Article.
So the Private First Class who leaked all the classified documents to Wikileaks might be facing the death penalty. Should he?
Keep in mind all the consequences for his actions, and remember that people have disappeared, and possibly are now dead (I don't know if they've officially linked any deaths to this yet or not), because of what he did.
I mean, this guy could eventually have killed more innocents than most serial killers. Obviously, I'm sure he didn't mean to, but he didn't think through what his actions would reap.
And for what? What did he reveal exactly? No "smoking gun" of corruption, oppression, or any conspiracy. Instead it was just the day to day embarrassing details of international diplomacy. Who cares? Why does the public need to know this shit? They don't. There in lies the flaw with Wikileaks. Everybody doesn't need to know everything, and quite honestly, wouldn't understand everything anyway. Does a potato farmer in Idaho really need to know what Hillary thinks of the ambassador from Sweden? Does Wikileaks really think that farmer gives a fuck or that he should?
Honestly, he might be far more valuable alive in 20 years than dead now. Some news organization can interview him in 20 years and show him a list of people who died or disappeared as a direct result of his actions, and ask him if it was worth it.
Should he die for what he did?
Do I want to discourage people from dispersing info in the future? No. Info pretty much always has some value somewhere and I like free info. At times, it serves a useful purpose. While I like free info in virtually all circumstances, I'm not going out of my way to turn over many rocks myself. In particular, it's generally best to leave alone rocks claimed by organizations that attach killing me to publicizing their info.
He knew precisely what might happen if he leaked the docs. Whether or not he thought about that thoroughly is now moot. He got caught, and unless he escapes, he's subject to the rules of the dudes holding him.
Would I personally render a punishment of death for someone who's only real crime is reporting factual events? Outside some extreme situations, probably not.
He knew precisely what might happen if he leaked the docs. Whether or not he thought about that thoroughly is now moot. He got caught, and unless he escapes, he's subject to the rules of the dudes holding him.
Would I personally render a punishment of death for someone who's only real crime is reporting factual events? Outside some extreme situations, probably not.
Diogenes of Sinope: "It is not that I am mad, it is only that my head is different from yours."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC: "Better dead than smeg."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC: "Better dead than smeg."
I commend him for has actions, because we need a hell of a lot more transparency in our government. You can have effective democracy or you can have secrets, but you can't have both. If nothing else the way that this whole Wikileaks thing has been reacted to by the government and various corporations has been very informative and demonstrated some of the shit they tend to get up to.
However I am not nor ever have been a member of the armed forces, and I can fully understand why it would be necessary to condemn him instead. But if he gets the death penalty I will consider him an early martyr in what may become the first Information Warfare Revolution.
However I am not nor ever have been a member of the armed forces, and I can fully understand why it would be necessary to condemn him instead. But if he gets the death penalty I will consider him an early martyr in what may become the first Information Warfare Revolution.
"ATTENTION: Customers browsing porn must hold magazines with both hands at all times!"
I commend him for has actions
Congratulating someone for screwing the U.S.' diplomacy efforts, causing the disappearance and possible deaths of foreigners working for us, and for what again? For a news story that lasted a week and revealed nothing but what was essentially name calling? What he revealed was about as big a scandal as when someone leaked the riders for celebrity appearances.
And what were his motives? Was this about "transparent government" or a sad attempt at fame or revenge of some sort? Shouldn't you withhold your hand shake until you know for sure?
On top of all that, as Gordon pointed out, he broke an oath and the law. I know there are people here, including myself, who have issues with a lot of laws out there, but shouldn't a man's word be something? Because if it's not, what makes that person better to determine anything over people keeping secrets? Isn't he also keeping secrets?
You can have effective democracy or you can have secrets, but you can't have both.
I could not disagree more, at least in what you're applying that logic to... Simply put: the average person doesn't need to know everything about the government's foreign policy. The moves made by the government SHOULD become transparent, but not until the information can no longer do this country harm.
The mistake I think you've made here is that this guy didn't leak documents about U.S. corporations and their behind the scenes deals. He didn't leak secret government policies on how to control the populace. He leaked foreign policy tidbits. What he did isn't about democracy unless every country we deal with is also a democracy. Hint: They aren't.
