Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: MP-Ryan on September 02, 2011, 10:19:24 am
-
http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/WikiLeaks+sparks+fury+with+release+unredacted+cables/5345348/story.html
What the article doesn't discuss is what a setback this is going to be for recruitment of human intelligence sources. Transparency is laudable; but a little pragmatism in realizing just how important it is for diplomatic and intelligence sources to be candid of their assessments in reports is necessary. Wikileaks doesn't seem to get that, and this release puts lives, sources, and quality intelligence at risk.
These aren't embarrassing but otherwise harmless state opinions Wikileaks is releasing - these are the names and identifiers of human beings who risk their lives to provide information that can and does save lives. Accurate intelligence-gathering and diplomacy saves lives - a lack of it costs them.
Maybe now the bleating conspiracy-loving-sheep that have been cheering on Assange will start to realize just how dangerous information can be, but I sincerely doubt it. Most of them couldn't find a lesson in history if they were forced to read a whole ****ing library.
-
Meh.
Nobody has any business spying on anybody, and the less people able to get away with it the better.
-
I'm still waiting for the equal reports from Russian actions
-
I'm still waiting for the equal reports from Russian actions
The fact there *aren't* any, shows how much of a real democratic state Russia is. The Putin/Medvedev administration has public support, it was democratically elected, but one can't say that as a whole for the country's institutions and attitudes toward civil liberties.... i.e. Russian whistle-blowers are too scared.
-
Nobody has any business spying on anybody, and the less people able to get away with it the better.
Now there's a spectacularly naive and uninformed opinion. That might work on a planet where everyone gets along and there are enough resources, food, and absolutely no conflicts, but here on Earth where most of us reside, intelligence-gathering contributes to the safety of nations, and candid diplomacy prevents large-scale conflicts. Without both of those things, "Western" civilization would not exist.
But thanks for demonstrating my point about the apparent uselessness of history education.
-
Sure, release of classified information can indirectly put lives at risk... just like it can indirectly help save lives. I think it's a mistake to release them unredacted unless they were indeed already leaked from The Guardian, but it's hard to say whether it's better or worse than not releasing them at all.
-
On a seperate side of the coin, I have a concern that this may well be the catalyst for sweeping, knee-jerk legislation regarding the Internet in the US and probably several other Western powers. There's a risk it might change online-rights forever. And, yes, I know the server wasn't in the US, but we are talking about Governments here, who are more concerned with apparent action than genuine solutions.
-
Nobody has any business spying on anybody, and the less people able to get away with it the better.
Now there's a spectacularly naive and uninformed opinion. That might work on a planet where everyone gets along and there are enough resources, food, and absolutely no conflicts, but here on Earth where most of us reside, intelligence-gathering contributes to the safety of nations, and candid diplomacy prevents large-scale conflicts. Without both of those things, "Western" civilization would not exist.
But thanks for demonstrating my point about the apparent uselessness of history education.
My opinion may be shared by naive or uninformed people, but I am neither naive nor uninformed. Rather, I am sick of pessimistic attitudes (like your own) getting in the way of actually solving the world's problems.
You say we can't afford to stop spying because other people haven't stopped spying on us. They tell themselves the same thing. How bout we man up and set a ****ing precedent?
-
Because then the people who are still spying hold an undeniable (literally. We could no longer stop them at all) advantage. Why the hell would anyone give up an advantage like that? To be nice? Yeah, **** that.
Setting a nice little example might work within a group of individuals, but when you get to groups of populations, simple stuff falls apart.
-
Rather, I am sick of pessimistic attitudes (like your own) getting in the way of actually solving the world's problems.
Out of curiosity, how is it that being unable to speak candidly to those you conflict with is going make solving problems easier?
-
Because then the people who are still spying hold an undeniable (literally. We could no longer stop them at all) advantage. Why the hell would anyone give up an advantage like that? To be nice? Yeah, **** that.
Wait... you say don't give up an advantage to be nice, because no one else would do the same because no one gives up an advantage just to be nice? Doesn't make much sense.
-
My opinion may be shared by naive or uninformed people, but I am neither naive nor uninformed. Rather, I am sick of pessimistic attitudes (like your own) getting in the way of actually solving the world's problems.
You say we can't afford to stop spying because other people haven't stopped spying on us. They tell themselves the same thing. How bout we man up and set a ****ing precedent?
Scenario: NATO ceases espionage/counterespionage tomorrow.
Results: China gains even larger economic and technological advantages, at the expense of Western powers. Goods under embargo or sanction (including weapons, software, and tech) make their way to nations like Iran, Syria, and countless other totalitarian human rights abusers. Net result: internal democracy movement in Iran has no hope in hell of success, "Arab Spring" loses momentum as regimes are better able to conduct surveillance and counter-insurgency operations against their own citizenry (since the Western intelligence apparatus that was actually capable of causing disarray is now defunct). North Korea successfully mounts invasion of Seoul as early-warning HUMINT sources have been eliminated, and NATO is militarily caught unawares. Pakistan/Afghanistan resume more overt support of Al-Quaeda-inspired activity in the Middle East. Europe loses its capability to detect and counter extremist operations on their home soil.
Each and every single one of those results is not only possible, its plausible. That's not fear-mongering or pessimism, that's a healthy understanding and respect for the importance of the work intelligence agencies do. The trouble is, intelligence only gets discussed when it fails: nobody actually knows or understands how much work goes on behind the scenes unless it fails to prevent a problem. The attacks on September 11, 2001 were a fantastic example of this - US overseas HUMINT sources were severely cut in the late 80s and throughout the 1990s, with increasing reliance on technological solutions. The signs were there, the people to read them weren't.
Cut back a little further in history. The main reason the Cold War ended is because the US came to the realization (courtesy of intelligence gathering) that they could actually out-spend the Soviets. The collapse of the USSR came about for a whole host of colliding reasons, but the catalyst was the realization that the USSR was essentially broke - information which came to light because of intelligence gathering.
If we'd like to skip back another couple decades, part of the reason the Cold War became the arms escalating-conflict it did was a failure in counterintelligence - namely, the direct loss of atomic weapons secrets from the United States to the USSR in the first place. Granted, the USSR had a program in place, but some estimates put them as much as 10 years behind the Allies at the end of WW2 - right up until those secrets were taken. Now, considering the lives lost and misery wrought in Eastern Europe as a large part of the expansion of the USSR (made possible in part by weapons-equivalency), that's a pretty spectacular intelligence failure.
Back during WW2, there were numerous intelligence successes and failures. The story of ENIGMA is relatively well-known; the extent of SAS infiltration behind German lines from 1943-45 isn't, but it was significant. The Germans had a few of their own, with fairly high-level infiltration in Britain that permitted them to gauge the British reaction before and when war first broke out. They also had some failures; had they known quite how close Britain's air force was to total destruction during the Battle of Britain, WW2 might have had a very different ending. The same is true of Operation Overlord - Allied intelligence made a massive effort at misinformation regarding timing and location of the D-Day landings, an effort the Germans actually largely saw right through; it was Hitler's interference on the Atlantic Wall that partially accounted for the successes on June 6, 1944.
Then again, there's the Nazis military rise to reflect on as well. Had British and French intelligence been more capable (and their leaders better listeners), the German military expansion in contravention of the Treaty of Versailles might have been caught much earlier, and the reaction more harsh.
I can keep going back here, but I really don't see the need. Intelligence and counterintelligence is an essential part of security operation in every country. It works. It saves lives. If we do as you suggest and "set a precedent," everyone who doesn't can and will promptly take advantage of it. Contrary to what a lot of people seem to think, there are a lot of people on this planet who harm each other for no reason other than they are "different." I sincerely hope that you never actually need to learn that lesson firsthand. So yes, your opinion is naive and uninformed.
-
Sad fact is, you'll never stop the transfer of covert information with the transfer of covert information, what Wikileaks did is just 'public spying'.
All this has really served to do is weaken the US information gathering structure, a fact that will without doubt be exploited by other nations, which is more likely to make such information even less accessible to the public in the future. And I can't help feeling that 'the public interest' drifted away from the minds of Wikileaks a long time ago in favour of 'Public interest in the site', and that this is more about revenge than revelation.
It's the fact that it is unredacted that worries me most, it seems it was done not because of the publics 'right to know', but because it would attract more interest that way.
-
Sad fact is, you'll never stop the transfer of covert information with the transfer of covert information, what Wikileaks did is just 'public spying'.
All this has really served to do is weaken the US information gathering structure, a fact that will without doubt be exploited by other nations, which is more likely to make such information even less accessible to the public in the future. And I can't help feeling that 'the public interest' drifted away from the minds of Wikileaks a long time ago in favour of 'Public interest in the site', and that this is more about revenge than revelation.
It's the fact that it is unredacted that worries me most, it seems it was done not because of the publics 'right to know', but because it would attract more interest that way.
This times a thousand.
I keep searching the site for an article I swear I posted last time Wikileaks came up but I can't find it. It was written by a Canadian diplomat, and discussed how crucial it is for diplomats to be able to share the unsweetened truth about the countries they are negotiating with with their political superiors, in order to make informed and relevant decisions. He cited an example of how mass graves in the Balkans were uncovered as a result of a human source that passed photographs to him, and he then relayed (along with his assessment that the Serbs were lying through their teeth) with his superiors. Without the type of anonymity normally afforded to diplomatic transmissions, those pictures and that assessment might never have been sent.
