164 replies to this topic

[valkyrie_ice]

Now, having read all the posts, a few comments.


Rol... I can see some of your points, but I think your first post is you acting out of anger and frustration based on your disappointment at the change in circumstances within the State Department that cost you a good job. I do agree that there's been nothing in the cables so far that was actually either harmful or unexpected, which is more a sad testament to the American Public's complacency than a statement on the value or lack thereof of the leaked documents. You are right that most of them have been pretty pointless.


I however disagree with you on the value of the revelations of China/Korean relations, or the opinions of the nations surrounding Iran. Why? Because these political leaders have been barking like Chihuahuas because they felt PROTECTED by the big dogs. While it might not change anything done by these leaders themselves, those cynical elements in their governments which value survival over the ideologies of their leaders got that message loud and clear. Rather than increasing the likelihood of war, I see them as decreasing it. Kim might be insane, but he's likely to find a knife in his back if he doesn't begin calming down, the same with Iran's PM (I won't even try to spell it) There may be those who drank the party Koolaid, but I'd be willing to bet they are vastly outnumbered by the pragmatists who are only out for power.


Now to everyone else, I recommend reading my article, because I think you are all missing the real story. Assange and Wikileaks is more or less besides the point. The real story is the responses on both sides. There is a deeper level to this than just Wikileaks, which is about the control of information. Can the Authoritarians control the internet or will it go to the free for all Anarchists? So far, that battle appears to be being won by the Authoritarians, but it's a Pyrrhic victory. Will this cause a tightening up of security and attempts to prevent transparency? Yes. And the harder they try to clamp down the quicker things will slip through their hands.


Repression has always had the opposite effect. It might work in a short term, but it has ALWAYS BEEN A LOSING STRATEGY. History proves this time and again.


This is just starting. And transparency will be it's inevitable end.

[EmbraceUnity]

Anyway, although I'm once again tempted by the logic of leaving, I feel compelled at the very least to point out that you're being absurdly hysterical with the analogies to fascism and Stalinism, and with your strained misrepresentation of my posts.

There are a few important facts you are leaving out.

1) Julian Assange didn't leak anything, Bradley Manning and others did the leaking. He just ran a website. Presumably he has that right.

2) He has received numerous threats on his liberty and life from high level officials around the world, and calls to rewrite the law in order to unconstitutionally make him a criminal ex post facto. Whether that is technically fascism or not isn't very interesting, but it is certainly an affront to liberty.

3) There have been very similar incidences in our past. The Pentagon Papers being a prime example. Are you implying that Daniel Ellsberg was in the wrong? Or rather, are you implying Mike Gravel was in the wrong (to make a more accurate analogy, since neither Gravel nor Assange did any leaking). Seems to me the Pentagon Papers had a very positive effect. Namely, increasing the political cost of supporting that disastrous war of aggression built on a lie.

[Rational Madman]

Anyway, although I'm once again tempted by the logic of leaving, I feel compelled at the very least to point out that you're being absurdly hysterical with the analogies to fascism and Stalinism, and with your strained misrepresentation of my posts.

There are a few important facts you are leaving out.

1) Julian Assange didn't leak anything, Bradley Manning and others did the leaking. He just ran a website. Presumably he has that right.

2) He has received numerous threats on his liberty and life from high level officials around the world, and calls to rewrite the law in order to unconstitutionally make him a criminal ex post facto. Whether that is technically fascism or not isn't very interesting, but it is certainly an affront to liberty.

3) There have been very similar incidences in our past. The Pentagon Papers being a prime example. Are you implying that Daniel Ellsberg was in the wrong? Or rather, are you implying Mike Gravel was in the wrong (to make a more accurate analogy, since neither Gravel nor Assange did any leaking). Seems to me the Pentagon Papers had a very positive effect. Namely, increasing the political cost of supporting that disastrous war of aggression built on a lie.

1. According to my understanding of the relevant statutes, to be criminally liable, it would have to be proven that Assange was complicit in Manning's actions, that he clearly expressed a desire to damage the national security of the United States, and that his actions explicitly encouraged or enabled the dissemination of classified information. But personally, I would prefer that another legal strategy be developed, and would counsel patience, since he has yet to be extradited to Sweden.

2. Calls to rewrite the relevant statutes have not come from the Justice Department, but Congress, who in any case, seems more inclined to defer to the Obama administration. As for threats against his life and liberty, the most extreme threats have come from isolated voices in Congress and the media (e.g. Mike Huckabee, and Peter King), who can only compel action if they represent a majority---and they do not. As for other threats, if I'm not mistaken, only the United States, Australia, Turkey, Great Britain, and Sweden have taken serious measures to punish him for his actions---a fact that makes other threats pretty empty. While many states are likely angry, it seems that the international response has been somewhat muted, and that much of international community is allowing the United States to take the lead.

3. The main distinction between the Pentagon Papers and Wikileaks is that the information released in the former case was thoroughly filtered, that the impact was limited---since popular opinion had already shifted, and because by any metric, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were no where near as costly or shrouded as the war in Vietnam. To elaborate on the importance of there being a thorough filtering, Wikileaks---with a staff of five full time pseudo-journalists, doesn't have the capacity or the training to distinguish publishable information from dangerous information, and as a consequence, much of what has been published has a questionable, and sometimes dangerous value. Rather than publishing the information on their website, I would have much rather that they provided the information to multiple media organizations that don't have the same organizational deficits, and have a strong inclination to expose wrongdoing. But of course, this would deprive Assange of the spotlight, which I suspect is paramount in his crusade. In this case, the goal of transparency would be served, but the negative costs would be contained.

