294 replies to this topic

[Balloon guy]

Story

Quote

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Obama administration said Wednesday it has alerted Congress and begun notifying foreign governments that the WikiLeaks website is preparing to release sensitive U.S. diplomatic files that could damage U.S. relations with friends and allies.Officials said the documents may contain everything from accounts of compromising conversations with political dissidents and friendly politicians to disclosures of activities that could result in the expulsion of U.S. diplomats from foreign postings.U.S. diplomatic outposts around the world have begun notifying other governments that WikiLeaks may release these documents in the next few days."These revelations are harmful to the United States and our interests," State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley said. "They are going to create tension in relationships between our diplomats and our friends around the world."

[vbnautilus]

Man, its becoming harder and harder to see wikileaks as having any sort of good intentions. Diplomacy is one area where you really need to have to privacy.

[strategy]

not quite sure how these people are still alive.

[ShakeZuma]

strategy, on Wednesday, November 24th, 2010, 5:34 PM, said:

not quite sure how these people are still alive.

yeah I was just getting ready to say that in the fifties this guy would have been dead six months ago. we've definitely become huge pussies.

[hblask]

If the government is doing things that cannot withstand public scrutiny, then the problem is the government, not the whistleblowers.No, it's not OK because it's always been done that way. No, it's not OK because "that's just the way things work." Just fix it.

[El Guapo]

hblask, on Wednesday, November 24th, 2010, 5:46 PM, said:

If the government is doing things that cannot withstand public scrutiny, then the problem is the government, not the whistleblowers.No, it's not OK because it's always been done that way. No, it's not OK because "that's just the way things work." Just fix it.

That's ridiculous. You think the public should know what conversations it's having with Israel regarding Palenstine, or South Korea regarding North Korea?

[vbnautilus]

hblask, on Wednesday, November 24th, 2010, 5:46 PM, said:

If the government is doing things that cannot withstand public scrutiny, then the problem is the government, not the whistleblowers.No, it's not OK because it's always been done that way. No, it's not OK because "that's just the way things work." Just fix it.

You really think that our diplomats should not be able to say something amongst themselves that a foreign government should not hear? We have to play poker with our cards face up? That's just stupid.

[FCP Bob]

vbnautilus, on Wednesday, November 24th, 2010, 10:11 PM, said:

You really think that our diplomats should not be able to say something amongst themselves that a foreign government should not hear? We have to play poker with our cards face up? That's just stupid.

The Federal government has no business in the diplomacy game. It should be run at the local level or maybe at the State level.

[slink]

grocery_mony, on Saturday, August 21st, 2010, 11:40 AM, said:

nah, I am really unconfortable being that close to another guys junk.

[vbnautilus]

FCP Bob, on Wednesday, November 24th, 2010, 7:46 PM, said:

The Federal government has no business in the diplomacy game. It should be run at the local level or maybe at the State level.

well done.

[hblask]

El Guapo, on Wednesday, November 24th, 2010, 9:01 PM, said:

That's ridiculous. You think the public should know what conversations it's having with Israel regarding Palenstine, or South Korea regarding North Korea?

If it doesn't involve a war strategy that would directly affect American lives, then yes.

[hblask]

vbnautilus, on Wednesday, November 24th, 2010, 9:11 PM, said:

You really think that our diplomats should not be able to say something amongst themselves that a foreign government should not hear? We have to play poker with our cards face up? That's just stupid.

I think you missed the point. If we are doing things that require us to be secretive, our policy is flawed. We should be quite open about our policy: we support human rights and freedom; we reject totalitarianism and all manner of group-think. If we stuck to that, there would be no need for secret negotiations about who's the good guy and who's the bad guy. This isn't junior high: "Oh, N Korea said that they think Venezuela is really cute, but made me promise not to tell S Korea, but that Brazil has been so snotty lately, they are soooooo stuck up..."What's wrong with: "we'll trade with you if you are willing, we'll leave you alone if you leave us alone, we'll nuke you into the stone age if you screw with us." If that is your framework, everything else is trivial, non-secret details.

