Vivian on 9/12/2010 at 16:24
Really sorry about that!
Oh no, actually I'm not. Go ahead and discuss my inadequacy with yourself.
demagogue on 9/12/2010 at 20:17
Ugh, Anonymous of lolwut fame of all people is getting all the headlines today.
Anyway, here was the quote that connected with the things I was worried about:
Quote Posted by ""NYTimes"
In recent months, some of Mr. Assange’s closest associates in WikiLeaks abandoned him, calling him autocratic and capricious and accusing him of reneging on WikiLeaks’s original pledge of impartiality to launch a concerted attack on the United States.
A vigilante abandons impartiality and makes it a personal crusade.
Color me shocked and surprised. :erg:
Just to be clear, I'm a fierce advocate of transparency. Every treaty I work on I push for as much transparency as possible -- one legal area where it's *really* a problem -- and I worked on FOIA law for god's sake! ("Freedom of Information Act", The law that requires agencies to release publicly-important documents.) So I know the power citizens have to fight for documents getting released, and how agencies get in trouble when they really hold back documents, and how to punish them for it. And many of the most important newsbreaks in the last few years have been by responsible whistleblowers... the stuff about Abu Ghraib, the lead up to the Iraq War, etc. I was completely in favor of that information getting leaked and being used to clean up policy. The guys in this thread responding to me, I absolutely understand and respect your insistence for more transparency and your deep distrust of authority figures in wanting to use the shield of secrecy for all sorts of dodgy shit, and I'm on board with that.
What I don't like here is the armchair anarchists part of it. There's this blase assumption that the rule of law doesn't work, so fuck it, let's just do it ourselves rather than assuming judges can ever be impartial or that regulations and laws apply to us, pure-minded angels that we are. I don't like it because we're struggling so hard to get the rule of law respected in so many developing countries ... Do we really have to go over it again with established democracies?
If you think an agency is illegally holding back a document, go to a judge! FOIA is the law that lets you do it. If the judge is corrupt, then that's a crime too and your case is only getting better. If you have to take it public, then give your case for why the authorities screwed you over and let the hammer come down. All that is great. And if you think the "classified" policy of the US is too severe, launch a political campaign to change it. Agencies have to follow their laws and regulations and they take it very seriously. We know in advance they may well fight it, but in advanced democracies law does work. This isn't Zimbabwe. We don't keep our money in holes in the ground because we can't trust anybody.
Why don't I think this is like a newspaper or other media? Because news media report news, especially wrongdoing that's been covered up, and if somebody leaks a classified document that makes the public case, then it's invaluable that they use it. Wikileaks isn't about reporting news. Once we're talking about 100,000s of documents, it's doing the actual work of a government ministry or judge deciding itself what deserves to be "classified", not based on any law or regulation, not democratically accountable, making decisions on how to use it that the public may not approve of at all, not even based on any expertise on security policy but its own whims and presumptions that their "security policy" know-how is surely better than democratic laws because they're purer humans. If they were selecting individual documents to make news, then it would be different. Of the newspapers that have gotten the leaks, less than 1% of the documents were used to actually report news, a lot of which have been valuable (others just airing glorified gossip). But I have no problem with respectable independent media getting leaks to clench vital news stories. When you go far far beyond that into controlling the fate of 100,000s of classified documents, it isn't about impartially acting in the public's best interest anymore; it's about giving yourself a weapon to go on some anti-democratic crusade.
Shug on 9/12/2010 at 23:58
That may be all well and good, but I disagree with your stance on his insurance policies. The US government has a reputation for doing whatever the hell it likes (even more than the average bear), and the Wikileaks guys need to make sure it's understood they'll go kicking and screaming bloody murder if anything happens.
Moral implications aside, they've done nothing illegal (as far as I've heard to date), so I'm actually glad that they've nullified the usual strongarm tactics and back room deals to make any government action look impotent.
