Are the leaked diplomatic cables good for us?
Dec 02
I haven’t decided yet. I’m sure some good will come of it, and I’m all for open and transparent government, but I’m also wary of disclosing private communications. Every cooperating group of people, whether a business, government, family or friends, have conversations they assume are private. These conversations would obviously be very different were they expected to be public, and the privacy leads to more open discussion.
There will obviously be a difference between the public and private aspects of relations between countries, and I’m not sure what good exposing one part of the private aspect will do. We’re not getting the whole context; there’s also lots to these relationships that happen in-person. For example, does knowing that Saudi Arabia was secretly working against Iran on some issues change anything. It’s very interesting to know, but it feels a bit like it’s not something we needed to know.
Some of the leaked cables have probably done some good, but I’m not sure the whole has done more than embarrass a few countries and will obviously force them to tighten up security on these communications.
I would, however, like to have more transparent government in other ways. I’d like easily accessible data on the money transfers between countries (I’d say governments, but I’m sure some official transfers get hidden via private corporations), and especially weapons sales and transfers. I want more data on who is paying off which politician and how they vote on related issues.
RSS
Dec 03, 2010 @ 11:13:33
If you don’t think there have been any revelations from the leaked documents, it’s only because a) we haven’t had enough time to go through them and b) many people are scared to look. With Julian Assange on his Jason-Bourne-esque flight from prosecution, it’s not hard to understand.
I thought that Hillary Clinton instructing US diplomats to gather various digital and biometric identity information on their foreign counterparts was kind of a revelation. It speaks to her attitude towards foreign relations, a diplomatic double-standard: we can spy on you, but don’t you dare spy on us.
It’s all the more ironic since the Administration of Transparency is having to fight publicly to keep its secrets hidden. The basic philosophy of transparency being essential to democracy has been discarded if not defiled completely. Or perhaps it was just lip service all along.
The Wikileaks founder bragged that one day his site could be as important a tool of the press as the Freedom of Information Act. While that outlook’s bleak now, I have to applaud the attempt. Otherwise there will never be an honest accounting of the War on Terror. For one thing. the truth behind those Reuters journalists shot down by US helicopters would never have been released.
Dec 03, 2010 @ 11:36:05
I agree there are useful/relevant types of leaks and those that aren’t. There are things any government should reasonably expect can be kept private, although that list is far too long for governments these days. I just don’t know if cables between embassies is something that should be public.
Global politics is all about negotiation. Do you really think the world would be a better place if all political communications of any kind had to be public? How would friendly nations ever really negotiate a common stance on some issue?
Everyone seems to be OK with this because it’s the US cables that were exposed, and we know it’s not going to do any real damage except as a PR stunt. It’ll shake some feathers, but that’s it. But, let’s say the tables had been turned and someone got hold of the political communications of a smaller country, like Haiti or Belgium or South Korea. Would it be considered fair to mine through them and expose anything embarrassing?
Dec 03, 2010 @ 13:47:05
While I’ll admit that some Iraqi and Afghani collaborators may be endangered by a total transparency policy, that’s not what these cables are about. They are high level discussions of high level diplomatic and intelligence operations. Who they’re spying on and why.
“The administration’s strategy is to focus on the easy-to-demonize messenger, not the hard-to-explain message.”
We know that US foreign policy has been a chain of lies, cover-ups, assasinations, renditions and total disasters for the last 10 years, and we’ve been given no reason to believe that those practices ended with Bush. I’m just saying that if there had been any real accountability in US foreign affairs, Wikileaks wouldn’t be necessary. But there isn’t, so it is.
Dec 07, 2010 @ 09:06:15
Welll, Assange turned himself in. So much for a Jason-Bourne-esque flight from prosecution.
Since most people assume the sex crime charges were drummed up because they’re just severe enough to allow extradition to other countries, the question now becomes, will Assange’s punishment for his role in Wikileaks be appropriate? Was he a mischief-maker or a whistle-blower? I think he’s a bit of both.
Dec 07, 2010 @ 09:50:11
I agree, he seems a bit of both. I can’t decide if he should be punished. Obviously, the guy who actually took the cables is guilty of crimes (whether or not it was the right thing to do is another matter, but prosecuting him for exposing secret/classified data seems reasonable). Assuming Assange was simply a recipient of the data, and not an instigator, then what would be be prosecuted for? The newspapers aren’t being prosecuted for anything for redistributing them, so it wouldn’t seem unreasonable for him to be safe.
Dec 10, 2010 @ 11:56:33
“One of the women accusing WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange of sex crimes appears to have worked with a group that has connections to the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).”
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/12/assange-rape-accuser-cia-ties/
Dec 10, 2010 @ 12:05:59
I’ve always figured it was safe to guess those charges were politically motivated.
Dec 15, 2010 @ 10:56:52
http://blogs.computerworld.com/17521/espionage_act_makes_felons_of_us_all
One last thing:
If Assange is guilty for posting copies of classified US documents on the internet, then what about the people downloading, forwarding, blogging or tweeting about these documents? At what point does it cease being espionage and begin being freedom of speech or freedom of the press?
There are people in America celebrating Manning as a hero and a patriot, while the government decides how best to criminalize the distribution of electronic information by everyone involved, from Manning to you and I right here on this blog.
Dec 20, 2010 @ 12:43:04
http://www.federaltimes.com/article/20101220/DEPARTMENTS01/12200303/
The punchline is that they had already installed software that could have prevented the leaks in 2008. Now they are debating whether to actually turn the software ON.