Shame he chose to dodge the only awkward question that was put in front of him.
There are perfectly reasonable rebuttals to diplomat dude's arguments which have been made many times before. His 'question' does contain a lot of opinion and editorializing, rather than fact. You can't even answer his 'question' if you believe his whole premise underlying it to be faulty. I assume that was what Assange was trying to pithily get at...I thought his reply was funny.
Nope. It was a dodge. A straight-up dodge. The diplomat's phrasing, which you dismiss as "editorializing," was important context for the question. It was based on direct personal experience, which Assange and his supporters have precious little of. Despite this fact, they would forcibly seek to alter the course of the entire field. Perhaps they need to be educated as to the on-the-ground, in-the-field realities of the job title.
What, by the way, is your response to the posed question, as stated? There are clearly millions of people that do not support any private conversation between State representatives, for any reason. Why do you place yourself among them?
Additionally, I'm picking up on reports that the parsing necessary for Assange to champion the power of Chinese dissonance over Western free speech will be used instead of the Large Hadron Collider in order to split micro-particles. Now there's EU debt reduction at work.
What, by the way, is your response to the posed question, as stated? There are clearly millions of people that do not support any private conversation between State representatives, for any reason. Why do you place yourself among them?.
So, why even have a go through with the pony show of public conversations between state officials? When more than likely it has very little to do with the talks being paraded on in front of the world. This idea that somehow representatives can't be open to the public they supposedly represent/work for is deeply humorous and enlightening.
Or better still, thump loudly all the while shooting the messenger and the message.
Every public servant should be held accountable for the things they say and do in the name of the people they work for. And that's not the government or any other nation. But the public.
While some may believe that all of this is nothing more than treason or some other bullshit. There are without a doubt truths laid and question should be asked.
Surely you don't support having this stuff continually hidden away until someone brings it fourth through so called "legal" channels correct?
The sum total effect of this info dump will likely be widespread misinformation, not revelation.
For every worthwhile discovery here, there will be at least as many vague innuendos (or outright falsehoods) taken and repeated as 'fact'.
These documents by their very nature are extremely unreliable sources of info, but everyone wants to treat them as a magical peep through the keyhole of the Inner Sanctum and hang on their every word. This is as logical as a strictly literal reading of the Bible, imo.
For every worthwhile discovery here, there will be at least as many vague innuendos (or outright falsehoods) taken and repeated as 'fact'.
I don't disagree with what you're saying here but isn't part of that a product of LACK of transparency? We assume that those things held secret are done so because they ARE truths that people don't want shared.
Don't get me wrong - I don't think full, unregulated transparency should be the goal in any democracy. But a lack of transparency creates its own demons.
DocMcCoy"Go and laugh in your own country!" 5,917 Posts
Horseleech said:
These documents by their very nature are extremely unreliable sources of info, but everyone wants to treat them as a magical peep through the keyhole of the Inner Sanctum and hang on their every word. This is as logical as a strictly literal reading of the Bible, imo.
Yeah, like that article I linked to a few posts above this says, this stuff isn't history (or, at least, not all of it), but is rather the raw data of history.
Certain things (such as this disgraceful episode, for example) I'm glad to see out there in the PD.
If Bradley Manning, acting within his clearance/disclosure level, noticed specific documents that were on par with war crimes and was morally convicted to bring them to the light of the world, I would classify him a whistleblower and a hero. This is what he appears to have done with the "Collateral Murder" tape previously hosted on Wikileaks (I have not and will not view this video out of my Humanist-based respect for the dead, but I've read a summary). This is also what Daniel Ellsburg did. But that's not what actually happened here. Manning - the reports aren't fully clear to me - appears to have simply subverted access to another's computer and uploaded everything on the database that was classified material. He really had no idea what he was downloading before, after, or during the breach. It's taken full staffs of The Guardian and New York Times over five months to sort out the Cables, and they've only really scratched the surface. I see no way for Manning to have known all the content he was amassing as one person in even less time.
Either way, Manning's action constituted a clear violation of ethics. There is such a thing as a proper outcome obtained by illegal means - here, a total fluke. It happens all the time. Cops illegally raid property without a warrant or cause and find weapons, drugs, and even bodies. I see posts about 4th Amendment violations on SS, and they never quite happen to side with the Man. Funny thing. Manning might as well have been anyone - a master British hacker, a cleaning lady, or a North Korean spy who had hacked this database and dumped this information to the world. But he wasn't a hero for the method by which he provided the Cable leaks, and he certainly wasn't a hero for bragging about it online.
