David Seaton's picture

    Wikileaks: America's senior moment

    By David Seaton on Wed, 12/01/2010 - 2:51pm |

    So this is what the eclipsing of American power looks like, with the disgorging of so much of its sensitive diplomatic correspondence in one fell swoop. Arguably not since Berlin fell to the Red Army in 1945 has there been a compromise of state secrets as breathtaking as that brought about by WikiLeaks. Yet while the drift of much of the ensuing commentary has been that there is not much new in the 250,000 leaked cables, the truth is that the damage to American credibility and diplomacy is incalculable. Robert Baer - Financial Times

    The US government must surely be ruing, and urgently reviewing, its weird decision to place a whole library of recent diplomatic correspondence on to a computer system so brilliantly secure that a 22-year-old could download it on to a Lady Gaga CD. Gaga, or what? Timothy Garton Ash - Guardian
     
    "Gaga" is a French world that means senile.

    In the opinion of many observers, the Wikileaks data-dump is America's "senior moment".

     

    America's present day foreign policy shenanigans are beginning to look like one of those caper comedies, full of hilarious gags and prat falls, the kind where everything goes wrong.

     

    Historians are not going to find much to surprise them in the documents themselves, nothing or very little that they won't already know; what they are going to be interested in is who is behind the massive leaks and what they hoped to achieve by destroying the credibility of the US State Department. 

     

    This goes beyond mere "whistle blowing".

     

    I'm not against whistle blowing in itself. It can perform many useful services: for example, in exposing corporate wrongdoing or dangerous pharmaceutical products. In politics it can also serve the public interest by revealing a specific error or crime. For instance I was in favor of showing the video of the helicopter murder of the Reuters reporters in Iraq.

    But this "data-dump" of masses of mostly banal material, dotted with tasty information truffles of the kind Zbigniew Brzezinski calls "pointed",  in the video above, is wantonly destructive of diplomatic "back channels"  as former CIA operative  Robert Baer writes in the Financial Times. 

     

    And as Dr. Brzezinski says, the leaks are probably being manipulated by a foreign intelligence service or services yet unknown. That has been my feeling since day one and I am glad to find myself in such illustrious company.

     

    Certainly the wikileaked materials are already being used in furthering  some countries specific national interests. 

     

    An article by a top Israeli journalist Aluf Benn in Haaretz entitled: "WikiLeaks cables tell the story of an empire in decline" we can read the following:
    Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was the first world leader to leverage the WikiLeaks revelations for his own purposes. At a press conference on Monday, Netanyahu used the leaked cables to trash Obama's position and advance the agenda of "Iran first." The cables prove, he said, that there's no truth in the narrative that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the greatest threat to the region and its future. Aluf Benn - Haaretz
    Why is Netanyahu in such a hurry to use Assange's material?

     

    Here is how Noam Chomsky compares the relevance of the Wikileaks on the true situation in the Middle East:
    NOAM CHOMSKY: (...) Hillary Clinton and Benjamin Netanyahu surely know of the careful polls of Arab public opinion. The Brookings Institute just a few months ago released extensive polls of what Arabs think about Iran. The results are rather striking. They show the Arab opinion holds that the major threat in the region is Israel—that’s 80%. The second major threat is the United States—that’s 77%. Iran is listed as a threat by 10%. With regard to nuclear weapons, rather remarkably, a majority—in fact, 57%—say that the region would have a positive effect in the region if Iran had nuclear weapons. Now, these are not small numbers. 80%, 77%, say the U.S. and Israel are the major threat. 10% say Iran is the major threat.
    You might imagine that as they hold opinions directly opposed to their subjects, the rulers of America's clients, the Arab security states, might think twice before ever speaking frankly to an American diplomat again. That might have serious consequences going forward. Especially if preparation for war gathers speed.

     

    Many are shocked by what they read in these cables.  They seem to be suffering from a political version of "primal scene", you know, the trauma little children experience when they first discover what mommy and daddy do after they tuck the toddlers into bed.

    I'm beginning to think that Bismark was right, politics are like sausages, they are easier to eat when people don't know how they are made.

     

    Diplomacy is not, repeat not a a business and the relations between sovereign "armed and dangerous" states are not the same as the relations between a bank or a pharmaceutical company and their customers. Lehman Brothers crashing or a bank screwing its customers is not the same as bombing Iran.

     

    So many of history's wars have begun through misunderstanding or miscalculations. Often the only thing standing between the guns of the opposing armed forces of dozens of countries are the world's diplomats. For hundreds of years they have only had their endless conversations to gauge the intentions of allies and potential or real enemies.

    Taken as a whole their information and access to the minds of the governments and peoples where they are stationed is of immense value.


    They all live in a boring, itinerant, community who spend most of their working careers outside their home countries, people who see each other over and over again in an endless, purgatorial round of cocktail parties and dinners and when they finally move on to a new post, they find themselves thrown again into the same company of diplomats from their own and other countries where they were posted before and again and again they renew old friendships... this goes on for years and years until they retire and is quite endogenous. They learn to read the meanings of each other's carefully chosen words and even more careful silences.

    Taken as a whole the diplomatic community is very sensitive and valuable animal. Their understanding and their relationships can come in handy when there is an international crisis on and to freeze and clog it up could be really, really, dangerous at a time like now, when there is a imminent danger of a war breaking out.

    So this mega data-dump is not the same as exposing some corporation that is selling infected chicken liver. This could end up in with thousands of people killed and the world economy off into the abyss.

    Cross posted from: http://seaton-newslinks.blogspot.com/

    Comments

    "So this mega data-dump is not the same as exposing some corporation that is selling infected chicken liver. This could end up in with thousands of people killed and the world economy off into the abyss."

    So what's your argument, David? Are you defending the right of diplomatic workers to operate in complete secrecy and without public oversight?  Are you saying that these people are so darned important that we must let them have their secrets but that Bear Stearns is fair game?

    And actually I think you've been away from the states too long.  Bank executives move the world much more forcefully and easily than these cocktail stirring wags of yours.


    by Michael Maiello on Wed, 12/01/2010 - 3:49pm

    I lean toward David's argument but your reference to the corporations that run the world is of paramount interest to me. This week BOA or some huge concern is going to see their privacy go down the toilet and I cannot wait.

    So many movies have used hacking as a theme but I just never saw this coming.

    I hope that there are scores of indictments and more hacking is successful in the future.

    I mean the courts in civil suits as well as prosecutions protect these financial concerns in their skulldugery.

    The only reason I lean toward David's argument is that diplomacy does not work without secrets. Never has and never will.


    by Richard Day on Wed, 12/01/2010 - 4:09pm

    Yes Dick I agree with you, the corporations are not the same as the State Department.


    by David Seaton on Wed, 12/01/2010 - 4:43pm

    Considering we've been in two wars for the better part of a a decade, been snatching people off the streets and rendering them for torture since Clinton, apparently now carry out drone attacks in dozens of "sovereign" nations and will assassinate American targets worldwide without trial ... much if not all of it secretly supported by other governments ... I think it's fair to ask at this point exactly what has this "secret" diplomacy actually accomplished for us? And more importantly, is what it has accomplished really in keeping with our ideals and best interests?

    As a society aren't we really to the point of assessing what has gone wrong from a position of abject diplomatic failure more than, say, discussing the mechanics of an effectively operating diplomatic corps? We're so far gone from anything resembling traditional diplomacy that policy is now set for the State Department to maintain a force with military capabilities as a part of long-term occupation strategies (so we can still occupy but not have "troops committed"). At what point is something so broken the only answer is to quantify where we are and then AS A PEOPLE decide where we want to go?

    While diplomacy may be more difficult without secrets, democracy simply can not work in an environment of excessive secrecy. Without actually knowing what is being done with our power, how do we as citizens make informed choices in our democracy about how to move to a better place?

    So, we have the power to chose who's in charge ... but not the power to know what the fuck they are doing? That makes zero sense. How can we possibly assert Americans decide where we are going as a nation with our votes if we honestly have no clue what is being done in our names? That's not democracy ... it's a bullshit dog-and-pony show every four years allowing Partisans re-confirm everything they believe about the other half of America they luxuriate in hating.