I really want to find that article.
-
Nobody has any business spying on anybody, and the less people able to get away with it the better.
Now there's a spectacularly naive and uninformed opinion. That might work on a planet where everyone gets along and there are enough resources, food, and absolutely no conflicts, but here on Earth where most of us reside, intelligence-gathering contributes to the safety of nations, and candid diplomacy prevents large-scale conflicts. Without both of those things, "Western" civilization would not exist.
But thanks for demonstrating my point about the apparent uselessness of history education.
My opinion may be shared by naive or uninformed people, but I am neither naive nor uninformed. Rather, I am sick of pessimistic attitudes (like your own) getting in the way of actually solving the world's problems.
You say we can't afford to stop spying because other people haven't stopped spying on us. They tell themselves the same thing. How bout we man up and set a ****ing precedent?
Ignore Realpolitik?
(http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01529/bismarck2_1529323c.jpg)
Get The **** Out!
-
Because then the people who are still spying hold an undeniable (literally. We could no longer stop them at all) advantage. Why the hell would anyone give up an advantage like that? To be nice? Yeah, **** that.
Wait... you say don't give up an advantage to be nice, because no one else would do the same because no one gives up an advantage just to be nice? Doesn't make much sense.
Makes perfect sense. Don't give up any advantage for a reason that gains you literally nothing. Ideally, all actions should be undertaken to either grant an advantage or escape a position of disadvantage. Giving up an advantage to set an example no one will ever follow is stupid.
-
Nobody has any business spying on anybody, and the less people able to get away with it the better.
Now there's a spectacularly naive and uninformed opinion. That might work on a planet where everyone gets along and there are enough resources, food, and absolutely no conflicts, but here on Earth where most of us reside, intelligence-gathering contributes to the safety of nations, and candid diplomacy prevents large-scale conflicts. Without both of those things, "Western" civilization would not exist.
But thanks for demonstrating my point about the apparent uselessness of history education.
My opinion may be shared by naive or uninformed people, but I am neither naive nor uninformed. Rather, I am sick of pessimistic attitudes (like your own) getting in the way of actually solving the world's problems.
You say we can't afford to stop spying because other people haven't stopped spying on us. They tell themselves the same thing. How bout we man up and set a ****ing precedent?
I agree with this.
Two reasons;
1) If you're completely open then you have nothing to hide; ergo, people spying on you wouldn't have any great advantage over you.
2) The moment you stop playing by your own rules, you sow the seeds of your own destruction. One of the US's original policies was that of an open government. Obviously that's not the case anymore. We are building and have built a massive secret infrastructure within our own country, that is so large, and so extensive, that it's seemingly impossible to find out where any money, legislation, operations, etc, goes within it. It's a massive black box. Even if it's only targeting "terrorists" and everyone in it has perfectly legitimate reasons to be doing what they're doing, in ten or twenty years time, when those people leave, you will have this giant uncontrolled beast lurking within the country that can be exploited by those who would wish to do the country harm - and it can be exploited because all the machinations for secrecy are already there.
Honesty and openness isn't just a good idea; it's a requirement of a long lived and stable society. Democracy, openness, rule by the people, etc, isn't just the most popular form of government, it can also be the most efficient (think of it this way: a dictator needs to spend a lot of money keeping their citizenry in check; a democracy doesn't, or shouldn't - though I can accept people disagreeing with this point), and it is one of the most stable. But only if it follows it's own rules, which the US is not and has not been doing.
Because then the people who are still spying hold an undeniable (literally. We could no longer stop them at all) advantage. Why the hell would anyone give up an advantage like that? To be nice? Yeah, **** that.
Wait... you say don't give up an advantage to be nice, because no one else would do the same because no one gives up an advantage just to be nice? Doesn't make much sense.
Makes perfect sense. Don't give up any advantage for a reason that gains you literally nothing. Ideally, all actions should be undertaken to either grant an advantage or escape a position of disadvantage. Giving up an advantage to set an example no one will ever follow is stupid.
The good will you'd get from setting that example could probably be better than keeping the spying going. Think of it this way; if we had the reputation as an honest country again, we wouldn't have to "spy" to get information; we could just go up and ask people "Hey, what are they doing?". "Well, why do you want to know?" "Because we think they're doing this. Do you think they are?" "Nope." "Ok.".
People are more willing to help a country that they trust and/or like because they treat them as individuals, rather one that treats them all like potential threats.
-
Because then the people who are still spying hold an undeniable (literally. We could no longer stop them at all) advantage. Why the hell would anyone give up an advantage like that? To be nice? Yeah, **** that.
Wait... you say don't give up an advantage to be nice, because no one else would do the same because no one gives up an advantage just to be nice? Doesn't make much sense.
Makes perfect sense. Don't give up any advantage for a reason that gains you literally nothing. Ideally, all actions should be undertaken to either grant an advantage or escape a position of disadvantage. Giving up an advantage to set an example no one will ever follow is stupid.
Of course it doesn't make sense, because in such a situation your claim that no one would give up an advantage would be untrue because it already happened.
If no one would ever give up an advantage just to be nice, then why would you even bother to argue against the idea of doing so if you believe it can't happen?
-
Well, take the Iranian Nuclear program, if the US stopped trying to find out if they were developing weapons, what are the odds of them turning round and saying "Well, since you've been kind enough to stop trying to find out, we'll give you access to all our information"?
It's a mexican standoff, and blinking is more likely to lead to a lead implant than world peace.
-
I always felt like Assange was a total asshole, but at least he's being nice enough to confirm it.
-
Well, take the Iranian Nuclear program, if the US stopped trying to find out if they were developing weapons, what are the odds of them turning round and saying "Well, since you've been kind enough to stop trying to find out, we'll give you access to all our information"?
It's a mexican standoff, and blinking is more likely to lead to a lead implant than world peace.
What would be the awful downside of just not spying on them? What if the US actually tried to return to the "moral high ground" that they used to lay claim to (and many disgusting individuals twist to use as justification for their undesirable deeds).
Judging from the way you phrased that Flipside, it seems like you're saying that if the US were to stop trying to violate Iran's sovereignty and cease spying on them, that suddenly...they would have nuclear weapons? That they would start developing them?
Unless you're saying US spying is what's keeping them from developing them, a claim which I'm not too sure I'd agree with?
As for Assange, yea, he's gone a bit power hungry/mad I think.
-
Wide-eyed idealism has its place, I agree, but it's place is not to set policy surrounding security, diplomacy, and intelligence-gathering.
Where Aardwolf and UT are speaking in lofty idealism, the rest of us are having a conversation about the state of the world as we know it. If you two would care to join us in that discussion, this thread might go somewhere.
UT, you also seem to be confusing the ideals of open government, which is preferable in a democracy, with open governance in foreign policy, which is a recipe for the demise of a democracy. EDIT: Also, the entire length of my responses on page 1 which you completely failed to even acknowledge.
-
Since when was Unknown Target actually Liberator, and unable to engage with his opposites in a meaningful conversation?
-
I can think of all kinds of very large downfalls of their being zero intelligence gathering, some despot deciding to merrily go about ethnically cleansing his populace for one, and precious little in the way of tangible benefits.
-
Makes perfect sense. Don't give up any advantage for a reason that gains you literally nothing. Ideally, all actions should be undertaken to either grant an advantage or escape a position of disadvantage. Giving up an advantage to set an example no one will ever follow is stupid.
Why would nobody follow it?
Thought experiment:
Picture 5 people in a room, each with 4 buttons (one to shock each of the other 4 people). Suppose that to get the electrodes out of you, you have to step away from the buttons, but that you are still subject to being shocked for a while after stepping away from the buttons.
There is no reason for anybody to start pushing buttons. Even if they started pushing buttons, there is no reason they couldn't agree to stop pushing the buttons.
Obviously countries are a lot more complicated, but you can't just write the situation off as hopeless. The reason it won't work isn't because it's a bad plan, the reason it won't work is because of people like you refusing to try it because it won't work.
-
Wide-eyed idealism has its place, I agree, but it's place is not to set policy surrounding security, diplomacy, and intelligence-gathering.
Where Aardwolf and UT are speaking in lofty idealism, the rest of us are having a conversation about the state of the world as we know it. If you two would care to join us in that discussion, this thread might go somewhere.
UT, you also seem to be confusing the ideals of open government, which is preferable in a democracy, with open governance in foreign policy, which is a recipe for the demise of a democracy. EDIT: Also, the entire length of my responses on page 1 which you completely failed to even acknowledge.
Firstly, I'd like to point out a discrepancy; "the world as we know it". That assumption there leaves open a wide range of different worldviews that are possible.
Secondly, only discussing the world as it is currently, instead of what it could also be is, I feel, shortsighted.
Thirdly, well there's an argument for that for sure. But what exactly do we have to keep secret? Many people would say military secrets. Ok, fair; but how many secrets must a military have? Pre WW2, the US had a standing army of like 100,000 men I think? How many secrets would that army actually have to keep.