How many times do I have to state this? I'm not upset that potential crimes were serendipitously disclosed. But, again, this is not Abu Ghraib. This is shooting wildly into a crowd, hitting 260,000 people and coincidentally winging a few felons that should have been investigated. These 260,000 or so documents are not 260,000 nails in a coffin - they are puzzle pieces cut out by a blind man. That many classified documents - especially those regarding a war that was illegally begun - are sure to reveal some shockers. But this is what I'm talking about:
JAnthony said:
Julian.
I am a former British diplomat. In the course of my former duties I helped to coordinate multilateral action against a brutal regime in the Balkans, impose sanctions on a renegade state threatening ethnic cleansing, and negotiate a debt relief programme for an impoverished nation. None of this would have been possible without the security and secrecy of diplomatic correspondence, and the protection of that correspondence from publication under the laws of the UK and many other liberal and democratic states. An embassy which cannot securely offer advice or pass messages back to London is an embassy which cannot operate. Diplomacy cannot operate without discretion and the protection of sources. This applies to the UK and the UN as much as the US.
In publishing this massive volume of correspondence, Wikileaks is not highlighting specific cases of wrongdoing but undermining the entire process of diplomacy.
The sum total effect of this info dump will likely be widespread misinformation, not revelation.
For every worthwhile discovery here, there will be at least as many vague innuendos (or outright falsehoods) taken and repeated as 'fact'.
These documents by their very nature are extremely unreliable sources of info, but everyone wants to treat them as a magical peep through the keyhole of the Inner Sanctum and hang on their every word. This is as logical as a strictly literal reading of the Bible, imo.
I'd even argue that some of these missives are dead lies.
These documents are interesting for researchers and historians and that's about all they will impact. There are no big stories revealed in any of them. It will not undermine diplomacy nor put anyone at risk. The diplomatic cables actually eventually get released in something like 50 years according to news reports I've read. Despite Luck's quote above, I don't think these cables change anything. Here's a quote by current Sec. of Defense Gates that would seem to support that idea:
" Now, I've heard the impact of these releases on our foreign policy described as a meltdown, as a game-changer, and so on. I think -- I think those descriptions are fairly significantly overwrought. The fact is, governments deal with the United States because it's in their interest, not because they like us, not because they trust us, and not because they believe we can keep secrets. Many governments -- some governments deal with us because they fear us, some because they respect us, most because they need us. We are still essentially, as has been said before, the indispensable nation.
So other nations will continue to deal with us. They will continue to work with us. We will continue to share sensitive information with one another.
Is this embarrassing? Yes. Is it awkward? Yes. Consequences for U.S. foreign policy? I think fairly modest."
So there we have it. Leaks like these should be stamped out because of possible increases in misinformation in a society which is pretty much full on the misinformation train already. I must have been mistaken in the idea that spy agencies to embassies around the world were already playing that card for the last XXXX number of years.
Forget about all the ones that are true. Which show everything from kidnapping and torture with threats ???negative impact on our bilateral relationship" if they are exposed. To foreign political parties chief of staff's spying for other governments. The public should have zero access to that stuff...
Look, I'm not advocating that all secrets should be out there in the open. Everyone knows you could never get close to obtaining that. But I for one refuse to support the suppression of the truth when it's 100% the public's right to know this shit is going on. If you can give me good cause why just even the 2 examples I posted above should be suppressed from the public, I'd probably be more open in the debate.
LOL @ the casting suggestions. Your guys are much better than mine. I'd thought Assange should be played by Macauley Caulkin! Ha ha.
luck said:
But that's not what actually happened here. Manning - the reports aren't fully clear to me - appears to have simply subverted access to another's computer and uploaded everything on the database that was classified material.
-while pretending to lip sync to Lady Gaga! Hello? Do you party? lol
As to the contents of the leak - I'm unclear as to what harm their release has caused? Will other actors be more hesitant to deal with the US going forward? I think the above Gates quote pretty well addresses that. They won't.
Will there be LESS transparency going forward as the US government and others attempt to clamp down on security? Maybe. But, as the release of these document has shown, in this internet age, trying to plug the leaks is pretty difficult. Good luck! Seems like China (another lover of state secrecy) is struggling mightily with this too - as shown by the leaked documents, ha ha.
