Wikileaks

[Ghân-buri-Ghân]

Attempting to disentangle Wikileaks, the anonymous group of whistle-blowers, from Julian Assange, the nominated spokesperson, the initial dichotomous question is:

Wikileaks: Saints or Sinners?

[elfshadow]

I don't think one could ever make it that simple. Whether or not WikiLeaks is doing good or doing ill depends on the individual content that they publicize, IMO. Sometimes it is good for the public to know the facts on things. Sometimes the US government (usually the DoD) has classified information for a reason.

[River]

Releasing classified information is treason and those who have access to that information are supposed to keep it secret, so I'd put Wikileaks's sources in the sinners camp. They took a loyalty oath when they got their job. Shame on them.

Wikileaks itself is more akin to a fence for stolen or suspicious goods or a corpse-robber.

All of that aside, I have only skimmed the reports about the latest deposit in Wikileaks but the gist of it is so utterly unsurprising I'm wondering why it a) classified at all and b) leaked.

[N.E. Brigand]

Releasing classified information is treason and those who have access to that information are supposed to keep it secret, so I'd put Wikileaks's sources in the sinners camp. They took a loyalty oath when they got their job. Shame on them.

To be loyal to one's country can mean breaking the laws of one's country.

[Ghân-buri-Ghân]

Releasing classified information is treason and those who have access to that information are supposed to keep it secret, so I'd put Wikileaks's sources in the sinners camp. They took a loyalty oath when they got their job. Shame on them.

Wikileaks itself is more akin to a fence for stolen or suspicious goods or a corpse-robber.

All of that aside, I have only skimmed the reports about the latest deposit in Wikileaks but the gist of it is so utterly unsurprising I'm wondering why it a) classified at all and b) leaked.

Perhaps it has become so "unsurprising" because of repeated revelations? It has been easy for the "powers that be" to deny the worst excesses; now it has become expected. The ultimate contribution from wikileaks, perhaps, is not of absolute content (accusations have been common) but to close the avenue of deniability. It is simply no longer viable for the military to deny actions and activities which, by their own records, they are culpable of.

Wikileaks has helped explode the myth of the moral military, and brought some justifiable skepticism into "humanitarian interventionism".

You may say that what is described is "unsurprising", but perhaps that epitomises the depths to which we have fallen, and the acceptance of aberrant behaviour to which we have become somewhat inured. Why we have become so harsh might well be a question worth asking.

[River]

[
Wikileaks has helped explode the myth of the moral military, and brought some justifiable skepticism into "humanitarian interventionism".

For me, the myth cracked when I first learned about My Lai and then it crumbled into dust when the Abu Ghraib story broke. There were pictures of prisoners stacked into human pyramids while guards stood by giggling. It was all over the news. Do you really honestly think that anything Wikileaks has to offer can be shocking after that??

[River]

Releasing classified information is treason and those who have access to that information are supposed to keep it secret, so I'd put Wikileaks's sources in the sinners camp. They took a loyalty oath when they got their job. Shame on them.

To be loyal to one's country can mean breaking the laws of one's country.

I'm not sure that's true. Breaking the laws of one's country can mean you're loyal to the human race, but that's not the same. All the same, I fail to see how it is loyal to your country to give secrets to those who mean your country harm. Not only are you helping the wrong people, you're actually risking getting someone killed. The big leak regarding the Afghan war named names that the Taliban might have found interesting. Fortunately, the analysts are claiming that nothing important was compromised but for pete's sake, can you think of a more cowardly way to get someone killed?

With the Iraq thing I'm more concerned about destabilizing effects this might have on the Iraqi government. It's already on the edge of too-fragile-to-exist, if it wasn't already over that edge. This can't be helpful and further chaos in Iraq benefits no one.

[Ghân-buri-Ghân]

[
Wikileaks has helped explode the myth of the moral military, and brought some justifiable skepticism into "humanitarian interventionism".

For me, the myth cracked when I first learned about My Lai and then it crumbled into dust when the Abu Ghraib story broke. There were pictures of prisoners stacked into human pyramids while guards stood by giggling. It was all over the news. Do you really honestly think that anything Wikileaks has to offer can be shocking after that??