As for punishing Ellsberg in the Pentagon Papers case, I have mixed feelings, because although I agree with his actions, they were still in contravention with the law. And for someone like Gravel, I'm also not quite sure, because the speech and debate clause of the Constitution would seem to give him immunity, but then again, he carelessly read classified information on the floor without taking any precautions---which was a move resisted by even ardent Congressional opponents of the war. So I think a case could've been made to bring charges against Gravel, but after the New York Times already published portions of some of the documents, it would've been legally and politically impractical to take such a course.

Edited by Rol82, 13 December 2010 - 04:40 AM.

[EmbraceUnity]

Rather than publishing the information on their website, I would have much rather that they provided the information to multiple media organizations that don't have the same organizational deficits, and have a strong inclination to expose wrongdoing. But of course, this would deprive Assange of the spotlight, which I suspect is paramount in his crusade. In this case, the goal of transparency would be served, but the negative costs would be contained.

This is precisely what they did. In fact they have only released about 1000 documents to those outlets out of the mountain so far, and this is after their own internal redactions.

Edited by EmbraceUnity, 13 December 2010 - 03:38 AM.

[Rational Madman]

Rather than publishing the information on their website, I would have much rather that they provided the information to multiple media organizations that don't have the same organizational deficits, and have a strong inclination to expose wrongdoing. But of course, this would deprive Assange of the spotlight, which I suspect is paramount in his crusade. In this case, the goal of transparency would be served, but the negative costs would be contained.

This is precisely what they did. In fact they have only released about 1000 documents to those outlets out of the mountain so far, and this is after their own internal redactions.

But the documents are also available on the organization's website (and several mirrors and sympathizing websites), and in a poorly scrutinized form. As I've pointed out, they also did an alarmingly poor job of making redactions, and in the case of the Afghanistan dump, left the names of over 100 so-called collaborators untouched, in spite of pleas from national governments and NGOs. In fact, Assange callously referred to their inclusion as "collateral damage," and in his mind, essential for ending the conflict. To their credit, they do make an effort to make distinctions, but because of the governing ideology, and organizational limitations, they've made some rather poor decisions. It's almost like the notion of journalistic integrity is completely foreign to them. So I'd prefer more scrupulous organizations like The New York Times and The Guardian over Wikileaks anyday. Before this fiasco, they were already doing an exemplary job in holding public officials accountable.

Edited by Rol82, 13 December 2010 - 09:12 PM.

[medicineman]

Rol, leaving or not is not what I was saying. If it was up to me, like my other post, Id rather you stick around. But, you need a break because this forum is exposing your angry side quite often these past few posts. You are angry, you are being rude at times, and there is no point in it all. All we are doing is trying to have decent banter. If opinions bother you to a point where it angers you, maybe you don't need to read them or comment on them.

Anyways, I have to go to work. I am finished with this post.

[medicineman]

Now, having read all the posts, a few comments.

Rol... I can see some of your points, but I think your first post is you acting out of anger and frustration based on your disappointment at the change in circumstances within the State Department that cost you a good job. I do agree that there's been nothing in the cables so far that was actually either harmful or unexpected, which is more a sad testament to the American Public's complacency than a statement on the value or lack thereof of the leaked documents. You are right that most of them have been pretty pointless.

I however disagree with you on the value of the revelations of China/Korean relations, or the opinions of the nations surrounding Iran. Why? Because these political leaders have been barking like Chihuahuas because they felt PROTECTED by the big dogs. While it might not change anything done by these leaders themselves, those cynical elements in their governments which value survival over the ideologies of their leaders got that message loud and clear. Rather than increasing the likelihood of war, I see them as decreasing it. Kim might be insane, but he's likely to find a knife in his back if he doesn't begin calming down, the same with Iran's PM (I won't even try to spell it) There may be those who drank the party Koolaid, but I'd be willing to bet they are vastly outnumbered by the pragmatists who are only out for power.

Now to everyone else, I recommend reading my article, because I think you are all missing the real story. Assange and Wikileaks is more or less besides the point. The real story is the responses on both sides. There is a deeper level to this than just Wikileaks, which is about the control of information. Can the Authoritarians control the internet or will it go to the free for all Anarchists? So far, that battle appears to be being won by the Authoritarians, but it's a Pyrrhic victory. Will this cause a tightening up of security and attempts to prevent transparency? Yes. And the harder they try to clamp down the quicker things will slip through their hands.

Repression has always had the opposite effect. It might work in a short term, but it has ALWAYS BEEN A LOSING STRATEGY. History proves this time and again.

This is just starting. And transparency will be it's inevitable end.

Yea. it seems that my thread took an unintended turn. I wanted a debate about transparency vs secrecy, and instead we get criticism of Assange's sex life and similar useless remarks.

This forum has been descending in quality since the damn forum style update.

[u4e]

The best thing about the Wikileaks controversy - and what it really unmasked - is the willing collusion between big government and big corporations. This revelation wasn't in the leaked documents, but rather in the reactions to the event. We learn more from the epilogue than from the main act.

Somebody posted a video on YouTube with a title that says it best. "Freedom of speech is priceless. For everything else, there's Mastercard."

[EmbraceUnity]

It's almost like the notion of journalistic integrity is completely foreign to them. So I'd prefer more scrupulous organizations like the New York Times and Guardian over Wikileaks anyday. Before this fiasco, they were already doing an exemplary job in holding public officials accountable.

The Guardian, perhaps, but not the New York Times by any means. NYT was the home of Judy Miller. In the lead up to the war, they repeated the government's lies almost verbatim, with virtually no scrutiny whatsoever. Their Op-Ed pages were full of articles from people like Tom Friedman actively egging on the entire thing.

[Rational Madman]

Now, having read all the posts, a few comments.