    If those running the government wanted we the people to respect their assertions of secrecy they shouldn't abuse the classification process so thoroughly for individual political gains as they have. At this point the national interest is best served by exposing every nuance of what they do and how they do it. Period. Secrecy is serving a political purpose at this stage not a national security one.

    If it's really an either-or proposition I would argue that every American is better off with occasionally hobbled diplomacy and a fully robust democracy than the other way around. Remember back in the day when we AMERICANS were the ones who fought for free speech and an unrestrained press and such? Good times.

     


    by kgb999 on Wed, 12/01/2010 - 9:07pm

    I agree with you completely that the secret system we currently have is horribly broken. There are two obvious problems with the Wikileaks system of exposing secrets:

    1. They expose too little
    2. They expose too much

    Ironically, both are evidenced at the same time. Wikileaks relies on serendipity. I don't blame them for that, but it's a fact of life, and that's not made worse by their existence, but it does mean we cannot rely on them to fix the problem. On the other hand, since they're operating outside the law, there are no limits on what they can choose to publish when they do find it.

    Just to be crystal clear: For the most part, I'm glad Wikileaks has published what they've published so far. Although they've clearly made some rather bad mistakes that have probably cost some informants their lives, it's also possible they've saved some future lives - or is that too much navel-gazing?


    by Atheist (not verified) on Wed, 12/01/2010 - 9:19pm

    We can't rely on them to fix the problem, but at the very least you can easily observe that they are a source of pressure to shift the status quo.  What, if not some kind of large-scale exposure, was going to change this game?  Whether or not it is the most desirable method of moving us off of our current trajectory is somewhat immaterial in absence of any other force that might alter this trajectory.  Whether or not they might do "something" in the future that we don't like is just speculation.  And that eventuality has more to do with the technology we now live with than it has to do with any singular individual or entity.


    by DF on Wed, 12/01/2010 - 9:35pm

    What, if not some kind of large-scale exposure, was going to change this game?  

    Just curious: how much do you think Wikileaks did change the game? I do not pretend to any wisdom, merely cynicism, when I state that I don't think they've changed the game very much at all.


    by Atheist (not verified) on Wed, 12/01/2010 - 9:43pm

    For one thing, you can bet that the State Department will be changing its protocols.  It's generally far too soon to tell exactly what will result, but Wikileaks is a new force that is putting pressure on the current secrecy regime.  At the very least, different choices will have to be made with respect for how information is secured, if not also what information is classified and how.


    by DF on Wed, 12/01/2010 - 9:57pm

    On that, I agree completely. However, the changes you specifically cite are primarily being made to prevent other, more significant, changes, wouldn't you agree?

    Again, I don't claim to know how significant the impact will be long term. Someone here (I can't remember who, but it's been an on-going post) has been doing an awful lot of good, in depth, analysis on the leaks. My cynicism is just too strong to think that there will be any truly important changes.


    by Atheist (not verified) on Wed, 12/01/2010 - 10:05pm

    Why ever would we be looking to Wikileaks to "fix the problem"? Isn't that our job? If they give us the information and we fail to do anything productive with it to improve ourselves ... how the hell do we blame Wikileaks for our own lameness? Or am I misinterpreting what you are referring to with "problem"?

    It is important to emphasize Wikileaks isn't actually operating outside the law. They are operating outside of an agreed framework under which today's journalists essentially act as propaganda arms of their respective patrons and only reveal information that the political establishment tells them is OK to disseminate. To me that is a pretty important distinction.  Especially in America ... citizens have the RIGHT to free speech and free press - no right to secrecy is granted the government.

    Thinking about it, doesn't every news organization rely on serendipity (well, "serendipity" these days is defined as being fed a story by a well-connected "administration insider" with a specific message they'd like stenography on ... but still, same principle)? I don't see how that changes the essence of what Wikileaks is doing. Their hook is providing the information and letting people interpret it instead of obscuring the source information and writing a summary to varying degrees of accuracy and telling the reader what to think. It removes a filter. Although just like a politico selecting a reporter because they know the information will be used the way they want - the same is true of Wikileak's sources. The big difference is that wikileaks provides full documentation and lets anyone who wants to review the source material write the narrative. But ultimately there is still a team providing editorial control and using what appears to be reasonable policy in selecting what to release from a direct threat to human life standpoint. What seems to concern everyone here most is that this is a press organization not asking for government permission first like all the other news organizations do or obeying certain quaint niceties of 19th century diplomacy. IMO, that isn't a reason to be wary of Wikileaks - shouldn't we be more wary of those who work for media outfits owned by mega-corps and billionaires? When did we in America become so piss-scared of real freedom?

    Can you be a bit more specific about the "rather bad mistakes" the have "probably cost some informants their lives"? I spent weeks after the Iraq release trying to find a confirmed informant who was revealed ... nothing. The only thing they were flogging on a specific basis was reports of officials acting in a official capacity in public and the names of some military folks ... who are friggin targets NO MATTER WHAT ... srsly, the taliban's going to say "OOOOH we only want specialist Hendrix, y'all are cool". Idiots. I heard the Time of London *assert* that there were dozens of sources compromised in their first 20 minutes browsing ... I'm pretty solid at data queries and process pretty quickly on a record-by-record basis .... you figure I'd have found ONE? The records are ALL online and so far, I haven't really been able to find any informants or the like.

    This links back to the whole strength of what Wikileaks is doing. The way "journalists" do it we NEVER get the whole picture - they do what they do and then write a story about it. What they leave in, leave out, make up entirely, whatever we've just got to take their word for it unless someone with direct knowledge comes forward to challenge a bit of reportage. And sometimes, the reporters just lie and blame it on whatever "unnamed" official being wrong - we've all seen it. With this, we don't HAVE to take the word of people who have been caught time and time again publishing false information. If they want to make an assertion about the data, fine ... where are the records? No excuse for not having a link.

    I can't believe the WikiTeam (all Assange does at this point is play the press and others do the mechanics) didn't miss something; they seem to have done a DAMN good job. Have you seen any links to an identified intel source compromised? Pretty sure even the DoD says none were exposed.

    The only place where I know for certain anyone has lost their lives related to Wikileaks is in their (impressive) work on Kenya corruption. Two of their associates (and several Human Rights lawyers) were assassinated ... well, a hell of a lot of others were too. In a lot of places not-America, it's the sources smuggling this stuff out who's lives are at risk - and some of it is really important stuff - I'm not sure how we can blame Wikileaks for giving activists an outlet where documented information can get out and not disappeared by local powers even with very dangerous situations in some places. Folks tend to ignore everything else the organization does and imagine they exist exclusively to publish leaked US stupidity. Who else is going to give people in some corners of the world a place to document definitively institutional abuses in a place that can't be disappeared?

    I've been a big fan of Wikileaks long before they ever started leaking so much US-Related stuff. IMO, they deserve a both a lot of credit and a lot of support. I was a supporter when they were given the documents to allow pushing back against extra-judicial killings in Kenya, the previous banking disclosures (that got their domain yanked briefly), etc. To me what they are doing here is no different. To approve of them in those cases and chastise them here doesn't make a lot of sense to me. They are able to do what they do because of how they do what they do. I'm fine with that - it seems to be far more positive than negative.


    by kgb999 on Thu, 12/02/2010 - 4:20am

    I think it's fair to ask at this point exactly what has this "secret" diplomacy actually accomplished for us? And more importantly, is what it has accomplished really in keeping with our ideals and best interests?