I understand that, at least to some degree, "shocking" is the prime mover in garnering media exposure, and there appears to be nothing made public by Wikileaks with the shock quotient of a My Lai or Abu Ghraib. So my answer is, no, there is nothing as shocking. However, examples such as those cited are dealt with by claiming they are isolated cases and thus not a true representation. What Wikileaks provides is the bigger picture, and puts the lie to the claim that, generally, these military interventions have been a "force for good". They demonstrate that any justification for the wars on humanitarian grounds are patently false. First WMDs were shown to be a smokescreen. Secondly, the need to replace the monster Saddam has been shown to be a mirage. Conditions in Iraq have not improved, in any measure. What has been demonstrated is that the US military, all the way to the top and to the civilian "masters" are complicit in the very same atrocities that were supposed to be justification for the invasion of Iraq. These leaks should cause everyone to think again before engaging in future "adventures". The public is routinely lied to to garner support. Wikileaks helps counter the hawkish drumbeat, and so should be applauded.
The foreknowledge that the USA is just as bad when operating in foreign countries as the despots they depose, and may even be worse, may well result in the avoidance of future "Iraqs", and for that Wikileaks should be praised.

[nerdanel]

On the whole, I favor transparency. As an American, if atrocities are being committed, encouraged, or inexcusably ignored by my country's military, then I would prefer to know. If my tax dollars are funding complicity in torture which my government is denying is occurring, then I would prefer that that be explicitly disclosed (whether or not it is "surprising", River's point, is irrelevant to me).

I concede that I am not in a position to know which disclosures would "jeopardize the safety of the troops". But I am also mindful that that excuse can be made very broadly. When used to justify non-disclosure, it is an excuse whose veracity is impossible to evaluate. In any event, since these documents have already been disclosed, it is also now irrelevant.

My position is particularly strong because I believe in a society's responsibility for its acts, as I explained in the death penalty thread. Those of us who pay taxes and are eligible to vote bear proportional moral responsibility for the acts committed by our government in our name. And that moral responsibility becomes particularly unfair when we do not have access to the information necessary to assess the behavior of our executive branch. So from this standpoint, Wikileaks is a "good". I say that with reservations, appreciating that I don't have a solid grasp of the "national security" consequences of such leaks.

What has been demonstrated is that the US military, all the way to the top and to the civilian "masters" are complicit in the very same atrocities that were supposed to be justification for the invasion of Iraq. These leaks should cause everyone to think again before engaging in future "adventures". The public is routinely lied to to garner support. Wikileaks helps counter the hawkish drumbeat, and so should be applauded.
The foreknowledge that the USA is just as bad when operating in foreign countries as the despots they depose, and may even be worse, may well result in the avoidance of future "Iraqs", and for that Wikileaks should be praised.

As for this, GBG, I applaud and share your enthusiasm for addressing the atrocities committed by the USA. I'm heartened that Nick Clegg is equally enthusiastic that the US must explain the conduct of its own forces in the face of these "extremely serious" allegations. I am, however, amused that the last, buried paragraph of the Guardian article doesn't seem to be discussed as frequently here in Britain:

Lawyers said the reports may embroil British as well as US forces in an alleged culture of abuse and extrajudicial killings. Phil Shiner, of Public Interest Lawyers, appearing alongside the WikiLeaks founder, Julian Assange, at a press conference in London, said some of the deaths may have involved British forces and could now go through the UK courts.

Hopefully the British will be as keen to answer for their own participation in these atrocities as they are to criticize the Americans, as the latter seems to be a full-time extracurricular activity in these parts (insert discussion of specks and logs here). Even if the British had managed to steer entirely clear of the "culture of abuse and extrajudicial killings," as it sounds like they have not, it would be worthwhile for the British to reconsider their support of wars in which such atrocities are committed. The UK does not have clean hands here.

[Ghân-buri-Ghân]

On the whole, I favor transparency. As an American, if atrocities are being committed, encouraged, or inexcusably ignored by my country's military, then I would prefer to know. If my tax dollars are funding complicity in torture which my government is denying is occurring, then I would prefer that that be explicitly disclosed (whether or not it is "surprising", River's point, is irrelevant to me).

I concede that I am not in a position to know which disclosures would "jeopardize the safety of the troops". But I am also mindful that that excuse can be made very broadly. When used to justify non-disclosure, it is an excuse whose veracity is impossible to evaluate. In any event, since these documents have already been disclosed, it is also now irrelevant.

My position is particularly strong because I believe in a society's responsibility for its acts, as I explained in the death penalty thread. Those of us who pay taxes and are eligible to vote bear proportional moral responsibility for the acts committed by our government in our name. And that moral responsibility becomes particularly unfair when we do not have access to the information necessary to assess the behavior of our executive branch. So from this standpoint, Wikileaks is a "good". I say that with reservations, appreciating that I don't have a solid grasp of the "national security" consequences of such leaks.

What has been demonstrated is that the US military, all the way to the top and to the civilian "masters" are complicit in the very same atrocities that were supposed to be justification for the invasion of Iraq. These leaks should cause everyone to think again before engaging in future "adventures". The public is routinely lied to to garner support. Wikileaks helps counter the hawkish drumbeat, and so should be applauded.
The foreknowledge that the USA is just as bad when operating in foreign countries as the despots they depose, and may even be worse, may well result in the avoidance of future "Iraqs", and for that Wikileaks should be praised.