Fourthly, I just skipped through the thread, I didn't read your post nor many others. My apologies. Were you talking about this one?
I keep searching the site for an article I swear I posted last time Wikileaks came up but I can't find it. It was written by a Canadian diplomat, and discussed how crucial it is for diplomats to be able to share the unsweetened truth about the countries they are negotiating with with their political superiors, in order to make informed and relevant decisions. He cited an example of how mass graves in the Balkans were uncovered as a result of a human source that passed photographs to him, and he then relayed (along with his assessment that the Serbs were lying through their teeth) with his superiors. Without the type of anonymity normally afforded to diplomatic transmissions, those pictures and that assessment might never have been sent.
On this we actually agree; I've discussed this point with my friends for awhile now, when I talk about secrecy and they ask where I would draw the line in regards to Wikileaks. My policy is that anything that is said between people is something that is private and thus, reasonable to be kept secret. A conversation between you and I in the back room where we just made sure that no one else was around - I'd say it's reasonable to say that both parties had a reasonable belief that the words they were exchanging would not leave that room.
However, if action comes of that; if you say Iran is a dick and I say that we should do something about it; then I feel that any action should be made public. This ranges from covert strikes to a diplomat's schedule.
So in summary; publishing details of covert US actions abroad? I say we should. That's funded with American taxpayer money (which ostensibly we should know where it's going, as was the original idea), and puts American lives at risk (not to mention those on the other side of the barrel). Publishing what one diplomat thinks of another? No, I don't think so.
-
-snip-
Your experiment is flawed because it fails to accurately describe the situation concerning intelligence gathering. In your experiment, there is no incentive to push buttons; in real life, there is every incentive to collect intelligence. Your experiment also doesn't account for any of the very real forces at play in the world: group psychology, resource distribution, religion, political ideology, power dynamics, competition, economic incentive, etc.
Simplistic analogies work great on paper, but saying we should stop intelligence collection because it would be better is something akin to the following:
1. Stop intelligence gathering / counterintel.
2. Everyone else continues intelligence gathering.
3. ???
4. *MAGIC*
5. World Peace, Harmony, and Utopia.
That reasoning might work in childhood idealism, but in the realm of rational discourse of an argument it is simply laughable.
-
Also, an object lesson:
The United States, from 1900 or so to 1942, conducted its diplomacy with all the transparency of a fishbowl because of very poor diplomatic codes.
This cost the country dearly. It probably contributed to our entry into WW1. It worsened the Great Depression by placing the US at a severe disadvantage in negotiating export rights. It may well have helped precipitate the attack on Pearl Harbor because it made it easier for Japan to negotiate with the US in bad faith. It certainly contributed to the inability of the US to exert meaningful influence on events in Europe during 1938 and 1939. It definitely caused the United States to have to fight the French in Africa during Operation Torch.
It also affected our allies. We were unable to conduct proper diplomatic relations with the British during the early months of World War II because they knew how poor the codes were and would not entrust the US Embassy with critical information. Rommel's Afrika Korps nearly took Egypt in part because they were reading US diplomatic cables laying out the location and condition of units in the British 8th Army, and it is no accident that El Alamein occurred after US diplomatic codes changed. Vichy French officers could not turn to the Free French cause because they could not entrust their communications, and hence their lives, to US diplomatic personnel who had to use the old codes.
What does this have to do with intelligence-gathering?
Diplomacy is intelligence gathering. The activities are inseparable. Negotiation cannot occur in a vacuum. You must have some idea of what it is reasonable to ask for and what the other side wants, both in general and specifically from this. Because these things are near and dear to them, and because it makes it easier for them to negotiate to a win for them and them only if you're wrong, you cannot expect the other side to be truthful about them.
-
interesting fact, apparently the Guardian had already leaked all of this, and that is the reason why this was leaked.
-
Firstly, I'd like to point out a discrepancy; "the world as we know it". That assumption there leaves open a wide range of different worldviews that are possible.
Secondly, only discussing the world as it is currently, instead of what it could also be is, I feel, shortsighted.
It's also the only discussion we can have because it's the only discussion based on fact. What the world could be is a magical place of fairy dust where everyone gets along and we all sit around the fire, eat chocolates, and sing koombaya until we pass out into diabetic comas, but that's not what the world is and thus does not warrant a place in a rational discussion.
Thirdly, well there's an argument for that for sure. But what exactly do we have to keep secret? Many people would say military secrets. Ok, fair; but how many secrets must a military have? Pre WW2, the US had a standing army of like 100,000 men I think? How many secrets would that army actually have to keep.
Fourthly, I just skipped through the thread, I didn't read your post nor many others. My apologies. Were you talking about this one?
So in summary; publishing details of covert US actions abroad? I say we should. That's funded with American taxpayer money (which ostensibly we should know where it's going, as was the original idea), and puts American lives at risk (not to mention those on the other side of the barrel). Publishing what one diplomat thinks of another? No, I don't think so.
First and foremost, I'd like you to get your own position straight. Maintaining secrecy on various pieces of information (and the policy on security of information) is not the same thing as intelligence or counterintelligence. So instead of waffling about incoherently without reading the entire thread, pick a point (or two or three) and expand on it.
Second, I was referring to the post where I discussed a couple examples of intelligence gathering and counterintelligence and the necessity of it, which, given that you are waffling about incoherently at the moment, it is now fairly obvious you haven't read.
So, collect your thoughts and let's have a coherent explanation of precisely what you mean within the context of the discussion that you've come to participate in. Then I'll happily respond.
-
Your experiment is flawed because it fails to accurately describe the situation concerning intelligence gathering
Yeah I suppose it's more appropriate to actual war than espionage... I was in rant mode, lol.
-
Yeah I suppose it's more appropriate to actual war than espionage... I was in rant mode, lol.
Even then, it only describes a small fraction of wars in recent history, and none of them completely accurately (it's closest to the alliance mess that caused the Serbian crisis to expand to all of Western Europe in 1914).
-
Yeah I suppose it's more appropriate to actual war than espionage... I was in rant mode, lol.
Even then, it only describes a small fraction of wars in recent history, and none of them completely accurately (it's closest to the alliance mess that caused the Serbian crisis to expand to all of Western Europe in 1914).
So the poor old ostrich died for nothing then.
-
What if instead of stopping espionage, its results were published publicly, in a manner similar to wikileaks?
-
Firstly, I'd like to point out a discrepancy; "the world as we know it". That assumption there leaves open a wide range of different worldviews that are possible.
Secondly, only discussing the world as it is currently, instead of what it could also be is, I feel, shortsighted.
It's also the only discussion we can have because it's the only discussion based on fact. What the world could be is a magical place of fairy dust where everyone gets along and we all sit around the fire, eat chocolates, and sing koombaya until we pass out into diabetic comas, but that's not what the world is and thus does not warrant a place in a rational discussion.
I'm pretty sure his point is that it's shortsighted to only focus on discussing the world as it is currently if as a by-product one ignores/forgets the influence they have on the world themselves and thus don't use that influence. I can't make everyone sit around the fire and sing koombaya, but it doesn't mean that I'm living a hippie fantasy if I'm the first one to do so; sure, anyone else can take advantage of the situation, stab me and break my ukulele, but that's not my choice. I cannot make choices for other people. However, if instead I keep my gun pointed at everyone else (just like everyone else), then that is my choice, and I do carry the blame for my part of that nasty situation.
If the problem is that people aren't good at putting their guns away, then all that I can do to fix that is to put my gun away. Not doing my own part in fixing a problem I think ought to be fixed is what's shortsighted, and no amount of discussion of the facts of the situation will help if I don't actually go and do something about it.
A detached, rational discussion of the facts of what the world is like is totally great, but that is simply a completely different thing than a discussion of what the world should be like, and you can't mix the two. What the world should be like doesn't change the facts of what the world is like, and neither do the facts of what the world is like change what the world should be like.
-
And once again your simplistic view of the world conflicts with a far from simplistic reality.
If you put away your gun, then people will menace you with theirs. This does not effect only you; it will affect all your friends and family as people extort stuff from you at gunpoint. Putting away your gun is not merely your action, but has tangible and negative affects upon not just you, but everyone else. Your friends are weaker for your action, your enemies are strengthened, those who would use force to achieve their goals or oppress you and others are empowered.
You have made the world a worse place.
-
This condemnation of wikileaks seems in general to be rooted in their belief that the US government is a wholly angelic organization that knows what's best for us, and that there's no greater benefit to promoting general transparency. This belief is totally contrary to democratic ideals.
In a perfect world where governments are perfectly controlled by popular will, and are willing to be transparent about what needs to be transparent without any prodding, then leaks like this wouldn't be justified. But this isn't a perfect world. Governments on an extraordinary scale are constantly trying to hide the facts from their own populations all over the world to carry on policies, to their detriment, without their consent.
Under those special but realistic circumstances, any serious attempt to break down these veils of secrecy are justified. Ohhhhhhh, they are justified.
Or you can just pretend that what leakers have done is somehow far worse than governments that may have grossly violated human rights. They might have done harm. But let's weigh that against what they might expose before we start saying rediculous things.
