“The problem of the permanent state is a real one, but occasional mass data dumps like the one WikiLeaks just provided, however temporarily satisfying to decentralizers and libertarians, don’t promise anything remotely like reform. Quite the reverse, in fact: The specter of being WikiLeaked will likely exacerbate all of the tendencies that Wilkinson dislikes about the modern leviathan. Systems will turn inward; information-sharing will decrease; further centralization, rather than any kind of devolution or transparency, will be the order of the day. And all the while, the useful work that’s done by “America’s intelligence agencies, military, and consular offices” — the prevention of wars, the anticipation of crises, the discreet management of difficult situations — will become that much more difficult to accomplish.” — Ross Douthat, on effectiveness of WikiLeaks
RSS
- Quote Of The Day 5/8/2013
- Quote Of The Day 3/11/2013
- Quote Of The Day 2/21/2013
- Quote Of The Day 1/18/2013
- The Scamming Beggar 12/1/2012
That could be true, but what else are you supposed to do? See, the reason Wikileaks draws real wrath is because it really is a threat to power. Our government wants to break the law, but have the freedom to do it behind a wall of secrecy. Wikileaks could hold back and release tiny amounts of not-too-threatening information, but should we expect change?
As Greenwald points out we really live in a totally lawless state. Assange has not committed a crime. Even if he were a US citizen, what he’s done is not a crime. Yet top government officials openly threaten him with death, US corporations see to it that he can’t receive money, they freeze his assets. You don’t notice that you live in a lawless state when you stay perfectly in line and do exactly what you are told. Once you do something that threatens power, even when what you are doing is totally legal, then you see the lawless nature of the government turn on you and attack you.
These politicians are even saying that if the law doesn’t presently criminalize what Assange is doing then you just change the law. And they probably will. They’ll do whatever it takes to sustain their complete control and will not permit the existence of any entity that would undermine their control via democratic means.
So the question is, what is the alternative? Continue to do as you are told and not exercise your freedoms such that they would represent a credible threat to power? Or do you take a risk and shine light on these criminals? It probably will provoke greater militarism/fascism, etc. The mainstream media is completely lock step, and here’s this organization outside the mainstream that can’t be controlled. They are very much afraid of an informed public, so they will probably get violent to prevent people from learning. That would be very bad and very sad. But what else can provoke the needed change?
Jon,
I’m curious Jon: what grand lies, crimes and/or gross injustices has WikiLeaks shined light on?
If anything, it makes me think that my perception of the government is not that far gone from what is actually going on.
Ya I have to agree with HP. The stuff leaked isn’t really that surprising.
If it’s no big deal why is our government responding by advocating the assassination of a non-criminal in a peaceful zone? Why should we be concerned that they’ll clamp down and be more fascist? The reaction here is very telling. It comes about because no other organization is a greater threat to their power.
Here are a few interesting items disclosed by Wikileaks via Greenwald, some of which are illegal.
(1) the U.S. military formally adopted a policy of turning a blind eye to systematic, pervasive torture and other abuses by Iraqi forces; (2) the State Department threatened Germany not to criminally investigate the CIA’s kidnapping of one of its citizens who turned out to be completely innocent; (3) the State Department under Bush and Obama applied continuous pressure on the Spanish Government to suppress investigations of the CIA’s torture of its citizens and the 2003 killing of a Spanish photojournalist when the U.S. military fired on the Palestine Hotel in Baghdad (see The Philadelphia Inquirer‘s Will Bunch today about this: “The day Barack Obama Lied to me“); (4) the British Government privately promised to shield Bush officials from embarrassment as part of its Iraq War “investigation”; (5) there were at least 15,000 people killed in Iraq that were previously uncounted; (6) “American leaders lied, knowingly, to the American public, to American troops, and to the world” about the Iraq war as it was prosecuted, a conclusion the Post‘s own former Baghdad Bureau Chief wrote was proven by the WikiLeaks documents; (7) the U.S.’s own Ambassador concluded that the July, 2009 removal of the Honduran President was illegal — a coup – but the State Department did not want to conclude that and thus ignored it until it was too late to matter; (8) U.S. and British officials colluded to allow the U.S. to keep cluster bombs on British soil even though Britain had signed the treaty banning such weapons, and, (9) Hillary Clinton’s State Department ordered diplomats to collect passwords, emails, and biometric data on U.N. and other foreign officials, almost certainly in violation of the Vienna Treaty of 1961.