As for this, GBG, I applaud and share your enthusiasm for addressing the atrocities committed by the USA. I'm heartened that Nick Clegg is equally enthusiastic that the US must explain the conduct of its own forces in the face of these "extremely serious" allegations. I am, however, amused that the last, buried paragraph of the Guardian article doesn't seem to be discussed as frequently here in Britain:

Lawyers said the reports may embroil British as well as US forces in an alleged culture of abuse and extrajudicial killings. Phil Shiner, of Public Interest Lawyers, appearing alongside the WikiLeaks founder, Julian Assange, at a press conference in London, said some of the deaths may have involved British forces and could now go through the UK courts.

Hopefully the British will be as keen to answer for their own participation in these atrocities as they are to criticize the Americans, as the latter seems to be a full-time extracurricular activity in these parts (insert discussion of specks and logs here). Even if the British had managed to steer entirely clear of the "culture of abuse and extrajudicial killings," as it sounds like they have not, it would be worthwhile for the British to reconsider their support of wars in which such atrocities are committed. The UK does not have clean hands here.

Oh, I agree wholeheartedly with your concluding statement, nerdanel; at no point would I become complicit in that jingoistic superiority complex afflicting the British and their pride in the "wonderful" British military. In another thread, I stated my sympathy for Muslim protestors at the homecoming parades of British service personnel. I have no illusions regarding British culpability.

Having said that, the UK is very much the junior partner in these endeavours, and saying "What about them?" is no defence for US atrocities (not that I think you are using it as a defence). The lesson to be learned appears to be that Western interventionism has a humanitarian justification solely for propaganda purposes, a conclusion that was not missed by many of us prior to these wars highlighted by wikileaks.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

On the whole, I favor transparency. As an American, if atrocities are being committed, encouraged, or inexcusably ignored by my country's military, then I would prefer to know. If my tax dollars are funding complicity in torture which my government is denying is occurring, then I would prefer that that be explicitly disclosed (whether or not it is "surprising", River's point, is irrelevant to me).

I concede that I am not in a position to know which disclosures would "jeopardize the safety of the troops". But I am also mindful that that excuse can be made very broadly. When used to justify non-disclosure, it is an excuse whose veracity is impossible to evaluate. In any event, since these documents have already been disclosed, it is also now irrelevant.

On the whole, I too favor transparency, and I also realize that "safety of the troops" excuse can be easily abused. However, it is still an important consideration, and I am concerned that these disclosures are being made in an irresponsible and possibly dangerous manner. I simply have no confidence that Julian Assange can be trusted to balance these interests in the way that one can (or should) expect from a responsible journalist. I fully admit that that is more of a feeling that I have than a fact based on hard evidence, but it makes me extremely uncomfortable about these disclosures -- and even more about future disclosures made in this manner.

[Lidless]

So long as no individuals are identified with these leaks, then I am wholeheartedly in favour of them.

Military and Government tend to massage individual data points and statistics as a whole, and if anything, if these leaks show the real picture of the cause and effect, of the debit and credit, of the investment and return, then power to their elbow.

Too often in my professional life as an accountant have I had to massage the message of a company's results to give a non-material misleading, but defendable, position of a company and its growth (or lack of) to its investors and potential investors.

But that's the point. The massaging I do is subject to an outside auditor - an independent body that would rather not be sued by anyone. As a result, any massaging is 'not material' to the view that any investor, or potential investor, would take of my company - but at the same time flatters the leaders as much as possible. As a result, I am constrained in what I may do.

We are all investors on this, and of course the results have been massaged ... but unaudited. Unconstrained. Social engineering, even.

In effect, with responsibility for not identifying individuals, Wikileaks has become the auditors of Government and the Military.

To quote Total Recall, "It's about god-damned time."

[Ghân-buri-Ghân]

On the whole, I favor transparency. As an American, if atrocities are being committed, encouraged, or inexcusably ignored by my country's military, then I would prefer to know. If my tax dollars are funding complicity in torture which my government is denying is occurring, then I would prefer that that be explicitly disclosed (whether or not it is "surprising", River's point, is irrelevant to me).

I concede that I am not in a position to know which disclosures would "jeopardize the safety of the troops". But I am also mindful that that excuse can be made very broadly. When used to justify non-disclosure, it is an excuse whose veracity is impossible to evaluate. In any event, since these documents have already been disclosed, it is also now irrelevant.