-
Firstly, I'd like to point out a discrepancy; "the world as we know it". That assumption there leaves open a wide range of different worldviews that are possible.
Secondly, only discussing the world as it is currently, instead of what it could also be is, I feel, shortsighted.
It's also the only discussion we can have because it's the only discussion based on fact. What the world could be is a magical place of fairy dust where everyone gets along and we all sit around the fire, eat chocolates, and sing koombaya until we pass out into diabetic comas, but that's not what the world is and thus does not warrant a place in a rational discussion.
Ok... I choose to take the stance that people are generally good and function well in a well functioning society, based upon my personal experiences which I use as fact.
First and foremost, I'd like you to get your own position straight. Maintaining secrecy on various pieces of information (and the policy on security of information) is not the same thing as intelligence or counterintelligence. So instead of waffling about incoherently without reading the entire thread, pick a point (or two or three) and expand on it.
I'll just hold off on contributing further until I've read more of the thread. :)
-
You cannot trust the government to be able to distinguish between what the public does and doesn't need to know. You cannot. To think otherwise is to be smoking the strongest fairy dust of all. Someone else has to do it, someone connected to the interest of the public. And I dare say it but total transparency is a vastly better prospect than total secrecy, if no middle ground exists.
-
Except we already live in a middle ground.
-
Then it ain't middle enough. Keep pushing it.
What's too bad is that Wikileaks doesn't seem to have much other than diplomatic cables. Which have some value, but not enough compared to noise or genuinely sensitive material that could bring harm. What we need are internal policy documents, like the Pentagon Papers.
-
I think it's more a question that releasing those documents wholesale in a sort of '**** You' manouvre isn't really going to make a difference. At least, certainly not a positive one.
If there were some way to assure that this information only reached American eyes, so the American public were aware of what their Government were doing, that would be one thing, but it's been thrown open to the entire planet, so it's not really a question of what it is healthy to release so much as what is dangerous to release to those outside the US.
-
Firstly, I'd like to point out a discrepancy; "the world as we know it". That assumption there leaves open a wide range of different worldviews that are possible.
Secondly, only discussing the world as it is currently, instead of what it could also be is, I feel, shortsighted.
It's also the only discussion we can have because it's the only discussion based on fact. What the world could be is a magical place of fairy dust where everyone gets along and we all sit around the fire, eat chocolates, and sing koombaya until we pass out into diabetic comas, but that's not what the world is and thus does not warrant a place in a rational discussion.
Ok... I choose to take the stance that people are generally good and function well in a well functioning society, based upon my personal experiences which I use as fact.
Confirmation that UT doesn't live on the same planet we do.
-
Suppose some American diplomatic stuff is leaked and it leads to a international scandal. It harms the foreign policy aims of the US government, which may or may not be a good thing.
But, buuuuut, as a side effect, suppose it also leads to a public reaction in favor of greater transparency and honesty. Not just in America, but internationally. Put in widely reported transparency reforms and peoples of other nations will ask their government why they don't enjoy the same access. Result: net positive to the human race.
-
Confirmation that UT doesn't live on the same planet we do.
I wouldn't go that far, but he's proposing something that, as I've observed elsewhere, only works with all-or-nothing while making a statement that denies the possibility of all or nothing.
-
Firstly, I'd like to point out a discrepancy; "the world as we know it". That assumption there leaves open a wide range of different worldviews that are possible.
Secondly, only discussing the world as it is currently, instead of what it could also be is, I feel, shortsighted.
It's also the only discussion we can have because it's the only discussion based on fact. What the world could be is a magical place of fairy dust where everyone gets along and we all sit around the fire, eat chocolates, and sing koombaya until we pass out into diabetic comas, but that's not what the world is and thus does not warrant a place in a rational discussion.
Ok... I choose to take the stance that people are generally good and function well in a well functioning society, based upon my personal experiences which I use as fact.
Confirmation that UT doesn't live on the same planet we do.
Let's not mistake cynicism with wisdom here. That things are as they are does not mean they are as they must. A total lack of imagination does not make you realistic. It makes you enslaved to a nebulous status quo.
-
But on the other hand, it establishes limits on what is sane and accomplishable, whereas unrestricted imagination simply leads you to wasted, often even counterproductive, effort.
-
I said a total lack of imagination. Don't strawman me. My opponent is not gravity; it's people who pointlessly place weights on themselves, as if there's virtue in not being able to move.
-
On the contrary, you accuse him of a total lack, which is itself a strawman of his argument and of MP-Ryan's; a discussion grounded in the facts is actually a discussion. If you dislike it then being applied to you, then you should be more careful in your own phrasings.
-
This condemnation of wikileaks seems in general to be rooted in their belief that the US government is a wholly angelic organization that knows what's best for us, and that there's no greater benefit to promoting general transparency. This belief is totally contrary to democratic ideals.
Or maybe we just believe that there are significant portions of international diplomacy that need to be conducted in confidence as a matter of course, and that exposing said portions directly harms our national interests.
-
I personally think that the US government is generally both incompetent and sometimes downright criminal, but I'd rather the Chinese or North Koreans didn't know every facet of our intelligence. Somehow I think that could be detrimental to my personal interests in the long run.
EDIT:
Note, I'm not saying that the Chinese are anything LIKE North Korea, but they're certainly a rival to the US.
-
Suppose some American diplomatic stuff is leaked and it leads to a international scandal. It harms the foreign policy aims of the US government, which may or may not be a good thing.
But, buuuuut, as a side effect, suppose it also leads to a public reaction in favor of greater transparency and honesty. Not just in America, but internationally. Put in widely reported transparency reforms and peoples of other nations will ask their government why they don't enjoy the same access. Result: net positive to the human race.
You are displaying the same confusion as UT.
Transparency in government is not the same thing as transparency in governance of foreign policy.
Exposing your foreign policy means, rather than the normal message of objectives, is a quick and easy way to get yourself royally screwed. NGTM and I have furnished ample examples of this throughout the discussion. If you want to take the position that all of this should be transparent, you'd best back up and start addressing the very real and harsh historical lessons that both of us have highlighted. Else, you're just posting idealistic fluff.
EDIT: And to counter one of your earlier statements - I'm not American. The fact that these are US cables is utterly irrelevant to me. What is relevant is that NATO is generally comprised of fairly reasonable, democratic, and more-or-less secular nations concerned with their own security. Contrast this with countries like Iran, Pakistan, and North Korea, all of which are ideologically-motivated, non-democratic (I realize someone may take exception to Pakistan being lumped in there, to which I say go read about the ISI), and totalitarian... and happily willing and able to destroy those who disagree with them for no reason other than they disagree. So, I take exception to a release of ANY information that compromises HUMINT sources used by NATO because it has a direct effect on the security and well-being of myself, my family, my country, and virtually all of YOU.
Unlike you, Aardwolf, and UT, I have living memory of the Cold War (as you'll find do several other people arguing similarly to me) and a healthy knowledge of 20th century history. Thinking that transparency and openness is the answer to the world's diplomatic problems is a commendable position, but it just isn't grounded in reality, and neither is the idealistic belief that you can make international politics change virtually overnight by setting a precedent. Transparency in intelligence and diplomacy would be a disaster that would destroy the ability of NATO countries to defend themselves both externally, and from internal extremist activities, because the nations we are defending ourselves from have absolutely no qualms about using information as a means of conducting war. If we stopped, the nations I've named (and dozens of others) would say thankyouverymuch and carry on stronger than ever.
EDIT2: I should also say I recognize the position you fellows are taking as one fairly common to young university students, often those taking liberal arts courses. I explored similar ideas at much the same time. I also explored a great deal of history [as options], particularly 20th century history, which tends to take all those wonderful sociological and social psychological theories and grind them into dust crushed under jackboots and tank treads. For every Enlightenment/liberal ideal for the evolution of society, there is a conflict that demonstrates it just doesn't work in practice unless its tempered under the forge of realistic thinking. That, I think, is the bit of information that all three of you are missing in this thread.
-
And once again your simplistic view of the world conflicts with a far from simplistic reality.
What is this simplistic view of the world that I have? As far as I can tell, I expressed no views about the world.
If you put away your gun, then people will menace you with theirs. This does not effect only you; it will affect all your friends and family as people extort stuff from you at gunpoint. Putting away your gun is not merely your action, but has tangible and negative affects upon not just you, but everyone else. Your friends are weaker for your action, your enemies are strengthened, those who would use force to achieve their goals or oppress you and others are empowered.
You have made the world a worse place.
Of course I haven't, as all I did was put away my gun, nothing more. What other people choose to do after that is their choice and certainly no fault of mine: if they do as you predict, then they made the world a worse place, not me.
To summarize my stance: I don't think one can ever do wrong by doing that which would be good if everyone did the same. If everyone put away their guns then that'd be good, therefore one guy putting down their gun cannot be wrong.