    This.  You cannot make an argument about the harm of Wikileaks in a vacuum.  Any argument that doesn't directly make this comparison and focuses strictly on the harm that Wikileaks might do to the current security regime strongly implies the comparative benefits of that regime.


    by DF on Wed, 12/01/2010 - 9:25pm

    If I may, I think kgb was asking the opposite, as in "What was the secret diplomacy gaining us?", not "What were the harms the leaked Wiki-cables and emails caused?"  If I am commenting outside your syllogism, my apologies.  Logic isn't my strongest suit.


    by we are stardust on Wed, 12/01/2010 - 9:52pm

    Sorry if I wasn't clear, but I was agreeing with kgb.  I think that a the focus on what harm the leaks might do in absence of considering the what the costs of the pre-Wikileaks security regime is deficient.  In absense of this consideration, it strongly implies the benefits of the pre-Wikileaks regime, which is highly questionable.


    by DF on Wed, 12/01/2010 - 10:00pm

    Let me put the shoe on the other foot: do you maintain that the secret diplomacy has done us no good? I'm assuming you don't (there I go again), and I'm also assuming you're not making that argument just because you don't make the point that occasionally there is a need for secret diplomacy.


    by Atheist (not verified) on Wed, 12/01/2010 - 10:08pm

    I think that secrecy in diplomacy has it's place - there certainly does need to be room to speak candidly and privately between world leaders. I do think that any diplomacy carried out on behalf of a democracy should be premised on the understanding that ultimately what is being said will be reported and digested by the people as a part of the process of charting a course forward. So I guess I'm more in favor of tactical secrecy versus secrecy as a long-term strategic policy.

    To me, the point where secrecy starts to obscure the very essence of major national undertakings or the need for secrecy compels officials to mislead the American public about our real policies - which is information required to make informed decisions as electors - I think that the needs of democracy outweigh whatever benefits those secrets provide. Even granting that it may take certain tools off the table from our side diplomatically, I still think the trade off is certainly worth it.

    I will say that with the crop of Yahoos taking over congressional oversight committees - fucking Bohner is in the gang of 4 now! Seaton is insane for arguing congressional oversight should provide even a glimmer of comfort. (Although, I don't necessarily think we need to dump every diplomatic cable produced on a routine basis as a matter of policy ... it's really not Assange's fault we did it this time ... but,  at this point in time I think it was apropos.)

    I'm with DickDay ... I can't wait to see what's been released on the banksters. There are a lot of people really pissed off - some of them pretty powerful - and a *lot* of screwed up dealing going on. Imagine if a person got Wendell-Potter-style religion from a C[x]O position ...

    As to the "has it done us "no" good? I think that's the wrong question. Has it brought us anywhere close (or the general direction) to the place where we want to be? If not, the problem isn't really secrecy, the problem is the diplomacy/policy. The secrecy is what would keep electors from figuring out WTF is going on and demanding a rational direction forward and democratically electing those who address the diplomatic failures at least in general terms that match the real underlying problems. That assessment, and electing the person with the best strategy in light of circumstance can't really be democratic if nobody knows WTF is actually going on for real.


    by kgb999 on Thu, 12/02/2010 - 5:26am

    Thanks for clearing it up; kgb is about eight time zones away, so I thought I'd butt in.  ;o)


    by we are stardust on Wed, 12/01/2010 - 11:16pm

    Hey now! Idaho isn't *really* in Mongolia! (although it's snowed more in the last 10 days than it did all last year ... which is pretty much how I *picture* Outer Mongolia!).


    by kgb999 on Thu, 12/02/2010 - 5:29am

    Ah, jeez; sorry for the confusion, kgb.  I thought you used to live in Idaho, and now were in Europe.  Maybe the Idaho snow interfered with my kgb-radar?  Cool


    by we are stardust on Thu, 12/02/2010 - 8:07am

    "Are you defending the right of diplomatic workers to operate in complete secrecy and without public oversight?" 

    Maybe since it's now dump on Seaton for, well, anything he writes, you think this type of bullying oversimplification is fair.  But the debate is not, and never has been, about "complete secrecy."  It's about what level of disclosure we want to have and still maintain an effective diplomacy.

    I really think you need to read this, instead of the usual purity trolling nonsense that infected Donal's thread, and address the concerns expressed therein: http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/79531/the-irony-wikileaks-american-diplomacy-hard-left

     


    by brewmn on Wed, 12/01/2010 - 4:19pm

    That's funny because David's answer to my question was "yes."

    But, I'll bite at your TNR piece.

    Rubin writes: "Do they have any understanding of how difficult it is for Israeli and Palestinian leaders to make the compromises necessary for peace under the glare of public pressure?"

    This is an interesting question since we're dealing with too democracies in Israel and Palestine.  The issue here is that if the citizens of these democracies knew what their leaders were up to, they'd be angry about it.  This is not a good reason for the government to keep information from people, brew.

    The other objection that Rubin makes, that non-democratic countries around the world want the "right to say one thing in private and another in public" is, um... why do I care what those governments want again?  My jobs as a citizen is to be able to figure out if our leaders are making smart policy.  I can best do that if I know what's going on.  Since we have trade and aid and military agreements with a lot of these governments, I also have the right to know what they're really up to.

    Rubin says that by respecting the right of foreign government duplicty "American diplomats are doing their job."  Fine.  But that's not my job, nor is it Assange's.


    by Michael Maiello on Wed, 12/01/2010 - 4:57pm

    So much of which side people fall on this issue seems to be connected (subconsciously?) to how much one believe global stability is a house of cards.  Why should you care what these governments want?  What do you think would happen globally if suddenly due to upheaval there was a power vacuum in Saudi Arabia? (Just to keep it focused on how does this impact me train of thought) Do you think unemployment, foreclosures, and financial instability for the working clasess would improve or get worse? 

    Obviously I am someone who thinks global stability is a very fragile house of cards.  Restoring stability in regions and countries that have lost it is incredibly difficult and the gains made in a slow progress can easily be lost.  The world is increasingly interconnected (the Iceland Syndrome) and destabilization in one area facilitates destabilization elsewhere in the greater global system (which along other things, in a feedback loop will facilitate more destabilization in the orginating area).  The hope rests that the same process works with stabilization.  Moreover, it is those who are operate from stable areas that will make it possible for restabilization to occur.

    While it may not be your job or Assange's to respect the right of foreign government to be duplicit, I would say it all of our jobs to do what we can to facilitate greater stability, and the lessening of human suffering that goes with that.  And I would say that what Assange did taken as a whole (there were a few documents that probably should see the light of day) is facilitate destabilization.


    by Elusive Trope on Wed, 12/01/2010 - 6:06pm

    I don't know if it's so much about how fragile stability is but about what level of virtue it is.  A guy like Amitai Etzioni, the only communitarian I've read on the subject, argues for "security first."  He largely means stability.  He puts it before all other values -- freedom, democracy, privacy, you name it.

    On one hand, he's persuasive because anarchy can diminish or destroy the other virtues.  Your right to say whatever you want is rather impeded if some one can kill you over it without consequence.  I get that.  But we have too often sinned mightily in the name of stability.  We've killed elected leaders around the world and replaced them with despots and people later charged with crimes against humanity.  We've put our volunteers onto the battlefield to restore the sovereignty of a dictatorship.  We've had drafts and have sent unwilling Americans to die in another country's civil war (twice).  All in the name of stability, by which we mean the current system, which we favor mostly because we can deal with it.

    I'm no anarchist and I don't make light of stability or even disagree with you, but I don't like the way the stability excuse has been used by the U.S. over time.  People like Assange can help stop some of the attrocities.


    by Michael Maiello on Wed, 12/01/2010 - 6:54pm

    That stability has been made an excuse for otherwise inexcusable actions is very true.  Within a certain scope there needs to be vigilance about such things.  It is just with this issue I've seen things go to far the other way, as if diplomats from many countries, including the U.S., haven't fought the good fight (not that I think you're saying that).  I could blather on about the effort to A Q Khan and other networks like his, and how the work dealing with many of the countries involved is difficult at best. 

    I think if Assange had revealed a couple of selected communications that revealed possible crimes (i.e. action that could be prosecuted) as opposed to the ethical or moral crimes of lies and such, and then handed over the rest of the leaked information, the impact this dump has had would be about the same.  In fact, I think it would have been more positive because it would have focused attention on (1) the loose security system in place and (2) serious crimes that may have been committed.

    In the end, I believe, the fact that the US has done some atrocious things that should have been revealed at the time does not justify what Assange exactly did.  And could possible poke the hornets nest too much so that it leads the U.S. or some other country to go down the path of one of those atrocious acts.  Not that justifies the atrocious act. 

