Covering your ASSange

[JonS]

Fascinating. So if you would prefer that my government and your government not even communicate with each other

You forgot the important caveat: secretly. In general, yes I would be in favour of less secret negotiations and communications. Secret goings-on end in abominations like ACTA.

... but let's look at NATO military operations in Afghanistan. ...

Right now, given the way things have come to their current situation? Yeah, less openness there is probably justified. That still doesn't justify the amount of secrecy hat's being applied. I can - for example - certainly understand why DynCorp would want to hide their involvement in child sex slavery there. I'm less certain I understand the State Departments role in supporting and concealing it. But understanding the why is not the same as thinking it's ok.

On the other hand, if they'd started from a position of less secrecy, of not slapping everything anyone said, saw, or wrote, with RESTRICTED or higher then there'd be less need for secrecy. And perhaps, under those circumstances, they could be trusted the what they claim needs a classification actually does.

Maybe it just comes down to what side you're on.

Oh, jeez - with us or against us? I thought you were better than that?

[toxic.zen]

the way it looks to me, it is more then obvious our and other governments were figuratively "caught with there pants down" Many in the US government just seem embarrassed that there secrets were exposed... the worst thing they can do to save face is throw a tantrum and threaten the man who exposed them, that seems to only make them look worse!

why not make more of an effort to admit there less then honest ways, and try to improve how they do business? should a government have secrets? sure! should a governments secrets be exposed when they are up to more selfish and less noble pursuits? i think they should be.

i don't know what to thing of assange quite yet but, i think we need more folks like Major General "Smedley Darlington Butler" to shine light in dark places...

[dieseltaylor]

I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class thug for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902–1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested. Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.

[12]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smedley_Butler

Please note that Haliburton is definitely not included in Butler's list.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halliburton

[JonS]

Fascinating. So if you would prefer that my government and your government not even communicate with each other, I presume you would prefer they not do a lot of other very basic things that all government do. Given that you also view our governments as the greatest threat to our liberty, is it fair to say that you would be in favor our governments ceasing to exist?

Here, for example an excellent example of both why govts shouldn't be talking to each other in secrecy, and why no single person or group could or should judge which cables should or shouldn't be released.

[dieseltaylor]

Great example.

[Vanir Ausf B]

You forgot the important caveat: secretly. In general, yes I would be in favour of less secret negotiations and communications. Secret goings-on end in abominations like ACTA.

Here, for example an excellent example of both why govts shouldn't be talking to each other in secrecy, and why no single person or group could or should judge which cables should or shouldn't be released.

Whether or not communications between nations should be completely open is an interesting issue. I'll concede that there is probably a stronger case to be made in favor of it than for all internal government communications to be public. There is an obvious downside: Diplomats would be less honest with each other, and certainly less forthcoming. This could cause problems in the same way that if you knew that every conversation you had would be printed in the local newspaper the next day your relationship with your wife/girlfriend may become strained.

The issue is less debatable with regard to internal communications, IMO. If the US Ambassador to Russia knows that everything he sends to the State Department will be known to the Russians, how likely is it that he's going to give the kind of honest assessment found in the leaked cables? It's hard for me to imagine Russia described as a mafia state and Putin as an alpha dog in a world devoid of government secrets.

Right now, given the way things have come to their current situation? Yeah, less openness there is probably justified. That still doesn't justify the amount of secrecy hat's being applied. I can - for example - certainly understand why DynCorp would want to hide their involvement in child sex slavery there. I'm less certain I understand the State Departments role in supporting and concealing it. But understanding the why is not the same as thinking it's ok.

On the other hand, if they'd started from a position of less secrecy, of not slapping everything anyone said, saw, or wrote, with RESTRICTED or higher then there'd be less need for secrecy. And perhaps, under those circumstances, they could be trusted the what they claim needs a classification actually does.

The State Department did not support or conceal what DynCorp did.

Even if they had, would that have justified making public the details of unrelated NATO military operations and the names of Afghan informants? I don't think so.

