charge, I would have shrugged: so what? Now you know what you already knew? So, why are Western governments so hostile? Because as opposed to revealing some super-secret cabal to "control the world" (which is something only an idiot would think), it reveals precisely the opposite: just how little control our governments have over anything. No one's "in charge," and we can infer that because, if there were, this wouldn't have happened. Leaders are embarrassed: the world doesn't get to see anything too "dangerous" or "upsetting," like governments trying to hide the truth from us, instead, it gets to see the "most powerful men in the world" fumbling for some sense of order and direction! To quote Charles DuGalle: "You can't rule the French: these people have 300 kinds of cheese." That was 50 years ago. You think a European Union of 500 million and a United States of 300 million can be run by anyone? Nah, man.

[SandChigger]

Meh. NASA's going to announce tomorrow that they've been in contact with arsenic-metabolizing aliens from Betelgeuse XI.

Wikileaks, Schmikileaks, this is all going to seem so parochial in 24 hours. ;)

[Dante]

It's the governmental indignation (and implicit assumption that it has a right to be trusted no matter what) that's so worrisome, rather than the contents of the leaks themselves. I think I made that point in my last posts, but thought it might have required clarification. I think Wolf's with me on this one.

[TMA_1]

Err the western governments have not shown a lot of hostility towards wikileaks, when you look at what russia has done to whistleblowers and journalists...

diplomacy should be transparent as well?? you guys nuts?

The world has not coalesced enough to allow this kind of transparency to exists amongst powerful nations. I think transparency is honestly wonderful, as long as all nations are exposed all at the same time, without bias, without deception.

Many western nations are Republics. They are not run by syndicalist trade and labor unions, or by oligarch espousing the will of the proletariat.This kind of transparency does not work unless nations like america transform into new kinds of nations.

How can we even imagine this to be while other nations are currently consolidating power, and have no wish to become more and more geared towards the people?

Transparency would also be great withiin wikileaks. I would love to know where they store their encrypted and unencrypted data, and I would also like to know who some of their sources are. If Assange and his crew think nation states should proverbially strip naked and expose themselves, then what right does assange have to keep so man secrets, hold back so much information, and expose information on his time?

[Dante]

Perhaps because democracies are accountable to their people. Who is Assange accountable to, exactly?

If nations keep secrets then they are either needlessly paranoid or have something to hide. In either case it is in the interests of that nations subjects to know the truth about what is being done in their name. "Transform into new kinds of nations," what, honest ones?

[athanasios]

Meh. NASA's going to announce tomorrow that they've been in contact with arsenic-metabolizing aliens from Betelgeuse XI.

Unless you have a leaked document to prove that, shut up and continue drinking your arsenic cocktail. You are off topic.

Hint: If you need some assistance to cope with your dependence visit: http://aa.bet :D

Channel 4 News:

WikiLeaks: US memo accuses Sri Lanka President of war crimes

"... many of the alleged crimes rests with the country's senior civilian and military leadership, including President Rajapakse and his brothers and opposition candidate General Fonseka."

[ErasOmnius]

I'm glad that there is Wiki-Leaks. Now a lot of the bombing that goes on, as in Yemen, can come out into the open. But no more reading about the Colonel and his 'love' for Ukrainian women.

Can any truthful information, really be harmful?

[Dante]

Yes. See Benjamin Constant's criticism of Kant's Categorical Imperative.

[Wolf]

You mean, is there any information that the human excuse machine (e.g., brain) can't rationalize into something that it isn't? Probably not: certainly not for you--that's why I call you Liar. But you missed my point: we already knew what the leaks purportedly leaked.

Also, "the Colonel" refers to KFC. Why didn't you just call him Muammar al-Gaddafi? What were you trying to do? "Fit in" by using "cool" lingo? Even if Libyans call him that, you're not Libyan, right? And, Jesus, you hyphenated WikiLeaks... you know, it's a proper noun, right?

TMA: You have a great point, there. Russia habitually murders journalists and attorneys who seemingly frustrate the stated agenda of the Russian Federation. Of course, we hold the U.S. to a higher standard--weirdly--and only seem comfortable debating whether or not America's secrets should be revealed... not, say, the the other country with 10,000 nuclear weapons.

Dante: I'm with you in that I don't think the leaks are objectively anything special. I'm not with you on exactly why Western governments are so pissed. That's not because I disagree, that's simply because I have no idea. It's weird; it displays a far deeper level of insecurity than I ever thought possible, but I can't exactly say why that is. Is it purely emotional? They feel cockslapped by WikiLeaks and are now lashing out like a frustrated child? Or maybe they feel betrayed by the no doubt dozens of whistleblowers required to do this? That's certainly more likely than the former: the current generation of political leadership grew up and was professionally influenced by the "golden years" of American dominence. We could do no wrong, and when they were in the position of associates, aides, and interns, their bosses could do no wrong, either. I'm sure most have consciously woken up to the fact that that's not the way things work anymore, but I think the deeper understanding of what the political culture is like or should be like is a lot harder to change. A lot of young people involved in government thought that this was a good thing, and that's why they did it. That might be a huge shocker.