    In other words, in my opinion, the risk far outweighs the reward in this particular case. 


    by Elusive Trope on Wed, 12/01/2010 - 7:39pm

    I think we agree on an awful lot.  I think that you conclusion, that the risk outweighs the reward in this case, is where we disagree but for what it's worth, I fear being wrong about that or being right for now but wrong in the future.  It's not a simple matter, as you know.


    by Michael Maiello on Wed, 12/01/2010 - 9:55pm

    Are you defending the right of diplomatic workers to operate in complete secrecy and without public oversight?

    More or less yes: There are congressional committees to oversee these people, but their communication must be confidential or it is of no use.


    by David Seaton on Wed, 12/01/2010 - 4:40pm

    Not comforting.

    And I think you underestimate the level of corporate fealty these people exhibit.


    by Michael Maiello on Wed, 12/01/2010 - 5:09pm

    A few random thoughts -

    Let's keep the context in mind here. The docs are taken from a database from which anyone of 300'000 people could freely download content to their heart's content. So think through what that means. That means EVERY SIGNIFICANT FOREIGN PLAYER on the international scene already had access to most confidential internal State Department communications. No counterparties are learning anything new. The only difference this data dump makes is that the public - in the US and around the world - now sees that content.

    So this doc dump is extremely useful in at least that one way - it forces State to be less careless in how it handles confidential communications. Fwiw, I've spent a good chunk of my life up close and personal with the diplomatic corps, and when you've seen the security measures that used to go into protecting these cables, the incompetence demonstrated here is truly unbelievable.

    How big of a problem is it that this info is public? In the particular case of the Iran standoff, Arab governments will now be under pressure to distance themselves from any aggressive US action. Ummm, that sounds like a GOOD thing to me. Are there other deep intimate contacts with Teheran insiders that will be harmed? Give me a break. The US has no clue what goes on there. It goes through the Swiss and the Brits.

    Other people will likely lose jobs, some contacts are burned, some egos will need to be massaged. US diplomats will be mocked even more than usual. People will keep a hand on their wallets when they approach. Not the end of the world, imo.


    by Obey on Wed, 12/01/2010 - 4:12pm

    I have been intrigued by how the Saudi's play both sides of the fence. Some of this new information is entertaining for sure.


    by Richard Day on Wed, 12/01/2010 - 4:38pm

    To steal a quip I read elsewhere, the Saudis are willing to fight the Iranians to the death...of the last American. 


    by brewmn on Wed, 12/01/2010 - 4:57pm

    That's from the Rubin NYT piece you linked to.  Laughing


    by we are stardust on Wed, 12/01/2010 - 5:01pm

    Bob Baer was on NPR's Talk of the Nation yesterday with Tom Blanton of the National Security Archive.  For me, the most revealing moment was this:

    COX: And you, Tom Blanton, say that if they had done it the right way it would have been OK, but the way they did it makes it all wrong.

    Mr. BLANTON: No, to the extent that it was an attack, and I think in their anarchist mode, they meant it as an attack. Hillary Clinton was right when she called it an attack. I think in their journalism mode, that's a different matter, and that's something we're all working on. And I think where the listener - the last listener made this point. It's flat wrong to release classified information. I think that's an incorrect statement because way too much is classified.

    Our problem with our security system and why a Bradley Manning can get his hands on all these cables is we got low fences around a vast prairie because the government classifies just about everything. When what we need are really high fences around a small graveyard of what's really sensitive.

    COX: What's standing in the way of that happening?

    Mr. BLANTON: I think the reflexive law of bureaucracy is everywhere all over the world to use the secrecy system to protect their own turf, their budgets and their rear ends.

    COX: Bob, really quickly. You agree with that?

    Mr. BAER: Tom is right. We're overclassifying. We're keeping too much out of the public domain. And if we protected the true secrets intelligently we wouldn't have this problem.

    COX: Well, it's interesting to think that the CIA - a former operative would support something like this to the extent that you do. I want to be sure to get the (unintelligible).

    Mr. BLANTON: I think Bob got an education as he tried to get his book texts cleared by those classifiers inside CIA.

    [Emphasis mine.]

    While it's true that Bob Baer and others seem to think this document dump will be damaging, he makes absolutely no bones about who is at fault.  The government failed to exercise both common sense in deciding what to classifiy and sensible security measures to properly safeguard this material.  All of the froth about Wikileaks is dopey on this point.  When hundreds of thousands of people have access to the info and all any one of them had to do to get it was to decide to download it (whilst listening to a little Lady Gaga, of course), this was bound to happen eventually.

    But, hey, let's not let that stop the Dagblog "Kill the Messenger" party!  Party on, dudes!

    BTW - "We got low fences around a vast prairie" would be a great country song.  Paging Willie Nelson!


    by DF on Wed, 12/01/2010 - 5:21pm

    A primary reason the wikileak story is so consuming is that there are multiple threads in story, none of which are The Story.  One of these is the quanity of people who had access and the ease by which they could make such a "dump" possible.  Another of these is the potential damage that has and could result from this "dump."  From the same Talk of the Nation show:

    STEVE (Caller): Hi, thanks for letting me on the program. I can offer the perspective of, excuse me, a working-level diplomat. I was a political economic reporting officer in the Ivory Coast in West Africa, right next door to Liberia, and in Bulgaria.

    And I think the point that I would make is it was my job to go out and talk to everybody from prime ministers to striking students to, you know, drunken military to, you know, taxi drivers and find out what was going on in the country, what were people thinking, you know, where was this all heading.

    And I would write that up in some analysis, and I would send it back to Washington. It's what a reporting officer does. And if and I mean, I think this was a really bad thing just in very practical terms. If people are afraid to talk to me, and if I'm afraid to say something, you know, to be honest in my assessment of the information I send back to Washington, it effectively blinds us. It makes it really impossible for us to be intelligent and informed about what's happening in the world.

    COX: Bob, thank you very much. Let me ask Bob Baer to speak about that because in your former role as a CIA operative, you know, how true is that?

    Mr. BAER: There's nothing more important than source protection because the better the source, the more at-risk he will be and the more he will want his name kept out of the press. And this goes for State Department, as well, who spends a lot of time talking to dissidents in authoritative countries and regimes.

    They will go to human rights groups, which will give them information, and in a State Department message, that organization has to be named and usually the person who's talking. And there's a certain understanding when you talk to a source that his name will be never made public.

    That has been thrown into doubt. So yes, I mean, it's an excellent comment. We are going to become more isolated and more blind.

    I think it's important to realize that we will never be able to quantify the damage.  Most potential informants who now will not talk to U.S. representatives are not going to explicitly say "hey, I was going to give you some intel that might help avert a coup or re-ignite a civl war, but because of wikileaks I'm not go to."  They will instead just stay quiet.  So no one can then turn and point to this or that incident and go "look, see how this made the situation worse."


    by Elusive Trope on Wed, 12/01/2010 - 5:36pm

    I don't think this is correct.  It's difficult to quantify, but if it can't be assessed at all then how can it be known at all?  Certainly, if this really does cause a freeze in diplomatic channels, that will be notable in some way.

    And if we can speculate about the harms on the one side, can't we also speculate about the harms that might be part of the pre-Wikileaks secrecy regime?  Who might not have been talking to us previously?  Who might not have even wanted to work with us because of policies that have been enabled by the secrecy regime?  Strictly quantifiable or not, how is that any less relevant or credible?

    I don't see why this is so difficult to understand.  Speculating about the possible harms caused by Wikileaks without comparing that to the potential benefits (again, the same grounds for speculation should apply here) and without putting that into context by comparing that to the costs and benefits of the secrecy regime in absence of Wikileaks is unimpressive.

