At first glance, it looks like pretty gruesome Vietnam-war type coverage. Kinda sad that we have to follow up embedded reporter propaganda with proper coverage from data leaks years after the fact.
Some bits: G:
quote:The new logs detail how:
• US authorities failed to investigate hundreds of reports of abuse, torture, rape and even murder by Iraqi police and soldiers whose conduct appears to be systematic and normally unpunished.
• A US helicopter gunship involved in a notorious Baghdad incident had previously killed Iraqi insurgents after they tried to surrender.
• More than 15,000 civilians died in previously unknown incidents. US and UK officials have insisted that no official record of civilian casualties exists but the logs record 66,081 non-combatant deaths out of a total of 109,000 fatalities.
The numerous reports of detainee abuse, often supported by medical evidence, describe prisoners shackled, blindfolded and hung by wrists or ankles, and subjected to whipping, punching, kicking or electric shocks. Six reports end with a detainee's apparent death.
quote:The whistleblowing activists say they have deleted all names from the documents that might result in reprisals. They were accused by the US military of possibly having "blood on their hands" over the previous Afghan release by redacting too few names. But the military recently conceded that no harm had been identified.
DS:
quote:One month before the beginning of the invasion, Bush had blustered that the overthrow of dictator Saddam Hussein and "a new regime in Iraq would serve as a dramatic and inspiring example of freedom for other nations in the region." But the military that withdrew after seven years of war was a demoralized force that had long since ceased to believe in the noble goals of the campaign.
The documents faithfully reflect this change. In the roughly 400,000 documents, the word "democracy" appears only eight times. The "improvised explosive devices" which instilled fear in the hearts of American soldiers, however, are mentioned 146,895 times.
posted
I want to say we don't deserve this, but the bush administration assured that we deserved to have a leak like this rubbed in our faces.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: • More than 15,000 civilians died in previously unknown incidents. US and UK officials have insisted that no official record of civilian casualties exists but the logs record 66,081 non-combatant deaths out of a total of 109,000 fatalities.
This one makes me more than a little bit sick.
Posts: 1711 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:In two Iraqi cases postmortems revealed evidence of death by torture. On 27 August 2009 a US medical officer found "bruises and burns as well as visible injuries to the head, arm, torso, legs and neck" on the body of one man claimed by police to have killed himself. On 3 December 2008 another detainee, said by police to have died of "bad kidneys", was found to have "evidence of some type of unknown surgical procedure on [his] abdomen".
posted
I must admit when I conceptualize the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, I don't really think about what for example the Iraqis who are supposed to be on "our" side do to other Iraqis. That is a grave mistake.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
What astonishes me is that people are surprised or shocked at any of this. What did we think would happen? Wars cause atrocity. Wars are an atrocity.
And next time the drums beat, we will have forgotten this again.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Guardian piece breaks the death totals down a bit:
1) Of the total 109,000 deaths 31,780 were caused by emplanted IEDs and 34,814 were due to sectarian killings. The article doesn't break down the remaining 43,000.
2) The 109,000 deaths were classified as 66,081 civilians, 23,984 enemy, 15,196 Iraqi security forces, and 3,771 US and allied soldiers.
3) At least one organization has pointed to the lack of documented civilian deaths in the battle of Fallujah as evidence that there are many civilian deaths not included in the documents.
The other thing made evident from the documents (according to the articles I've read) is that Iran was playing a much more active role than was popularly understood. There appears to be significant documentation of Iranians training and supplying weapons to the Iraqi Shia militias (including advanced IEDs that, as mentioned before, have killed tens of thousands of Iraqis).
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
A couple notes, I think the controversy about FRAGO 242 and knowingly looking the other way during torture is worth emphasizing, i.e. "Provided the initial report confirms US forces were not involved in the detainee abuse, no further investigation will be conducted unless directed by HHQ."
This is notable for two reasons: 1) Although it has partially escaped the collective memory, torture chambers were a highly visible factor cited for why Saddam Hussein *had* to be brought down
quote:President Bush Welcomes Canadian Prime Minister Martin to White House ... PRESIDENT BUSH: A year ago, I did give the speech from the carrier, saying that we had achieved an important objective, that we'd accomplished a mission, which was the removal of Saddam Hussein. And as a result, there are no longer torture chambers or rape rooms or mass graves in Iraq. As a result, a friend of terror has been removed, and now sits in a jail.
quote:Remarks by the President to the Philippine Congress ... We also ended one of the cruelest regimes in our time. Saddam's rape rooms and torture chambers and children's prisons are closed forever. His mass graves will claim no victims. The world was right to confront the regime of Saddam Hussein, and we were right to end the regime of Saddam Hussein.