And to the diplomat's comments, I'm not at all convinced that diplomacy and negotiation cannot be (even more) successfully conducted in a much more transparent manner.
OTOH - I'm thoroughly convinced that state secrecy in the name of diplomatic missions can and has been used to perpetuate a laundry list of atrocities - many of which have been named upthread - you know - torture, murder, duplicity. Things like that.
Those who most ardently defend the need for secrecy tend to be the most powerful and corrupt - the upper echelons of the US government and multinational corporations, Iran, China, etc. in order that they may carry on conducting a lot of ill shit.
While those who cry for transparency tend to be, you know, the people.
It will not undermine diplomacy nor put anyone at risk.
Your first statement has been contradicted by numerous diplomats (active and retired) and Hillary Clinton herself. I posted merely one of the complaints, and no one has countered this with substance. I suppose that some doubt it's true because - I guess - it's from the Man, or something.
motown67 said:
The diplomatic cables actually eventually get released in something like 50 years according to news reports I've read. Despite Luck's quote above, I don't think these cables change anything.
There's a reason why there's an extinction period of 50 years - the situation on the ground has changed by then, and active diplomatic process will not be altered.
motown67 said:
Here's a quote by current Sec. of Defense Gates that would seem to support that idea...
1. Damage control
2. Wrong Department
I'm just not going to respond to people who are looking at my decently reasoned paragraphs and respond akin to: "but the People want transparency. That don't want lies (meaning diplomacy)." I don't even know where to start with that facile attitude.
Forget about all the ones that are true. Which show everything from kidnapping and torture with threats ???negative impact on our bilateral relationship" if they are exposed. To foreign political parties chief of staff's spying for other governments. The public should have zero access to that stuff...
I'm aware how that came off. It was intentionally phrased. I'm just some schmuck with a keyboard, at the end of the day. I'm not stupid, but I'm not all that smart, either.
I would say most statements from U.S. government officials about Wikileaks have been overblown, especially Clinton saying that they put people's lives at risk. I would take everything they say with a large bottle, perhaps a bag of salt. And I take Gates' statements as being much more realistic. Look if you've read any old cables from the U.S. or even England (which I came across recently on a BBC program) they're of the same stuff. This is nothing new. It's not a big deal really. I've been going through a couple of the cables about Iraq for example, and there's nothing in there that I haven't read from open sourced material. Statecraft will go on.
Your first statement has been contradicted by numerous diplomats (active and retired) and Hillary Clinton herself. I posted merely one of the complaints, and no one has countered this with substance. I suppose that some doubt it's true because - I guess - it's from the Man, or something.
Duderonomy said:
People who want to eat up the 'endangering international security and relations' bullshit are more than welcome.
America's reaction to whistle-blowers is never reform, it's to stop the whistle from being blown.
So this Gordon Brown chap....he's a well known comedian across the pond??
You know what I find funny?
Everywhere around the world, people in power have been quick to denounce the leaks. Yet here in the UK, Assange is holding court, the Guardian is hosting this stuff, and nobody has done anything. Any talk of "Assange should be court-martialled and crucified", "Feed him to the dogs", or whatever has been relatively muted.
There's plenty of embarrassing stuff involving the UK, things that I guess they could be getting shirty about. But really, what these leaks show from a UK perspective, is that we don't do anything of consequnce that will piss off the rest of the world without America's say-so anyway. It's like our govmt knows they haven't done much that doesn't, ultimately, lead back to Washington.
The new bunch of cretins, Gordon Brown, Tony Bliar before him, all children of Thatcher.
Maybe the leaks will shame them into growing a pair or strapping some on.
It is indicative of massive worldwide corruption that the laser sharp actions of one small team might beget global hostility even while that team risks life and limb in the hopes of preventing it.
It is indicative of massive worldwide corruption that the laser sharp actions of one small team might beget global hostility even while that team risks life and limb in the hopes of preventing it.
You know, it's a lot more effective if you don't edit one piece to death while contrasting it with your own opinion. Especially when utilizing overwrought language in the process.
It is indicative of massive worldwide corruption that the laser sharp actions of one small team might beget global hostility even while that team risks life and limb in the hopes of preventing it.
You know, it's a lot more effective if you don't edit one piece to death while contrasting it with your own opinion. Especially when utilizing overwrought language in the process.
by now it's your thread,
and you cooked up some savory sentences,
no-one else even came close...