    And, again, this exposure is not primarily the fault of Wikileaks!  If these cables really have so much potential to damage, then why were they left essentially unguarded?  Will anyone square that circle?  Why aren't the people who are so concerned about the potential damages so angry at Wikileaks instead of the government?  It's nuts!  If I blamed an intrusion on one of my servers on hackers, my bosses would be sympathetic to that view not at all.  It's part of my job to make sure that certain properties are secured.  Are we saying here that the government has less responsibility to safeguard diplomacy crushing secrets than your average systems administator?  If people really believe that this information is so damaging, why are they primarily worried that someone can potentially publish this information on a website instead of being concerned that the goverment has apparently failed to anticipate or act against such an obvious eventuality?


    by DF on Wed, 12/01/2010 - 8:28pm

    Paging Willie's 'Prairie Rear End', you obviously mean.  ;o)


    by we are stardust on Wed, 12/01/2010 - 5:37pm

    You're saying diplomacy is not about business.  I disagree.  For instance: who read about the $48 billion of arms and systems sales to the Saudis Obama arranged last month and didn't see that a)it really ratched up the arms race in the ME, and that b)Israel must have approved it.  The Saudis allow us to use their airspace now, yes?  The world of diplomacy is riddled with business deals: we call them carrots. 

    Pick a nation friendly to the US: we sell them weapons and systems.  Hell, we even sell them to enemy states.  Bidness is bidness.  And I'd guess it can complicate our 'diplomacy', but there it is.

    This piece talks about how K Street Lobbyists are the main folks in a panic over the Wikileaks.  They worry about the perceptions of the American public of their employer-nations.  Their JOBS depend on securing deals with America, and most of the deals are financial, aren't they?

    As far as Zbig and Hadley; man, these are some powerful dudes in dark policy circles.  International whatever for Peace for Hadley seems pretty ironic, I'd say.

    http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/11/30/beltway_bandits_scramble_to_deal_with_wikileaks_fallout


    by we are stardust on Wed, 12/01/2010 - 5:00pm

    Dagblog Friends:

    I believe we have a consensus.

    A consensus that the historic trend of the last few centuries - wherein realm after realm of closed discussion was opened up to the public - must be admitted to have failed.

    It's time. Time we admitted we were wrong, and just... all went back inside.

    Where it was safe.

    Safe.

    What we all need today - and in this, I know I speak for everyone - is a bit more stability, more security. Just a bit. that's not asking too much.

    And if that means slightly greater secrecy and a bit more thorough patdowns, then that's a small price.

    I know I can speak for all of us when I say, we've had quite enough instability, thank you.

    And on issues so confusing to the layman, I think we're best advised to listen to the wisest voices out there. And who better than the Spymasters themselves? After all, they've been there. And as they've told us, have saved us time and again. So who better to take care of our interests than these selfless few?

    What we can't have is every Tom Dick Harry and Sally knowing all about our relations with other nations. These things are complex, with differing languages and histories and such. 

    Further, do we, the people, really need to know when we're being lied to? Was that really what the Founding Fathers were on about? Or wasn't it more about individual rights? Of which none is greater than a man - or a woman's - privacy? After so many tawdry revelations, do we really need to know every time our elected leaders and their staffs have become a bit corrupt?

    I know I don't. I've heard more than enough.

    And so, on behalf of my country, my church and my children, I'm happy to announce that I'm willing to forego the small, trembling, pleasures that come with these revelations from within the diplomatic boudoir.

    As, I'm sure, are you. 

    Friend. Let's admit it. Yes, our Spymasters are human. People, just like us. No great surprise there. Nothing needing "leaking."

    But don't they too, have rights? And feelings? And bleed? If you break into their private places, and reveal their innermost secrets, won't they be hurt, just like you or I?

    Certainly. And who's there for them, in their time of need? 

    Whereas, with these Wiki people, who can trust them? When you get down to the bottom of things friend, it's trust, it's all about trust. Trust that makes the world go round.

    For example, take our Spymasters. I believe that they're there for our best interests. I really do. I have that faith. And so, I trust them. And my job is therefore to carry that trust, that unknowing faith, into the future.

    But the Wiki people? Why should we trust them? As the Spymasters say, they could be working for the Jews.

    Or the Koreans.

    Or even the enemies of the Turks. Certainly, one of the above.

    Track them down, I say.

    Try them -just as we try the terrorists who make our lives uncertain.

    And then, after a full and fair trial, imprison them.

    So we can be safe.

    Safe.

     

    - quinn esq


    by quinn esq on Wed, 12/01/2010 - 7:02pm

    Purrr-fect, Quinn. 


    by we are stardust on Wed, 12/01/2010 - 7:06pm

    I take it back, Quinn.  This should be that 'stand-alone blog' some Dagblog Friends wanted from you.  Seriously.


    by we are stardust on Wed, 12/01/2010 - 7:19pm

    As one of those who requested a stand-alone blog, this is not what I had in mind. It's just another "you're avoiding the real problem" comment that does nothing to address what Quinn feels the real problem to be. On the other thread, he implied that he had something to say about Hillary Clinton and the UN. That's the stand-alone blog that I would like to read.


    by Michael Wolraich on Wed, 12/01/2010 - 7:31pm

    Well done, Quinn. You've totally eviscerated the strawman who has been haunting this blog. Singed bits of dry grass are pathetically smoldering on the floor.


    by Michael Wolraich on Wed, 12/01/2010 - 7:11pm

    G. Forget the little slap-fight we were having for a moment... and just look at the sweep of this thing.

    It's the start of a new historic dynamic, whereby the Internet is used as a tool to spring free - and publicize - truckloads of material from within the well-guarded bastions of the most powerful forces of the age. Namely, governments and corporations.  

    In many ways, it feels to me just like Science coming up against the Church. 

    Yes, yes, Assange may be - as an individual - an ass... And maybe the protocols for what is leaked when and why and how aren't in place... And yes, Security is a real-world concern... And yes, they're just secrets the same as the secrets that used to be leaked on plain paper in plain old envelopes, etc.

    But forget the pissing match - look at the great big historic thing happening. The Internet is blowing apart the world's media. It has already blown apart whole industries. The "voice of authority" formerly embedded in universities and experts are all shaking. This, is a new chapter in that process.

    But at this blog, it has resulted in a series of blogs and comments - aimed precisely at the messenger. I know it sounds nice to pretend I'm knocking over a strawman, but - without naming names - go look at the number of people raising, as their primary commentary, problems with Assange... or feelings that maybe somehow someone's making them less secure... or the arguments that he's destabilizing things... etc. 

    I think THE question is... why that is.

    And I think the answer is that we're all, ALL, somewhat embedded in the old age, the old ways, the old powers that be. We like the old political parties and nice solid banks on the corner and universities and books and profs and solid books and Walter Cronkite and the thought that our diplomats were pipe-smoking linguists with a few James Bond types thrown in. And personally, we'd like a job and a pension and all that nice stuff.

    And we're not wrong to want it, and not wrong to feel that these forces, unleashed, are gonna change our plans. In my OWN life, I have to think of these things now, not being 21 anymore.

    But when I detect the feeling inside me, and then see it much larger, much louder, coming from others - as it has, very heavily - I'm not straw-manning. Obey and others have seen it as well. People are performing ju-jitsu to raise alarms about this guy that make no sense considering the whole picture.

    He's causing some serious dissonance, ON OUR SIDE.

    Hell, the other side has little difficulty with this. They want him killed. A former major advisor to our PM just said so today. Hunt him down and kill him. The only guys this causes problems for on the other side are the libertarians and such.

    But OUR side, it causes ripples, insecurity. 

    I was aiming to surface that feeling, and while it ain't perfect, it's not a bad first effort.


    by quinn esq on Wed, 12/01/2010 - 9:06pm

    go look at the number of people raising, as their primary commentary, problems with Assange..

