Um, I Think It's Time for a Thread on WikiLeaks

^ enjoys this guys posts even when i disagree

citizens of a country own the govts information imo.

shd every bit of govt expenditure be made public?

yep

welfare payments? prescription medication? cost of operations?

eh it depends on what exactly you mean by "made public". i can imagine a very innocent sunshine proposal coming from a GOP-controlled house to publish the name, salary, race and home address of every single federal employee. but that's a rather florid example i guess.

mordy i just fundamentally disagree here

One of the major issues in the Congo right now is that the State can't get a monopoly on coercive force and so it can't protect its citizens from each other. This is a classical reason to have governance (and is even mentioned in Pirkei Avot in 200BC; "without governance a man will swallow his neighbor alive"), and it's why I'm skeptical of free information as a value without any moderation or mediation.

mainly cos i don't think you can separate the objects of "the state" and "the people". the state is not a mechanism, or a force, or an idea, or an arrow on a flowchart, it is a subset of the people, acting. i'm enough of a libertarian to disagree with the dictum you've quoted -- "governance" is just as often the means by which a man swallows his neighbor.

i'm a little fuzzy on how we got from free inquiry to the monopoly on force, tho

Because information is a kind of power.

ah right, now i remember what i was thinking...

look i don't think we ought to react to a huge and embarrassing link like this by saying, oh no, what about the monopoly of force!! this way lies the congo!! i just don't think so.

but that doesn't mean it's a YAY AWESOME THING that random dude beholden to no one legally, ethically, etc can release whatever he wants.

isn't it?

knowing that the veil of secrecy allows you to do shitty things out of public view means... those with the power to make things secret will do shitty things! because they can! the principle of free information IS the principle of restraint of power, it IS the counterweight to the monopoly of force. a few more julian assanges around and the calculus for the political costs of military action start to change.

You can be in favor of free speech as a way of alleviating the worst excesses of political corruption and not be in favor of deinstitutionalized release of classified information. I was in favor of the NYT leaking the Bush administration wiretapping program (and even think they were too conservative about waiting to leak it) because the NYT is responsible to a number of different forces -- their readership, the country they live in, etc. I don't think Assanges is accountable to anyone and tho it seems at the moment that he's a good enough guy (at least making an attempt to keep the most dangerous information out of the public sphere), that doesn't mean I trust him to always make the right decision. Let's say he releases a bunch of destructive material that hurts people literally (many of which would be moderates who are trying to work with the United States) and institutionally (releases information that weakens the US when they come to the bargaining table) -- if you are against the US State having power (which is a real position, but needs to be articulated as such), then this is not a problem. But if you want a powerful State, just one where the corruption is mediated by a free press, then you need to be wary about someone like Assanges.

institutionally (releases information that weakens the US when they come to the bargaining table)

go fuck yourself

welfare payments? prescription medication? cost of operations?

― rip MAD MEN on AMC S4 26/07 never forget (history mayne), Tuesday, 27 July 2010 17:34 (31 minutes ago)

to individuals? nah. as a set of accounts in total? yeah.

One thing I'd like to see someone like k3v discuss is to what extent he believes the US State should be powerful. Clearly he believes they've overstepped their bounds (something that I don't argue with) but where would he like to see those boundaries withdrawn? I suspect from his position on Assanges that he hasn't really considered it, or that he is simply articulating an anarchist/libertarian principle of statehood where the government should be so limited that you can drown it in a bathtub (or however Reagan described it). Certainly there are people in countries with competing interests to the US who believe that the US government should be less powerful because that'll create opportunities for them. I don't think this is k3v's position, and he probably believes any government in the world needs to be limited severely. I'm not sure how he plans on implementing that, tho. Presumably someone new will fill whatever gap we leave.

ILX: your world government in exile.

institutionally (releases information that weakens the US when they come to the bargaining table)

go fuck yourself

Why? Who would you prefer to have more international power? I'm open to suggestions. Not committed to the idea of the US being a world power.

mordy are you a hawk y/n?

serious question

We have this discussion in the newsroom often: what do you do with information? If you've got an alleged rape victim's name, do you release it? There may well be good reasons for doing so. But there's consequences.

