But, as I pointed out, allowing every US citizen to have access to that information doesn't prevent the representatives of other governments from also getting that information.
Of the articles I've read and reports I've heard, the leaks reveal that US diplomats have actually been doing a pretty good job and are being fairly straight forward with us about what they're doing. But, again, I'm not just addressing this round of leaks. Perhaps in the next one he might leak information that should be known only to those specific individuals involved on one side of the diplomatic process. It's a fine line, but one that is sometimes necessary.
you bring up a good point, and it remains to be seen if that happens
the problem is, without someone like Asange, we rely only on the government to determine what should and shouldn't be seen. As the previous leaks have shown, they aren't making things confidential to hide secrets that we really don't need to know, but really to hide corruption and embarassment.
Like, if wikileaks had released something like, US troop movements in Iraq or Afghanistan, I could see your point. But it doesn't. wikileaks has some documents it wont release for that very reason.
I don't think anyone is arguing, including Asange and wikileaks, that everything the state does should be 100% transparent, but the fact is, the pendulum has swung so far in favor of government secrecy, that even to release a bunch of memos that, as you point out, aren't really that bad, is considered an international incident.
Ultimately, some type of institutionalized leak system would be nice, but the more formal it is made, the more likely it will just become a bloated beuracracy.
It's done just that. Secrets enjoy a shelf life thanks to a government timeline that allows for the declassification of certain documents after X number of years have passed. But, even that is subject, again, to the whims of a self-protecting government. As I said before, it's a fine line. I'm all for transparency, but responsability is essential as well. This particular leak involves documents that date back to the '60s and earlier, I think. The down side to this sort of argument is that transparent government reporting is wanted by all, but also potentially detrimental in a manner that isn't going to be understood by the majority of people who aren't intimately involved, as say an ambassador might be, or the person leaking the information.
Wikileaks has published a list of sites that are 'vital to american security' according to the state departament. Diplomats were required through those cables to list the most relevant sites to american interests in the countries they work in. The majority seems to be natural resources and their extraction infrastructures like oil reserves and pipelines, mines, etc. but roads, communication lines and hubs and some drug factories and research centers abroad were listed as well.
Wikileaks are now facing a new round of criticism for revealing these sites, which critics claim will become targets for terrorists. But what I found most interesting was how broad the SD definition of 'national security' is as it extends far beyond US territory and obvious strategic interests to encompass almost every single natural resource under the sun.
I wonder what the people who were told to compile the list were thinking exactly. It might just be that they were told to get a list of all things relevant to US interest abroad.
... a lady in the Netherlands just laid stake to the sun. Apparently the law only disallows organizations from owning celestial bodies.
__________________
Graffiti outside Latin class.
Sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
A juvenal prank.
Yes, that was probably it. I think they were ordered to make a list of anything that could be considered critical to US trade interests and companies, the functioning of US economy, military, etc.
An interesting ramification is that the list reflects how much US values certain resources that the owners themselves probably weren't aware were so critically valuable to them. This could actually lead to some fairer international trade of some commodities.
at the same time media outlets are ending their specific coverage of the leaks...
what a media whore. God, I almost hope he is guilty, just so he learns to stop being such a douche and release all the crap he is sitting on for no good reason, other than to tease during interviews.
so, when asange teased that he had info on a "major bank", bank of america's stock dropped fairly significantly. for all the talk of him being a traitor and putting people in danger, his ability to impact the economy like that is WAY more power than is releasing these "gossipy" cables. In fact, I'd say that might be too much power for mr asange, and by becomming the "face" of wikileaks, he has given himself that power through entirely undemocratic means. for ****s sake, why do people have to ruin every good idea they come up with
It's the markets that give gossip and teasing phrases power though. I was actually convinced by his reasoning to becoming wikileaks face as it served some functions: he'd say which files were and weren't released through them, garnered publicty and served as a ligthing rod that attracted both undue adulation/credit and undue negative attention, freeing others up to keep working on the leaks.
The leaking will go on and I doubt he'll actually be convicted in Sweden.
If I called forbes magazine and told them I had secrets about Bank of America, and nothing more, I can't imagine it would impact the market, even if they decided to print the story
I'm not trying to say Asange put himself in this position intentionally, but the fact is, as the face of Wikileaks, he has been given power.
power, corruption, absolutly and all that. Were there no face, there would be nobody for us to listen to and speculate about
indeed. I'm very interested to see what his former "wikileakers" come up with too
Julian, why do you think it was necessary to "give Wikileaks a face"? Don't you think it would be better if the organization was anonymous?
This whole debate has become very personal and reduced on you - "Julian Assange leaked documents", "Julian Assange is a terrorist", "Julian Assange alledgedly raped a woman", "Julian Assange should be assassinated", "Live Q&A qith Julian Assange" etc. Nobody talks about Wikileaks as an organization anymore. Many people don't even realize that there are other people behind Wikileaks, too.
And this, in my opinion, makes Wikileaks vulnerable because this enables your opponents to argue ad hominem. If they convince the public that you're an evil, woman-raping terrorist, then Wikileaks' credibility will be gone. Also, with due respect for all that you've done, I think it's unfair to all the other brave, hard working people behind Wikileaks, that you get so much credit.
Julian Assange:
This is an interesting question. I originally tried hard for the organisation to have no face, because I wanted egos to play no part in our activities. This followed the tradition of the French anonymous pure mathematians, who wrote under the collective allonym, "The Bourbaki". However this quickly led to tremendous distracting curiosity about who and random individuals claiming to represent us. In the end, someone must be responsible to the public and only a leadership that is willing to be publicly courageous can genuinely suggest that sources take risks for the greater good. In that process, I have become the lightening rod. I get undue attacks on every aspect of my life, but then I also get undue credit as some kind of balancing force.
the fact is he now has an extreme amount of power over financial markets, which he gained in an undemocratic way, and he really is not accountable to anyone.
There is nothing stopping him from "teasing" a leak on a corporation, just to have it sit there. Much like his bank of america tease (he didn't even say bank of america), he could just imply that he has stuff on walmart or whoever, and they lose money.
I just don't like how coy he is being with it. Who knows if the bank stuff is even that damaging. Why he would sit on it doesn't make sense to me, aside from the fact he wants to control the release of information for the biggest media impact, which seems a lot like more of the same.
Yes, I don't understand that either, it does seem like he's just doing this for media attention whereas if he actually cared he'd just **** their shit and release all the "stuff" he's apparently sitting on.
Well, I'm sure we'll find out more and more about this Assange fellow as time progresses, he's in jail now with no bail, but Wikileaks is still up and running on account of they don't need him to survive.
It's a bit sad if he really did molest those two women because they are going to give him the maximum sentence they possibly can. Not trying to stick up for molestation mind you, It's just they want Assange out of the picture.
__________________ "Every daring attempt to make a great change in existing conditions, every lofty vision of new possibilities for the human race, has been labeled Utopian."
KMC Community Forums
Dec 5th, 2010 09:22 PM