On the whole, I too favor transparency, and I also realize that "safety of the troops" excuse can be easily abused. However, it is still an important consideration, and I am concerned that these disclosures are being made in an irresponsible and possibly dangerous manner. I simply have no confidence that Julian Assange can be trusted to balance these interests in the way that one can (or should) expect from a responsible journalist. I fully admit that that is more of a feeling that I have than a fact based on hard evidence, but it makes me extremely uncomfortable about these disclosures -- and even more about future disclosures made in this manner.

Before making my substantive point, I think a clarification is necessary. Julian Assange is not Wikileaks, nor is he the "head" of Wikileaks. Assange happens to be a visible spokesperson, but Wikileaks is an organisation consisting of hundreds of anonymous activists, working in many different countries.

The question of anonymity for those involved in these atrocities is, I believe, overplayed. I feel confident that, if the perpetrators were aware that their identities were liable to be disclosed; in essence that they couldn't use the faceless mask of military secrecy, then I believe they would be far less likely to commit the atrocities in the first place. There is, I feel, far too much concern that the guilty parties should be protected from exposure, simply because they are "our boys". These disclosures are actually highly redacted, and I find that somewhat problematic. I want the names of the guilty broadcast loud and clear. Why should they enjoy such largesse?

[Lidless]

I want the names of the guilty broadcast loud and clear. Why should they enjoy such largesse?

Guilty until proved innocent?

Wikileaks is an anorexic version of what should be in place, but for now I'll take it.

[River]

I fully admit that that is more of a feeling that I have than a fact based on hard evidence, but it makes me extremely uncomfortable about these disclosures -- and even more about future disclosures made in this manner.

This is more or less where I am with Wikileaks. In situations like these, when information about an ongoing war is being released, there's a very fine line between providing transparency to the citizens and providing aid to the enemy. The former is as good as the latter is bad.

[Ghân-buri-Ghân]

I fully admit that that is more of a feeling that I have than a fact based on hard evidence, but it makes me extremely uncomfortable about these disclosures -- and even more about future disclosures made in this manner.

This is more or less where I am with Wikileaks. In situations like these, when information about an ongoing war is being released, there's a very fine line between providing transparency to the citizens and providing aid to the enemy. The former is as good as the latter is bad.

I obviously can't speak for anyone else, but for me, the perpetrators of the documented atrocities, and those who aid them, are the enemy.

[N.E. Brigand]

Releasing classified information is treason and those who have access to that information are supposed to keep it secret, so I'd put Wikileaks's sources in the sinners camp. They took a loyalty oath when they got their job. Shame on them.

To be loyal to one's country can mean breaking the laws of one's country.

I'm not sure that's true. Breaking the laws of one's country can mean you're loyal to the human race, but that's not the same.

Bringing to light the misdeeds done in the name of my country so that justice can be done makes my country better.
(Whether or not that is the case in this instance is yet to be determined.)

[Cenedril_Gildinaur]

Releasing classified information is treason and those who have access to that information are supposed to keep it secret, so I'd put Wikileaks's sources in the sinners camp. They took a loyalty oath when they got their job. Shame on them.

It is actually against the law to over-classify. If something is merely confidential, it is against the law to mark it secret or top secret.

If something is classified because it is embarrassing, it is wrongly classified. I can understand classifying advanced weapon designs or troop movements, because we don't want the enemy building our advanced weapons or being able to set ambushes because they know where our troops will be.

But if we classify our dirty laundry simply because it smells, that makes us look even worse than the dirty laundry initially made us look.

To be loyal to one's country can mean breaking the laws of one's country.

I'm not sure that's true. Breaking the laws of one's country can mean you're loyal to the human race, but that's not the same.

Sometimes to be loyal to your country, you have to be disloyal to the government that is disloyal to the country.

[Ghân-buri-Ghân]

It would appear that the most recent WikiLeaks release has really set the cat amongst the diplomatic pigeons...

What does this mean for international relations?

[Hachimitsu]

Ugh, hearing about some of this public relations stuff, it looks really bad on so many levels. A lot of this is stuff much of the public knew (or at least I hope they would) but it was never publicly said by any official. Now there are direct quotes from mid-Eastern leaders urging an attack on Iran. Stuff like this could destabilize the region further. It was so bad Iran had to spin it as American propaganda to sow distrust within the region. That is some serious spin. China has commented. Beyond everything else it makes some countries look stupid and irresponsible even if some of what is said is true (like Canada having an inferiority complex).

I can understand transparency but sometimes transparency isn't necessary. Especially as many of the comments were by diplomats and their first impressions and not comments by official leaders representing whole nation.

In terms of politeness and teamwork, "everyone knowing" and publicly saying what "everyone knows" are two very different things.