Oh come on. I haven't agreed with a lot of Mordy's posts here, but it's pretty clear he's just thinking through his positions.

xpost

Certainly there are people in countries with competing interests to the US who believe that the US government should be less powerful because that'll create opportunities for them

http://images.smh.com.au/2010/04/06/1290403/st_wikileaks-420x0.jpg

xp it was actually a serious question ALS, mordy clearly believes in the US Govt's right to assert power beyind its borders and I was wondering how he would define himself wrt to the extent of those beliefs

How do you define a hawk? I was against the Iraq War from Day One, and I'm against going to war in Iran. I was in favor of a limited war in Afghanistan after Sept 11th, and I think some presence there will be important for awhile even tho I'm against increasing the troop levels. I believe in the Western Civilization project with some caveats, but generally, like Obama, believes history bends towards justice. I'm skeptical of the Event that will topple Capitalism, or State Power, even as I recognize that Capitalism has been hugely alienating and State Power has all sorts of corruptions. I do believe that we should export Democracy, free speech, and other awesome values abroad, tho I think neoconservatives are too focused on using force to do so. I think force is best when it's left implicit (which is arguably an even more neoconservative argument than neoconservatives who I believe don't recognize how the use of force ultimately depletes said force). Ie: It's complicated.

I recognize this might be the sticking point: "I believe in the Western Civilization project with some caveats"

The UN has authorised the US and others to use force in Afghanistan, I don't think we're talking unilateral projection of force here

there's all sorts of weird details that aren't necessarily classified that are neat to find,
(e.g. the process that the FBI goes through in order to name their sting operations
resembles an onion "wacky headlines" pitch meeting.)
Has any weird details like that come out of all these documents?

Certainly there are people in countries with competing interests to the US who believe that the US government should be less powerful because that'll create opportunities for them. I don't think this is k3v's position, and he probably believes any government in the world needs to be limited severely. I'm not sure how he plans on implementing that, tho. Presumably someone new will fill whatever gap we leave.

― Mordy, Tuesday, July 27, 2010 7:08 PM (6 minutes ago) Bookmark

yeah i basically agree w. a lot of what mordy is saying

people calling on him to be more and more explicit about where he stands is kinda funny coz i dunno if yalls are being that open

mordy clearly believes in the US Govt's right to assert power beyind its borders

this is kind of what im talking about. where would you draw the line, darragh?

Ismael, some might argue that the US has undue influence on the UN. If you actually believe this, this is really what we should be discussing since it's the crux of the issue. I think intelligent people can disagree about the amount of influence the US should have on the world, but if that's actually the argument we should have it. It's sneaky to leave it in the background unacknowledged.

I do believe that we should export Democracy, free speech, and other awesome values abroad

actually,. i think this might be more of a sticking point tbh

xp- i'm only calling mordy on it, because he's thought and writes about this much more than me tbh mayne, just ppl on net exchanging views

i'd draw the line at US mainland borders, but then i live in a world where my political POV in these matters need only equate to the level of spies like us tbh

darraghmac, are you against any intervention abroad?

i feel like theres a weird slippage here going on btw these arguments but i dont know if i can put my finger on it

yeah i feel like we've swerved away from the thing at issue toward first principles

It's possible to believe that information has nothing to do with power -- I'm assuming it does, because that's just how I'm philosophically trained and what makes sense to me, but that might be the slippage you're sensing. If someone believes it really has nothing to do with the exertion of power then it might be weird to move from discussing whether it's good to release information to discuss whether it's good for the US State to be powerful.

(And if someone believes that information doesn't have anything to do with power, then we could be discussing that instead. I think there's a compelling case that information is basically all about power.)

Not having a go at all, Mordy xp, don't know why you'd think that. It was more a response to Darragh anyway - his question implied that you're in favour of the US projecting force at will, I was just noting that the UN has authorised it. And the UN is the only international system we've got, except custom, and nearly everyone's signed up to it, so if that *was* the question, Afghanistan's not an example of it.