Everywhere around the world, people in power have been quick to denounce the leaks. Yet here in the UK, Assange HAS BEEN ARRESTED AND IS GOING TO COURT Any talk of "Assange should be court-martialled and crucified", "Feed him to the dogs", or whatever has been relatively muted.
Comments
Well, the casting will be fairly easy when the movie gets made:
Nope. It was a dodge. A straight-up dodge. The diplomat's phrasing, which you dismiss as "editorializing," was important context for the question. It was based on direct personal experience, which Assange and his supporters have precious little of. Despite this fact, they would forcibly seek to alter the course of the entire field. Perhaps they need to be educated as to the on-the-ground, in-the-field realities of the job title.
What, by the way, is your response to the posed question, as stated? There are clearly millions of people that do not support any private conversation between State representatives, for any reason. Why do you place yourself among them?
Additionally, I'm picking up on reports that the parsing necessary for Assange to champion the power of Chinese dissonance over Western free speech will be used instead of the Large Hadron Collider in order to split micro-particles. Now there's EU debt reduction at work.
So, why even have a go through with the pony show of public conversations between state officials? When more than likely it has very little to do with the talks being paraded on in front of the world. This idea that somehow representatives can't be open to the public they supposedly represent/work for is deeply humorous and enlightening.
Or better still, thump loudly all the while shooting the messenger and the message.
Every public servant should be held accountable for the things they say and do in the name of the people they work for. And that's not the government or any other nation. But the public.
While some may believe that all of this is nothing more than treason or some other bullshit. There are without a doubt truths laid and question should be asked.
Surely you don't support having this stuff continually hidden away until someone brings it fourth through so called "legal" channels correct?
http://harpers.org/archive/2010/11/hbc-90007831
or
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,732579,00.html
I can't see any purpose not allowing the public to know about these types of events. And the list is getting larger by the day.
= Falsehood of the day.
The sum total effect of this info dump will likely be widespread misinformation, not revelation.
For every worthwhile discovery here, there will be at least as many vague innuendos (or outright falsehoods) taken and repeated as 'fact'.
These documents by their very nature are extremely unreliable sources of info, but everyone wants to treat them as a magical peep through the keyhole of the Inner Sanctum and hang on their every word. This is as logical as a strictly literal reading of the Bible, imo.
I don't disagree with what you're saying here but isn't part of that a product of LACK of transparency? We assume that those things held secret are done so because they ARE truths that people don't want shared.
Don't get me wrong - I don't think full, unregulated transparency should be the goal in any democracy. But a lack of transparency creates its own demons.
Yeah, like that article I linked to a few posts above this says, this stuff isn't history (or, at least, not all of it), but is rather the raw data of history.
Certain things (such as this disgraceful episode, for example) I'm glad to see out there in the PD.
Either way, Manning's action constituted a clear violation of ethics. There is such a thing as a proper outcome obtained by illegal means - here, a total fluke. It happens all the time. Cops illegally raid property without a warrant or cause and find weapons, drugs, and even bodies. I see posts about 4th Amendment violations on SS, and they never quite happen to side with the Man. Funny thing. Manning might as well have been anyone - a master British hacker, a cleaning lady, or a North Korean spy who had hacked this database and dumped this information to the world. But he wasn't a hero for the method by which he provided the Cable leaks, and he certainly wasn't a hero for bragging about it online.
How many times do I have to state this? I'm not upset that potential crimes were serendipitously disclosed. But, again, this is not Abu Ghraib. This is shooting wildly into a crowd, hitting 260,000 people and coincidentally winging a few felons that should have been investigated. These 260,000 or so documents are not 260,000 nails in a coffin - they are puzzle pieces cut out by a blind man. That many classified documents - especially those regarding a war that was illegally begun - are sure to reveal some shockers. But this is what I'm talking about:
I'd even argue that some of these missives are dead lies.
" Now, I've heard the impact of these releases on our foreign policy described as a meltdown, as a game-changer, and so on. I think -- I think those descriptions are fairly significantly overwrought. The fact is, governments deal with the United States because it's in their interest, not because they like us, not because they trust us, and not because they believe we can keep secrets. Many governments -- some governments deal with us because they fear us, some because they respect us, most because they need us. We are still essentially, as has been said before, the indispensable nation.
So other nations will continue to deal with us. They will continue to work with us. We will continue to share sensitive information with one another.