-
EDIT2: I should also say I recognize the position you fellows are taking as one fairly common to young university students, often those taking liberal arts courses. I explored similar ideas at much the same time. I also explored a great deal of history [as options], particularly 20th century history, which tends to take all those wonderful sociological and social psychological theories and grind them into dust crushed under jackboots and tank treads. For every Enlightenment/liberal ideal for the evolution of society, there is a conflict that demonstrates it just doesn't work in practice unless its tempered under the forge of realistic thinking. That, I think, is the bit of information that all three of you are missing in this thread.
My God, do we really start to sound like the geezers back then?
Anyways, the personal history of the most of the philosophizers from 1850s to 1900s is also quite damning. Most of what they said has been to please the king or the the next best thing after the king in exchange for food, wine and women, possibly also money. Few of them ever lived by anything close to what they said. No wonder the general population (here) regards them as "ass-kissers".
-
What if the US actually tried to return to the "moral high ground" that they used to lay claim to (and many disgusting individuals twist to use as justification for their undesirable deeds).
To return would imply that they, at some point, had been there. The only moral high grounds the US has stood on are the ones they erected themselves in order to charge down screaming upon everyone else because they had different interpretations.
-
What is this simplistic view of the world that I have? As far as I can tell, I expressed no views about the world.
The one that you're using in your simplistic analogies?
Of course I haven't, as all I did was put away my gun, nothing more. What other people choose to do after that is their choice and certainly no fault of mine: if they do as you predict, then they made the world a worse place, not me.
Incorrect. You are both morally and legally culpable for the predictable consequences of any actions you take. This is a highly predictable consequence, one that I can see, that everyone around you will see, and that you don't even deny will happen.
You knew, when you put down your gun, that this would happen. People told you that it would happen; people of no small means or intelligence. All your allies and friends warned you it would happen, pleaded for you to reconsider, if not for your sake then for theirs.
You did it anyway, against the best advice available, in the full awareness that it would make things worse.
You honestly believe that it's not your fault?
-
What is this simplistic view of the world that I have? As far as I can tell, I expressed no views about the world.
The one that you're using in your simplistic analogies?
Well, I really don't see how I'm using my view of the world, whatever it is, in my simplistic analogies. Maybe you could give a little hint as to what you think my view of the world is like?
Of course I haven't, as all I did was put away my gun, nothing more. What other people choose to do after that is their choice and certainly no fault of mine: if they do as you predict, then they made the world a worse place, not me.
Incorrect. You are both morally and legally culpable for the predictable consequences of any actions you take. This is a highly predictable consequence, one that I can see, that everyone around you will see, and that you don't even deny will happen.
You knew, when you put down your gun, that this would happen. People told you that it would happen; people of no small means or intelligence. All your allies and friends warned you it would happen, pleaded for you to reconsider, if not for your sake then for theirs.
You did it anyway, against the best advice available, in the full awareness that it would make things worse.
You honestly believe that it's not your fault?
Yes, I do. I'll try to explain:
I would be at fault if I knew of and ignored the predictable consequences of, for example, a piece of machinery which as a result of my actions would maim someone. The machine cannot be blamed for what it does, therefore the blame is on me who set it in motion. However, if we replace the machine with another person, then that person can be blamed for what they do since they're as free to make their own choices as I am. I can't be responsible for what choice they make.
If you say that it's probable and predictable that switching my gun to an ukulele would get my teeth kicked in and my ukulele broken by everyone else, then sure, I won't disagree with that. However, the difference is that whereas you'd think that the fact that it was predictable makes it (partially) my own fault, I'd think it merely demonstrates how everyone else is a bad guy. If the other people were truly forced into breaking my ukulele when given the chance, then fine, fine, they'd be machines and I'd be responsible if I'd let them. However, if I can manage to switch my gun to an ukulele then that pretty much proves that it's an entirely possible to make that choice, and thus they must be responsible if they decide to break my ukulele.
Would you agree that my view is at least internally consistent, even if you don't agree with it?
-
you know I would like them a lot more if they would spoil a few terrorist attacks, or break some sort of severely debilitating scandal about Ahmadinejad, or something about China, or North Korea, or hell even Russia.
that said, as everyone seems to have ignored from my first time mentioning it, Wikileaks was not the one who dumped it this time it was the Guardian, they are just posting information someone else publicly posted already.
-
<snip>
That's only true if your gun is not covering your allies' back as well as yours. NATO is a mutual defense treaty, yes? An attack on one is an attack on all. This makes picking off member nations one by one difficult and costly, hence not worthwhile. As a result, the safety of members against would-be aggressors is increased. If you put down your gun, your allies will most likely have to use theirs, decreasing their ability to defend themselves. Also, there is the loss of life and resources to defend you.
But don't worry; be happy.
At least your ukelele will give them something to listen to. If they get time while frantically trying to cover for you, that is.
Ask yourself how many nations were fed to Hitler to appease him. France and England did nothing. Surely, the Germans will get the resources they want and settle down, right? The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few... so those other nations will just have to live as Germans now. No big deal.
You somehow think that if an aggressive nation has all that it needs and possibly wants, that it will be satisfied... that they will be satisfied to co-exist with you in peace and harmony, for the benefit of all... and it would benefit all. The problem is, those nations at this point at least, would like nothing better than to consume and expand with no end in sight.
Simplistically, put it this way:
How do you pacify a spoiled rotten 3 or 4-year old bully? He is bigger than all of his classmates. When the others have one or two toys, and he has three or four toys, he still isn't happy. He attacks and hits those around him and prevents them from enjoying their toys, too... he is the only one allowed to be happy. This makes him happy, because then he feels powerful at the center of attention.
Now, the others can keep the bully in check by forming a team... if the bully attacks one, they all defend the person being attacked. Now the bully sees that he / she cannot get what they want. After a while, they stop trying to attack the others, as it is harmful to their own self-interest.
Now, to change the behavior of the child... he / she must learn that such behavior is unacceptable and will lead to undesirable consequences for him / her. Say, for example, if the bully attacks, one of the bully's toys gets taken away by the group, until the bully has behaved without incident. Then, after a while of behaving acceptably, maybe you could try to convince them that you really want them to be on your side... try sharing a toy, maybe giving them one. If they see this as weakness and attack, take back the toy and take one of theirs until they behave. Eventually, perhaps they will see the light. But then again, perhaps not.
Of course, this is a very simplistic comparison and I'm sure all sorts of holes can be picked in it. But you do see what I'm getting at? Bullys can't be tamed by acquiescing to their unreasonable demands.
-
<snip>
That's only true if your gun is not covering your allies' back as well as yours. NATO is a mutual defense treaty, yes? An attack on one is an attack on all. This makes picking off member nations one by one difficult and costly, hence not worthwhile. As a result, the safety of members against would-be aggressors is increased. If you put down your gun, your allies will most likely have to use theirs, decreasing their ability to defend themselves. Also, there is the loss of life and resources to defend you.
But don't worry; be happy.
At least your ukelele will give them something to listen to. If they get time while frantically trying to cover for you, that is.
Ask yourself how many nations were fed to Hitler to appease him. France and England did nothing. Surely, the Germans will get the resources they want and settle down, right? The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few... so those other nations will just have to live as Germans now. No big deal.
You somehow think that if an aggressive nation has all that it needs and possibly wants, that it will be satisfied... that they will be satisfied to co-exist with you in peace and harmony, for the benefit of all... and it would benefit all. The problem is, those nations at this point at least, would like nothing better than to consume and expand with no end in sight.
Simplistically, put it this way:
How do you pacify a spoiled rotten 3 or 4-year old bully? He is bigger than all of his classmates. When the others have one or two toys, and he has three or four toys, he still isn't happy. He attacks and hits those around him and prevents them from enjoying their toys, too... he is the only one allowed to be happy. This makes him happy, because then he feels powerful at the center of attention.
Now, the others can keep the bully in check by forming a team... if the bully attacks one, they all defend the person being attacked. Now the bully sees that he / she cannot get what they want. After a while, they stop trying to attack the others, as it is harmful to their own self-interest.
Now, to change the behavior of the child... he / she must learn that such behavior is unacceptable and will lead to undesirable consequences for him / her. Say, for example, if the bully attacks, one of the bully's toys gets taken away by the group, until the bully has behaved without incident. Then, after a while of behaving acceptably, maybe you could try to convince them that you really want them to be on your side... try sharing a toy, maybe giving them one. If they see this as weakness and attack, take back the toy and take one of theirs until they behave. Eventually, perhaps they will see the light. But then again, perhaps not.
Of course, this is a very simplistic comparison and I'm sure all sorts of holes can be picked in it. But you do see what I'm getting at? Bullys can't be tamed by acquiescing to their unreasonable demands.
Sure, I mostly agree with what you're saying. Your plan of how to change the behaviour of a bully is something I certainly subscribe to, but what I'm arguing for is that the bullying isn't anyone's fault except the bully's. NGTM-1R is arguing that if I believe that the bully is going to keep bullying and I don't do my best to prevent that, the bullying is going to be my fault. That's quite a separate issue than the question of what's a good way to deal with a bully.
-
I personally think that the US government is generally both incompetent and sometimes downright criminal, but I'd rather the Chinese or North Koreans didn't know every facet of our intelligence. Somehow I think that could be detrimental to my personal interests in the long run.