Rol... I can see some of your points, but I think your first post is you acting out of anger and frustration based on your disappointment at the change in circumstances within the State Department that cost you a good job. I do agree that there's been nothing in the cables so far that was actually either harmful or unexpected, which is more a sad testament to the American Public's complacency than a statement on the value or lack thereof of the leaked documents. You are right that most of them have been pretty pointless.

I however disagree with you on the value of the revelations of China/Korean relations, or the opinions of the nations surrounding Iran. Why? Because these political leaders have been barking like Chihuahuas because they felt PROTECTED by the big dogs. While it might not change anything done by these leaders themselves, those cynical elements in their governments which value survival over the ideologies of their leaders got that message loud and clear. Rather than increasing the likelihood of war, I see them as decreasing it. Kim might be insane, but he's likely to find a knife in his back if he doesn't begin calming down, the same with Iran's PM (I won't even try to spell it) There may be those who drank the party Koolaid, but I'd be willing to bet they are vastly outnumbered by the pragmatists who are only out for power.

Now to everyone else, I recommend reading my article, because I think you are all missing the real story. Assange and Wikileaks is more or less besides the point. The real story is the responses on both sides. There is a deeper level to this than just Wikileaks, which is about the control of information. Can the Authoritarians control the internet or will it go to the free for all Anarchists? So far, that battle appears to be being won by the Authoritarians, but it's a Pyrrhic victory. Will this cause a tightening up of security and attempts to prevent transparency? Yes. And the harder they try to clamp down the quicker things will slip through their hands.

Repression has always had the opposite effect. It might work in a short term, but it has ALWAYS BEEN A LOSING STRATEGY. History proves this time and again.

This is just starting. And transparency will be it's inevitable end.

Yea. it seems that my thread took an unintended turn. I wanted a debate about transparency vs secrecy, and instead we get criticism of Assange's sex life and similar useless remarks.

This forum has been descending in quality since the damn forum style update.

No you claimed that the response to Wikileaks marked a "new age of fascism." And then you went on to claim that Assange was innocent, and only guilty of refusing to wear a condom. So tell me, when he's in the process of being extradited, and when you start a discussion on the basis that he's completely innocent, why wouldn't you expect that the charges from Sweden come up? In my mind they're inexorable from this debate. And we're not just talking about his sex life here, but charges that would see him punished in just about any country, so let's stop pretending that what possibly happened is no big deal, because it is by any standard.

You're calling for a reasonable debate, but by completely dismissing the charges emanating from Sweden, and ludicrously comparing the response to fascism, what exactly were you expecting? A one sided debate where we effusively praise your sageness, and celebrate Wikileaks for its daring brilliance? So at the very least, stop being so exceedingly disingenuous, because you didn't approach this question even handedly by any means.

Edited by Rol82, 13 December 2010 - 04:48 PM.

[Rational Madman]

It's almost like the notion of journalistic integrity is completely foreign to them. So I'd prefer more scrupulous organizations like the New York Times and Guardian over Wikileaks anyday. Before this fiasco, they were already doing an exemplary job in holding public officials accountable.

The Guardian, perhaps, but not the New York Times by any means. NYT was the home of Judy Miller. In the lead up to the war, they repeated the government's lies almost verbatim, with virtually no scrutiny whatsoever. Their Op-Ed pages were full of articles from people like Tom Friedman actively egging on the entire thing.

Have you picked up a New York Times since 2003, because if you did, you might want to reevaluate your extreme assault on its integrity. They're certainly not infallible, but they still set the journalistic standard for newspapers in the United States. But additionally, you're failing to distinguish between former staff writers like Judith Miller---whom are a minority---and glorified idiots like Thomas Friedman---whose presence is financially motivated---with the editorial page, and the sterling work of many of its staff writers.

Edited by Rol82, 13 December 2010 - 09:00 PM.

[meursault]

It's almost like the notion of journalistic integrity is completely foreign to them. So I'd prefer more scrupulous organizations like the New York Times and Guardian over Wikileaks anyday. Before this fiasco, they were already doing an exemplary job in holding public officials accountable.

The Guardian, perhaps, but not the New York Times by any means. NYT was the home of Judy Miller. In the lead up to the war, they repeated the government's lies almost verbatim, with virtually no scrutiny whatsoever. Their Op-Ed pages were full of articles from people like Tom Friedman actively egging on the entire thing.

Have you picked up a New York Times since 2003, because if you did, you might want to reevaluate your extreme assault on its integrity. They're certainly not infallible, but they still set the journalistic standard for newspapers in the United States. But additionally, you're failing to distinguish between former staff writers like Judith Miller---whom are a minority---and glorified idiots like Thomas Friedman---whose presence is financially motivated---with the editorial page, and the sterling work of many of its staff writers.

Your defensible is still entirely laughable as the failure for the Times to do anything with journalistic integrity but function as a mouthpiece for government officials is overwhelmingly evident. Also, in your first post, you said that they indiscriminately leaked 250,000 cables. This is a complete lie and the only reason why you have repeated it is because you failed to even look at the evidence with minimal carefulness.

[Rational Madman]

when the documents reveal american plans to decrease russian influence while expanding its own in eastern europe, it becomes my and everyones business who cares about the delicate balance of power which exists at the moment...

regardless, I am dumbfounded that a man is being hunted down for breaking no law.

In policymaking, organizations prepare for every contingency, and for NATO, one of these contingencies would be a bellicose Russia bent on militarily expanding its sphere of influence in Eastern Europe. With its actions in Georgia, Kalingrad, and Ukraine, this isn't an impossible scenario, even if its unlikely. But as should be abundantly clear, there is a preference for minimizing the security dilemma, rather than intensifying it. So without the proper context, and because the leaking of the plans is likely to be misconstrued by a state that's very sensitive about the distribution of power and its place in the world, the leaking of these plans has a questionable value. To outsiders, these plans seem imperialistic, but to insiders, they're simply a part of the standard protocol. That's why secrecy is important in this context, because the potential for misinterpretation and miscalculation is too great.