Is this embarrassing? Yes. Is it awkward? Yes. Consequences for U.S. foreign policy? I think fairly modest."
http://ricks.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/12/01/quote_of_the_day_gates_on_wikileaks_and_the_nature_of_foreign_policy
i think he looks more like Kieth Levene (who's real name is incidentally Julian...)
Forget about all the ones that are true. Which show everything from kidnapping and torture with threats ???negative impact on our bilateral relationship" if they are exposed. To foreign political parties chief of staff's spying for other governments. The public should have zero access to that stuff...
Look, I'm not advocating that all secrets should be out there in the open. Everyone knows you could never get close to obtaining that. But I for one refuse to support the suppression of the truth when it's 100% the public's right to know this shit is going on. If you can give me good cause why just even the 2 examples I posted above should be suppressed from the public, I'd probably be more open in the debate.
-while pretending to lip sync to Lady Gaga! Hello? Do you party? lol
As to the contents of the leak - I'm unclear as to what harm their release has caused? Will other actors be more hesitant to deal with the US going forward? I think the above Gates quote pretty well addresses that. They won't.
Will there be LESS transparency going forward as the US government and others attempt to clamp down on security? Maybe. But, as the release of these document has shown, in this internet age, trying to plug the leaks is pretty difficult. Good luck! Seems like China (another lover of state secrecy) is struggling mightily with this too - as shown by the leaked documents, ha ha.
And to the diplomat's comments, I'm not at all convinced that diplomacy and negotiation cannot be (even more) successfully conducted in a much more transparent manner.
OTOH - I'm thoroughly convinced that state secrecy in the name of diplomatic missions can and has been used to perpetuate a laundry list of atrocities - many of which have been named upthread - you know - torture, murder, duplicity. Things like that.
Those who most ardently defend the need for secrecy tend to be the most powerful and corrupt - the upper echelons of the US government and multinational corporations, Iran, China, etc. in order that they may carry on conducting a lot of ill shit.
While those who cry for transparency tend to be, you know, the people.
There's a reason why there's an extinction period of 50 years - the situation on the ground has changed by then, and active diplomatic process will not be altered.
1. Damage control
2. Wrong Department
I'm just not going to respond to people who are looking at my decently reasoned paragraphs and respond akin to: "but the People want transparency. That don't want lies (meaning diplomacy)." I don't even know where to start with that facile attitude.
lol
Jesus. Did you read anything I wrote?
I'm aware how that came off. It was intentionally phrased. I'm just some schmuck with a keyboard, at the end of the day. I'm not stupid, but I'm not all that smart, either.
Dude. Now I just think you're joking. You're joking, right?
I would say most statements from U.S. government officials about Wikileaks have been overblown, especially Clinton saying that they put people's lives at risk. I would take everything they say with a large bottle, perhaps a bag of salt. And I take Gates' statements as being much more realistic. Look if you've read any old cables from the U.S. or even England (which I came across recently on a BBC program) they're of the same stuff. This is nothing new. It's not a big deal really. I've been going through a couple of the cables about Iraq for example, and there's nothing in there that I haven't read from open sourced material. Statecraft will go on.
America's reaction to whistle-blowers is never reform, it's to stop the whistle from being blown.
You know what I find funny?
Everywhere around the world, people in power have been quick to denounce the leaks. Yet here in the UK, Assange is holding court, the Guardian is hosting this stuff, and nobody has done anything. Any talk of "Assange should be court-martialled and crucified", "Feed him to the dogs", or whatever has been relatively muted.
There's plenty of embarrassing stuff involving the UK, things that I guess they could be getting shirty about. But really, what these leaks show from a UK perspective, is that we don't do anything of consequnce that will piss off the rest of the world without America's say-so anyway. It's like our govmt knows they haven't done much that doesn't, ultimately, lead back to Washington.
The new bunch of cretins, Gordon Brown, Tony Bliar before him, all children of Thatcher.
Maybe the leaks will shame them into growing a pair or strapping some on.
http://my.firedoglake.com/kirkmurphy/2010/12/04/assanges-chief-accuser-has-her-own-history-with-us-funded-anti-castro-groups-one-of-which-has-cia-ties/
Side note. Are the rape charges on the fact they are saying he didn't wear a condom? Which is illegal? Crazy law...
You know, it's a lot more effective if you don't edit one piece to death while contrasting it with your own opinion. Especially when utilizing overwrought language in the process.
by now it's your thread,
and you cooked up some savory sentences,
no-one else even came close...
just wanted to share the recipe
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11937110
How do you mean funny?
Like funny ha ha??