2) This could potentially have political ramifications in the US and the UK:
quote:The UN has called on Barack Obama to order a full investigation of US forces' involvement in human rights abuses in Iraq after a massive leak of military documents that detail torture, summary executions and war crimes.
The call, by the UN's chief investigator on torture, Manfred Nowak, came as Phil Shiner, human rights specialist at Public Interest Lawyers in the UK, warned that some of the deaths documented in the Iraq war logs could have involved British forces and would be pursued through the UK courts. He demanded a public inquiry into allegations that British troops were responsible for civilian deaths during the conflict. ... Nowak said the US had an obligation "whenever they expel, extradite or hand over any detainees to the authorities of another state to assess whether or not these individuals are under specific risk of torture. If this assessment is not done, or authorities hand over detainees knowing there is a serious risk of them being subjected to torture, they violate article 3 of the UN convention that precludes torture."
I'm not sure how likely "consequences" are in the US given the Obama's past record although it is worth noting that a similar scandal in Canada in regards to Afghanistan lead to a lengthy confrontation between the opposition parties and the Conservative government leading to the partial release of documents and the controversial suspension of Parliament. In that case, the initial "leak" was via Access to Information requests and testimony by a high-ranking diplomat though. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Afghan_detainee_issuePosts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:"Assange to CNN: 'Do you want to talk about deaths of 104,000 people or my personal life?'" CNN's answer could not have been clearer: the latter, definitely.
quote:It is a hallmark of cross-border diplomacy to keep all the bruises hidden, whenever and wherever possible. Or at the very least wait a generation before the fading scars are shown.
That’s why today, nearly 40 years after the fact, we still know only fragments of what the famously pugnacious Richard Nixon had to say about that “clever son of a bitch,” Pierre Elliott Trudeau.
Barely half of the 3,700 hours of Nixon tapes have been made public so far. The full heft of the former president’s views on Canada may not be known for generations to come, if ever.
Contrast that with the almost nuclear silence in Ottawa, Washington and other world capitals Thursday, as tight-lipped officials brace for a vast weekend WikiLeaks dump of America’s dirty diplomatic laundry.
These won’t be stale Nixon-era rants. Rather, they are expected to be startlingly fresh dispatches from America’s inner diplomatic ego — a mountain of classified U.S. State Department documents, some of which may cut to the heart of the here-and-now, from Guantanamo Bay to Afghanistan and beyond, with unkind words for close allies.
quote:The cables could also show that allies sometimes take private actions that directly contradict publicly declared policies. The London-based daily al-Hayat reported that WikiLeaks is planning to release files that show Turkey has helped al-Qaeda in Iraq - and that the United States has helped the PKK, a Kurdish rebel organization.
The documents reportedly suggest that the United States has supported the PKK, which has been waging a separatist war against Turkey since 1984 and has been classified by the State Department as a terrorist organization since 1979.
News reports from around the globe indicate that foreign governments are bracing for the impact of the revelations.
I'm actually surprised how long these guys are lasting. I would have guessed that the US would have found some extra-judicial methods of shutting them down by now. At least it looks like some disgruntled former Wikileaks people have already setup a "backup" organization, so thats good news when they finally fall.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
We're shocked Assange hasn't been run over by a car and declared a suicide bu US officials hurried to the scene.
Regardless I am completely unsympathetic, they ultimately have no right to complain, "do whatever for our national security" fine, but if you get caught you deserve everything.
It'ld be awesome if Turkey leaves NATO or something similarly major happens.
IP: Logged |
Turkey not being in NATO and possibly having its EU application rejected as part of the perception that they are just another Muslim country wouldn't be very funny to me.
Posts: 1194 | Registered: Jun 2010
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
They've already being going down that trend already.
IP: Logged |
posted
It seems to me that if the rumours are true, then then the two claims (US funded terrorist attacks on Turkey, Turkey funded terrorist attacks on the US in Iraq) balance each other out.
The real question is as a part of the War on Terror, whether the US is prepared to invade itself. "Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists" after all Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: They've already being going down that trend already.