[Rational Madman]

It's almost like the notion of journalistic integrity is completely foreign to them. So I'd prefer more scrupulous organizations like the New York Times and Guardian over Wikileaks anyday. Before this fiasco, they were already doing an exemplary job in holding public officials accountable.

The Guardian, perhaps, but not the New York Times by any means. NYT was the home of Judy Miller. In the lead up to the war, they repeated the government's lies almost verbatim, with virtually no scrutiny whatsoever. Their Op-Ed pages were full of articles from people like Tom Friedman actively egging on the entire thing.

Have you picked up a New York Times since 2003, because if you did, you might want to reevaluate your extreme assault on its integrity. They're certainly not infallible, but they still set the journalistic standard for newspapers in the United States. But additionally, you're failing to distinguish between former staff writers like Judith Miller---whom are a minority---and glorified idiots like Thomas Friedman---whose presence is financially motivated---with the editorial page, and the sterling work of many of its staff writers.

Your defensible is still entirely laughable as the failure for the Times to do anything with journalistic integrity but function as a mouthpiece for government officials is overwhelmingly evident. Also, in your first post, you said that they indiscriminately leaked 250,000 cables. This is a complete lie and the only reason why you have repeated it is because you failed to even look at the evidence with minimal carefulness.

Well, with perfectly constructed sentences like these, am I supposed to take your response with any level of seriousness:
"Your defensible is still entirely laughable as the failure for the Times to do anything with journalistic integrity but function as a mouthpiece for government officials is overwhelmingly evident."
Anyway, as for my mention of the leaking of 250,000 cables, this post was written during a time when a complete picture was still emerging, and journalists and readers alike were struggling to make sense of the overwhelming amount of information. So you're seriously criticizing me for failing to have a complete understanding of a story that has few precedents in size and importance? But since we're on the subject of methodology, please enlighten me about the rigorous process that you used to reach the conclusion that The New York Times is a "mouthpiece for the government," which is a pretty serious charge. Do you have any citations, any quantitative evidence, or are you just regurgitating some tired old nonsense from someone like Chomsky? And for the indiscriminate nature of Wikileaks, once again, I'll reiterate: their targets and goals aren't narrowly defined, they have a limited staff to perform the requisite filtering, and they have no apparent notion of the distinction between newsworthy news items, and dangerous information.

I'm wondering if we could stop making the intellectually lazy error of conflating an opposition to the actions of Wikileaks, with support for less transparency, neo-imperialism, social stratification, and subverting our democracy? Have we reached the point where discourse has been reduced to a binary debate between two sides, and where it's impossible for anyone to inhabit the grey areas without being accused of apostasy? Really, I've encountered enough inane extremism from unexpected sources to render me hesitant to even entertain the notion of discussing controversy anymore.

Edited by Rol82, 13 December 2010 - 10:05 PM.

[Rational Madman]

Now, having read all the posts, a few comments.

Rol... I can see some of your points, but I think your first post is you acting out of anger and frustration based on your disappointment at the change in circumstances within the State Department that cost you a good job. I do agree that there's been nothing in the cables so far that was actually either harmful or unexpected, which is more a sad testament to the American Public's complacency than a statement on the value or lack thereof of the leaked documents. You are right that most of them have been pretty pointless.

I however disagree with you on the value of the revelations of China/Korean relations, or the opinions of the nations surrounding Iran. Why? Because these political leaders have been barking like Chihuahuas because they felt PROTECTED by the big dogs. While it might not change anything done by these leaders themselves, those cynical elements in their governments which value survival over the ideologies of their leaders got that message loud and clear. Rather than increasing the likelihood of war, I see them as decreasing it. Kim might be insane, but he's likely to find a knife in his back if he doesn't begin calming down, the same with Iran's PM (I won't even try to spell it) There may be those who drank the party Koolaid, but I'd be willing to bet they are vastly outnumbered by the pragmatists who are only out for power.

Now to everyone else, I recommend reading my article, because I think you are all missing the real story. Assange and Wikileaks is more or less besides the point. The real story is the responses on both sides. There is a deeper level to this than just Wikileaks, which is about the control of information. Can the Authoritarians control the internet or will it go to the free for all Anarchists? So far, that battle appears to be being won by the Authoritarians, but it's a Pyrrhic victory. Will this cause a tightening up of security and attempts to prevent transparency? Yes. And the harder they try to clamp down the quicker things will slip through their hands.

Repression has always had the opposite effect. It might work in a short term, but it has ALWAYS BEEN A LOSING STRATEGY. History proves this time and again.

This is just starting. And transparency will be it's inevitable end.

The behavior of Kim has been a function of his own sense of security, and now that the reliable support from China----which provides a majority of its energy and consumer needs---is less certain, his behavior may become more unpredictable. Although the rational actor model still applies to Kim Jong Il, his rationality is bounded by the limited and biased information that he allows himself to be exposed to, which means that he might be tempted to test the resolve of his neighbors and the United States through the dissemination of nuclear technology and military hardware, and through limited acts of violence that could very easily spiral out of control. And with the image sensitive China, its diplomats will display considerably less candor during a time when our bilateral relations are approaching a crisis point, when they're hypersensitive about their position in the world (and countervailing forces), and when their unstable neighbor is undergoing a period of transition that may result in either implosion or explosion.