At the same time, there is the possibility that relations might be compromised, or, at the very least, that the diplomatic process is currently compromised. That might widen the Overton window to more extreme actions that no one wants. I buy that, or, at least, I buy that it's a legitimate point. But if that were true, well, wouldn't they just tell us? See how weird it is?

[ErasOmnius]

You mean, is there any information that the human excuse machine (e.g., brain) can't rationalize into something that it isn't? Probably not: certainly not for you--that's why I call you Liar. But you missed my point: we already knew what the leaks purportedly leaked.

Also, "the Colonel" refers to KFC. Why didn't you just call him Muammar al-Gaddafi? What were you trying to do? "Fit in" by using "cool" lingo? Even if Libyans call him that, you're not Libyan, right? And, Jesus, you hyphenated WikiLeaks... you know, it's a proper noun, right?

Fit in? Fit in? I am interested in a Forum with well thought out positions being presented by all viewpoints. That should be everyone's goals, even yours. Your goal should not be censorship, or name calling.

Yes. See Benjamin Constant's criticism of Kant's Categorical Imperative.

You're right, I was wrong. I agree with you now. In this WikiLeaks case, releasing the name or location of an undercover operative, would be akin to Constant's criticism of Kant, in which Kant agreed that a murderer should be told where his or her intended victim was hiding.

[athanasios]

But when the victim has already murdered a family member of the 'murderer' and there exists no Law to be enforced...

.. you're not Libyan, right?

Indeed we both ARE-at least in part:

Italy and Greece (along the rest of southern Europe) were firstly (firstly is subjective and based on current evidence) colonized by the Lybians and other semitic tribes (o.b.r.j.: Umbri, Iberi, Ebri, Hebrew):

Pausanias 10:17

Pausanias 5:25

Strabo 276, 194, 158, 189, 166

Thucydides 6:2

Herodotus 4:49

Herodotus 2:50 (on Poseidon God of the sea-from Lybian verb p.s.d pasada)

Pausanias 1:44.5

Pausanias 1:39.6

Pausanias 5:15.11

Dionesius of Halicarnassus 1:19

[Edric O]

[c=#00dd00]As several people have already said, all of the leaked documents so far have only told us things we already knew, or at least suspected. It's really amazing how little our governments have been hiding from us. Rather than uncovering some great secret conspiracy, Wikileaks has confirmed that world politics is, in fact, exactly what it seems to be.

Berlusconi is involved in shady deals? Tell me something I don't know. The Baltic states are crazy paranoid about Russia? No sh*t. Saudi Arabia is in bed with the US and rabidly hates Iran? What else is new? Chinese officials think North Korea is unreliable and annoying? Every diplomat on the planet thinks that.

The only thing that really surprised me so far was that the US government apparently takes this whole "War on Terror" thing seriously. I mean, they actually consider al-Qaeda a real threat to their interests, when in reality it barely merits the status of minor nuisance. I always assumed the fear-mongering was just meant to scare the common people into compliance, while the ruling class is having a good laugh about it behind closed doors. But apparently our leaders believe their own propaganda. Or maybe none of them has the courage to tell the others that the emperor has no clothes.

This is good news. A self-deluded ruling class is weaker than one that knows it is lying. They are more likely to make mistakes if they believe their own lies.

Anyway, overall, the leaders of the world should have welcomed Wikileaks. They could have said, "See? We weren't hiding anything big from you after all." Instead they played right into Wikileaks' hands by elevating it to the status of global emergency. Good. Another bad move on their part, another advantage for us. They're going to make a martyr out of Assange, which will ensure that others will rise to continue his work.

This is all very good for democracy. The more the people know about the actions of their government, the more they are able to make informed political decisions.[/c]

[Edric O]

diplomacy should be transparent as well?? you guys nuts?

[c=#00dd00]If the state actually conducted its diplomacy in the interests of the working class, then perhaps it would be bad to expose diplomatic secrets. But, as it stands, they conduct diplomacy in the interests of the capitalists. And anything that hurts the interests of the capitalists is good for us.

After the October Revolution in 1917, Lenin made public all the secret documents of the Tsarist regime. This dealt a blow to international capitalism - maybe not a big blow, but a blow nonetheless. The work of Wikileaks is a smaller version of that.[/c]

The world has not coalesced enough to allow this kind of transparency to exists amongst powerful nations. I think transparency is honestly wonderful, as long as all nations are exposed all at the same time, without bias, without deception.

Many western nations are Republics. They are not run by syndicalist trade and labor unions, or by oligarch espousing the will of the proletariat.This kind of transparency does not work unless nations like america transform into new kinds of nations.

How can we even imagine this to be while other nations are currently consolidating power, and have no wish to become more and more geared towards the people?

[c=#00dd00]We should not take sides between nations. All the currently existing governments of the world are, to a greater or lesser extent, the enemies of their own people. Ideally, of course, we would want to cause the most damage to the worst governments, and less damage to the not-so-bad ones. But we can't afford that luxury. If Wikileaks has obtained some documents from, say, France, it should not hold back releasing them until it gets some more documents from a worse country like Saudi Arabia, for the sake of balance. It should release whatever it can, when it can.[/c]

TMA: You have a great point, there. Russia habitually murders journalists and attorneys who seemingly frustrate the stated agenda of the Russian Federation. Of course, we hold the U.S. to a higher standard--weirdly--and only seem comfortable debating whether or not America's secrets should be revealed... not, say, the the other country with 10,000 nuclear weapons.