No they aren't, it's still a situation that could go either way.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Ild say that merely being in such a situation inherently implies that they've been following a trend of possible disingagement from the west.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Ild say that merely being in such a situation inherently implies that they've been following a trend of possible disingagement from the west.
You'd be wrong. If you think that Turkey as a whole is slowly trying to disengage from the West, that is completely undermined by the fact they do have an active application to the EU and they are trying to get it seriously considered.
Posts: 1194 | Registered: Jun 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:WikiLeaks, the whistle-blowing website, is said to be hours away from releasing around three million secret US government files. ... According to Der Spiegel, which was granted early access to the files, the release will contain more than 250,000 cables and 8,000 diplomatic directives - mostly from the last five years.
The German news magazine took down its article summarising the data dump after publishing it briefly online.
In addition to Der Spiegel, The New York Times, The Guardian, Le Monde and El País are said to have been allowed to review the files beforehand.
According to White House sources cited by a correspondent of the US website Politico, none of the documents are classified as 'Top Secret'. But reportedly six per cent are listed as 'Secret' and 40 per cent as "confidential".
Al Jazeera's Mike Hanna, reporting from Washington, said the leaks are from correspondence "between US diplomats and between US embassies ... not what is said about enemies, but about [US] friends".
He said the files could include particularly sensitive information previously "well out of the public view" about US diplomats' perceptions of crises in Israel and Palestine.
quote:He said that Hillary Clinton, the US secretary of state, had reached out to leaders in China, Germany, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Britain, France and Afghanistan regarding WikiLeaks.
The governments of Canada, Norway, and Denmark also said they had been briefed by US officials.
Israel has also been warned of potential embarrassment from the release, which could include confidential reports from the US embassy in Tel Aviv.
Authorities in Ankara were also contacted, a senior Turkish diplomat told the AFP news agency, speaking on condition of anonymity.
Too bad that the leak will obviously be one-sided from the American perspective, but it sounds totally epic, covering American perceptions of every important country around the world nonetheless.
Edit to add: Some scuttlebutt is that due to the size of the leaks, they might be spreading out the release over multiple days to maximize the coverage. I'm not sure how credible that since they seem to have sent out the whole thing as one encrypted package on p2p already, but we'll see I guess.
posted
This is extremely, awesomely beautiful.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Alright so the right wing blowhards that I know of are complaining about how this is tantamount to "murder" and wikileaks is responsible for any soldiers that die as a result of this etc, any credibility to this? Is wikileaks in anyway actually responsible for any significant fallout or are they justified in leaking confidential/top secret information?
IP: Logged |
posted
I think they're ethically responsible, yes. But I suspect the actual military ramifications are going to be few and far between, and are ultimately better to avoid through the simple expedient of being honest with our communications in the first place.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
There is also a Spanish and French newspaper involved in the initial exclusive coverage but Aljazeera is conspicuously absent after having exclusives for the last two, not sure what to make of that. Looks like at least the New York Times is going to spread coverage over 9(!) days.
Also, reports of a coincidental DDOS attack on the main Wikileaks site.
Good Guardian summary of Day 1
quote:Even today there's a lot to read through so here's a brief precis of the initial revelations:
• The US is engaged in a spying campaign against the leadership of the United Nations. A directive issued under Hillary Clinton's name last year ordered American diplomats to seek details about both UN communication systems and personal details for top officials. • Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah has "frequently" urged the US to launch an attack against Iran in order to scupper Tehran's nuclear ambition. • The US has relentlessly pressured other countries, including close allies such as Italy and France, to distance themselves from Iran and assist American efforts to isolate Tehran • There's plenty more to come, including "claims of inappropriate behaviour" by a British royal and allegations of links between Russia's government and organised crime.
posted
They have a low threshold for revelations. The first is unsurprising in the extreme, the second is only interesting for the mild additional detail (Saudi opposition to Iran's nuclear ambitions is well known), the third is so well known as to be irrelevant, I don't know what's up with the British royal thing, and that there are links between Russia's government and organized crime is common knowledge.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
Every country on earth has diplomats who make rude comments about world leaders. It's just normal. (Though I do want to see what they said about David Cameron - whatever it is I'll probably agree with it). But really, it's the other revelations that are the interesting bit.
Posts: 1528 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: They have a low threshold for revelations. The first is unsurprising in the extreme, the second is only interesting for the mild additional detail (Saudi opposition to Iran's nuclear ambitions is well known), the third is so well known as to be irrelevant, I don't know what's up with the British royal thing, and that there are links between Russia's government and organized crime is common knowledge.