[Balloon guy]

hblask, on Wednesday, November 24th, 2010, 8:29 PM, said:

I think you missed the point. If we are doing things that require us to be secretive, our policy is flawed. We should be quite open about our policy: we support human rights and freedom; we reject totalitarianism and all manner of group-think. If we stuck to that, there would be no need for secret negotiations about who's the good guy and who's the bad guy. This isn't junior high: "Oh, N Korea said that they think Venezuela is really cute, but made me promise not to tell S Korea, but that Brazil has been so snotty lately, they are soooooo stuck up..."What's wrong with: "we'll trade with you if you are willing, we'll leave you alone if you leave us alone, we'll nuke you into the stone age if you screw with us." If that is your framework, everything else is trivial, non-secret details.

I think that is a little simplistic.1st, there is the possibility that there are other motives besides the direct one in negotiations, there are also times when making a deal with the devil sucks, but there are worse options.Allying with Communist Russia during WW2 for instance, allying with opium traders in Afghanistan now.As a citizen, I don't expect to know, or sometimes, want to know what deals need to be made for larger goals. Expecting the government to explain everything to everyone all the time is counter productive, and unrealistic. On the reverse, I want someone to know, oversight by congress committees etc.Also, sometimes we need to throw around our weight, how does that benefit our country by the world knowing that we told Israel to stay out of Gulf War 1 in exchange for a few dozen F-16s and access to some patriot batteries for reverse engineering, or if we told them that if they defend themselves we will pull our support?Next you'll want to reveal all our spies in foreign governments or our ability to wire tap communications in order to explain why we are taking such and such line.There are levels of transparency that we should expect. Full transparency isn't realistic.

[hblask]

Balloon guy, on Thursday, November 25th, 2010, 12:09 AM, said:

I think that is a little simplistic.1st, there is the possibility that there are other motives besides the direct one in negotiations, there are also times when making a deal with the devil sucks, but there are worse options.Allying with Communist Russia during WW2 for instance, allying with opium traders in Afghanistan now.As a citizen, I don't expect to know, or sometimes, want to know what deals need to be made for larger goals. Expecting the government to explain everything to everyone all the time is counter productive, and unrealistic. On the reverse, I want someone to know, oversight by congress committees etc.Also, sometimes we need to throw around our weight, how does that benefit our country by the world knowing that we told Israel to stay out of Gulf War 1 in exchange for a few dozen F-16s and access to some patriot batteries for reverse engineering, or if we told them that if they defend themselves we will pull our support?Next you'll want to reveal all our spies in foreign governments or our ability to wire tap communications in order to explain why we are taking such and such line.There are levels of transparency that we should expect. Full transparency isn't realistic.

Wait, I thought you approved of warrantless wiretaps on citizens on the theory that if we have nothing to hide we shouldn't mind the government spying on us.... shouldn't that apply both ways?I think I should clarify my position: I think that anything that endangers personnel around the world should NOT be released. That includes pending plans, identities of operatives, troop movements, and the location or type of strategic resources that would allow the mean guys to evade us.On the other hand, diplomatic negotiations should be wide open. The government works for us, and if they are doing things that would cause outrage or are counterproductive, it's important that the citizens know about it.I should also note that when you get a secret or top secret clearance, you have to sign something that says that you will not reveal it to anyone who does not have clearance. The people who gave these documents to wikileaks broke that contract and I have no problem arresting them if they can figure out who it is. When you decide to break your secrecy promise, you have to decide if the good the release will do is worth the risk to your personal freedom. That threat alone is a pretty good check on people just releasing everything they can get their hands on, rather than things that they really feel strongly about.

[Balloon guy]

hblask, on Sunday, November 28th, 2010, 8:02 AM, said:

Wait, I thought you approved of warrantless wiretaps on citizens on the theory that if we have nothing to hide we shouldn't mind the government spying on us.... shouldn't that apply both ways?

I am fully supporting the government not being required to get a warrant to tape a phone call in progress with a known terrorist in another country. That is hardly a carte blanche support of anyone, anytime, any reason.I notice libertarians are pessimist when it comes to the government. The first reaction is that the worst is going to happen. My argument which you have molded somehow into my support of the Patriot Act is that the sheer volume of phone calls makes their wiring everything irrelevant.

Quote

I think I should clarify my position: I think that anything that endangers personnel around the world should NOT be released. That includes pending plans, identities of operatives, troop movements, and the location or type of strategic resources that would allow the mean guys to evade us.On the other hand, diplomatic negotiations should be wide open. The government works for us, and if they are doing things that would cause outrage or are counterproductive, it's important that the citizens know about it.I should also note that when you get a secret or top secret clearance, you have to sign something that says that you will not reveal it to anyone who does not have clearance. The people who gave these documents to wikileaks broke that contract and I have no problem arresting them if they can figure out who it is. When you decide to break your secrecy promise, you have to decide if the good the release will do is worth the risk to your personal freedom. That threat alone is a pretty good check on people just releasing everything they can get their hands on, rather than things that they really feel strongly about.