It's actually quite a disgrace on our part. Everybody knows we dance to the tune of the US in international relations, but actively disowning a citizen is appalling. Just a few months ago we refused to release a US citizen back to his own country ((
http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Tina_Watson) Gabe Watson) until they guaranteed they wouldn't pursue the death penalty.
Yet as soon as America gets righteously outraged about a matter of questionable legality, we immediately brand one of our own guilty and accede to their wishes. Disgusting stuff really.
Muzman on 10/12/2010 at 06:25
Quote Posted by demagogue
A vigilante abandons impartiality and makes it a personal crusade.
Color me shocked and surprised. :erg:
I wouldn't take any of that at face value. If you're a western organisation dealing in leaked secrets of controversial subjects you're going to bump into the biggest and most controversial global actor of them all pretty much constantly. Namely the US. It's not a failure of neutrality or impartiality when your document volume reflects that of the english speaking world.
I can easily see people getting cold feet at the masses off stuff they've been getting. I'd also say you might have to have a particular set of ideals to release a lot of the more nonspecific stuff, as it does seem to step beyond the brief of a mere safe place for leaks. Calling Assange an idealist seems reasonable to me though.
Quote:
What I don't like here is the armchair anarchists part of it. There's this blase assumption that the rule of law doesn't work, so fuck it, let's just do it ourselves rather than assuming judges can ever be impartial or that regulations and laws apply to us, pure-minded angels that we are. I don't like it because we're struggling so hard to get the rule of law respected in so many developing countries ... Do we really have to go over it again with established democracies?
Well, yes, to an extent. This is almost a complete tangent though. You're right, it's troublesome. The system works generally far better than people know (and probably better than I know, which I like to think is better than most people). But law and government and justice to most people is opaque and mysterious, then when it does act its often confusing and capricious seeming. It's really not enough to say to people its their responsibility to de-alienate themselves through education and experience (not that anyone has said this at the moment, but any 'personal responsibility!' types reading would probably go there).
I say that because, while I'm sure the logic behind wikileaks itself is more sophisticated, I would guess wikileaks as a cause does trade on that youthful alientation to get a lot of its stuff of late.
It might be me going off into idealistic flights of fancy, but this is where I sometimes think wikileaks is going to do some good with completely undirected formerly secret information; It demystifies and it provides people the avenue to see things for themselves they wouldn't be able to otherwise.
It could well just make things an even bigger mess, I know. There's no guarantee anyone is likely to use it properly and could just use selective reading to make or confirm any whacky thought they like. But t'was ever thus. The possibility still seems there to me for there to be less alienation from the systems of the world because of this stuff.
Quote:
Why don't I think this is like a newspaper or other media? Because news media report news, especially wrongdoing that's been covered up, and if somebody leaks a classified document that makes the public case, then it's invaluable that they use it. Wikileaks isn't about reporting news. Once we're talking about 100,000s of documents, it's doing the actual work of a government ministry or judge deciding itself what deserves to be "classified", not based on any law or regulation, not democratically accountable, making decisions on how to use it that the public may not approve of at all, not even based on any expertise on security policy but its own whims and presumptions that their "security policy" know-how is surely better than democratic laws because they're purer humans. If they were selecting individual documents to make news, then it would be different. Of the newspapers that have gotten the leaks, less than 1% of the documents were used to actually report news, a lot of which have been valuable (others just airing glorified gossip). But I have no problem with respectable independent media getting leaks to clench vital news stories. When you go far far beyond that into controlling the fate of 100,000s of classified documents, it isn't about impartially acting in the public's best interest anymore; it's about giving yourself a weapon to go on some anti-democratic crusade.