    Out of 39 comments (40 including this one), I count … 0 raising as their primary concern (or even as a secondary concern) problems with Assange. I found only 2 that were even critical of Assange on this thread. On another thread, you'll probably find some people who have expressed concern about problems with Assange, but even there I'm sure it's few and far between.


    by Atheist (not verified) on Wed, 12/01/2010 - 9:14pm

    I would suggest you go look at the threads from previous posts here by Seaton, Donal and Ramona.  Particularly in Ramona's post about the last dump, the thread was full of vilifications of Assange.  Pan out a little bit from Assange himself to Wikileaks as an organization and there is even more.  There might be others, but those are the threads that I recall.


    by DF on Wed, 12/01/2010 - 9:29pm

    Can you be more specific with respect to Ramona? I just clicked on her name above and I didn't see any post about Assange. Was it deleted?


    by Atheist (not verified) on Wed, 12/01/2010 - 9:35pm

    Plenty of ire here for both Assange as a person and Wikileaks as an organization.  Also, I want to be clear that I'm not trying to pick on Ramona or her views.  She is welcome to her opinion.  However, it illustrates that the assumptions you and I might make - say, that people generally think there are certain government secrets that should be exposed - isn't necessarilly universal, not even here.  In comments, she expresses reservations about Ellsberg and the Pentagon papers precisely because ultimately he stole government documents.  That's her view, but it doesn't seem to match with some of the assumptions you've highlighted.


    by DF on Wed, 12/01/2010 - 9:54pm

    Well, for what it's worth, I'm great at making assumptions. In 2004, I assumed there was no way Bush could get re-elected. What I'm most guilty of in these assumptions, I'm sure, is in thinking that others see the same logic I do. Am I safe in at least assuming others are guilty of the same assumption making? Wink


    by Atheist (not verified) on Wed, 12/01/2010 - 10:01pm

    I finally went back and read (or skimmed through) most of the comments on Ramona's blog. I have to say I didn't really find it to be full of ire. Sure, there were criticisms of Assange and Wikileaks, but I didn't find anything particularly villifying. I can't say I read every single last comment, but I did search on "Assange" (speaking of which - where's dijamo when you need her?), and nothing cruel at all stood out at me. What I did see was a support of my original assumptions about where Ramona was coming from. In her opening paragraph:

    While nearly everyone in my world is cheering the release of a staggering 400,000 classified U.S documents by the website, WikiLeaks, in order to expose war crimes and atrocities by the U.S and its allies during both the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, I can't help but dread the direction in which we're heading.

    So, she's starting from the premise that everyone in her world is already familiar with the benefits of uncovering secrets, but she wants to warn of the dangers, as well. I don't agree with everything she wrote, but I'm fairly certain she was not only not asserting that governments have the right to keep any secrets they please, but that she was also assuming that her audience didn't require any explanation about the benefits of whistleblowing (since she was clearly assuming that they were all, or at least mostly, in favor of it).


    by Atheist (not verified) on Thu, 12/02/2010 - 9:39am

    Atheist; here is Ramona's:

     http://dagblog.com/reader-blogs/still-looking-wikileaks-heroes-7295

    Stardust's (day before, I believe):

    http://dagblog.com/reader-blogs/secret-document-frago-242-7279

     

     


    by we are stardust on Wed, 12/01/2010 - 10:31pm

    But at this blog, it has resulted in a series of blogs and comments - aimed precisely at the messenger. I know it sounds nice to pretend I'm knocking over a strawman, but - without naming names - go look at the number of people raising, as their primary commentary, problems with Assange... or feelings that maybe somehow someone's making them less secure... or the arguments that he's destabilizing things... etc.

    Quinn, what the hell are you talking about? Seaton and Donal barely even mention Assange in their posts. They're talking about the downside of leaks, not the the guy who happens to have done the leaking. I certainly haven't said anything about Assange, and I haven't noticed the other commenters doing much of it either. If there are some "unnamed" folks attacking the messenger, go address them directly. DF weirdly keeps talking about Ramona, who hasn't participated in either of these threads

    As for the dissonance, you seem unable to comprehend how liberals might genuinely find the leaks to be troubling and therefore come up with some BS psychoanalytical explanation for how we could possibly disagree with you. Now if we were raging Beck-loving paranoids, this approach might have some justification (see Blowing Smoke), but in the face of the patient and reasonable arguments that your interlocutors have provided (particularly Atheist), your furious conjectures about our collective psychological state seems way off target.

    By I suppose that I'm just in deniel, eh?


    by Michael Wolraich on Thu, 12/02/2010 - 1:46am

    Quinn, you're on it. It is the enormity of it we're not getting. And it was predictable. And if Assange didn't exist he would be invented.


    by Oxy Mora on Thu, 12/02/2010 - 4:08pm

    The USA is senile and it would be better if it didn't drool all over everybody and leave its diapers lying around... that is the bottom line. This is not about the USA being safe, it is about the world being safe... from us.


    by David Seaton on Thu, 12/02/2010 - 2:07am

    Q, this sounds like homosexual terrorism. 

    http://www.newsy.com/videos/bill-o-reilly-comparing-homosexuals-to-terrorists/

    Now I aint sayin you are a homosexual terrorism.

    Just sayin!!!


    by Richard Day on Thu, 12/02/2010 - 11:34am

    America had its 'senior moment' or biggest mistake, when it allowed the 5 Republicans on the Supreme Court to stop the vote counting and sanction the  coronation of the War President. Wikileaks document releases which developed from a serviceman in Iraq, are a direct result of the actions, crimes and catastrophes that happened, not only to Americans, but to tens of thousands and millions throughout the world.

    Anyone who looks at America's record the last ten years and uses the words, 'gags' or 'shenanigans'  has a very warped sense of reality and history.

    From the Economist, In Defense of Wikileaks:

     

    If secrecy is necessary for national security and effective diplomacy, it is also inevitable that the prerogative of secrecy will be used to hide the misdeeds of the permanent state and its privileged agents. I suspect that there is no scheme of government oversight that will not eventually come under the indirect control of the generals, spies, and foreign-service officers it is meant to oversee. Organisations such as WikiLeaks, which are philosophically opposed to state secrecy and which operate as much as is possible outside the global nation-state system, may be the best we can hope for in the way of promoting the climate of transparency and accountability necessary for authentically liberal democracy. Some folks ask, "Who elected Julian Assange?" The answer is nobody did, which is, ironically, why WikiLeaks is able to improve the quality of our democracy. Of course, those jealously protective of the privileges of unaccountable state power will tell us that people will die if we can read their email, but so what? Different people, maybe more people, will die if we can't.

    Greenwald is good to at link.

    (commenting on those who want Assange killed) ..Without exception, all of these people cheered on the attack on Iraq, which resulted in the deaths of more than 100,000 innocent human beings, yet their thirst for slaughter is literally insatiable.  After a decade's worth of American invasions, bombings, occupations, checkpoint shootings, drone attacks, assassinations and civilian slaughter, the notion that the U.S. Government can and should murder whomever it wants is more frequent and unrestrained than ever. .. 


    by NCD on Wed, 12/01/2010 - 7:03pm

    It's not purely wrong to inquire about what the possible negative consequences of this and other document dumps might be.  However, to merely speculate about all of the dangers that might befall us without a sober comparison to the very real consequences of the status quo is nothing but asinine navel-gazing.

    I think Quinn is right here.  Both left and right, the vast majority of people willfully holding forth on this issue seem disturbingly averse to actually grappling with reality.  You know there's trouble afoot when most people are more concerned about the demons in the dark than the wolves at their door.


    by DF on Wed, 12/01/2010 - 7:14pm

    DF, who are the wolves here? What is the terrible reality that everyone is ignoring? If you and Quinn really want to focus people on the problem, writing about how people are blind to the as yet unspecified wolves that Wikileaks has exposed doesn't advance your end. Instead of telling us what we shouldn't be paying attention to, tell what we should be. Otherwise, you're just gazing at people gazing at their navels.


    by Michael Wolraich on Wed, 12/01/2010 - 7:26pm

    Did I call it terrible?  No, I surely did not.  I just called it real.

    And the problems inherent in our government and its curent operations are certainly not "as yet unspecified."  It's not as if Quinn has been short on those specifics, but let me quickly summarize: Over the last decade, the intelligence community and our government failed to engage on a level that helped make possible one of the largest and most significant terrorist attacks in history.  In the time since, those same communities engaged us in two wars, one of which was perpetrated on evidence known to be false and the other now being continued without any clear indication of realistic goals, largely predicated on the hope that woefully corrupt entities will at some point cease to be so.  This is to say nothing of revelations contained in the leaks, like the fact that the head of our State Department has apparently been intent on bringing it further under the umbrella of "intelligence" and, of course, secrecy (without, as I've noted, any reasonable attempt to actually safeguard supposedly damaging secrets, a circle that I don't see being squared in any of these discussions) or that the Saudi government continues to take U.S. dollars on one side and then provide resources to the entities we're supposedly fighting on the other.

