On December 01 2010 13:33 ZerglingSoup wrote: I lean towards the opinion that Wikileaks has lost its vision with these new leaklets.
The State Dept. is tasked with maintaining peaceful diplomatic relationships with the rest of the world and these leaks really undermine the trust that it has with the foreign heads of state. I don't understand why an anti-war group would want this at all. I think it's clear that anymore, Wikileaks is in it for scandal and a sort of twisted authority they've found that they can have over one of the most powerful governments in the world.
Or they are just doing what journalist should be doing
But they aren't journalists. There is no reporting, or any form of putting into context of any of this. They just post them on the internet and hand them off to the NY Times for journalism duties. The fact is that they obtained and published illegal documents and in doing so had a harmful effect on the State Department's ability to maintain the trust of the people it negotiates with, which has a meaningful effect on it's efforts to achieve its goal of obtaining and maintaining peace. And they did this to serve no apparent purpose but to arbitrarily embarrass everyone. This is a far cry from their previous activities which unveiled grim details of current wars in order to sway public opinion in a certain direction. These new leaks don't persuade anyone of anything. They just make a mess of everything.
I don't think it is a huge deal, but it is counter-productive to, for example, ending our engagement in the Middle Eastern conflicts. The leaders of the nations in the region value the secrecy of private conversations, and they will be far less cooperative in helping the United States with it's problems in the region if they can't trust the USA to keep a lid on the details their cooperation. After all, such details could jeopardize their internal political security.
On December 01 2010 13:33 ZerglingSoup wrote: I lean towards the opinion that Wikileaks has lost its vision with these new leaklets.
The State Dept. is tasked with maintaining peaceful diplomatic relationships with the rest of the world and these leaks really undermine the trust that it has with the foreign heads of state. I don't understand why an anti-war group would want this at all. I think it's clear that anymore, Wikileaks is in it for scandal and a sort of twisted authority they've found that they can have over one of the most powerful governments in the world.
There's nothing in the cables that wasn't already known by every relevant country. Their goal is not to be solely anti-war; it's that, but it's also being anti-authoritarian, and breaking down the ability of powerful governments to communicate in secret helps. Governments habitually say one thing in private and one thing in public, and this is another step to force the media and such to discuss the issues as they really are.
I understand the argument towards transparency in internal politics, but if the US State Department can work with a foreign government to achieve a common goal, but can only do so privately, there is no reason to attack its ability to do so.
All I'm saying is that Wikileaks seems to have gone from rogue anti-war activists to run-of-the-mill troublemakers who have recklessly stumbled into a situation that is much more consequential than even they can imagine. These leaks have nothing to do with US military operations. On the contrary, they are an attack on the arm of the US Government that is tasked with peaceful diplomacy.
On December 01 2010 20:00 ZerglingSoup wrote: All I'm saying is that Wikileaks seems to have gone from rogue anti-war activists to run-of-the-mill troublemakers who have recklessly stumbled into a situation that is much more consequential than even they can imagine. These leaks have nothing to do with US military operations. On the contrary, they are an attack on the arm of the US Government that is tasked with peaceful diplomacy.
As if the state department doesn't do its fair share of pressuring and threatening other countries, of enabling dictators and human rights abuses etc. The military is just a tool in that regard, if you actually disagree with the US policy the state department and the embassies are as good a target as any.
On December 01 2010 13:33 ZerglingSoup wrote: I lean towards the opinion that Wikileaks has lost its vision with these new leaklets.
The State Dept. is tasked with maintaining peaceful diplomatic relationships with the rest of the world and these leaks really undermine the trust that it has with the foreign heads of state. I don't understand why an anti-war group would want this at all. I think it's clear that anymore, Wikileaks is in it for scandal and a sort of twisted authority they've found that they can have over one of the most powerful governments in the world.
There's nothing in the cables that wasn't already known by every relevant country. Their goal is not to be solely anti-war; it's that, but it's also being anti-authoritarian, and breaking down the ability of powerful governments to communicate in secret helps. Governments habitually say one thing in private and one thing in public, and this is another step to force the media and such to discuss the issues as they really are.
I understand the argument towards transparency in internal politics, but if the US State Department can work with a foreign government to achieve a common goal, but can only do so privately, there is no reason to attack its ability to do so.
Yes there is. Because the US government should be subject to the oversight of the US people.
If the foreign country wants to work with the US, they should be talking to the US people, and let the State Department figure out the details. (and vice versa, at least for the US working with any marginally democratic country, UK, Japan, Germany, etc.)
The power of government is given by the people, so I think we should have a right to know some of these things.
The funny part is how worked up the world leaders are over it. Clinton is practically calling for a public hanging, along with Palin, and European countries want him now too.
On December 02 2010 02:11 SeaMoosi wrote: The power of government is given by the people, so I think we should have a right to know some of these things.
The funny part is how worked up the world leaders are over it. Clinton is practically calling for a public hanging, along with Palin, and European countries want him now too.
Yup, Interpol has issued a search warrant after him.
On December 02 2010 02:11 SeaMoosi wrote: The power of government is given by the people, so I think we should have a right to know some of these things.
The funny part is how worked up the world leaders are over it. Clinton is practically calling for a public hanging, along with Palin, and European countries want him now too.