World politics isn't a level playing field and democracy is simply one way of doing things in a sea of different ways of doing things. If we were truly transparent to our people when it comes to foreign policy, we'd be behind the 8 ball in everything.
For example, this could be Obama's next big speech:
To the despot in Libya, surrender power now or the U.S. will use our military to aid the people of Libya is gaining their freedom.
Nice right? Of course, that morning's newspapers would ruin it by running headlines like "Don't tell, but tonight's speech is a bluff!" You know, all in the name of transparency.
And you can't argue that in cases like that, it's obvious some secrets would need to be kept for a short time because you'd already be contradicting your own argument, as the government would be keeping secrets again.
And sorry, but you know what? The average U.S. citizen doesn't need to have access to any given military base. Sorry, but they don't. Even Gene Roddenberry took that concept into his utopian Federation.
A government must keep some secrets, ask Orson Wells.
I DO AGREE, however, that the secrets it keeps should be only for situations like the ones I'm talking about. They shouldn't be keeping most domestic business a secret.
I have very rarely ever seen a human policy that works when applied across the board. Keeping or not keeping secrets both fail as well.
If nothing else the way that this whole Wikileaks thing has been reacted to by the government and various corporations has been very informative and demonstrated some of the shit they tend to get up to.
Yes and no.
I'll leave the government out of this since I pretty much summed them up earlier, so let's focus on business.
If businesses are breaking the law, then yes, expose their secrets...but not ALL of their secrets. That is unfair. If a mosquito bites you while you're walking in a forest, the logical response isn't to nuke the area from orbit. That happened recently to a corporation because their president was an idiot who shot his mouth off. The people who "punished him" didn't stop at him, but exposed secrets of his company and its employees. Is that fair? Should John Q. Public pay for his employer's big mouth?
I mean, you do see what's going to happen right? These attacks and these leaks aren't going to "cure" anything. Granted, they're going to put the fear of God into people, but nothing good is going to come from that.
You don't force and bully people into transparency and free information. If you do that you scare them into properly securing their secrets (KFC's recipe isn't on any internet enabled computers...) or taking them offline. Soon they start forcing such policies upon their people. Some companies already ban their employees from internet access, how long before that's the standard? How long before new IT/HR positions are created where the employee reads emails before they're authorized to leave the company's email servers?
Wow, I'm ranting, sorry. Let me sum up by saying again that I get where you're coming from, and I too want transparent government, but I do believe it can't be everything.
As for making this guy a martyr, just remember, that's the same type of logic used when talking suicide bombers into killing innocents.
I'm just sayin'...
“Every record been destroyed or falsified, books rewritten, pictures repainted, statues, street building renamed, every date altered. The process is continuing day by day. History stops. Nothing exists except endless present in which the Party is right.”
Well, admittedly I'm using a bit of hyperbole. Of course there is a proper middle ground. The ideal would probably be something along the lines of the government being able to keep secrets for the short term so they can get something done that requires secrecy, but with the caveat that there's a maximum time (say five or ten years, or maybe different lengths of time for different types of information) that secrets are allowed to be kept. After that point that information is automatically published somewhere for people that care enough to dig through and bring to light anything that We The People need to know about.
As to what he leaked, considering that less than 10% of it has been revealed so far it's too soon to say he only leaked diplomatic gossip. There's been indications from the Wikileaks people that they have some big information on various corporations that they aren't in a position to publish just yet but will eventually. That could be a bluff, of course, but they haven't done any lying yet so I'm inclined to believe them for now. Plus the apparent overreactions from the government and those various corporations would tend to confirm that there is something they would rather desperately not have publicized.
Presupposing for a moment, just for the sake of argument, that this guy had found extensive evidence of some evil stuff that would shake the pillars of the world, should he still keep that oath? Or if it was bad enough then wouldn't revealing it be a better way to keep his oath? After all his oath is not to his superiors or even to the military, but to the Constitution. Perhaps he did indeed keep his oath by taking the actions he did. We won't know until all the information is released.