Here's the thing, though - China and Russia both have special divisions dedicated to information warfare, with the Chinese being notably talented, having already penetrated U.S government websites before. I think the significance of whatever leaked documents Wikileaks can leak pales in comparison to the kind of stuff that these goons are able to obtain. In other words, if they really want to damage U.S interests, leaks like this are small potatoes. That's the way I see it at least.
-
Would you agree that my view is at least internally consistent, even if you don't agree with it?
Actually no, because your choice has wider consequences than those to you, and it is primarily for those you are responsible. I have no objection to you doing something that will hurt yourself; it's the fact that you will not only disempower/harm yourself, but also disempower/harm others by robbing them of an effective ally, and empower not only your own enemies, but the enemies of everyone who has a gun out for self-protection rather than to take people's stuff.
Your view only works if confined to an extremely narrow, self-centered narrative, concerned only with your own actions and consequences. As a metaphor for an interdependent system like world politics (or indeed simply a bunch of guys sitting around with guns out!), it is completely inadequate.
-
im not reading those cables, they're too thick!
-
Here's the thing, though - China and Russia both have special divisions dedicated to information warfare, with the Chinese being notably talented, having already penetrated U.S government websites before.
http://xkcd.com/932/
-
Would you agree that my view is at least internally consistent, even if you don't agree with it?
Actually no, because your choice has wider consequences than those to you, and it is primarily for those you are responsible. I have no objection to you doing something that will hurt yourself; it's the fact that you will not only disempower/harm yourself, but also disempower/harm others by robbing them of an effective ally, and empower not only your own enemies, but the enemies of everyone who has a gun out for self-protection rather than to take people's stuff.
I can't find an argument there. It looks like you're just trying to use your own view as a proof that my view is internally inconsistent.
-
You might want to check the second paragraph instead of attempt to selectively quote your way out.
Or, put more simply: your view is only workable if you are completely self-centered. I am reasonably sure you are not; your view requires assumptions inconsistent with your stated desire/end-goal to make the world a better place. This is an altruistic desire, indicating concern for others. Your view requires you to dismiss the concerns and plight of others who will not want you to put the gun down because they will be harmed just as you are harmed by that action.
To sustain your method of altruism requires you to ignore the desires and dangers of others. This is not altruistic.
For that matter, why should I care if your view is internally consistent anyways? Internal consistency is not a measure of objective or even subjective correctness.
-
You might want to check the second paragraph instead of attempt to selectively quote your way out.
Or, put more simply: your view is only workable if you are completely self-centered. I am reasonably sure you are not; your view requires assumptions inconsistent with your stated desire/end-goal to make the world a better place. This is an altruistic desire, indicating concern for others. Your view requires you to dismiss the concerns and plight of others who will not want you to put the gun down because they will be harmed just as you are harmed by that action.
To sustain your method of altruism requires you to ignore the desires and dangers of others. This is not altruistic.
I selectively left it unquoted and unanswered because it was irrelevant. Whether something is "workable" or not doesn't have anything to do with what we've been arguing about, which is whether actions of others can be my fault if I did not try to prevent them. My view on that doesn't require me to dismiss anything except the idea that if I don't defend A from B then I'm to blame for B attacking A. And quite obviously rejecting that idea doesn't mean that I think that defending A from B would be wrong or even that there isn't a moral obligation to do so.
I'm arguing for nothing except the idea that one person can be blamed for the actions of another person, which is exactly what you've arguing for. At no point have I argued anything about what "works" in the real world, only about who is to blame for a person's actions.
For that matter, why should I care if your view is internally consistent anyways? Internal consistency is not a measure of objective or even subjective correctness.
Never said you should. But if you think my view is internally inconsistent, it tells me that you probably don't understand what my view is.
-
I selectively left it unquoted and unanswered because it was irrelevant. Whether something is "workable" or not doesn't have anything to do with what we've been arguing about, which is whether actions of others can be my fault if I did not try to prevent them.
You asked for inconsistencies in your argument. I gave you inconsistencies. You have done nothing to actually address them as they were presented. Did you not want them now? What were you actually asking for?
My view on that doesn't require me to dismiss anything except the idea that if I don't defend A from B then I'm to blame for B attacking A. And quite obviously rejecting that idea doesn't mean that I think that defending A from B would be wrong or even that there isn't a moral obligation to do so.
Straw man. Actual argument: B is injured directly and indirectly by attempting to help C, who was attacked by A. B's ability to negotiate with A is damaged by the fact C cannot back them up. B's ability to protect themselves from A is similarly injured. A's relative ability to injure anyone is increased; he has been given more power. (That, incidentally, is the most troublesome part.) This is an important distinction. We are discussing a minimum of three parties, one of whom is actively opposed to the starting action because they can forsee negative consequences for them, one of whom takes the starting action over those objections, and one of whom exploits the starting action. (Expand these to groups if you like; that is after all where I began.)
Of course, the poverty of your argument is worse than that; you speak a falsehood. By saying that it is not wrong to divest yourself of the means to defend others, you are stating you have no moral obligation to do so. Without the means you will not, just as without the obligation you will not. Same actions, same outcomes.
I'm arguing for nothing except the idea that one person can be blamed for the actions of another person, which is exactly what you've arguing for.
And I have demonstrated that this argument is internally inconsistent either on the failure of or the poverty of your stated altruism. Either actually address that or move on.
At no point have I argued anything about what "works" in the real world, only about who is to blame for a person's actions.
I did not make this argument in the post you were replying to. Why is it being discussed now?
Never said you should. But if you think my view is internally inconsistent, it tells me that you probably don't understand what my view is.
Nothing of the sort actually follows. You are selecting one of two possibilities out of hand; the one you are biased towards, no less. Either I don't understand your view, or you haven't subjected it to sufficient analysis.
-
At no point have I argued anything about what "works" in the real world, only about who is to blame for a person's actions.
I did not make this argument in the post you were replying to. Why is it being discussed now?
Well, because your point seemed to be more about how my view is not workable than how it's inconsistent. Not the case with the rest of this latest post of yours, though.
You asked for inconsistencies in your argument. I gave you inconsistencies. You have done nothing to actually address them as they were presented. Did you not want them now? What were you actually asking for?
Frankly? I didn't see how they were supposed to be inconsistencies. Now that I think I see what your point really is:
My view on that doesn't require me to dismiss anything except the idea that if I don't defend A from B then I'm to blame for B attacking A. And quite obviously rejecting that idea doesn't mean that I think that defending A from B would be wrong or even that there isn't a moral obligation to do so.
Straw man. Actual argument: B is injured directly and indirectly by attempting to help C, who was attacked by A. B's ability to negotiate with A is damaged by the fact C cannot back them up. B's ability to protect themselves from A is similarly injured. A's relative ability to injure anyone is increased; he has been given more power. (That, incidentally, is the most troublesome part.) This is an important distinction. We are discussing a minimum of three parties, one of whom is actively opposed to the starting action because they can forsee negative consequences for them, one of whom takes the starting action over those objections, and one of whom exploits the starting action. (Expand these to groups if you like; that is after all where I began.)
Okay. I'm not sure what I can really say to that except that yes, attempting to help C injures B, but that's not C's fault, even though B has a moral obligation to help C, and similarly C has an obligation to help B. However, what injuries C and B sustain are caused by A and A's attack is the source of the whole problem to begin with: if A never attacks, no one is injured, B doesn't need to help C and everyone lives happily ever after. Continued below...
Of course, the poverty of your argument is worse than that; you speak a falsehood. By saying that it is not wrong to divest yourself of the means to defend others, you are stating you have no moral obligation to do so. Without the means you will not, just as without the obligation you will not. Same actions, same outcomes.
As I said before, if A was a force of nature or a machine or something, then sure, C would have a moral obligation to defend themselves and B from A's predictable behaviour. But as long as we consider A to be a moral agent just like we consider C to be, C can never be absolutely certain that A will attack; if C was certain (or really believed so) that A will attack, then C would consider A not to be a moral agent. C's choice to divest themselves of the means to defend themselves or others from A does not harm anyone; A's attack does. Similarly, B's lowered ability to defend themselves or others and their lowered ability to negotiate with A likewise do not harm anyone; A's attack does. Whatever concrete bad things may eventually happen, they are caused directly by A, and A carries all the blame for them.
I'm arguing for nothing except the idea that one person can be blamed for the actions of another person, which is exactly what you've arguing for.
And I have demonstrated that this argument is internally inconsistent either on the failure of or the poverty of your stated altruism. Either actually address that or move on.
Never said you should. But if you think my view is internally inconsistent, it tells me that you probably don't understand what my view is.
Nothing of the sort actually follows. You are selecting one of two possibilities out of hand; the one you are biased towards, no less. Either I don't understand your view, or you haven't subjected it to sufficient analysis.
So, if I understand you right, your argument of why my view is inconsistent goes more or less like this: dropping my own means of defending myself and others from a bad guy does do harm in the form of lowering the ability of others to defend themselves and me from the bad guy, which is harmful because without it the concrete harm (for example, physical pain) inflicted by the bad guy's attack would be smaller. Therefore, my view is inconsistent because it claims that dropping my means of defending others from a bad guy is not wrong even if it leads to more concrete harm in the abovementioned way.