As for the Arab states in the Middle East, they're in a very precarious period, because in addition to long term national decline, they're facing an audacious Iran whose actions threaten to alter the distributed balance of power in the region, and lead to: a destabilizing arms race, internal upheaval, interstate war, a clandestine slug fest between paramilitary assets, a disruption of oil production---which like it or not, will have a globally reverberating impact on inflation and aggregate output, and an increased diplomatic coolness that would place most efforts of regional cooperation in jeopardy. With the latest revelations, embarrassed states will feel less inclined to contain the increasingly disruptive activities of Iran, will face domestic political costs that make any form of cooperation with the West more unlikely, and will be subject to the actions of an increasingly insecure Iran, whom has been evidently shaken by the sentiments of its neighbors. And as should be clear, a closer inspection of the cables suggests a greater ambivalence over the prospect of an air strike against Iran, but that's beside the point. Anyway, the real message that they're probably receiving is that they're less able to rely on the support of the United States, and may need to rely increasingly on self-help, which could--and has---led to terrible results.

Overall, I think it's instructive to look at historical precedents for the determinants of state behavior: what drove Athens during its wars with Sparta, what drove Wilhelmite Germany's conduct prior to the outbreak of World War I? Invariably you find instances of hysterical policymakers that are fixated on encirclement, their relative power position, and the apparent ease of war. So it's important that the international community do a combination of the following: create conditions that raise the cost of war or misbehavior, and reassure target states that there is a path outside of the spiraling security dilemma, and that responsive measures shouldn't be mistaken for a desire for national destruction---even if there are still exceptional circumstances when this should be a valid goal. Avoiding interstate war, intrastate war, and state failure should be the paramount concerns of policymakers, and if preventing these outcomes means supporting authoritarian states that have a sincere desire for reform, I think it's a worthy hypocrisy.

I would also dispute your characterization of the response to the Wikileaks crisis, which I believe should more aptly described as a debate over the competing needs of liberal democracies, which includes transparency, but also the broad concept of security. And there has been nothing "authoritarian" about the handling of the crisis, and I fear the overuse of the word risks diluting its definition and importance. For me, what matters most is not the revelations, but how the leaks set the tone of the future behavior of nation-states.

Edited by Rol82, 13 December 2010 - 11:02 PM.

[JLL]

Rol82, do you support your own "information should be filtered" theory in other areas of life as well?

Because in effect you seem to be saying that let's never show first-hand information to the public, but give it to some authorities instead, who will then give the public the Official Opinion.

Surely websites like Wikileaks and the New York Times can coexist as peacefully as men and fish?

[Rational Madman]

Rol82, do you support your own "information should be filtered" theory in other areas of life as well?

Because in effect you seem to be saying that let's never show first-hand information to the public, but give it to some authorities instead, who will then give the public the Official Opinion.

Surely websites like Wikileaks and the New York Times can coexist as peacefully as men and fish?

In accordance with jurisprudence, I believe there should be limits to free speech, and this includes cases of sharing classified information, obscenity, slander, libel, and explicit violent incitement. But out of curiosity, can you name a single modern democracy where the right to free speech is unfettered? I'll save you the time, because there aren't any, and for good reason, since protecting free speech isn't the only interest of liberal democracies. As for your interpretation of my comments, read them again carefully, because that's not at all what I'm saying, and because I have a view of journalists that's more grounded in reality. I would be more than happy if Wikileaks could peacefully co-exist, but I find the stated rationale of the founder to be unmistakably anarchist, and because I don't believe it has the requisite amount of resources to perform its duties effectively and safely. With these limitations, I would prefer that it simply change its method for circulating information. Given the security of its website, it has the unique virtue of protecting the identities of whistleblowers, but its members should be honest about their limited resources, experience, and discipline. Also, by insisting on taking part in each step of the process, they're incurring unneeded organizational costs---when it would be better if the costs were more widely dispersed.

Edited by Rol82, 14 December 2010 - 05:22 AM.

[Rational Madman]

I'm a bit tickled by the voting system that's in place, and how it's being abused in polemical discussions to make private retaliations against members that make disagreeable posts. In the past, I admit that I've capriciously voted down posts in frustration. But from henceforth, I'll provide an explanation for my decisions, so at least I can be held accountable for my actions. It's not that I care much about my digital reputation---because it's meaningless---but I have noticed that the voting system has been used as a cowardly form of bullying, and that it can have the effect of stiffing discussion and driving some members away from participating. So hopefully, by setting a standard of taking responsibility for my voting decisions, I might shame the anonymous into revealing their identities, or reduce the incidence of this undesired behavior.

Edited by Rol82, 14 December 2010 - 02:50 AM.

[Rational Madman]

In my opinion, Assange is nothing more than an anarchist, and he's intent on destroying all forms of authority---regardless of ideology. He is a most loathsome figure that's deserving of a life time of incarceration, but I don't want to make a martyr out of him.

Wow, you must be a terrible person to want that kind of fate for an innocent guy. What is his crime? What's wrong with destroying authority? Do we need authority? Do you? I don't.

I voted down this post because of your stunning obliviousness to the potential costs of Assange's actions, your empirically baseless views on governance, and your bizarre methodology for determining innocence.

[Rational Madman]

Let me just be the contrarian once again and say that I have the utmost respect for Julian Assange for doing what he's doing. He's risking his life to do something that should be, according to statists, a basic tenet of democracy -- openness. And now the same statists hate him for it!

I voted this post down because of your simplistic rationalization of the opposition to Assange and his organization.

Edited by Rol82, 14 December 2010 - 02:35 AM.

[Rational Madman]

It's almost like the notion of journalistic integrity is completely foreign to them. So I'd prefer more scrupulous organizations like the New York Times and Guardian over Wikileaks anyday. Before this fiasco, they were already doing an exemplary job in holding public officials accountable.