Oh, jeez - with us or against us? I thought you were better than that?

I am far worse that you would ever suspect.

But seriously, I did say "maybe". The way I look at it is that if someone willingly and knowingly takes action that aids one side or the other in an armed conflict, whether or not they actually support the goals of that side is academic. The results are the same either way.

[JonS]

The way I look at it is that neither the War in Afghanistan nor the Taliban pose any existential threat to the US or any other western country. That makes anything released about the war in Afghanistan pretty low risk. Granted it *might* put specific individuals at risk, but if that were really much of a concern they wouldn't be there in the first place. However, it must be noted that the Pentagon have affirmed that NO ONE has been harmed by any of Wikileaks disclosures yet. The same cannot be said of, for example, Plame, or these guys, or those guys, all of which can be laid at the door of more secrecy.

On the other hand, there is the threat that govts pose to their own people. It is they, and not the Taliban, that pose the gravest actual danger to citizens. In most - but not all - cases it's not the risk of life and limb, but liberty has most definately been taking it in the shorts, and that will continue while they feel they can get away with doing things in private.

[JonS]

The State Department did not support or conceal what DynCorp did.

DynCorp are not working in Afghanistan as a non-profit organisation. Nearly US$2BN says they are in fact receiving a substantial amount of support from teh US Govt.

The US Ambasador is certainly au fait with the Streisand Effect, and worked to minimise it. He was aware of what occured and worked to ensure it remained unreported, and no harm came to DynCorp. I consider that to be concealing what occurred.

[Vanir Ausf B]

The way I look at it is that neither the War in Afghanistan nor the Taliban pose any existential threat to the US or any other western country. That makes anything released about the war in Afghanistan pretty low risk. Granted it *might* put specific individuals at risk, but if that were really much of a concern they wouldn't be there in the first place.

Oh I think there is quite a lot of concern about the individuals there. The 2200+ coalition soldiers that have died there weren't all suicides. It's true that the Taliban doesn't pose an existential threat to the United States, but when my brother's unit rotates into Afghanistan next year they probably will pose an existential threat to him.

However, it must be noted that the Pentagon have affirmed that NO ONE has been harmed by any of Wikileaks disclosures yet.

Would they know if someone had? If a local decides not to approach a NATO patrol about the IED he knows is planted near by because he's doesn't think the US will keep it a secret, we would never know. It's not something that can be easily quantified.

As for feeling threatened by my own government, the good thing about living in a democratic system is that we can always vote the bums out. If that is not a sufficient check on their power then you're going to need a violent revolution.

[Vanir Ausf B]

DynCorp are not working in Afghanistan as a non-profit organisation. Nearly US$2BN says they are in fact receiving a substantial amount of support from teh US Govt.

If no action had been taken to put an end to it when it was discovered what had taken place you may have had a point. But action was taken so you don't.

The US Ambasador is certainly au fait with the Streisand Effect, and worked to minimise it. He was aware of what occured and worked to ensure it remained unreported, and no harm came to DynCorp. I consider that to be concealing what occurred.

The US Ambassador took no action to suppress revelation of what happened, despite urging from the Afghan minister to do so. And disciplinary action against DynCorp employees was taken.

[Vanir Ausf B]

I really need to find a synonym for "action".

[Michael Emrys]

As for feeling threatened by my own government, the good thing about living in a democratic system is that we can always vote the bums out.

Well no, not if the only alternative candidates are equally or worse bums. All too often that has been the story in American politics of late, and the higher the office, seemingly the worse the bums.

If that is not a sufficient check on their power then you're going to need a violent revolution.

And the problem with that is that with violent revolutions, it is usually the worst thugs who end up on top. Look at the last two centuries of Latin American history for instances of that. The best hope is for a popular but non-violent uprising, but I don't see that on the horizon yet.

Michael

[Vanir Ausf B]

Unless you're Amazon, and therefore immune to DoS attacks.

But I agree they got what they deserve for doing business with Wikileaks in the first place.