I am a little confused how something, which we must concede hasn't been used for much more than the same old tittering from the media at apparent naughty comments, is anti democratic. It's provided a superfluity of 'Oooh, busted' Left-the-mic-on sort of comments. More than the press know what to do with, I'm sure. The point about the government department is an interesting one, but I'm not sure I get why the number is significant. When something big is leaked to a newspaper the editors, lawyers and perhaps the owner are the ones who decide whether to run it or do a story on it. When something small is leaked they might not bother with it at all. I heard an interview with investigative journalist Chris Masters not too long ago (he's brought down corrupt state governments, btw) where he discussed how many things people would ring him up about that he would turn away over the years, just because it wasn't big enough, wasn't worth his time or stress. They weren't necesarily insignificant things either. Could have helped some people, or done some good had he the time or the money to look at every little thing.
In these cases the descision to publish or not to publish, persue a case or not to persue it is at the discretion of people with no democratic accountability. And yet they decide whether or not we should be informed of it, in effect. I don't see how this is different from Wikileaks discretion. They seem to have done quite a lot of diligence on what they release too. It isn't like some hacker just uploaded everything holus bolus. Granted it's outside of democratic accountability but how does the scale of it or their behaviour so far suggest they're anti-democracy or democracy is being actively damaged?
Kolya on 10/12/2010 at 13:51
Journalists and whistleblowers are not elected and yet they are part of a functioning democracy. The instance that checks them is the public.
rachel on 10/12/2010 at 17:33
Shellac, you apparently don't realize that whatever valid point you may (or may not) have is hindered by the fact you just come up as a pompous ass. As people tend to ignore pompous asses and make fun of them instead, I would suggest a change of strategy.
CCCToad on 10/12/2010 at 19:55
Quote Posted by Muzman
In these cases the descision to publish or not to publish, persue a case or not to persue it is at the discretion of people with no democratic accountability. And yet they decide whether or not we should be informed of it, in effect. I don't see how this is different from Wikileaks discretion. They seem to have done quite a lot of diligence on what they release too. It isn't like some hacker just uploaded everything holus bolus. Granted it's outside of democratic accountability but how does the scale of it or their behaviour so far suggest they're anti-democracy or democracy is being actively damaged?
Exactly. If anything, whistleblowing aids Democracy by allowing the masses to make more informed choices about their leaders. There's quite a few bloggers musing that things might have been much better if we'd had wikileaks back in 2003.
SeriousCallersOnly on 11/12/2010 at 13:29
No kidding dudes.
Anyway enjoy the creeping fascism. Oh wait, it's too late.
Patriot Act allows secret takedown notices -> One supreme court nomination -> removal of limits to campaign contributions by companies -> passed a law keeping tax cuts to the most wealthy indefinitely -> trying to censor the internet -> the companies refusing to do business who whoever inconveniences the powerful (i wonder who originated that, senator droopy or Murdoch. In fact, is there a difference?) -> so many moronic "secrets" that are analyzed by about 8000 people (everyone has them) -> mass media hopelessly corrupt -> trying to illegally extradite and pressure governments (with success i might add).
That's you, a fascistic oligarchy, and it's only going to get worse everywhere.
As a closing note, enjoy the lulz:
I will just leave this here
(
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Czoww2l1xdw)
Watch it, it is worth it..
And this:
(
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2010/12/152465.htm)
There are also some speeches by Obama praising and promising "transparency", and Hilary talking about the need for "freedom of the press", but i can't be bothered finding them.
Lulz.
You can also read this article to realize just how deeply fucked you are
(
http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2010/12/10/hatfill-and-wen-ho-lee-and-plame-and-al-awlaki-and-assange/)
CCCToad on 11/12/2010 at 17:13
Yep.
I think the greatest significance of the leaks might not be this batch of cables themselves, but America's reaction to it. It revealed very clearly exactly how much the American political elite believes in the principles they constantly spout. Also interesting is how governments and corporate America have teamed up to wage an "invisible war" on wikileaks: the events of the last two weeks hint at a relationship that is not, as some posters here seem to believe, an adversarial one but is instead one of mutual cooperation to protect each other's interests.