The Guardian, perhaps, but not the New York Times by any means. NYT was the home of Judy Miller. In the lead up to the war, they repeated the government's lies almost verbatim, with virtually no scrutiny whatsoever. Their Op-Ed pages were full of articles from people like Tom Friedman actively egging on the entire thing.

Have you picked up a New York Times since 2003, because if you did, you might want to reevaluate your extreme assault on its integrity. They're certainly not infallible, but they still set the journalistic standard for newspapers in the United States. But additionally, you're failing to distinguish between former staff writers like Judith Miller---whom are a minority---and glorified idiots like Thomas Friedman---whose presence is financially motivated---with the editorial page, and the sterling work of many of its staff writers.

Your defensible is still entirely laughable as the failure for the Times to do anything with journalistic integrity but function as a mouthpiece for government officials is overwhelmingly evident. Also, in your first post, you said that they indiscriminately leaked 250,000 cables. This is a complete lie and the only reason why you have repeated it is because you failed to even look at the evidence with minimal carefulness.

Earlier today, I voted this post down for reasons that were illustrated in my original response.

[EmbraceUnity]

Edited by EmbraceUnity, 14 December 2010 - 05:03 AM.

[JLL]

In accordance with jurisprudence, I believe there should be limits to free speech, and this includes cases of sharing classified information, obscenity, slander, libel, and explicit violent incitement. But out of curiosity, can you name a single modern democracy where the right to free speech is unfettered?

No. What does that have to do with anything? I don't support democracy. Democracy = mob rule.

I'll save you the time, because there aren't any, and for good reason, since protecting free speech isn't the only interest of liberal democracies. As for your interpretation of my comments, read them again carefully, because that's not at all what I'm saying, and because I have a view of journalists that's more grounded in reality. I would be more than happy if Wikileaks could peacefully co-exist, but I find the stated rationale of the founder to be unmistakably anarchist, and because I don't believe it has the requisite amount of resources to perform its duties effectively and safely.

Well, I'm unmistakably anarchist. You seem to have the idea that some men (bureaucrats, politicians) have a God-given right to decide what other people can do with information -- which is not a tangible property and thus cannot be stolen. I hold no such ideas.

By the way, liberal democracies don't have interests, only individuals have interests.

With these limitations, I would prefer that it simply change its method for circulating information. Given the security of its website, it has the unique virtue of protecting the identities of whistleblowers, but its members should be honest about their limited resources, experience, and discipline. Also, by insisting on taking part in each step of the process, they're incurring unneeded organizational costs---when it would be better if the costs were more widely dispersed.

Not only would you "prefer" that, but you would use violence and force to make it happen. Or perhaps you would not have the guts to use violence yourself, but would rather leave that task to the liberal democracy you support. Am I wrong?

[Rational Madman]

In accordance with jurisprudence, I believe there should be limits to free speech, and this includes cases of sharing classified information, obscenity, slander, libel, and explicit violent incitement. But out of curiosity, can you name a single modern democracy where the right to free speech is unfettered?

No. What does that have to do with anything? I don't support democracy. Democracy = mob rule.

I'll save you the time, because there aren't any, and for good reason, since protecting free speech isn't the only interest of liberal democracies. As for your interpretation of my comments, read them again carefully, because that's not at all what I'm saying, and because I have a view of journalists that's more grounded in reality. I would be more than happy if Wikileaks could peacefully co-exist, but I find the stated rationale of the founder to be unmistakably anarchist, and because I don't believe it has the requisite amount of resources to perform its duties effectively and safely.

Well, I'm unmistakably anarchist. You seem to have the idea that some men (bureaucrats, politicians) have a God-given right to decide what other people can do with information -- which is not a tangible property and thus cannot be stolen. I hold no such ideas.

By the way, liberal democracies don't have interests, only individuals have interests.

With these limitations, I would prefer that it simply change its method for circulating information. Given the security of its website, it has the unique virtue of protecting the identities of whistleblowers, but its members should be honest about their limited resources, experience, and discipline. Also, by insisting on taking part in each step of the process, they're incurring unneeded organizational costs---when it would be better if the costs were more widely dispersed.

Not only would you "prefer" that, but you would use violence and force to make it happen. Or perhaps you would not have the guts to use violence yourself, but would rather leave that task to the liberal democracy you support. Am I wrong?

Well, I'm happy to see that you've clarified your position, so that warts and all, everyone can contemptuously take a glimpse into your contradictory and disordered mind. In contrast to yourself, I believe that the interests of states must be balanced, and that certain rights must not be allowed to be absolute if their unbridled abuse risks threatening the sustenance of societies. I don't share your optimism for the potential of self governance, because I believe firmly that the more ignoble qualities of our nature become more salient when we are left without adequate laws and governance. In my opinion, one of the most important virtues of governance is the protection of constituents from the dangers they pose to each other when there is no fair arbitrator, and when the absence of structure gives rise to the impulses of violence, greed, avarice, and a perpetual fear for safety. There maybe flaws to our normative mode of governance, but unlike your dangerous dalliance with unfounded notions in philosophy, it possesses considerable empirical support for shaping favorable societal outcomes superior to the palatable alternatives. But there is no such support for anarchism, only the solace of conforming with what you hope are the noble qualities of individuals in their state of nature. If we were in a peer review, though, I would suggest that you're proposing an idea as empirically sound as creationism, and allowing your zealous sentiments to overwhelm an insurmountable mountain of evidence that invalidates much of what you espouse, and guarantees that your fanciful notions will remain the opiate for the small population of delusional crackpots that pretend to have a grasp for philosophy, history, and political science. Indeed, If you relied on the same standard of proof for the sciences that you evidently have some regard for, you would be laughed off into pathetic obscurity.