Yea, I am generally okay with them leaking things that have no consequences also.I am not willing though to let some jackwad at Wikileaks with a blind devotion to the 'public's right to know' being the decider if the 4 terabytes of info has been properly screened to insure that no damage will be done.But hey, the freedom of the press is a wonderful warm blanket to wrap yourself around as people pay with their lives for your effort to increase hit counts on your website.If on the other hand the only info released embarrass state department people with their petty self serving willingness to let soldiers in the field pay for their failures of diplomacy, then sure release them with pictures and graphs.I am a pessimist when it comes to the motives of people releasing secret documents, that's all.

[FCP Bob]

hblask, on Sunday, November 28th, 2010, 11:02 AM, said:

On the other hand, diplomatic negotiations should be wide open. The government works for us, and if they are doing things that would cause outrage or are counterproductive, it's important that the citizens know about it.

I can't really come up with the right phrase to respond to this statement. Naive, cute, silly, how about just plain wrong. The public does not have a right to know everything the government says and does. An ambassador's unfiltered honest thoughts about the political leaders of the country he's posted in that he sends back to the State Dept shouldn't be open to public scrutiny for example. A conversation between Hillary and her Chinese counterpart discussing N Korea shouldn't be public.

[custom36]

I'm nosy enough to be interested in the documents from a gossip standpoint, but I agree that the public probably shouldn't see most of this. The good news is that people are lazy and ADD and will quickly forget what they've been told about it.The govt's DoS attack seems weak and dumb. They're not going to keep the site down forever and are just causing more of a stir prior to the release.

[hblask]

Balloon guy, on Sunday, November 28th, 2010, 10:33 AM, said:

I am fully supporting the government not being required to get a warrant to tape a phone call in progress with a known terrorist in another country. That is hardly a carte blanche support of anyone, anytime, any reason.

If they are known terrorists, then by definition, we already have evidence on them. If they are still trying to collect evidence, then they are not known terrorists. But I'm glad you trust the government to never abuse their power. I don't think it's ever happened before, has it?

Quote

Yea, I am generally okay with them leaking things that have no consequences also.I am not willing though to let some jackwad at Wikileaks with a blind devotion to the 'public's right to know' being the decider if the 4 terabytes of info has been properly screened to insure that no damage will be done.But hey, the freedom of the press is a wonderful warm blanket to wrap yourself around as people pay with their lives for your effort to increase hit counts on your website.If on the other hand the only info released embarrass state department people with their petty self serving willingness to let soldiers in the field pay for their failures of diplomacy, then sure release them with pictures and graphs.I am a pessimist when it comes to the motives of people releasing secret documents, that's all.

These are fair points. I think Wikileak's position should be "We've got this stuff, and it's ours to release. Now, you've got three months to tell us which parts of this are dangerous to release, and justify it to us." If they can't do it, then release it.Like you, I'm a little nervous about their motives. I'd be much happier if Wikileaks had some ex-military types working with them to explain to them what's at stake. Getting famous and creating controversy is not enough of a reason. But I do tend to err on the side of freedom of information, whereas the government tends to err on the side of covering up everything.

[hblask]

FCP Bob, on Sunday, November 28th, 2010, 1:14 PM, said:

I can't really come up with the right phrase to respond to this statement. Naive, cute, silly, how about just plain wrong. The public does not have a right to know everything the government says and does. An ambassador's unfiltered honest thoughts about the political leaders of the country he's posted in that he sends back to the State Dept shouldn't be open to public scrutiny for example. A conversation between Hillary and her Chinese counterpart discussing N Korea shouldn't be public.

Why not? What are we hiding? That we don't like North Korea? Surprise surprise!

[custom36]

hblask, on Sunday, November 28th, 2010, 2:04 PM, said:

Why not? What are we hiding? That we don't like North Korea? Surprise surprise!

According to the NYT, we were hiding that we were making plans with South Korea for how we're going to develop a unified Korea when North Korea collapses. That's not going to help the current situation.