Edited By TPRJones on 1299346633
As to what he leaked, considering that less than 10% of it has been revealed so far it's too soon to say he only leaked diplomatic gossip. There's been indications from the Wikileaks people that they have some big information on various corporations that they aren't in a position to publish just yet but will eventually. That could be a bluff, of course, but they haven't done any lying yet so I'm inclined to believe them for now. Plus the apparent overreactions from the government and those various corporations would tend to confirm that there is something they would rather desperately not have publicized.
Presupposing for a moment, just for the sake of argument, that this guy had found extensive evidence of some evil stuff that would shake the pillars of the world, should he still keep that oath? Or if it was bad enough then wouldn't revealing it be a better way to keep his oath? After all his oath is not to his superiors or even to the military, but to the Constitution. Perhaps he did indeed keep his oath by taking the actions he did. We won't know until all the information is released.
Edited By TPRJones on 1299346633
"ATTENTION: Customers browsing porn must hold magazines with both hands at all times!"
Malcolm wrote:A government must keep some secrets...
Fine. But I don't trust the particular assholes we call our gov't right now.
And that's exactly the problem. People suck. People that seek power suck even more. The only defense against a democracy becoming a tyranny of the elite is extensive transparency.
Misuse of government power comes down to control. Back before the industrial revolution is was about controlling the food supply. Then it became about controlling the means of production. Now in the information age, it has become about controlling information. And it's well-nigh inevitable that this is a fight the government will eventually lose.
Edited By TPRJones on 1299346962
"ATTENTION: Customers browsing porn must hold magazines with both hands at all times!"
-
DoctorChaos
- Posts: 1579
- Joined: Fri Oct 08, 2004 7:58 pm
Well, admittedly I'm using a bit of hyperbole. Of course there is a proper middle ground. The ideal would probably be something along the lines of the government being able to keep secrets for the short term so they can get something done that requires secrecy, but with the caveat that there's a maximum time (say five or ten years, or maybe different lengths of time for different types of information) that secrets are allowed to be kept. After that point that information is automatically published somewhere for people that care enough to dig through and bring to light anything that We The People need to know about.
Exactly, but the time limit is the problem. There are going to be secrets that simply cannot come out during a lifetime, maybe more. And your example create its own problem of "who decides when a secret can come out?".
I would say that specific rules would need to be setup to ensure that secrets that could put people in danger or jeopardize U.S. relations with other countries are kept secret while others get released. Additionally, why not have a separate entity sort of like internal affairs be the government's watchdog? They can be the ones in charge of secrets and corruption investigations.
As to what he leaked, considering that less than 10% of it has been revealed so far it's too soon to say he only leaked diplomatic gossip. There's been indications from the Wikileaks people that they have some big information on various corporations that they aren't in a position to publish just yet but will eventually. That could be a bluff, of course, but they haven't done any lying yet so I'm inclined to believe them for now. Plus the apparent overreactions from the government and those various corporations would tend to confirm that there is something they would rather desperately not have publicized.
So I would ask the Wikileaks people where their "juicy stuff" is and why are they sitting on it? Seriously, stop and think about it. If these Wikileaks people are out to topple corruption and all that, then why didn't they lead with their best stuff? Why are they waiting to release it? It's been months and we haven't seen anything that was worth all the talk.
So either they don't have it and are bluffing or they do have it and are holding it, but why? Two possibilities:
1. They're being threatened.
2. They're trying to make a profit.
Actually, let me add a third:
3. The rest is a bargaining chip to help their leader get out of jail.
Two of those options make sense if this group is really a group of "good guys fighting the good fight", but then again, not really. If they're really one big secret group, then who could possibly threaten them all? And as we all know secrets are harder to keep as you involve more and more people. All it takes it one to release a secret to the world. One person to take any potential threat and say "the world's freedom is more important than my life, so I die a martyr" as he presses "send". The other option for the "good guys" is that they're using the info to save their boss, and again, how selfish. "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or one." If they're willing to use knowledge that they claim the people need as a bargaining chip, then how are they better than the people keeping the secrets?