I believe there is a need for secrecy in governmental affairs, because there are times when I believe human and national security have greater importance than the interests of free speech and transparency. And because I believe the division of labor and the imperatives of daily living make it impossible for the masses to be expected to make reasonable decisions about issues in the vital interest of the nation state, and which require a timely response to ensure a maximization of relative gains. This is not because I have disdain for the common man, but because I have more faith in the relative wisdom of those that have committed much of their lives to the study of these questions. In liberal democracies, public officials ultimately must be held accountable, and the public is deserving of access to privileged information at some point, but to subject the daily decisions of bureaucratic officials to a daily referendum is to render the organ of national governance unworkable, and would sacrifice many of the competing interests that compel individuals to take part in a civil society---like security. Personally, I would prefer to stomach the obstacles of democratic governance than be exposed to the brutish forces of the state of nature, or the tortuously documented perils of life in societies when the individual is empowered, but suffers grievously under an impotent government unable to attend to the needs of societies of individuals marked invariably by an unfair distribution of resources and talent.

Predictably, you've distorted my positions so that they share a resemblance to the cliched phantoms that drive your paranoia. But unfortunately for your intellectual shallowness, my views don't fit the crude and comforting caricatures of the politically hysterical eccentrics that you make cause with. Instead, I have a high regard for the rule of law, for transparency, for human life, and ardently believe in preserving democracy and minimizing the incidence of human conflict. But I also believe that the imperatives of national security, and the use of violence are vital for the sustenance of these values that I hold so very dear---and am highly skeptical of those that utterly disregard these goals as either abhorrent, or of carrying little weight. The individual capacity for violent destructiveness has left mindful of the risks of impunity, and with the folly of allowing security risks to threaten the vitality of liberty and the welfare of our societies' constituents.

I don't know why I continue to bother with individuals that hold views that I find to be so very objectionable, because the labor of contention deprives me of much needed energy, and renders me often cynical at times. But I do believe progress is dependent on reconciling as much as possible, the differences of competing factions within each society, and if I grow too enchanted with the wisdom of my views, they risk becoming superficial. However, I fear that my effort in this case will have been in vain, and that the likely response will come in the form of juvenile attempts to vote down my postings, and ill-thought replies of dubious value. Anyway, let me part by saying that in spite of their stridency, the champions of Assange have provided little evidence to support the notions that an unchecked flow of free information produces superior societal outcomes, that the costs of this latest leaking have been negligible, that Assange is free of hypocrisy, and that the world is overall a better place because of the actions of Wikileaks. Rather, I've witnessed members disturbingly play with philosophy in a way that's analogous to a child playing with a handgun, and for some reason, feel that their poor methodological standards and disconcerting paucity of evidence is sufficient to be zealously confident about their convictions. Indeed, this exchange confirms my belief that the animal spirits that drive religious belief are not confined to debates about our existence, and contagiously infect all forms of discourse and inquiry.

[Rational Madman]

For anyone that gets a huge kick out of the collective wit of the staffers at Gawker, here's Adrien Chen's brilliant conception: http://www.wikileakileaks.org/.
And Assange's very telling personal ad at OKCupid:http://gawker.com/57...-dating-profile

[Rational Madman]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=na7A3-UCCYE

I voted this post up because it's an example of a piece whose quality transcends the potentially polarizing theme, much like the work of the Rolling Stones, The Beatles, The Clash, etc. Rock the Casbah, for example, strangely became one of the favorites of troops involved in the Persian Gulf War. Which sort of makes you wonder, how many people really analyze the import of the lyrics anymore?
But most importantly, the posting uplifts the mood of the discussion.

Edited by Rol82, 17 December 2010 - 06:41 AM.

[Rational Madman]

What would you guys be saying when if in the future WikiLeaks is a massively geo-diverse distributed entity, akin to a peer to peer network with no central server or location or person in charge running the show? Are you going to complain about the network of thousands/millions of individuals who believe all information should be transparent? It's not an unrealistic scenario by any means.

You are missing something, there are 2 sides to this equation and you are looking at only one side. Sure, the mechanism may be there to spread the information, but you can only spread information that you have. The government is now cracking down on the access to information, making the chance of obtaining such info less and less.

This is BAD for democracy and freedom of information and gives government excuses to hide information. It will achieve the exact opposite of it's aims to. I expect we will see some huge changes in the next 5 years and in 5 years time, we will all be blissfully ignorant of what the government doesn't want us to know. Wikileaks will have shut down due to lack of INPUT, not because they have any problem distributing information.

And you are now missing something, what is the alternative? A top down planned implementation of incremental transparency so as to not cause any dramatic disruptions? Seriously? You can't control a decentralised bottom up process, sorry. There is a lot of hand waving in this thread, but where is the real world conclusions to be drawn from your objections? Like JLL said much better than myself, there is no entity that could possibly objectively evaluate this stuff. So what do you propose?

