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

Your hard line is "if there is doubt, we must trust the state."

Isn't this kind of implicit in being a law-abiding citizen, btw?

I read "canon politics" as "mushroom pizza."

I suspect the american public would be more inspired to action if they found out about bad stuff in strategic doses rather than a constant bombardment of transparency, which would obviously fatigue anyone, and this sort of dynamic is at least recognized by wikileaks, who chose to release their info accordingly.

ok HI DERE I concede your point about people being optimists

until and unless <50% know what real hunger feels like, the American public will not do anything or demand anything no matter what their leaders do. people are motivated largely by self-interest, and their interests are in remaining fed & clothed & entertained.

Like, if you think the gov't is engaging in shitty activities bankrolled by your tax dollars, yet you continue to pay your taxes, how exactly are you NOT trusting the state?

Isn't this kind of implicit in being a law-abiding citizen, btw?

I don't think so - this is a well-aimed question though and I'd have to think about it. My initial response is that "the state" that governs the legal action of citizens in their daily lives is maybe a different entity from the one which discloses, or seeks not to disclose, information about itself. But this seems like a pretty complicated distinction to make, and since I'm posting from the near future, distinctions are blurring for me

also I think you meant ">50%"

Like, if you think the gov't is engaging in shitty activities bankrolled by your tax dollars, yet you continue to pay your taxes, how exactly are you NOT trusting the state?

well let's be plain about that: one pays taxes because they will punish the shit out of you if you don't. I would love to withhold money from the state until it agrees to provide full health care for all, and to fully fund the arts, besides! but they will freeze your bank account if you try that shit, so you gotta walk the straight and narrow. I don't have the stomach to see what the state will do if I get too principled about money they consider theirs.

no the bracket was pac man trying to eat the fifty percent

If there's one thing that unites Americans of all political stripes it's a reluctance to pay taxes for shit they don't like.

HI DERE, I disagree. I think that's what the argument has been about from the beginning -- whether you should be taking hard-line immutable positions or not. I think saying WikiLeaks may be good or bad depending on the circumstances is about as mutable as position as can be posited.

― Mordy, Tuesday, July 27, 2010 3:42 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark

can't keep up, but:

yeah, it is precisely the mutability here that is so aggravating, since i, for one, AM worried about the possible real-world implications. that is, hypothesizing devastating and sensitive information in the hands of an irresponsible blogger is kind of a neat thought experiment, and one that could prove fruitful if you decided to work through all the ethical implications of publish/don't publish, etc. ESP if you were then going to construct a really complex legal framework for addressing the question of what's censorable and what isn't.

it's just that, here, in the US, the nuance of such a legal framework runs up against the first amendment (as it should)---if the operating principle is "freedom of speech," then any special cases are best tackled ~once they arise~. speech/utterance/intel is far too vast to anticipate.

i guess i see it this way: is it better to worry about WL's loose lips sinking ships ~right now~, before any harm has been done, or is that an issue better tackled once WL has actually done something worthy of real, considered opprobrium? my assessment is that the risks of an operation like WL are far and away outstripped by the possible rewards, at this juncture, and that pre-emptive censorship/penalty as prophylaxis against an impossible-to-imagine security breach is shameful and offensive to what i consider to be actual human rights

no the bracket was pac man trying to eat the fifty percent

people will never be motivated to action unless pac-man knows what real hunger feels like

well let's be plain about that: one pays taxes because they will punish the shit out of you if you don't. I would love to withhold money from the state until it agrees to provide full health care for all, and to fully fund the arts, besides! but they will freeze your bank account if you try that shit, so you gotta walk the straight and narrow. I don't have the stomach to see what the state will do if I get too principled about money they consider theirs.

Which leads back to the basic problem; you are fueling the engine you are complaining about and enabling it to continue doing things you disapprove of without any practical consequences because, for almost all of us, personal comfort > principles.

Or, to be more generous in constructing the argument, certain concessions are made on all of our principles because we believe in citizenship, which has the unfortunate side-effect of marginalizing some percentage of legitimate complaint into effective lip service.

I mean, the real critique is, "Great, you're idealistic. Who the fuck cares?" because the idealism as practiced that way has no impact on the world. It's just screaming into the wind, or to ask what the stakes are of that idealism, it's just to look good on a message board. You're not changing the world by saying how bad the US government is, you're just complaining.

― Mordy, Tuesday, July 27, 2010 4:35 PM (6 minutes ago)

fuck you. wanting something more than what we have is not "just complaining" - it's the only way to make things better. your banal fascination with power and the way things work leads you to acquiesce to things that even you probably find appalling, and this acquiescence is what allows it to continue. there's no moral high ground to be gained by concluding that what we've got is the best we can hope for

the risks of an operation like WL are far and away outstripped by the possible rewards, at this juncture, and that pre-emptive censorship/penalty as prophylaxis against an impossible-to-imagine security breach is shameful and offensive to what i consider to be actual human rights

beautifully put

"the American public will not do anything or demand anything no matter what their leaders do."

people are very sensitive to personal cruelty, so leaks of politicians cheating on their cancer-ridden wives could surely prompt action.
If you are smart about leaks, you will tailor the ones you release to hit on a personal level, rather than broad policy violence.
Abu Ghraib seemed very much more about an emotional response to specific acts on specific people in a photograph than a rejection of coercive force.

also btw cryptome has been doing this shit for well over a decade, get WITH IT

http cryptome org/

Which leads back to the basic problem; you are fueling the engine you are complaining about and enabling it to continue doing things you disapprove of without any practical consequences because, for almost all of us, personal comfort > principles.