Yeah, I agree with you. I'm just saying that position doesn't preclude the position that US extends too much influence abroad. The UN is an arena for such influences to (hopefully) be mediated through compromise and discourse, but I'm sure there are members of the UN who feel the US has way too much influence in it (certainly anyone who ever tried to condemn Israel only to have the US veto the condemnation). You can believe the UN is the best international system we have and still critique US actions abroad (even if they're authorized by the UN). I just think we should be clear about what we're arguing about.

if we were wondering whether this leak would "do" anything, the answer is pretty much no, as far as officialdom is concerned

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/07/julian-assange-is-a-middle-man/60490/

As of Day Three, there has been no appreciable change in the country's relationship with its allies. As the White House has made clear, the details about Pakistani involvement with the Taliban speak for themselves and put pressure on the government. So far, there's nothing in the cables that has taken Congress by surprise ... nothing that has directly implicated the current administration in a prevarication ... nothing about the strategy, really, that hasn't already been shared with the American people through reporting (Dexter Filikins's ouvre, Lara Logan's pieces) or even through official channels. Assange seems largely motivated by the civilian casualty angle, overseas newspapers seem to be fascinated by U.S. counterterrorism squads, and the war supplemental is going to pass Congress.

my favorite crazy person on the internet, spengler, sounds pretty sane here, must say:

http://atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/LG27Df05.html

Who covered up a scandalous arrangement known to everyone with a casual acquaintance of the situation? The answer is the same as in Agatha Christie's 1934 mystery about murder on the Orient Express, that is, everybody: former United States president George W Bush and vice president Dick Cheney, current US President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden, India, China and Iran. They are all terrified of facing a failed state with nuclear weapons, and prefer a functioning but treacherous one.

...

The "everybody" involved in this case seems to exclude whomever actually leaked the documents, presumably some element of the US military, which has to absorb the effect of Pakistan's double game in the region in the form of body bags for enlisted men and shattered reputations for commanders. Like the Rolling Stone magazine interviews that led to the firing of General Stanley McChrystal, the America commander in Afghanistan, the WikiLeaks documents suggest a degree of disaffection of the American military with civilian leaders deeper than anything in living memory.

I do believe that we should export Democracy, free speech, and other awesome values abroad

Don't forget, the NY Times went to the White House first before printing anything about this. The "paradigm of liberalism" according to half the US's political pundits.

Speaking of the Times, and of "Does this mean anything", well apparently it does:

“While I’m concerned about the disclosure of sensitive information from the battlefield that could potentially jeopardize individuals or operations, the fact is these documents don’t reveal any issues that haven’t already informed our public debate on Afghanistan,” Mr. Obama said to reporters in the Rose Garden. “Indeed, they point to the same challenges that led me to conduct an extensive review of our policy last fall.”

The president’s comments followed a meeting with Democratic and Republican leaders in Congress in which he urged quick passage of the war funding measure.

But the debate in the House Appropriations Committee revealed a fractured resolve among Democrats on the supplemental spending bill.

Representative David R. Obey, chairman of the Appropriations Committee, intends to vote against the war spending bill before the House on Tuesday, signaling a deepening split in the Democratic Party over the war in the wake of the disclosure of classified documents showing the conflict was not going as well as portrayed.

The break by Mr. Obey, the Wisconsin Democrat ostensibly responsible for the very bill he will oppose, came as fellow liberal Democrats complained that scarce federal dollars were being devoted to Afghanistan at the expense of critical needs at home.

“With all due respect,” said Representative James P. McGovern, Democrat of Massachusetts, “I think we need to do more nation-building here at home.”

http://atwar.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/07/27/democrats-split-on-war-spending-bill/?partner=rss&emc=rss

Adam, I think that was responsible actually. What if there was an ID number they were going to run that they hadn't been able to decipher themselves that could've led to someone's death? It seems responsible to go to the White House and say, "Here's this information we have -- do you want to comment and is there anything you can convince us we shouldn't run with?" I'm sure they weren't like, "Give us permission to run this please." Probably the meeting was on the presumption that the NYT would run this material unless otherwise convinced not to.

Yes, I mean it was surely responsible. But also here's this "free press" checking with the boss to make sure everything is ok. Also see post-9/11 double standards for torture terminology.

I mean, you know how the media works, I assume. The NYT doesn't want to not run the scoop. They're a business, they make money off having a reputation of running big scoops and important information, not off kowtowing to the White House. In the past they may have sacrificed scoops for the sake of future scoops -- like sitting on the wiretapping story, maybe -- or of being too conservative about the danger of particular information, but I doubt they've ever not a run a story for the selfless purpose of helping politicians. Like everyone else they are trying to maximize their power and influence, and sometimes that calculation is wrong. But it's silly to pretend it's not a calculation.