Right?
Before I start typing an answer to that, I'd like to hear if that's a portrayal you'd agree with.
-
Thought experiment:
Picture 5 people in a room, each with 4 buttons (one to shock each of the other 4 people). Suppose that to get the electrodes out of you, you have to step away from the buttons, but that you are still subject to being shocked for a while after stepping away from the buttons.
There is no reason for anybody to start pushing buttons. Even if they started pushing buttons, there is no reason they couldn't agree to stop pushing the buttons.
So I'd participate.
I'd agree to this operation of giving up our buttons to get the cable pulled out.
I'd wait until everyone steps away from their console and declare that I will not give mine up.
I'd also tell everyone that if a single person tries to reach his/her console or attempts to pull out their cable, everyone will be shocked.
If whoever is running this experiment asks if they want to finish the experiment, everyone will be shocked until they decide to continue the experiment at the stage that I have both my cable and buttons, and they have only their cables.
I will then be the owner of 4 people, who I could give great pain if they disobey, and who can't touch me.
Now go to the global scale with this.
I hope you now understand why it is better that we all have the buttons. If one of us starts doing the crazy things I just wrote I'd do, the rest is able to do something about it.
-
Let me restate things:
http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/la-et-onthemedia-20110903,0,435906.column
Are you sure the public doesn't have a right to know? Obviously there are means of transparency preferable to the kind Wikileaks is providing. But if it's the only means of getting certain things that need to get out out, then maybe it's worth it. Security is a real concern. It is also a very nebulous term that is used more often as a cover up than as a legitimate justification of secrecy. So to claim that secrecy, even in foreign policy, must by default trump transparency is, well, still a very anti-democratic position, both in principle and in reality.
Did Daniel Ellsberg do wrong in leaking the Pentagon Papers? Did the public have a right to know that the incident behind the Gulf of Tonkin resolution was fraudulently reported by the government, amongst many other revelations? Or did it hurt the American people (not the state, the freaking population) by revealing classified information more than it helped them by giving them critical information they had not previously possessed? Just be sure you aren't using "realistic thinking" as an excuse to place the interests of the state above its citizenry. And yes I used Vietnam as an example like what the good little liberal arts student you apparently think I am would use. It's just the circumstances make it the most analogous example to today.
-
Suppose some American diplomatic stuff is leaked and it leads to a international scandal. It harms the foreign policy aims of the US government, which may or may not be a good thing.
But, buuuuut, as a side effect, suppose it also leads to a public reaction in favor of greater transparency and honesty. Not just in America, but internationally. Put in widely reported transparency reforms and peoples of other nations will ask their government why they don't enjoy the same access. Result: net positive to the human race.
You are displaying the same confusion as UT.
Transparency in government is not the same thing as transparency in governance of foreign policy.
Exposing your foreign policy means, rather than the normal message of objectives, is a quick and easy way to get yourself royally screwed. NGTM and I have furnished ample examples of this throughout the discussion. If you want to take the position that all of this should be transparent, you'd best back up and start addressing the very real and harsh historical lessons that both of us have highlighted. Else, you're just posting idealistic fluff.
EDIT: And to counter one of your earlier statements - I'm not American. The fact that these are US cables is utterly irrelevant to me. What is relevant is that NATO is generally comprised of fairly reasonable, democratic, and more-or-less secular nations concerned with their own security. Contrast this with countries like Iran, Pakistan, and North Korea, all of which are ideologically-motivated, non-democratic (I realize someone may take exception to Pakistan being lumped in there, to which I say go read about the ISI), and totalitarian... and happily willing and able to destroy those who disagree with them for no reason other than they disagree. So, I take exception to a release of ANY information that compromises HUMINT sources used by NATO because it has a direct effect on the security and well-being of myself, my family, my country, and virtually all of YOU.
Unlike you, Aardwolf, and UT, I have living memory of the Cold War (as you'll find do several other people arguing similarly to me) and a healthy knowledge of 20th century history. Thinking that transparency and openness is the answer to the world's diplomatic problems is a commendable position, but it just isn't grounded in reality, and neither is the idealistic belief that you can make international politics change virtually overnight by setting a precedent. Transparency in intelligence and diplomacy would be a disaster that would destroy the ability of NATO countries to defend themselves both externally, and from internal extremist activities, because the nations we are defending ourselves from have absolutely no qualms about using information as a means of conducting war. If we stopped, the nations I've named (and dozens of others) would say thankyouverymuch and carry on stronger than ever.
EDIT2: I should also say I recognize the position you fellows are taking as one fairly common to young university students, often those taking liberal arts courses. I explored similar ideas at much the same time. I also explored a great deal of history [as options], particularly 20th century history, which tends to take all those wonderful sociological and social psychological theories and grind them into dust crushed under jackboots and tank treads. For every Enlightenment/liberal ideal for the evolution of society, there is a conflict that demonstrates it just doesn't work in practice unless its tempered under the forge of realistic thinking. That, I think, is the bit of information that all three of you are missing in this thread.
I've read quite a bit of history too, believe it or not. Twentieth century is not my area of expertise, but I'm quite certain my knowledge and understanding of it would exceed your low opinion of what I possess. One recurring theme I've picked out is this: it is indeed extraordinarily difficult to create and maintain a society that supports basic human rights and liberties. We're taught in school to revere the Athenians as inventors of democracy. A third of the population during the Athenian Golden Age was enslaved. The US constitution, in its original form, was very explicitly stated by James Madison to be a document meant to "protect the minority of the opulent against the majority". What we call basic human rights are actually a very recent invention. While there are sentiments towards them earlier in things like the Gospels, they weren't really explicitly stated and expounded with any real success until the beginning of the Enlightenment, and then they weren't pushed into action in a meaningful way until the mid-19th century. Those couple of centuries within a small number of nations is the exception to the usual rules of human civilization, which are violence, brutality, unchecked authoritarianism, and oppression. I've no doubt that there isn't much keeping us from slipping right back into the dark ages before the Enlightenment. So these basic rights - the right to live, vote, participate and associate, to free speech, social and economic opportunity, to be able to be a well-educated, informed citizen - need to be guarded. Zealously. Both from external threats (your lovely trio) and internal ones. External threats will come and they will go if you survive them. But the internal tendencies toward authoritarianism are a constant, always there, lurking in the shadows, ready to take possession if you ever let your guard down. While it is undoubtedly necessary for a state to conduct a lot of foreign policy under wraps, the temptation to use that cover to commit crimes can be overwhelming. And if you beat into the citizenry that you have the right to decide what they do or don't need to know, then there's really nothing stopping you from taking a wrecking ball to rights which were won through centuries of patient struggle. While committing crimes abroad.
As I said earlier, when someone claims you can't know something because of security reasons, the chances are quite high that they are lying to you. Let's be realistic about that as well as about everything else. Wikileaks' actions may well have been brazenly irresponsible here. My question to you is, do you prefer the status quo? The Cold War was used to justify a lot of things, some of them justifiable, some of them unjustifiable, some of them ugly. If the government isn't going to act in an honest manner with its citizens, are we forbidden to explore other options of obtaining information? Are to just sit there and accept it? I seem to recall a period before the Cold War when that sort of thing was all the rage (not that it stopped afterword). I don't think I need to tell you about it.
And by the way, principles, ideas, and beliefs - even lofty ideals - do matter in the real world. You can hide behind calls to "realistic" thinking, but sometime you're going to have to deal with what policies that thinking may lead you to. And it might not be to a pretty place.
I admit now I may have gone too far in whether Wikileaks had a universal right to do what it did, but your position seems to be predicated on the belief that taking further steps towards safeguards that prevent countries from engaging in policies abroad without their populations' knowledge or consent just aren't very important in comparison with making sure an intelligence leak will never, ever occur. Well, it's important. It's really really important. My position is not as shallow as you believe it to be.
-
Actually let me ask a question. Is there any punishment under American law for classifying something for the sole purpose of covering up a crime? i.e if there is no actual threat to the country involved but the matter is secret simply to avoid someone having to face the consequences of their actions?
-
Actually let me ask a question. Is there any punishment under American law for classifying something for the sole purpose of covering up a crime? i.e if there is no actual threat to the country involved but the matter is secret simply to avoid someone having to face the consequences of their actions?
It might, or might not, fall under obstruction. It would certainly provoke a stay in jail under judicial contempt.
In general, though, simply classifying something to hide things is not practical; it is already codified in law what information can and cannot be considered classified. Doing so outside the bounds of the law probably is a crime, but even if it isn't it would simply be stripped away at the first glance of judicial review and you'd lose your job.
-
I admit now I may have gone too far in whether Wikileaks had a universal right to do what it did, but your position seems to be predicated on the belief that taking further steps towards safeguards that prevent countries from engaging in policies abroad without their populations' knowledge or consent just aren't very important in comparison with making sure an intelligence leak will never, ever occur. Well, it's important. It's really really important. My position is not as shallow as you believe it to be.
And that is good to hear.
The point is not that all government secrecy is legitimate, preferable, and sensitive; by and large that is not the case. And I agree with you that checks and balances are essential to keep government in check, and leaks play an important part in revealing the sort of explosive information that Access to Information Requests never touch.