Or, to be more generous in constructing the argument, certain concessions are made on all of our principles because we believe in citizenship, which has the unfortunate side-effect of marginalizing some percentage of legitimate complaint into effective lip service.

well yeah - I mean - I think you and I are in complete agreement about this - I'm not clear about what you're disagreeing with me about? one accepts that malfeasance of the state in exchange for the comforts provided by it (or by remaining unmolested by it); are you saying that one's complaints have no weight or force, maybe, because one ("I" being that one for arguments sake) isn't going to take any action? I can dig that I'm just not sure where you're coming to that point from

It's fun to argue the merits and demerits of whistle-blowing operations/military leaks, but in the end it's futile. It's going to happen, and it's going to happen more and more. No putting Pandora back in the box.

Abu Ghraib seemed very much more about an emotional response to specific acts on specific people in a photograph than a rejection of coercive force.

Did Abu Ghraib cause the American public to rise up and demand immediate accountability? There's plenty more Abu Ghraibs I'd guess, and what little we know about them we have to piece together. The people who got prosecuted in that case fit nicely into a "bad apple" paradigm, which silences a narrative-driven public.

No one revelation may "cause the American public to rise up and demand immediate accountability", but each revelation adds up.

I dont think each revelation necessarily adds up. sometimes, they are subtractive. you need to save up the revelations, and organize them in s specific way for maximum effect, or they just further cement cynicism than prompt action.

In fact, you don't even need the revelations to be entirely true. My understanding is that the videos that took down ACORN were bogus in a larger context.

well yeah - I mean - I think you and I are in complete agreement about this - I'm not clear about what you're disagreeing with me about? one accepts that malfeasance of the state in exchange for the comforts provided by it (or by remaining unmolested by it); are you saying that one's complaints have no weight or force, maybe, because one ("I" being that one for arguments sake) isn't going to take any action? I can dig that I'm just not sure where you're coming to that point from

I'm not really disagreeing with you or anyone else; I am advancing an argument as to why 75% of the principle-based arguments from both the left and the right are pointless. If you acknowledge yourself as a citizen of the country (the minimum requirement being paying your taxes), you are legitimizing the system in a way that is much, much stronger than verbally decrying it. So much of what we are doing here is posturing; basically, all of these threads are just a release valve to assuage the principles we bruise as a side-effect of being good citizens. As long as that's sufficient, we won't see any changes in the things we don't like.

I'm not really disagreeing with you or anyone else; I am advancing an argument as to why 75% of the principle-based arguments from both the left and the right are pointless. If you acknowledge yourself as a citizen of the country (the minimum requirement being paying your taxes), you are legitimizing the system in a way that is much, much stronger than verbally decrying it. So much of what we are doing here is posturing; basically, all of these threads are just a release valve to assuage the principles we bruise as a side-effect of being good citizens. As long as that's sufficient, we won't see any changes in the things we don't like.

I agree with this, with the exception of "posturing," which I think is too harsh a word; I think there's inherent value in the exchange of ideas, or even, as (lol) "sometimes" turns out to be the case, in people just restating positions everybody already knows they hold; I believe in the value of people talking to each other/typing out their ideas/thinkin baout stuff

btw directly onthread: WNYC has an interview up with assange. I haven't listened to it yet.

http://www.thetakeaway.org/2010/jul/27/julian-assange-chief-wikileaker-joins-takeaway/

bonus, looks like a real edifying comments war developing nicely over there

I agree with this, with the exception of "posturing," which I think is too harsh a word; I think there's inherent value in the exchange of ideas, or even, as (lol) "sometimes" turns out to be the case, in people just restating positions everybody already knows they hold; I believe in the value of people talking to each other/typing out their ideas/thinkin baout stuff

I don't think you can legitimately call the most recent strain of discourse on this thread "people talking to each other"; it was mostly a bunch of people who all believe the same essential thing stating it in different ways, then insulting and belittling each other for not using the same words.

btw the pizza in my examples is entirely theoretical, there is no pizza where I'm at, much to my dissatisfaction.

http://www.stuckinthe80s.com/image.php?productid=16597

darraghmac, are you against any intervention abroad?

― Mordy, Tuesday, 27 July 2010 18:25 (3 hours ago) Bookmark

sorry to jump back in, especially after mordy's been shouted off the thread, but if by intervention you mean troops pre-emptively on operation grey wild goose on foreign ground then yeah.