I’m not surprised, but I’m also not surprised to read that someone was murdered, because murders do happen routinely in the US. Keep in mind though that these are documents merely labeled “secret.” You should expect this to be mild. In fact I had a secret clearance just a few years back. Very little is done to give that. “Top secret” is a whole different ball game. People are really investigated before they get that.
What is the alternative?
Do you think that we are the only country that does illegal activities? Answer is no. So what makes you think that our country is so far above a third world on morals when the government is run by humans the same as all other countries. Plus what surprises you? look at how corrupt we perceived our government before this. This really just reassured us. As far as the government trying to kill a non-criminal, i have no real opinion. I was under the opinion that BRADASS from Iraq is an idiot, and Assange is a rapist.
http://overcompensating.com/posts/20101202.html
Exactly. I still don’t see anything earth shatter. Especially from a voters dissatisfaction perspective.
I still think the simplest explanation is the right one: The government feels threatened because this exposes private information and undermines the privacy guarantees of future discussions. All necessary for foreign policy and diplomacy. All important given that we are fighting two wars overseas.
No need for grand conspiracy theories and over blowing it when it seems as simple as that.
Well, there are in fact conspiracies that have been exposed here, so I don’t know what you mean when you say there is no need for a conspiracy theory. Our government conspired with the Spanish and German governments to prevent Americans from facing justice systems. Some Icelanders did conspire to funnel money into the pockets of the bank’s owners. A conspiracy is simply a secret collusion for the purpose of breaking the law. That does sometimes happen and has now been exposed in some cases. I think the exposure is good.
The quote you offer here though would suggest you don’t agree and you think it would be better if the public was shielded from this information. This may lead to further crackdowns, draconian measures, etc. OK. But what is the alternative? Is it really better to continue blithely on the path that shields Americans from the information they need to understand what is happening in the Middle East, how their troops are routinely and brutally killing civilians? This can help inform us about whether these wars are something we want to continue to support. Maybe all the destruction isn’t worth it. But if we don’t know about the details we’re less informed and we’ll make poorer choices.
I’m guessing from a voters perspective, this:
a) makes the Obama administration look more moderate than many rightwingers have assumed
b) more likely to support an attack on Iran
c) more likely to assume that what one assumed about the government is in fact true…ie, the non existence of grand conspiracy theories
d) more supportive of foreign policy
So again: where is the benefit from WikiLeaks? Do you think people are going to be less supportive of A), B), C) or D) because of WikiLeaks? I certainly don’t.
Your answer to my question is not clear. Do I have you right? Are you saying that you would prefer to be shielded from this information because of certain negative consequences. Information like this claim about how your tax dollars are being used to fund the rape of young boys? Sounds bizarre, but yeah, that’s what’s happening.
http://blogs.houstonpress.com/hairballs/2010/12/wikileaks_texas_company_helped.php
These things make the public more supportive of our foreign policy somehow in your world. So it’s better that these hideous crimes continue without public awareness. Do I have you right?
I believe the government has the right to perform certain activities in secrecy, yes.
Regarding your link: disgusting, offensive, and certainly should be punished. And certainly a blow to our foreign policy efforts in Afghanistan.
But then there are other things WikiLeaks has established that would make the public more supportive. Like this.
So on net, I would say that A), B), C) and D) are true, yes. On net.
Let me ask you something Jon: Do you agree that the government has the right to perform some government activity in secrecy?
If you look at the link you provided you see I responded to it and showed that this is a misrepresentation of what the disclosures reveal. Your presumption that they would naturally lead someone to be more supportive of state violence is David Frum misleading you.
I didn’t ask you if you thought the government should be permitted to engage in SOME secret activities. I’m asking you if you really would prefer that Wikileaks had not done this, so you could remain blissfully ignorant of the attempts to cover up rape of children who are purchased with your tax dollars. We could instead be ignorant of the subversion of judicial systems in foreign countries, law breaking by the state department, etc. Is that a better world?
Because this is not about living in a perfect world. It’s about trade-offs. I can imagine a situation where secrecy would be necessary. But we live in a world where secrecy is invoked not because it actually is necessary for security. It’s invoked to cover up crimes and/or embarrassing facts that need to be known by the public.