I'm all for transparency and openness. Incentivizing disclosure of illegal activities (whistleblowing) is a good thing. The problem with wikileaks is that they are not whistleblowers. They are simply a dump for any sort of private communication, the vast majority of which do not target nor implicate any sort of wrongdoing. There is very little public interest in most these documents (does the public really need to know about Gaddafi's nurse?). Yet the consequences are shown to be severe: breakdown of diplomatic communication. Even worse, this will simply incentivize these institutions to avoid writing anything down and locking down their communications, thus harming transparency. That's what happens when you indiscriminately publish a bunch of documents with no goal in mind. Deepthroat this is not.
On December 02 2010 03:18 domovoi wrote: I'm all for transparency and openness. Incentivizing disclosure of illegal activities (whistleblowing) is a good thing. The problem with wikileaks is that they are not whistleblowers. They are simply a dump for any sort of private communication, the vast majority of which do not target nor implicate any sort of wrongdoing. There is very little public interest in most these documents (does the public really need to know about Gaddafi's nurse?). Yet the consequences are shown to be severe: breakdown of diplomatic communication. Even worse, this will simply incentivize these institutions to avoid writing anything down and locking down their communications, thus harming transparency. That's what happens when you indiscriminately publish a bunch of documents with no goal in mind. Deepthroat this is not.
Libya's public should know about Gaddafi's nurse.
The point is diplomacy should be between nations, leaders should merely work out the details. (The same as legislation... the people should decide the concepts and leaders should work out the details... hence C-SPAN, etc.)
On December 02 2010 03:18 domovoi wrote: I'm all for transparency and openness. Incentivizing disclosure of illegal activities (whistleblowing) is a good thing. The problem with wikileaks is that they are not whistleblowers. They are simply a dump for any sort of private communication, the vast majority of which do not target nor implicate any sort of wrongdoing. There is very little public interest in most these documents (does the public really need to know about Gaddafi's nurse?). Yet the consequences are shown to be severe: breakdown of diplomatic communication. Even worse, this will simply incentivize these institutions to avoid writing anything down and locking down their communications, thus harming transparency. That's what happens when you indiscriminately publish a bunch of documents with no goal in mind. Deepthroat this is not.
The point is diplomacy should be between nations, leaders should merely work out the details. (The same as legislation... the people should decide the concepts and leaders should work out the details... hence C-SPAN, etc.)
You honestly think the average citizen should be in charge of determining foreign policy?
The point is diplomacy should be between nations, leaders should merely work out the details. (The same as legislation... the people should decide the concepts and leaders should work out the details... hence C-SPAN, etc.)
Not sure how releasing a bunch of diplomatic cables that are of little interest to anyone helps people decide the concepts. On the other hand, it certainly hurts the ability for diplomats to "work out the details."
You cannot honestly say that this is whistleblowing, because what, exactly, is Wikileaks blowing the whistle on? This is simply an attempt at causing a little chaos in the world to pleasure the small-minded anti-authoritarians; the same fools who cheer at Tyler Durden's nihilism.
On December 02 2010 03:18 domovoi wrote: I'm all for transparency and openness. Incentivizing disclosure of illegal activities (whistleblowing) is a good thing. The problem with wikileaks is that they are not whistleblowers. They are simply a dump for any sort of private communication, the vast majority of which do not target nor implicate any sort of wrongdoing. There is very little public interest in most these documents (does the public really need to know about Gaddafi's nurse?). Yet the consequences are shown to be severe: breakdown of diplomatic communication. Even worse, this will simply incentivize these institutions to avoid writing anything down and locking down their communications, thus harming transparency. That's what happens when you indiscriminately publish a bunch of documents with no goal in mind. Deepthroat this is not.
The point is diplomacy should be between nations, leaders should merely work out the details. (The same as legislation... the people should decide the concepts and leaders should work out the details... hence C-SPAN, etc.)
You honestly think the average citizen should be in charge of determining foreign policy?
The Founding Fathers are rolling in their graves.
Yes. You're forgetting that the actual middle class (as in the foundation of the modern society) should be an educated bunch (higher-educated parents with children, able to provide the same or better for the kids). What middle class turned into, however, is right-down-poverty-line low-middle class, which consists mostly of immigrants and fat people. You'd be stupid to put any kind of power in their hands, let alone put them in charge of anything.
On December 02 2010 03:18 domovoi wrote: I'm all for transparency and openness. Incentivizing disclosure of illegal activities (whistleblowing) is a good thing. The problem with wikileaks is that they are not whistleblowers. They are simply a dump for any sort of private communication, the vast majority of which do not target nor implicate any sort of wrongdoing. There is very little public interest in most these documents (does the public really need to know about Gaddafi's nurse?). Yet the consequences are shown to be severe: breakdown of diplomatic communication. Even worse, this will simply incentivize these institutions to avoid writing anything down and locking down their communications, thus harming transparency. That's what happens when you indiscriminately publish a bunch of documents with no goal in mind. Deepthroat this is not.
The point is diplomacy should be between nations, leaders should merely work out the details. (The same as legislation... the people should decide the concepts and leaders should work out the details... hence C-SPAN, etc.)
You honestly think the average citizen should be in charge of determining foreign policy?
The Founding Fathers are rolling in their graves.
The average citizen should be in charge of foreign policy to the same degree they are in charge of legislation.
EPT