I don't think you can legitimately call the most recent strain of discourse on this thread "people talking to each other"; it was mostly a bunch of people who all believe the same essential thing stating it in different ways, then insulting and belittling each other for not using the same words.

look, in my family, that passed for "people talking to each other"

"troops pre-emptively on operation grey wild goose on foreign ground then yeah."

operation grey wild goose sounds like fun! wholesome even. not like operation quack attack.

Operation Grey Goose, please hit me up: I just got home from work and need a drink.

You rang?

http://www.stripohgram.com/bartender.jpg

operation grey wild goose

is this like Operation Dumbo Drops Acid

I'm not really disagreeing with you or anyone else; I am advancing an argument as to why 75% of the principle-based arguments from both the left and the right are pointless. If you acknowledge yourself as a citizen of the country (the minimum requirement being paying your taxes), you are legitimizing the system in a way that is much, much stronger than verbally decrying it. So much of what we are doing here is posturing; basically, all of these threads are just a release valve to assuage the principles we bruise as a side-effect of being good citizens. As long as that's sufficient, we won't see any changes in the things we don't like.

― measuring of the waist (HI DERE), Tuesday, July 27, 2010 5:10 PM (39 minutes ago)

but surely you're not suggesting that none of us takes political action outside of ilx? that people in this thread don't vote, or write to their representatives, or have conversations with people outside of this message board? i don't get the demonizing of ilx political threads in this case; it's just an extension of what people believe/do irl.

wild grey geese started out as a clever mixnmatch of military gunghoness and a fruitless search in my head, and yknow fuckalotofye tbh if yall don't roll with that

i don't, eh, i have no idea where the grey part came from.

and i don't agree fully that paying taxes amounts to an endorsement of what they're used for. taxes are what democracy decides to pay for (assuming those being taxed had elected representation present in the debates & votes regarding the taxes) xp

assuming that the representatives were using their vote in accord with the democratic ideal in the interests of their constituents, too, i'd add

I don't think you can legitimately call the most recent strain of discourse on this thread "people talking to each other"; it was mostly a bunch of people who all believe the same essential thing stating it in different ways, then insulting and belittling each other for not using the same words.

― measuring of the waist (HI DERE), Tuesday, July 27, 2010 5:30 PM (42 minutes ago)

no stop this please, if it's not clear that there were very distinct and disagreeing points of view being debated then i don't know what to tell you. i'm honestly sick of being told that we're all on the same side here, why can't we just get along etc; i'd hope (probably pointlessly) that anyone here on the fence about who the real enemy to progressive change is - the sarah palins or the people who are actually in charge of what's supposed to be the only viable outlet for progressive change we have (the democratic party) - saw that issue in a new light

"who the real enemy to progressive change is - the sarah palins or the people who are actually in charge"
they're both part of a climate of constant campaigning trumping sound governance, so in a broad sense I feel democracy itself is the largest obstacle, and I think where leaks would come into play is which side can more deftly capitalize on them.

I'm kind of surprised that there isn't yet anything in the leaks to spur a high-profiled firing like say, a seemingly innocuous Rolling Stone piece has. Maybe there's more in there to churn through?

if the leaker is bradley manning, and presumably he is, then he's already in jail

unless you mean, like, firing the US army

what is there to fire for? what we'll tolerate is clear - killing thousands of women and children is ultimately ok as long as it's not obvious that we directly meant to do so. talk shit about obama or biden? yourefired.jpg

xp

there's no smack talk in however many pages of leaked documents?

killing thousands of women and children is ultimately ok as long as it's not obvious that we directly meant to do so.

or as long as it met an approved military objective.

re: manning, didn't he say there was stuff specifically embarrassing to Hillary Clinton and some yet unheard of diplomatic fiascoes? is wikileaks just sitting on this?

if he was transmitting not only defense department cables going to/from the pentagon but also diplomatic cables to/from the state dept, yeah sure it could contain all kinds of shit about Madam Secretary. who knows? wikileaks may be sitting on a lot yeah...

I am long past "why can't we all get along" and well into "shut the fuck up all of you useless blowhards"

^ is this really the finger we want on the red button?

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/27/opinion/27exum.html?_r=1&ref=global

this one's got it all really - starts off with the popular "SIMPSONS DID IT, ASSHOLE", flows nicely into putting-the-troops-in-danger fear mongering, mocks assange for not being pragmatic or subservient enough, lolsy i-actually-served-in-the-military-you-don't-understand-the-nuances-of-war butthurtedness, some tasteful minimizing of civilian casualties, then ends with assailing the 'contemptible' person who leaked the cables

By muddying the waters between journalism and activism, and by throwing his organization into the debate on Afghanistan with little apparent regard for the hard moral choices and dearth of good policy options facing decision-makers, he is being as reckless and destructive as the contemptible soldier or soldiers who leaked the documents in the first place.

lol yeah unlike the Pentagon Papers which in no way conflated journalism & activism

Does the timing of all this sound suspicious to anyone? Just a few weeks ago there was that huge story w Manning and supposedly 150,000 cables. And now Obama has suddenly announced a planned surge of 30,000, using this very recent new leak for support.