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

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.

hasn't obama justified his previous surge of 30000 troops with this leak, rather than lobbied for another surge? i haven't really read through what he said, but his statement seemed to be contextualising his response so far.

I bowed out when I lost track of what you guys were arguing about, but the start of today's Times front page is basically everything I was trying to say in my posts upthread:

Hundreds of Afghan lives have been put at risk by the leaking of 90,000 intelligence documents because the files identify informants working with NATO forces.

In just two hours of searching the WikiLeaks archive, The Times found the names of dozens of Afghans credited with providing detailed intelligence to US forces. Their villages are given for identification and also, in many cases, their father's name.

...

A senior official at the Afghan Foreign Ministry, who declined to be named(!), said "The leaks certainly have put in real risk and danger the lives and integrity of many Afghans. The US is both morally and legally responsible for any harm that the leaks might cause to the individuals, particularly those who have been named. It will further limit the US/international access to the uncensored views of Afghans."

Must say I'd be surprised if WL has been *that* inept - I assumed it would take a bit of detective work to unmask sources, which WL is obviously unqualified to assess, but according to this maybe not. Nevertheless, I got shouted down because WL causing harm is apparently only an issue with troop movements or once-in-seventy-years secrets like D-Day planning. But then all these guys are only Afghans I guess.

you weren't shouted down, people just disagreed that secrecy was "usually" to protect a source. the military is routinely secret and far more of these logs involve protection of military mistakes than protection of sources (ie, nyt finds "dozens" of informants, but there are hundreds of civilian casualty reports). wikileaks shouldn't be censured for hypothetical potential harm but where people can show they've put people at risk, sure, it's fair to criticise them.

But then all these guys are only Afghans I guess.

oh, please.

http://griffinarmament.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/loose-lips-sink-ships-1.jpg

I find it interesting that the Afghan official says that the US is 'morally and legally responsible' for resultant harm done, not WikiLeaks.

well, THEIR intel was compromised

If you keep shit secret, you should kind of be responsible for the fallout if it gets leaked.

Afghan official otm - it's the US ship that leaked, tighter ship means Wikileaks never gets hold of the info

Good points all.

Tim Rutten complains.

hey since these cables are from a few years ago, those afghan intel contacts might already be dead. there's always a bright side!

LMK who's responsible for the dead civilians killed in our precision attacks (then Bam can do another press dinner joke about it)

get ready for everybody to pile on your Morbz, you know that the actual war is a-ok, it's reporting on it that's unconscionable

From that NYT op-ed:

Third, the site asserts that the Pentagon employs a secret task force of highly trained commandos charged with capturing or killing insurgent leaders. I suspect that in the eyes of most Americans, using special operations teams to kill terrorists is one of the least controversial ways in which the government spends their tax dollars.

That, folks, is a flawlessly-executed triple axel, getting from "insurgent leaders" to "terrorists" in two sentences. Hey, dickhead, someone fighting to expel the US Army from his or her own country is a lot of things, but none of them is "a terrorist."

fighting to expel the US Army from his or her own country is a lot of things, but none of them is "a terrorist."

depends on their methods imo

there's no great term for 'em: pretty sure they also want to 'expel' the afghan govt as well as the US army, which *would* make them terrorists (cf deliberate attacks on civilians), but then of course it's an illegitimate govt. (kind of a qed.)

guys anybody who's against us anywhere ever is a terrorist, do keep up

It's odd how the word is diverging from 'terror' - the Japanese described the Aussie Greenpeacers who boarded one of their whaling vessels as 'terrorists', and it just sounded ludicrous

If this has been posted already, my apologies. the NYT notes its methods

the horrorists are gonna sneak in & really cause trouble while everybody's attention is diverted by the terrorists

Frankly, I'm more scared of the startleists.