[c=#00dd00]By all means, we should reveal any secrets we can from anywhere we can.

Although I wouldn't expect any big surprises to come from Russia, either. We already know it's ruled by a bunch of ruthless self-serving oligarchs with ties to the mafia and utter contempt for their people.[/c]

[Mihail]

What piques my interest are not so much the cables themselves - at least, until they start releasing juicier, less-known information - but the utter shitstorm that the government of the USA has brought down on Wikileaks. I mean, this is crazy. The latest news about companies opting out of working with Wikileaks was that Visa and Mastercard withdrew their support - imagine, withdrawing support to a whistleblowing site, while you can donate using these services to groups backed by and affiliated with the KKK(See update at 4.14pm). The amount of leverage they must be using to get this done must be enormous. And it all seems to be an overreaction, containment will fail here just as it failed in South-east Asia in the seventies. But who knows? We haven't seen the contents of all those cables, maybe the US knows that there are things in there that really shouldn't get out.

[Wolf]

Wait a tick, Edric, I have something to say in response to your "War on Terror" analysis. You seem to think that it's a good thing that they're "deluded", and insofar as that pertains to al-Qaeda, that may be true, but counterterrorism, as I understand it, encompasses a large number of organizations--foreign and domestic. Further, I think counterterrorism consistently ranks as a significant concern both on the part of the American people and virtually every administration for the last 20 years. I think that characterization ("it's a good thing they're so deluded!") is unfair, (1) because I don't think they're that deluded, and (2) why is it a good thing that the government is incompetent? Doesn't that promote a great deal of suffering from which there is little available mitigation?

That brings me to my second point, that you mentioned that WikiLeaks really reveals just how little our government lies to us... isn't that what we want? I think the most frequent complaint I hear from people, generally, is that the government is always lying to us. Well, apparently not! And yet, this seems to make us more upset, not less. Would we have been happier had they been revealed to be brilliant manipulators? Probably not--I think people are self-centered scum with a desperate psychological need to complain, myself included--but I suppose at least I would have admired the cohesion and organization required to do that. I've always maintained that if the Bush Administration knew there were no WMDs in Iraq, they should have planted them and burned the evidence. It would have saved everyone a huge amount of trouble. But, nope, they found nothing, even though they had every, single political and economic incentive to do the exact opposite and, more than anything else, that one thing crippled that Administration. But, nope, they told the truth?

[athanasios]

Lets see if he has any hidden aces. - Just one thought Edric: Unless enough material is leaked we cannot safely judge which government is worse. Dictatorial governments torture and kill opponents. But are Western 'civilized' 'democratic' capitalist countries better? They promote civil wars in third world countries to grab their resources, (here in Greece they destroyed our economy and bribed corrupt politicians for the same reason), use child labor as long as it it is not in their own territory, feed people with dangerous products...

[TMA_1]

Edric, I always have genuinely liked your point of view, and I think that the point of view you and many others espouse is one that should be adopted by more people these days. I believe that as the state of living improves throughout the world and folks become more educated, not only will this increase knowledge and create a healthy empirical outlook on life, but empathy and sensitivity will increase as well. The problem I see is that though we are more globally interconnected than ever before, the connections between us are rather chaotic, and without a lot of rhythm or reason. It seems to me that this chaos is especially the case because economic development is growing at a much faster pace than political development. Because of this, the people cannot aid in guiding economic development, whether those people live in America, or Afghanistan. I think one way of helping the problem is if we create and unite already created labor and trade unions across the world. This way the people might have a better chance at controlling their own economic destiny. I do NOT know much about how any of this stuff works, so I am kind of flying blind here in these statements.

I do agree with you guys that this information really isnt anything monumental or game changing. I dont think this is the point, though. The game changer here is the fact that a few hackers and whistle blowers can now, with the power of the internet, strike fear in the hearts of powerful nation states. The reason why I was concerned I guess is because the relationships between the many nations of the world are at times very brittle. . This kind of thing can take an already unstable world and destabilize it even further.

After thinking about this for a few days, I feel now that maybe the world needs to be shaken up a bit. This event is a jolt, but it is a sign of things to come I think.

[athanasios]

As a Christian I await for the permanent solution by Jesus Christ. Democracy, as was practiced in ancient Athens refined under the light of the Bible, is the best we can have for the time being (Please, if you have not followed previous posts of mine be informed that what is claimed to be democracy today has nothing to do with real democracy). Labor and trade unions have failed so far because their leaders are easily corrupted by capitalists and politicians, who also control the media with their puppet journalists, and now are also trying to do the same with the internet. Be assured that hackers and disgusted scientists can cause more fear.

[TMA_1]

I agree that we must wait for Christ. Until then we have to make do with what we've got. I understand that there have never rreally existed any true forms of democracy within a large nation state. I think the term democracy has come to be used in reference to democratic republics and the like.