Sitting on the wiretapping story may not have been purely for "selflessly helping politicians" but you have to admit it didn't exactly hurt the administration.

I don't disagree that sitting on the story was a miscalculation, but why would an editor sit on a career-making (and now iconic story for the NYT in the 2000s like Watergate was for the WaPost) story just because he didn't want to inconvenience the Bush Administration? Maybe he felt it was really a threat to the country. Or maybe he felt that if he ran it, he'd be locked out of other important stories. But I am very skeptical that his decision was, "Bush is good for this country and this story will threaten the election, so I'm going to sit on it." I'm sure that's why Bush wanted him to sit on it, btw! But I believe his own calculation was different (even if equally wrong in the end).

I totally agree with you, I'm just saying the end result is the end result, regardless of the intentions involved. I suppose we should try and define an ideal "free press" (since so many different factors can alter the content of the news) but I have to get back to work so I'll have to wait on that...

the idea that the u.s.'s position at the bargaining table needs to be protected is repellant and ridiculous. repellant because i'm pretty much dr. morbius about the u.s. government. ridiculous because anything is fair game in negotiating, or the rules are in the game -- why step in and say something needs to be protected when the u.s. govt is going to do everything it can to do exactly that?

knowing that the veil of secrecy allows you to do shitty things out of public view means... those with the power to make things secret will do shitty things! because they can! the principle of free information IS the principle of restraint of power, it IS the counterweight to the monopoly of force. a few more julian assanges around and the calculus for the political costs of military action start to change.

pretty much this^^^

so many x-posts

repellant because i'm pretty much dr. morbius about the u.s. government.

Can you explain what this means? Because Dr. Morbz has a very superficial position wrt Democracy + government. He is essentially waiting for a charismatic figure to lift us out of the bonds of history + alienation. You can't exactly argue policy based on that.

Like, I also feel the appeal of messianic ahistorical redemption and the moment it comes I'll be thrilled, but until that point we should probably live in this world.

i still have no clue what the sides are in this argument

that's because there aren't any

where is my totem

Well, the original argument was whether you should be happy about any release of information (assuming it doesn't do harm to an individual, acc to Smith, not sure if k3v actually agreed with that) because free information is always a net good. I expressed some skepticism of that and said that while I think information can be good, it can also be bad and each leak should be independently evaluated for its value. It was posited that it was always good because it resolves an imbalance in power between citizens and government, and can help curtail corruption. I don't disagree with either of those things, but I still don't feel like it's a net good because I don't think that imbalance is completely bad. As usual, I think to the extent that any particular action does a good thing in the world it's good, and if it does negative stuff in the world it's negative. Also, we strayed into US power because it seems like some people on the thread are actually very cynical about any expression of US power, in which case revealing any document is probably a net good since it may undermine the State's power and ability to influence. If you are in favor of US State power to some extent (even if you want it mediated) you might be more considerate to the particular information being leaked. That's kinda where we're up to right now. (Oh, and also, k3v believes I'm ILX's token conservative. Of course, this is like I'm a token conservative like Chomsky is a conservative because he doesn't believe in boycotting Israeli universities -- it's definitely more ideological house-cleaning than actually believing I'm a conservative.)

ppl only say that free information is always good because ppl are nosy gossips

maybe not a mind blowing point here but wrt the ramifications of possibly life-threatening (eg identifying) intel reaching the public: the military has internal standards for determining, and safeguarding, the degree to which intel is "sensitive". which, to me, means that if STATE SECRETS are headed to the Internet, they probably weren't that secret in the first place.

WL is obv a worthwhile endeavor, to me, and handwringing about whether or not it's gonna tip off Hitler to DDay is top shelf concerntrolling, and far too dismissive of the massive intelligence apparatus that has been bein sneaky for oh like 70 years.

(sorry iphoning this one in)

suddenly i have 'spartan' in my head

Scott: Why would I want to know? I ain't a planner, I ain't a thinker. I never wanted to be. You got to set your motherfucker to receive. Listen to me. They don't go through the door, we don't ask why. That's not a cost, it's benefit. Because we get to travel light. They tell me where to go. Tell me what to do when I get there.