    Not that I should have to actually spell any of this out for the savvy Dagblog community.  Nevertheless, most of the critiques of Wikileaks that I have had the pleasure of reading, both here and elsewhere, seem to take place with "secrecy = stability" essentially taken as a given - even though the record shows that this relationship is far from assured.

    Perhaps a more succint way to put it is this: I regard those who blindly speculate about the possible, but as of yet unrealized, harms of the information distributed by Wikileaks without considering the possible benefits to be providing a woefully derelict analysis.  Not only does it fail as a simple matter of actually weighing both costs and benefits, but it also fails as a matter of contextualizing the analysis by looking only at the perceived good of "stability" under the pre-Wikileaks regime and avoiding the comparison with the negative aspects of that reality.  It reminds me very much of a lot of the supposed economic analysis that I read, where people are basically just doing a partial analysis on the piece that they don't like, without honestly grappling with the full ramifications of whatever model they pretend to be using to make their point.  It's not a proper analysis of the potential costs and benefits and it's not in context.  It's a cost-only analysis out of context.

    So, yes, I believe that qualifies as "navel-gazing," if even only for the singular focus on unestimable costs of the leaks.  It might also be properly described as "whistling past the graveyard."


    by DF on Wed, 12/01/2010 - 7:53pm

    I think it's possible to simultaneously not buy into the "secrecy=stability" equation and to also not buy into the "complete transparency=nirvana" equation. The question as I see it isn't whether Wikileaks crossed the line this time, but how to respond when they invariably do. Do you honestly think that is just a navel-gazing question and that there's little room for abuse?

    The wonderful thing about civil disobedience is that one must be willing to pay the price for one's beliefs. Take that away and you get vigilantism. Using that equation, Wikileaks looks more like vigilantism, but I'm not buying into that equation either. I'm just saying we should be mindful that the line isn't as clearly drawn as some seem to think it is. How many people who are currently supporting Wikileaks also supported Linda Tripp?


    by Atheist (not verified) on Wed, 12/01/2010 - 8:01pm

    I agree with you that neither of those formulations is adequate.  What I also find to be inadequate is speculating about potential future abuses by Wikileaks without weighing that properly against the very real and present abuses in the current secrecy regime.  Without that context, without a full analysis, this kind of speculation amounts to hand-wringing.

    Wikileaks is certainly exposed to consequences.  I do agree with you that these lines aren't clearly drawn, but I do not think that the discussions taking place here generally reflect that reality.  That's at the core of the criticism that I'm raising.  However, I do not see how Wikileaks is at all analagous to Linda Tripp.


    by DF on Wed, 12/01/2010 - 8:18pm

    The similarity: they both exposed secrets of powerful people.

    One difference (of many, I'm sure): Linda Tripp was working within the law.

    You can say (and I'd be sympathetic to it) that Wikileaks was operating out of more noble principles, but that's highly subjective. If I'm neglecting to properly weigh the present abuses in the current secrecy regime, it's for the same reason I don't tell my brother he'd be healthier if he lost some weight: he already knows it. The question here isn't whether there's some good to come out of Wikileaks - I think almost all regular dag†bloggers would agree that there is. I also don't think the question is about whether there are abuses in the current secrecy regime. Does anyone feel otherwise? That's why the term "straw man" has come up. No one is arguing that the current secrecy regime is good.


    by Atheist (not verified) on Wed, 12/01/2010 - 8:34pm

    I don't think that's a workable assumption.  For one, Ramona wrote a blog here where she basically maintained the position that everything classified should stay that way - ie, the current secrecy regime is good or at least good enough that no leak of classified information is justifiable.  So, I don't assume what you know or what you think if you don't say it.  If all you're talking about is what scary things Wikileaks might do in the future, then I have no idea what you've weighed that against.  Similarly, I don't see in evidence from these discussions that most of the people here think that some good has come out of Wikileaks.  In short, I don't know what you're thinking about if you don't tell me.  I can only assess what I see.

    And it's not at all a straw man for me to observe that I don't really see these comparisons being entertained here.  That's a perfect opportunity for people to illuminate their views on those comparisons if they so choose.


    by DF on Wed, 12/01/2010 - 8:46pm

    And it's not at all a straw man for me to observe that I don't really see these comparisons being entertained here

    Maybe it's how we read the comments, but it seems that from the very beginning (Destor's comment), the vast majority of us have been entertaining those very comparisons. I don't recall reading Ramona's blog, and I also don't remember anything she's written on the specific matter (no offense, Ramona), so I won't comment on that specific, but if you just scroll through the comments, it seems that most of them are comparing both sides of the issue.

    FWIW, I don't want Assange in jail, and I think the PtB are out to get him (does that make me a conspiracy nut?). I do think that there's much potential for abuse in an anonymous system such as Wikileaks. I also think there's much potential for good. Currently, the latter seems to be dominating, but I don't want to assume it will remain that way.


    by Atheist (not verified) on Wed, 12/01/2010 - 9:07pm

    I think destor is a person who has consistently tried to weigh more than one aspect.  That's not something I'm reading widely here - or elsewhere.

    You don't have to be a conspiracy nut to note that public officials are calling for him to be prosecuted or even assassinated.  That's in evidence.  However, ultimately Wikileaks can publish what it is sent.  In receiving that information, they have increasingly moved toward efforts to cooperate both with major media sources and with government.  How much more responsible are they supposed to be with this information?

    Ultimately, Wikileaks, or any other similar entity, can only cause damage to the extent that they receive information that is truly damaging.  The question then would be damaging to whom and why?

    Regardless, most of what I'm seeing seems curiously focused on base speculation that Wikileaks might someday publish something that "we" really wouldn't like  - whatever that would be.  I think this strongly implies that the people who are making this their focus believe that this is the overriding concern.  If it's not, then they could easily make that clear.  If that really is their overriding concern, then I think their analysis is deficient in exactly the way that I've already described.

    As an example, when the GOP surgically focuses on earmarks, do you not take that as a signal that they believe that this is more important than other concerns?  Is it then not reasonable to observe that this analysis can't really be taken seriously when put in the context of realities about budget deficits and national debt?  Ultimately, arguments are about not just what is said, but what is not.  The choices made in crafting arguments are as conscious on one side as they are on the other.


    by DF on Wed, 12/01/2010 - 9:23pm

    If it's not, then they could easily make that clear.

    Well, I can't speak for others, but with me, it's kinda like when I talk quantum mechanics with my physics friends. We never talk about how 99.9999% of the time, quantum effects are meaningless, because it's much more interesting (and fun) to talk about when they're not meaningless.

    Similarly, when talking about the Wikileaks story, I don't keep repeating how it's good to expose secrets that the government shouldn't keep from us because I assume (perhaps wrongly) that everyone understands that to be true. What's interesting to talk about is where we might disagree, or even better, when we might provide a fresh perspective to an issue we hadn't considered, such as when Destor (I think that's who it was) mentioned the social failings component with respect to the recent sting operation on the teenage would-be bomber. By doing so, was he glossing over the very real consequences that could've happened had the FBI done nothing instead of arguably entrapping him? I didn't think so, and I don't think (most) others thought so, either.


    by Atheist (not verified) on Wed, 12/01/2010 - 9:30pm

    This is not a community of physicists.  People here have wildly different backgrounds and they make different assumptions.  Again, previous threads here have illustrated to me that people don't necessarily think it's true that some secrets should be rightfully exposed.  I'm not assuming one way or the other, but trying to create some space in the discussion for people to actually disclose those views.  I've found the exposure of those assumptions to be surprising in the past and on this same topic.