Well, in instances where the names of diplomats are revealed won't it compromise their ability to do their jobs?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Picking the first example, I think there's a difference between knowing in vague detail that the US would spy on political leaders versus knowing precisely that Hilary Clinton specifically ordered the collection of DNA and iris scans on the UN security council in July 2009.
Is it necessarily "surprising"? No, not to me anyways. But does it count as a revelation? To me it does. Among other things, it is the difference between the idea that the US is collecting and exploiting genetic vulnerabilities of world leaders being a conspiracy theory or science fiction and being something in the realm of distinct plausibility.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
This event has made it painfully clear that some people are using the word 'terrorist' as blithely as McCarthy used the word 'communist.' Sarah Palin, in particular, said Julian Assange should be "hunted down with the same urgency we pursue al-Qaeda and Taliban leaders."
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Because, at any moment, a site run by Julian Assange might publish another embarrassing memo written by someone else and leaked by someone else! He's a monster!Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Because, at any moment, a site run by Julian Assange might publish another embarrassing memo written by someone else and leaked by someone else! He's a monster!
I think you are making light of this, and it is more serious than you realize. The data contained in these leaks is intelligence information that can be used by those that dislike the US to justify action against us.
Is Julian Assange a monster though? Depends on if the rape he is charged with actually took place.
Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
We should stop doing things that justify action against us if that's really a problem, IMO.
(BTW, you should research the "rape" in question -- and particularly what Swedish law considers rape -- before you start thinking of him as an accused rapist by American standards.)
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:The data contained in these leaks is intelligence information that can be used by those that dislike the US to justify action against us.
Another thing to be considered - from a strictly rational, facts-based perspective, that is - is 'did the US do the things mentioned in the leaks? Because if we as Americans are going to cry foul on the basis of potential harm done to Americans, well...come on, man. That's a very easy game to get into, and one which we will certainly lose, so I really don't know why you're starting it. One could simply say, "Well, US State/Defense/Intelligence/etc., don't do the things that are being leaked, and people won't take action justified on it."
I mean, it just doesn't make sense, the stance you're suggesting. What moral or ethical right do we have to keep this information secret, exactly? Please note I'm leaving legal and practical questions out, since you're trying to frame this in moral terms, it seems to me.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: We should stop doing things that justify action against us if that's really a problem, IMO.
++
Case in point
quote:NBC's Michael Isikoff has highlighted a case where the leaked information will be used as "a recruiting and propaganda tool" by al-Qaida. This is the revelation that the Yemeni government covered up the American role in missile strikes that killed 41 civilians, including 14 women and 21 children.
quote:The recent Wikileaks diplomatic document dump contains a cable from shortly before Germany's 2009 general election, articulating worries among US diplomats that the German Free Democratic Party's strong support for individual data privacy and protections against unreasonable search and seizure might hinder the efforts of the American national security state....The cable frames the FDP's support for citizens' privacy rights and individual liberties as a hindrance to US security strategy ... In a most ironic turn, the leaked cable scoffs at FDP Parliamentarian Gisela Piltz, who cautioned against data-sharing operations with the US government on the grounds that the US government as a whole lacks effective data protection measures even as it accumulates massive amounts of data on innocent citizens.
quote:Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) Director Judd ... Judd derided recent judgments ... These judgments posit that Canadian authorities cannot use information that "may have been" derived from torture, and that any Canadian public official who conveys such information may be subject to criminal prosecution. ... sections of the court-ordered release of a DVD of Guantanamo detainee and Canadian citizen Omar Khadr (ref D) would likely show three (Canadian) adults interrogating a kid who breaks down in tears. He observed that the images would no doubt trigger "knee-jerk anti-Americanism" and "paroxysms of moral outrage, a Canadian specialty," as well as lead to a new round of heightened pressure on the government to press for Khadr's return to Canada.
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: *chuckle* This stuff is so sweet.
quote:The recent Wikileaks diplomatic document dump contains a cable from shortly before Germany's 2009 general election, articulating worries among US diplomats that the German Free Democratic Party's strong support for individual data privacy and protections against unreasonable search and seizure might hinder the efforts of the American national security state....The cable frames the FDP's support for citizens' privacy rights and individual liberties as a hindrance to US security strategy ... In a most ironic turn, the leaked cable scoffs at FDP Parliamentarian Gisela Piltz, who cautioned against data-sharing operations with the US government on the grounds that the US government as a whole lacks effective data protection measures even as it accumulates massive amounts of data on innocent citizens.
