[Nuclear1]

how do we define 'good' and 'bad' in this situation?

Transparency in diplomacy is a tough issue.  There are some things that we should know about when it comes to what our State Department or diplomats are doing (collecting credit card information, the US supporting the PKK)...stuff that we should know are being done in our name.

But there ARE times when diplomacy needs to be conducted in secrecy...it allows for two countries to save face in the eyes of their citizens and the international community, but secretly settle differences between each other.  Cuban Missile Crisis is a prime example of that.

All in all, I don't think the Wikileaks dump is going to help or hurt relations in general.  It mostly confirmed a lot of what we'd already suspected (Arabs hate Iran? I'M SHOCKED), and exposed some bad things the State Department's done. 

[Flipside]

how do we define 'good' and 'bad' in this situation?

Transparency in diplomacy is a tough issue.  There are some things that we should know about when it comes to what our State Department or diplomats are doing (collecting credit card information, the US supporting the PKK)...stuff that we should know are being done in our name.

But there ARE times when diplomacy needs to be conducted in secrecy...it allows for two countries to save face in the eyes of their citizens and the international community, but secretly settle differences between each other.  Cuban Missile Crisis is a prime example of that.

All in all, I don't think the Wikileaks dump is going to help or hurt relations in general.  It mostly confirmed a lot of what we'd already suspected (Arabs hate Iran? I'M SHOCKED), and exposed some bad things the State Department's done. 

Agreed. Thing is, when Wikileaks released the details of casualties in Iraq, I believed we did have a right to know the cost of the war which was funded by our taxes, if we are going to be hated or distrusted by a fair percentage of the planet, we at least have a right to know why, but on the other side of the coin, I also felt that releasing details of intelligence we had gathered on the enemy was another matter entirely, since it put peoples lives in danger in some cases.

[SypheDMar]

Well, at least we have China's stance on North Korea.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/11/29/wikileaks.new.documents/index.html?hpt=T2

[Flipside]

What does make me laugh is stuff like this:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11870581

Prince Andrew was rude. Next week, Prince Phillip 'Can be a bit racist'.....

[Nuclear1]

I also felt that releasing details of intelligence we had gathered on the enemy was another matter entirely, since it put peoples lives in danger in some cases.

That was my main criticism of the releases too...we don't really need to know who's informing on who, and it DOES put people's lives at risk.  And it makes it more difficult to collect intel in the future when no one wants to come forward.

Well, at least we have China's stance on North Korea.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/11/29/wikileaks.new.documents/index.html?hpt=T2

Not too surprised...China's just tired of having to stand up for NK and tell the world "it's cool, we've got this".

[SypheDMar]

Yeah, it ain't a surprise. Too bad we're still not sure whether we can bomb 'em without intervention or not.

[Mongoose]

Man, apparently Kimmy can't even afford a decent suit.

[Rodo]

I was expecting a more.... passioned reaction from this.
Guess EU people don't really care about how bad this kind of actions make your country look....to outsiders of course, just like me.

[Flipside]

Actually, most of the releases are statements by US Ambassadors. The EU has been casting derogatory comments at each other since before the 100 year war, it's pretty much water off a ducks back. We used to refer to the Spanish as being barely more civilised than monkeys, we still make jokes about underarm hair and onions with regard to the French, and don't even ask about the average Scottish or Irish opinion of England.

If we took those kinds of statements personally, or allowed ourselves to believe it's anything more than jibing in ignorance of the culture or, in most cases, reality, we'd never get anything done.

Edit: Consider how many Americans look at Florida as being full of ageing nut-cases, or Kansas as being full of 'rednecks', it's amusing, it gives a sense of superiority, but it really doesn't get taken seriously when the chips are down.

[Nuclear1]

Edit: Consider how many Americans look at Florida as being full of ageing nut-cases, or Kansas as being full of 'rednecks', it's amusing, it gives a sense of superiority, but it really doesn't get taken seriously when the chips are down.

Florida looks at Florida as being full of aging nut-cases.

EDIT:  Apparently, Assange's going after the banks next...
http://blogs.forbes.com/andygreenberg/2010/11/29/exclusive-wikileaks-will-unveil-major-bank-scandal/

[Flipside]

Interesting, that's more the sort of thing I always felt Wikileaks was created for, 'legal and illegal' is kind of a fuzzy area when politics are involved, but evidence of corruption or illegal activities in banks could be far more effective.

[headdie]

semi

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-11929034

looks like the Swiss banks are getting worried about him, a little behind the scenes political pressure perhaps

[TopAce]

This WikiLeaks issue is very sad, and it couldn't have come at a worse time.

It is sad that a certain group of individuals, under the banner of freedom of speech, threaten the foreign affairs of multiple countries and grow international tension. It is short-sighted, irresponsible and self-centered. When the idea of free speech was first put on paper during the Enlightenment, no one could have thought of anything nearly as powerful as the Internet. This is a clear abuse of any interpretation of the phrase freedom of speech. The concept, in its strict sense, is idealogical; you can't have complete freedom to say what you want. You can get people together for a beer and talk about working conditions. You can demonstrate against a tax raise. But you can't incite tensions against <insert social/ethnic/religious minority group name here>. It's hate speech, which is rightly forbidden. You can't use it to threaten alliances that have been so far taken for granted. If it's about revealing some behind-the-scenes conversations from <insert group/individual name here> about <insert domestic issue here>, that's what freedom of speech is for: To inform the population of their government's wrongdoing. But if a future nuclear war, and by association, the lives of billions of people, are put at stake, one must put aside abstract concepts such as "freedom of <anything>," and look at it from a different angle. It's not about philosophy anymore.

[Flipside]

quisnam vigilo qui vigilo custodis?

Who watches those who watch the Watchmen?

[General Battuta]

In general I'll concede Wikileaks' actions have been harmful.

But I wonder, philosophically, if the blind ideal behind it is valuable...this notion of an utterly transparent society. What would happen? Could we handle it?

[Flipside]

I think it depends on the approach.

Currently we are dealing with a system that didn't expect to be transparent and therefore acted in a manner that mirrored that, but a society that was aware that transparency was required? That might be interesting, it would certainly have an impact on International relations if everyone had to expect to be held accountable for their opinions.

[The E]

Which I think is the real goal behind wikileaks. Create a world where governments, through forced disclosure of their dirty laundry, can be held accountable by the public. It's a measure of control that democracy really, really needs to be worthy of the name democracy.

Now, personally, I find nothing wrong with wikileaks and its conduct. It's just an application of the old-school hacker ethos and I applaud that.

[General Battuta]

I just finished going over a data review that explains that democracy, at least in America, is basically a system by which elites cue the uninformed public to agree with them.

I can see a little more transparency being a good thing.

[Bobboau]

I just wish they'd dump a little more docs on other countries.

[Ghostavo]

I still can't understand all the uproar about wikileaks.

Their entire purpose is to leak documents. Are we supposed to be shocked when they actually do it?