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.