One of the disturbing things about this round of wikileaks is how unsecured the data was. I don't remember where I read it, but the official response that I read was something along the lines of "9/11 showed us that we had problems with overly compartmentalizing information, so we gave most people access to everything." Besides being really scary, this offends me as a IT person.
It illustrates that, as in so many other cases, instead of coming up with a coherent, well thought out strategy to deal with the problem of information compartmentalization, they went with the simplest knee-jerk reaction. In this case, they went with dumping all the information on everyone, which can be as bad or even worse than overly strict restrictions on information.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
It should be noted that Wikileaks also attempted in what looks like a good faith effort to work with the American government to obscure any information that could endanger people, but were summarily rebuffed, being told that the government wasn't going to negotiate on this release of the information.
In my book, that puts the American government as highly responsible for any people who were endangered by the stuff that wikileaks posted. I think it also suggests that they weren't really anywhere near as concerned about the potential danger represented by the information as they said they were.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well. I kinda think that this kind of development is inevitable if the requirement is: a) to monitor more and more including emails, phone calls, etc. creating an intelligence industry that not only has three million with access to these particular files but as the Washington Post reported, one million with top secret access b) to share that information across multiple agencies and countries This is not to say that they can't try to prevent it (they certainly could have done a better job), but I think they're fighting an uphill battle.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: We should stop doing things that justify action against us if that's really a problem, IMO.
(BTW, you should research the "rape" in question -- and particularly what Swedish law considers rape -- before you start thinking of him as an accused rapist by American standards.)
I am familiar with the Swedish rape laws, which is why I didn't post something like "OMFG A RAPIST LOCK HIM UP NAO!"
As for your comment about how we should stop doing things that justify action against us... Who are you even talking about? Do you consider yourself personally responsible for the deaths of civilians in Iraq? If you want to talk pure justice, should we send 104,000 US civilians over to Iraq and have them killed? Afterall, that would be the just thing to do.
Punish those involved in the killing of innocents. Lock them up. Don't blame yourself, me, or anyone else. If even one American citizen dies because of these leaks, that is one civilian too many.
Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:The data contained in these leaks is intelligence information that can be used by those that dislike the US to justify action against us.
Another thing to be considered - from a strictly rational, facts-based perspective, that is - is 'did the US do the things mentioned in the leaks? Because if we as Americans are going to cry foul on the basis of potential harm done to Americans, well...come on, man. That's a very easy game to get into, and one which we will certainly lose, so I really don't know why you're starting it. One could simply say, "Well, US State/Defense/Intelligence/etc., don't do the things that are being leaked, and people won't take action justified on it."
I mean, it just doesn't make sense, the stance you're suggesting. What moral or ethical right do we have to keep this information secret, exactly? Please note I'm leaving legal and practical questions out, since you're trying to frame this in moral terms, it seems to me.
Morally, there are times in which you hide information to spare others. If I hear a person saying horrible things about a friend, I may choose not to tell my friend what I heard, because it was cause more harm than good.
Likewise, there are reasons certain things in government are not released to the public. We may not like it, but sometimes it is needed. At times there are secrets that need to be kept in order to prevent harm to others.
That being said, I do not believe that we should hide that we killed so many innocent civilians in Iraq. Rather than hide it and bury it, we should apologize for it and try to make amends. That is our moral obligation. I am fine with documents such as these being leaked if the government was trying to cover them up.
The intelligence information however, specifically when it concerns heads of state should not be released freely. Some of the documents, specifically from Saudi Arabia asking the US to attack Iran, could provoke Iran into attacking the Saudis, Israel, or other countries.
Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:More than 15,000 civilians died in previously unknown incidents. US and UK officials have insisted that no official record of civilian casualties exists but the logs record 66,081 non-combatant deaths out of a total of 109,000 fatalities.
How can you be outraged at the potential for one American citizen's death, and not by 66,000 non-American citizen deaths?
And of course you, and me, and every American is somewhat responsible. We vote, pay taxes, and generally support our government.
Posts: 1711 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am outraged that we killed innocents. I've never said that I'm not. But I would be equally outraged if an American civilian were killed because of the leak.