It is important to emphasize that NOT ONE individual has suffered violence due to the Wikileaks disclosures, whether we are talking about informants, undercover agents, etc. Let me repeat that. NOT ONE individual has suffered violence. What has happened is that some law breaking has been exposed and some individuals have suffered embarrassment.
We live in a country that has vast surveillance powers, torture powers, assassination powers, and cloaks it all behind a wall of secrecy. This really needs to be remedied, and I see no other way to do it but to expose the world to facts that the mainstream media just will not cover. So I see no alternative to Wikileaks. I agree that in an ideal world they wouldn’t exist and our politicians and government officials would only invoke secrecy when it was absolutely necessary. But in our world they invoke it constantly and do so to keep us ignorant so that we don’t stop their criminal behavior. I think we have to risk potentially damaging disclosures in order to offset the vast over arching secret government apparatus that is depriving us of our freedoms and perpetuating mass death overseas.
And remember that you’re not in a lot of danger in any case. You know how many Americans died due to terrorism last year? I think it was like 25. You should be far more afraid of drowning in your own bathtub. Would you invoke a massive big brother apparatus, taking pictures of your naked body and that of your family at the airport, listening to your phone calls, monitoring your internet usage, putting up displays in your stores telling you to report suspicious activity, all in an effort to keep you from drowning in your tub? That would make more sense then what we’re doing now.
ya id rather be blissfully unaware, because i cant just stop suddenly paying taxes. (i would if i could). and the fact that this information is public does not mean a change will occur.
Were speaking past each other here. Lets see if we can untangle it all.
I am making the claim that WikiLeaks will likely result in more of this: “The specter of being WikiLeaked will likely exacerbate all of the tendencies that Wilkinson dislikes about the modern leviathan. Systems will turn inward; information-sharing will decrease; further centralization, rather than any kind of devolution or transparency, will be the order of the day. And all the while, the useful work that’s done by “America’s intelligence agencies, military, and consular offices” — the prevention of wars, the anticipation of crises, the discreet management of difficult situations — will become that much more difficult to accomplish.””
You say, that sucks, but what is the alternative? How do we expose the governments corrupt actions?
In other words, you are saying the cost is worth the gain (exposing the governments corrupt actions). But I am now questioning the gain. What exactly did WikiLeaks expose???
You point to the boy rape thing. I say yes, thats bad, horrific, should be discontinued, etc. but is that really the best you got? I dont know about you, but in all wars I expect some level of corruption. It’s inevitable. Of course we should try to limit it as much as possible, but its impossible to eliminate completely. I bet most of the public will store this bit of information as that which is inevitable.
So again, what was the gain???
Now, to address some of your claims, you write:
This is not completely true, see here.
I quote:
Regarding the general view of the wars, here are some of the comments I have read:
Or take this from the Guardian:
Or take this from The New Yorker:
So again, I have to ask, what are the gains?
Here are the costs:
So again, I have to ask, what are the gains? Because the costs we can agree on.
I’m not really so sure that diplomats turning inward, being less willing to share info, is such a bad thing. The things they’d be unwilling to share openly would probably be things like colluding to break the law. Or saying something that would be embarrassing.
Let’s say a violent Arab dictator in fact didn’t suggest that Iran should be attacked because he knows that his subjects would be outraged if they knew he said that. Is that so bad? When you have to turn inward and be more circumspect you might hesitate in subverting justice in Spain. You might get exposed. A Spanish prosecutor might fear that colluding with the United States to deny justice for a Spanish citizen could cost him. That sounds good to me.
Here’s some more good. In response to the disclosures made in Iceland regarding banking corruption Iceland, because they are grateful for the exposure of the crimes, has made their country a journalistic heaven, writing laws that grant the best protections in the world to whistle blowers.
Spain, being a democracy unlike the US, will probably vote some of the bums that broke the law out. That’s not an option for Americans since our democracy is a farce, but at least Spain gets to enjoy the benefits.
So some Australians think various lives were “put at risk” due to the disclosures. That’s their opinion. The fact remains. There is no evidence that anybody has been physically harmed by the disclosures. That’s my claim and your link doesn’t deny it.
My belief is that we need effective democracy. The first step is getting informed. You have to be informed of crimes and non-criminal, yet awful behavior if you want good government. Wikileaks isn’t perfect, but it’s the only institution that is making any progress with this. Our major media leaves us in the dark.