That said, there are two areas where governments need to remain accountable to their citizenry, but at the same time preserve secrets from the parties they are involved with: one is diplomacy, and one is intelligence.
The trouble with Wikileaks is not the release of diplomatic cables - most of them are embarrassing, yes, but of no real intrinsic value as intelligence products. The trouble with Wikileaks is they are unwilling and unable to draw a line between the embarrassing but fairly harmless cables, and the cables that compromise the ability of the diplomatic and intelligence communities to effectively do their jobs.
The public - of any nation - does not have a right to the names and nationalities of the people who risk their lives to supply information to NATO countries that help keep them safe. Nor does the political establishment. The only people with the right to know that information are the handlers involved. That's it. Similarly, the public does not have a right to know the exact situational status through the diplomatic branch of a potentially hostile country they operate in, and their opinions of it. That compromises the ability of diplomats to speak candidly to their superiors, for fear that information will be directly released to the press. Diplomacy is a poker game - showing your opponent your cards before you play them is a guarantee for loss.
There is a reason that diplomatic and intelligence files often have specified release periods years after they're generated. Those periods could probably be shortened - but doing what Wikileaks has done (and by extension, the Guardian) and releasing all of it unredacted is not the solution; it's a way to make moderate governments bury those records so deep they will never see the light of day for fear of releasing small pieces of information that jeopardize the lives of their informants and their citizenry.
There is a fine line between releasing information for accountability and releasing information for information's (and let's not forget, money and prestige's) sake. Wikileaks has crossed it spectacularly.
-
Actually let me ask a question. Is there any punishment under American law for classifying something for the sole purpose of covering up a crime? i.e if there is no actual threat to the country involved but the matter is secret simply to avoid someone having to face the consequences of their actions?
It might, or might not, fall under obstruction. It would certainly provoke a stay in jail under judicial contempt.
In general, though, simply classifying something to hide things is not practical; it is already codified in law what information can and cannot be considered classified. Doing so outside the bounds of the law probably is a crime, but even if it isn't it would simply be stripped away at the first glance of judicial review and you'd lose your job.
And to chime in as someone who works periodically with various classifications of information, the classification system is a royal pain in the ass. There is every incentive not to do it because of that.
-
May I ask what your opinion was of the first big cable release that started the ****storm? The same?
-
May I ask what your opinion was of the first big cable release that started the ****storm? The same?
My opinion of Wikileaks is probably best summed up by this sentence from my previous post:
The trouble with Wikileaks is they are unwilling and unable to draw a line between the embarrassing but fairly harmless cables, and the cables that compromise the ability of the diplomatic and intelligence communities to effectively do their jobs.
I think leaks and whistleblowing are important, but the mass dumps that Wikileaks is capable of (courtesy of some ill-conceived releases by whistleblowers) are more harmful than beneficial because of the pieces that can slip through screening.
Prior to these unprecedented releases, most leaks or whistleblowing dealt with one or two single major incidents, in which case either the person doing the leaking or the media outlets reporting it did some vetting and redaction to protect the irrelevant [to the public at large] but sensitive [protecting lives or methods] details. Mass releases make that difficult, if not impossible to do accurately.
-
don't blame wikileaks for this one the Guardian is the one who caused this. I've said this three times now, everyone is ignoring me, is there some sort of filter active?
-
don't blame wikileaks for this one the Guardian is the one who caused this. I've said this three times now, everyone is ignoring me, is there some sort of filter active?
No, your information just isn't entirely correct: http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2011/09/unredacted_us_d.html
Wikileaks ****ed up as badly as the Guardian, AND then went around and released everything in a much more obvious and easily accessible download when they published it.
So yeah, I'm going to blame Wikileaks for this. The Guardian deserves a slap too, but ultimate responsibility for the full release lies with Wikileaks.
-
eh, what about this do I have wrong? wikileaks posted an encrypted file, they gave the Guardian the key, the Guardian printed it for the world to see, so now all the bad people who want it have it, so wikileaks just lets it loose because the damage was done.
Guardian's fault.
-
wikileaks posted an encrypted file,
I'm pretty sure this makes it wikileaks's fault.
-
I'm pretty sure it doesn't, without the key it's useless.
-
I mean it's like having a huge massive vault that a bank puts your stuff in, and they give you a key. you basically but a copy of the key in the mail boxes of millions of people with a nice monogrammed message attached to it explaining to them what it is for. and then turn around and blame the bank for having the vault to begin with when someone steals all of your stuff.
-
Did you read the part about how Wikileaks apparently posted the same file twice, with the same encryption key, to different places? How about the part where, having discovered that a few people knew where to get the file with that key and the key itself, they decided to release it so anyone could view it without decryption?
The first part is terrible security. The second is media-whoring. Both are inexcusable when you're dealing with that kind of information.
EDIT: If you read further down on that page (or maybe Spiegel) you'll note that The Guardian was under the impression that the encryption key they received was only for their file, an impression given to them by Assange by all appearances.
-
the file was on bit torrent.
"a few people" yeah right.
-
You ignored the point about the Guardian believing that they were the only ones with an archive that matched that key.
-
and that excuses them? it's never a good idea to make that stuff publicly available. for this exact reason.
-
It does mean that Wikileaks bears at least as much responsibility for claiming that there was only one file that matched that key when in fact there were many.
-
Is there any way in hell some of the good stuff wikileaks released would have ever seen the light of day otherwise? Like Pfizer trying to dig up dirt on a Nigerian prosecutor going after them for killing a few children during drug trials?
Honestly, I think my biggest point here is that while the price to pay might be very high Wikileaks can put out stuff noone else can. Legitimate stuff. Stuff the public needs to know about.
-
yeah, but they also clearly have a particular hardon for US secretes.
-
I suppose the question arises of 'If the Guardian had already released it, why did Wikileaks bother doing so?'.
Unfortunately, it seems, to me, to boil more down to a 'battle of the readers' than anything else. Wikileaks didn't want the Guardian to get all the publicity for doing something pretty dangerous and so decided it was ok to do exactly the same thing. They could have taken the high ground and attacked the Guardian for releasing them all unredacted, it might actually have earned them more respect as a source of information. Instead it become more about sensationalism and grabbing the viewers.
It's kind of a pity, even if it's not very surprising, that this whole thing has boiled down to attention value.
The strange part is that I'm not, in theory, against the idea of something like Wikileaks, when governments, any Governments behave in an underhand manner then they need to be exposed, but the whole thing stopped being 'for the greater good' some considerable time ago in my opinion.
-
there is also the dimension of wikileaks supposed to be about releasing information so if the damage had been done there was no reason for them not to, and their whole purpose for existing is to release as much stuff as possible.
and there is the other dimension of the bad guys now have the info, so the good guys should as well. i.e. if Razule in islamastan said something that got put in these cabals and the government is going to come after him now, it would be nice if there was some possible way for him to know and get moving before that happened.
-
As soon as Assange realised how much power WL started to have and information like the Afghan War Diaries started rolling in the organization appeared to move further and further away from being for the 'greater good'.
WL exists, or at least, existed primarily as a whistle-blowing organization where sources could retain anonymity and safely blow the whistle on whatever illegal/inhumane activity was occurring. Looking at what's been discussed regarding this latest batch of cables I'm fairly firm in my opinion now that WL have lost the plot. This isn't whistle-blowing as much as it's global ****stirring.
-
Indeed, it seems like Assange got a lot of attention and influence and then started to use it to take out his own personal feelings. I've seen it happen before. It really comes from a lack of accountability (mostly to oneself) and a lack of maturity, IMO.
-
Nobody has any business spying on anybody, and the less people able to get away with it the better.
Now there's a spectacularly naive and uninformed opinion. That might work on a planet where everyone gets along and there are enough resources, food, and absolutely no conflicts, but here on Earth where most of us reside, intelligence-gathering contributes to the safety of nations, and candid diplomacy prevents large-scale conflicts. Without both of those things, "Western" civilization would not exist.
But thanks for demonstrating my point about the apparent uselessness of history education.
My opinion may be shared by naive or uninformed people, but I am neither naive nor uninformed. Rather, I am sick of pessimistic attitudes (like your own) getting in the way of actually solving the world's problems.
You say we can't afford to stop spying because other people haven't stopped spying on us. They tell themselves the same thing. How bout we man up and set a ****ing precedent?
There's an old saying, nations don't survive by setting an example for others, but by making an example of others. The only real international law that truly has real authority is the law of the jungle--any other rules or principles can be ignored by those with the will, power, and/or influence to do so if they wish. It is never in the best interest of a sovereign nation to make itself more vulnerable to its enemies.
That said, this is as much as a disaster for Wikileaks and the internet at large as for the United States or its agents and intel sources. The US is going to react and it won't be pretty.
-
Indeed, it seems like Assange got a lot of attention and influence and then started to use it to take out his own personal feelings. I've seen it happen before. It really comes from a lack of accountability (mostly to oneself) and a lack of maturity, IMO.
Indeed. Have you read Inside Wikileaks? I suspect after that after reading that Assange is more of a 'Power corrupts' case than a child put into a position of power.