Would you? Or would you just shrug your shoulders and say "Oh well, guess we deserved it."
WW, by your logic, if we are all partly responsible, then are all of the innocent civilians in Iraq also responsible for their own deaths? You are on a slippery slope there.
Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
One might postulate that if the US fears its worst excesses are likely to become public knowledge, then those activities may be more restrained in the future and that innocent lives might actually be saved. It's awfully hard to convincingly argue that this sort of a release is likely to result in a net loss of life, which seems to be the primary argument being made against it.
Thus far no deaths have been tied to previous leaks despite similar complaints at the time of their release.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: It should be noted that Wikileaks also attempted in what looks like a good faith effort to work with the American government to obscure any information that could endanger people, but were summarily rebuffed, being told that the government wasn't going to negotiate on this release of the information.
In my book, that puts the American government as highly responsible for any people who were endangered by the stuff that wikileaks posted. I think it also suggests that they weren't really anywhere near as concerned about the potential danger represented by the information as they said they were.
We do not negotiate with terrorists. Now it's open to interpretation whether wikileaks is a terror group, but they are actively working against the American government, and other governments. I'm sympathetic to the fact that they could *potentially* have lessened the affect of the leak by cooperating, but you can also imagine that this would send something of a wrong message to the world- us working with people who are sharing our classified materials with the public, and with other countries. Aside from that, these materials were obtained illegally- you can't work with people with the understanding that they are breaking your laws. You can't legitimize that kind of behavior by saying, "well, now that's done, so we'll make this easier for you." That's also a hell of a message to send to your intelligence officers- "should you choose to commit treason by sharing classified information with foreign organizations, we'll make it ok by helping them to limit the consequences to your colleagues and friends." Or "don't worry about being too careful with how you handle this highly sensitive sh**, if wikileaks get their hands on it, we'll cooperate with them."
If wikileaks want to conduct their own brand of foreign relations, they shouldn't have an ounce of help from anyone- they should be subject to all the consequences- and all the consequences stemming from their acts are owned, in full, by them. The US cannot change what is in those documents, or the fact that we are responsible for them and for what they contain, however, we cannot support or in any way condone those who actively attempt to breach our security. We might as well hand out guides for terrorists on how to lessen the fallout from nuclear suitcase bombs or something- yes, it might save lives, but it also makes the job easier for wikileaks, which is doing the wrong thing. In my book, you don't help people do the wrong thing.
I'm absolutely in favor of this kind of information coming out. In courts of law and through diligent legislation. I am fully aware that this is a tall order- and that the current government is not even *trying* to redress this. But we don't need foreigners, much less Julian Assange, conducting our foreign relations for us.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: We should stop doing things that justify action against us if that's really a problem, IMO.
I agree, however I don't believe the status quo is anywhere near an ideal answer to this problem.
quote:One might postulate that if the US fears its worst excesses are likely to become public knowledge, then those activities may be more restrained in the future and that innocent lives might actually be saved. It's awfully hard to convincingly argue that this sort of a release is likely to result in a net loss of life, which seems to be the primary argument being made against it.
Sure, I can get behind that. It might have a positive effect on American foreign policy. Maybe. But it might also have a negative effect. If situations like this have the power to shape future decisions, then those decisions may be affected in way you don't acknowledge- they might make us more secretive, more ruthless, they might make our agencies and military leaders less willing to divulge information to the public. I think the government can be forced or pushed, at times, to commit morally reprehensible acts for the sake of our security and prosperity, as best they understand those concepts. I don't want future actions clouded in even greater secrecy. I don't want government agencies operating in the dark, without effective restraints because applying those checks would be too exposing. And if you think these leaks could have the effect of reigning us in, I think you'd also have to consult your knowledge of recent history for some examples of governments reacting rather adversely to foreign scrutiny. And if you think it's far fetched that other countries might try to use and shape media scrutiny of US actions and secrets to their advantage- or that we might react to that kind of pressure in ways neither of us would find tasteful, I would call that fairly naive. So for now, I'm not going to side with people who do not have my government's interests at heart- that is for as long as I am convinced that that government still protects my interests. Maybe I feel all this in a way more strongly because I live abroad- but US foreign policy and diplomacy shapes my own experiences all the time- and in ways that that of no other nation in the world could. I know that the way people see me now is different from how it was 3 years ago, and that is not just because I have changed myself.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