    Your destor example is different.  The official story is that they stopped him.  Essentially all of the information we have about that situation comes from the FBI.  That's the core "story."  Considering that this information might not be sufficient and that the larger picture might be different can't even be done in absense of the prevailing narrative.


    by DF on Wed, 12/01/2010 - 9:45pm

    The problem with the format of blogs and the ensuring comment thread is that people tend to make a singular point (esp in the comments) without talking about everything that is pondered, and listing all the possible qualifications of the statement.  So if someone such as myself makes a point in a comment regarding the positive effect secrecy has on stability, it isn't that I haven't taken inverse into account, nor the benefits of the transparency. 

    But there is an analogy I think is relevant in the search for the gray between the black and white views: If someone is able to obtain through hacking the public health records of all those who have the HIV and released all of these in a dump in order to protect those who might encounter these people, claiming that the government has no right to keep this information secret from people who could be possible victims, would the hacker be justified?


    by Elusive Trope on Wed, 12/01/2010 - 8:34pm

    You don't have ponder the entire universe to quickly hit the point that there are both costs and benefits to the actions of Wikileaks, both strictly of the actions themselves and in context.  It can be done in a single comment.  I just did it in a single sentence.  Hell, tons of the comments here meander all over the place.

    I'm not sure what your hypothetical is meant to expose.  Private medial records are not analogous to the details of the work of public servants.  This is not that.


    by DF on Wed, 12/01/2010 - 8:50pm

    I wasn't saying that it impossible, just that people tend to focus one facet out of number of potential facets.  Sometimes out of the errot of interpreting another commenter as posing that their singular point is the only point.  I do it myself.  Doesn't make it right.  And if someone draws attention to one facet, I don't think that someone who replies is required to explicitly state in their comment the full spectrum of costs and benefits.  In other words, I don't we want to hold ourselves to such a standard in every comment in every thread out in there in the blogosphere.

    And of course this is not that.  This is this.  That is that.  But in both cases the government has information that would be beneficial to the public where the knowledge is power.  In both cases the government deems the information to remain secret as beneficial.  In both cases some individual deems it more beneficial that this information is released to the light of the day in the name of the greater good.  Does one have a right to expect to privacy when releasing that information might be beneficial to someone else? 


    by Elusive Trope on Wed, 12/01/2010 - 9:31pm

    Ah, DF, the possible benefits. Perhaps like revealing the folly of man. A warm up exerecise. A second look at what we're doing. Before we engage in final actual mutual destruction.


    by Oxy Mora on Thu, 12/02/2010 - 8:47am

    David,

    I find your position on this surprising.  Normally you are as skeptical as anyone about developments such as the exposure of government secrets.  But in this case you seem to be siding with the government and your writing on the subject is infused with a need to protect the establishment from the likes of Wikileaks and the light of day.  There is no evidence whatsoever that anything released to date by Wikileaks is even capable of causing more than embarassment to the US government.  Yet you join the chorus of those dectrying the nearly limitless damage the "random" document dump "might" do.  From what I've read, Wikileaks worked diligently and for a long time to redact information tht might actually bring harm to anyone or that might actually compromise any truly sensitvie material.  On the other hand, we peons are able to take a look into the workings of our criminal imperial state and find out what they are up to which I consider a good thing.  Our republic seems lost as we knew it growing up but yet there remains a spark of independence and sovereignty amongst the citizens that seems the last remainging counterbalance to a complete metastasis of the imperial state and the militarism that drives it.  Unless and until I see some actual evidence and compelling evidence at that, that demonstrates any genuine harm to the United States I simply don't see why everyone is joining in the cacophony of voices decrying Wikileaks instead of the corrupt state practices the document dump exposes.  I only pray that our government and others are unable to destroy Wikileaks as they so obviously are trying to do now.  I also hope that they do not become so crazed that they actually attempt to kill Assange which I would not put past them at all given their ongoing campaign to demonize him in order to distract public attention from the misdeeds of the US government. 


    by oleeb on Thu, 12/02/2010 - 2:08am

    Oleeb:

    I think that the content of the wiki documents thus far have caused many people who are ordinarily skeptical and inclined to distrust government secrecy to see these particular leaks from a different perspective.  And I think much of that is content-driven.  I cannot remember a time when so many folks on what we classify as "the left" have expressed reservations about government disclosure.  Indeed, I can't think of any example since before the Pentagon Papers even when there was so much criticism from "the left" about unauthorized disclosure

    In David's case, and I don't mean to pick on David but it is his blogpost and I always read his stuff, he has, as you know, expressed in both pictures and words a conviction that American war policy in Iraq and potentially Iran is driven by the Israelis and supporters of the State of Israel.  Thus far, the documents that have been leaked unambiguously suggest otherwise, and tell a story that is entirely different from what I contend to be be anIsrael-centric meme that is derivative an ugly trope with long-standing and consistent historical predicate.

    I think we need to look at the wiki disclosure from different angles  We should have an inherent distrust of government officials, and we need to support effective and real controls on governmental secrecy.  But I also recognize the importance of governmental secrecy in many instances and under all sorts of circumstances.  And I think that striking that balance between necessary secrets and our right to know is where this discussion should be focused.

    Bruce


    by Bruce Levine on Thu, 12/02/2010 - 11:21am

    Bruce,

    I'm not at all ready to say the Israelis are behind this business. If they form part of "the usual suspects" it is because they have a reputation (of which they are quite proud) of being clever, professional and ruthless. But there are others who fit that description too. And it could be a rogue element of any intelligence service including ours.

    What I am almost sure of is that this is not a genuine "amateur-citizen" thing.


    by David Seaton on Thu, 12/02/2010 - 11:34am

    For the time being the USA is the major pillar of stability of some sort that the world has. Like it or not, that is a fact. Anything that affects that stability causes extremely unpredictable outcomes, blowback and damage everywhere. I am certainly not "pro status quo", but on the other hand neither am I a nihilist or an anarchist. At some point frivolity becomes a mortal sin... America is fast reaching or may have already overshot that point by some distance.


    by David Seaton on Thu, 12/02/2010 - 2:45am

    And I would argue that our duplicity and lack of transparency in our diplomacy has cost us dearly in far too many cases where we are propping up and encouraging really ugly thugs and criminals. The case involving saddam and April Glaspie is one case where a little more leaking might have coerced sanity to prevail instead of what we got.

    by SleepinJeezus on Thu, 12/02/2010 - 5:01am

    One element in the post that the excellent debates going on up thread did not touch upon is the following:

    Many are shocked by what they read in these cables.  They seem to be suffering from a political version of "primal scene", you know, the trauma little children experience when they first discover what mommy and daddy do after they tuck the toddlers into bed.

    Looking past the patronizing aspect of dismissing interlocutors as too childish to participate in rational discourse, the conditions of this place "where things really happen" is interesting.

    The privacy of the scene allows one to act without concern for appearances. The scene is not intended to be a display. As a measure of candor, the intention to put on a show conceals what is "really happening".

    So, in your example of Arab leaders voicing thoughts not in alignment with their populations, it would be naive to think that what was being said to U.S. diplomats was not intended as a display. The kind of thing that really frightens children like me is learning how Hillary Clinton is actually John Bolton with the mustache tucked up behind the bangs.

    I would text more on the topic but my home economics teacher says it is my turn to make waffles.


    by moat on Thu, 12/02/2010 - 10:46am

    That is an excellent observation.  How do we know that diplomats talk to their people in platitudes but to each other with candor?  Everybody assumes that's the case... that with us they're acting but we each other they're genuine.  But it makes just as much, if not more sense to assume that they are acting with each other too.


    by Michael Maiello on Thu, 12/02/2010 - 10:56am

    To paraphrase Burns, if you can fake candor, you've got it made.


    by Donal on Thu, 12/02/2010 - 11:12am

    Yes, your statement is what occurred to me when learning the size of the group who had legitimate access to the diplomatic cables.


    by moat on Thu, 12/02/2010 - 11:14am

    Yes yes yes!  Or providing disinformation.  Seems likje we fall for all of it as some Truth when it may just be more Spin.


    by we are stardust on Thu, 12/02/2010 - 11:16am

    Latest Comments