Nope. IF they have additional secrets, I'm thinking we haven't seen them yet because someone thinks there's a profit to be made.
Oh, and let me point out that corporations are on their own. They have no bearing on the argument I made. Mine was about governments keeping secrets. If corporations do it, that's business and releasing them is anti-capitalism...depending on what they are, of course. Ask Bill Gates and IBM. Think things would have been different if IBM knew Gates didn't have an OS and was just going to buy one?
Now if the corporate secrets involve government corruption, they're fair game.
Oh, and where are the big bank secrets that we were promised a month or two ago? I'm not saying they don't exist, that'd be silly. We all know rich folks have shelters for their cash and good for them. However, where are all the names of people hiding cash to avoid taxes? They were supposed to include politicians.
Presupposing for a moment, just for the sake of argument, that this guy had found extensive evidence of some evil stuff that would shake the pillars of the world, should he still keep that oath? Or if it was bad enough then wouldn't revealing it be a better way to keep his oath? After all his oath is not to his superiors or even to the military, but to the Constitution. Perhaps he did indeed keep his oath by taking the actions he did. We won't know until all the information is released.
Ok, if he found some earth shattering news, why have I only heard about how the South Korean diplomat likes blonds with big tits?
Why trust the biggest secret ever to an anonymous group of people whose allegiances you don't know? If you are potentially facing the death penalty, why not start blabbing to the press if Wikileaks won't release whatever you found?
Again, what's the holdup? If this information was important enough for people to die, then why haven't we been reading it for months now?
Fine. But I don't trust the particular assholes we call our gov't right now.
And that's exactly the problem. People suck. People that seek power suck even more. The only defense against a democracy becoming a tyranny of the elite is extensive transparency.
This is a catch 22.
If you keep secrets, which are necessary to properly run a country in a world filled with countries all with different philosophies on how to govern, your people think you're evil.
If you don't keep those secrets, you have zero chance of being effective in that world meaning your people will suffer.
Granted, the people in charge are assholes, but when haven't they been? Isn't that a quality we want in a leader? Sure, not being a self-serving asshole would be key, and it does seem like an awful lot of them are, but you still want an asshole. You want someone who can make the tough decisions without worrying about every little detail.
And yes, people do suck. So what makes you think that ALL the people knowing a big secret is better than a couple of assholes keeping a secret to protect the rest of the people?
Tommy Lee Jones makes my argument.
Misuse of government power comes down to control. Back before the industrial revolution is was about controlling the food supply. Then it became about controlling the means of production. Now in the information age, it has become about controlling information. And it's well-nigh inevitable that this is a fight the government will eventually lose.
Maybe. Maybe not. Like I stated earlier, corporations and the government are already taking steps to protecting data in interesting ways, like never putting it into electronic form or only keeping it on computers that never get online.
More interestingly, perhaps there aren't any big secrets to release? Maybe groups like Wikileaks are searching for a secret right out of a Hollywood script that will cause every citizen to stand up and scream like Rorschach's journal.
Personally, I hope groups like Wikileaks dig up any corruption and shines a light on it. I want dirty politicians caught and corporations who get favors from the government exposed. I hope I've made it clear that the types of secrets I think a government needs to keep aren't ones concerning their own illegal (for profit) activities, but ones that help it negotiate a better world for its citizens.
And it bugs me that this seems to be all about the U.S. How is that making the world better? When are we going to see other governments' secrets?
I could seriously go on about this for hours. It's an interesting topic and the more you look at it, the more possibilities open up and the more questions you come up with...
“Every record been destroyed or falsified, books rewritten, pictures repainted, statues, street building renamed, every date altered. The process is continuing day by day. History stops. Nothing exists except endless present in which the Party is right.”
The gov't gets carte blanche to keep its secrets when it gives me space to keep mine. They get sympathy from me when they stop thinking more scanners, cameras, and public surveillance is the answer to every security problem.
Diogenes of Sinope: "It is not that I am mad, it is only that my head is different from yours."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC: "Better dead than smeg."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC: "Better dead than smeg."