Well, journalists that have taken a few classes in ethics, and take their profession seriously, have proven to be imperfectly capable of objectively analyzing the information. Or are they all just corporate whores that act as stenographers for the powerful? Or is there a better cliche?
For the media critics here, has anyone ever interacted with any real journalists before? Forget it, I'll save the socially inept the time. First, they're driven mostly by motivations of sensationalism, reputation, increasing circulation, affecting policy change, and increasing the currency of their personal political views. Secondly, the content is less of a reflection of the goals of the sources of the ad revenue, and based more on the familiar desire of editors to create an organization of like minded employees. So it shouldn't be much of a surprise that Bill Keller has an often subconscious preference for liberal minded employees, and that likewise, Roger Ailes prefers conservative employees. The left of center viewpoint seems to prevail the most, but the hysterics seem to be under the impression that outlets like Fox News, and conservative talk radio constitute the majority of news content. But the reality is quite different, so to inflate the explanatory power of the corporate controlled media thesis, its proponents for some reason implicate nearly all media outlets---often making mountains out of limited and unreflective failings. Regarding the New York Times' handling of the war in Iraq, for example, critics often overlook the extent of bipartisan support for the war in its first phases, and how this was reflected in The New York Times' coverage---which consisted of ardent liberal supporters and vociferous liberal opponents. Yes, media organizations are biased, but there's space for all political views, and no side thankfully has a monopoly on coverage. As for the ostensibly direct role that sponsors play in determining content, I'm waiting to see evidence to support the notion that they play such an indelible role.


Further, what has the so-called mainstream media missed? Abu Ghraib? Guantanamo Bay? The NSA's surveillance program? Enhanced interrogation techniques? Enron? Worldcom? There is such an appetite for news in this age, and such a diversity and quantity of outlets, that very little gets left out. So there isn't much of a real need for organizations like Wikileaks.

Edited by Rol82, 17 December 2010 - 07:49 AM.

[Rational Madman]

Let me just be the contrarian once again and say that I have the utmost respect for Julian Assange for doing what he's doing. He's risking his life to do something that should be, according to statists, a basic tenet of democracy -- openness. And now the same statists hate him for it!

So you think that this sort of thing is ok then do you??

http://news.smh.com....1206-18mve.html

Yes.

People may have principles, but if they are wrong, no amount of conviction will make them right. Extreme openness just like extreme secrecy is a bad thing. There is a middle ground here and I think governments do a pretty good job of finding that balance.

Well you must live in a dream world of your own then.

He's living in a dream world?

Edited by Rol82, 17 December 2010 - 03:54 PM.

[Rational Madman]

Isn't WikiLeaks for whistle blowing? What's wrong with whistle blowing, isn't it a good thing? The problem is that I think most/all of us agree that some aspects of WikiLeaks is good, like for example WikiLeaks and Julian Assange winning Amnesty International's UK Media Award for the 2008 publication of "Kenya: The Cry of Blood – Extra Judicial Killings and Disappearances". So it is futile saying X is good or X is bad, because human nature is so diverse that there will always be people on both sides of the debate. So I think you either need to argue WikiLeaks or anything like it should be banned entirely (totally ridiculous), or STFU and deal with it!

I think it is silly focusing on Assange in this whole thing. The Internet has opened up a new age, where any information good or bad can be made available to every human being on the planet. This has never before been possible, and has nothing to to with Assange, he just happens to be the head of this initial movement. Wikileaks is mirrored by more than 800 different websites, the hacking group known as anonymous are now massively Denial of Servicing (DoS) any company who has severred ties with WikiLieaks and Assange. Seriously, this is not about one guy or one website. I just hope everything works out for Assange, because his living future is looking rather bleak right now. The movement will go on regardless, I would bet the house on that one.

This dubious and nihilistic movement may continue, but what's important is that the operating cost has been raised. And I have to say, I'm somewhat envious of the apparent ease of which you reach conclusions.

Edited by Rol82, 17 December 2010 - 03:53 PM.

[JLL]

I love it how your posts just go on and on. Maybe you want to appear intelligent with such fancy twists of words, but I remain unimpressed! I'd be more impressed if you just stuck to what's relevant.

Well, I'm happy to see that you've clarified your position, so that warts and all, everyone can contemptuously take a glimpse into your contradictory and disordered mind. In contrast to yourself, I believe that the interests of states must be balanced, and that certain rights must not be allowed to be absolute if their unbridled abuse risks threatening the sustenance of societies. I don't share your optimism for the potential of self governance, because I believe firmly that the more ignoble qualities of our nature become more salient when we are left without adequate laws and governance.

Well look who's talking about being contradictory! You don't believe in self-governance, and yet you think states can somehow govern themselves.

On the contrary, my position is entirely non-contradictory. It may be crazy in your opinion, but at least it's logical and coherent, given the axioms. Can you say the same?

By the way, I'm not against laws. Anarchists are not against laws. They are against monopolies on violence.

In my opinion, one of the most important virtues of governance is the protection of constituents from the dangers they pose to each other when there is no fair arbitrator, and when the absence of structure gives rise to the impulses of violence, greed, avarice, and a perpetual fear for safety.

Hey, I'm all for fair arbitrators, but the government is hardly fair. For one thing, it's the arbitrator in its own law suits -- how is that fair?

There maybe flaws to our normative mode of governance, but unlike your dangerous dalliance with unfounded notions in philosophy, it possesses considerable empirical support for shaping favorable societal outcomes superior to the palatable alternatives.

Do us all a favor and quit with the hollow poetics, that just sounds stupid. What are you really saying here? What empirical support? What outcomes are those?

But there is no such support for anarchism, only the solace of conforming with what you hope are the noble qualities of individuals in their state of nature.

There are examples of anarchism; furthermore, the private sector is always more effective than the public sector. So what are you even saying here?

I won't even bother to read the rest of your post, since I'm sure you could say it all in one sentence, if you really wanted. Maybe someone else will be interested in your self-absorbed blabber.

I don't know who you think I am, and I don't really care, but before you go on another one of your tangents, let me just say that I'm not advocating a world where we live in caves and beat each other up in a war of all against all. Rather, I'm advocating voluntarism instead of violence, peaceful co-operation instead of force, honest business instead of theft, individual freedom instead of collectivist regulation. That is all.

But hey, keep on defending violence, force, theft and regulation if you want to. I don't care.