I'm asking about poor handling because if one completely buys into wikileaks being infallible, then one cannot accept that information could ever
be mishandled. I am asking what kinds of things you'd have to see to be convinced of the mishandling of information. Unless you believe there is no way for this information to be mishandled, you do have an answer. I'm asking for your opinion.
You appear to be saying we shouldn’t have the right to transparency & that secrecy between governments is OK. The fact is, without Wikileaks we would not know quite a few things that we now know. And I’m grateful to Wikileaks for supplying us with this information. Is it preferable that our governments make deals between each other in secrecy?
So if I'm skeptical about WikiLeaks, then I'm against transparency? That's bogus and offensive. I've made very clear not only my objection, but how I think things could be handled better. Is there no room in your interpretation
of these events for constructive criticism?
Should states have the ability to speak in secret. Yes. Should they speak more often in the open. Absolutely. I'm fond of public meetings msolga, but too often politics makes for theater and interferes with crafting policy. Certainly, you'd not like to see a televised meeting between your head of State with a foreign official turned into nothing more than a photo-op campaign stop. Sometimes we want the cameras away so people can get to work. We need not subscribe to either extreme. There is area in the middle where a balance of private and public negotiations between states.
I'm still not sure how you feel the facilities release is in the public's interest. One is a plant that produces most of the world's insulin. That's public on a international level. Would Australia be better off if it publicly announced what foreign sites it found most critical? This information defies the defense of WL simply exposing dirty deeds. They aren't simply interested in devious info. They are interested in any info that has power.
Is it okay to have material 30 years later? You're ignoring what I said. I'm saying that real transparency is changing the policies on the proper release of information. Wikileaks: not the problem, not the solution. It's the symptom.
Think back to before there was a WikiLeaks. If I asked you how to obtain the degree of transparency you desire in our society, are you going to tell me that your answer would have been to wait for a group of hackers to come along and collect sensitive information and then release it as their leader sees fit? I doubt it.
I can’t believe the colourful language you are using, Art. “Agents of chaos”? “Assange's Robin Hood complex”. “Vigilante agents”. Sounds like stuff from the cold war, or Bush’s “axis of evil” era. What’s gotten into you?
Poisoned the well. Well damn me for not sharing your enthusiasm.
You know, despite what Cyclo said about how DoD and IC people wanting to protect the temple of secrecy, you'd be pretty shocked to know the truth. I'd much rather be able to share what I do with my father, my mother, my sister, and my girlfriend. It seems that the stigma grows that all that is secret is shameful, and that's bullshit.
I think it's going to get exhausting to tow the extreme line that only good can come from this. I've been fair, and I've shared what will convince me this was worth it. I suggest before you keep piling on support you do the same.
It sounds like you hoping the Australian cables will remain under lock & key.
Where do you get that? I'm saying that in your lessons-learned great open society, obviously there is no need for any state to ever keep their cables private. So why doesn't some state stand up an be the first to hold up this great torch of the open society and say: "We heard you world! Here's the key to the vault!"
I somehow suspect that the truth is rather that no state will do so. Better to play damage control and suggest that diplomacy is only dirty when the US is involved.
There is a certain truth to the idea that these releases are liberating. I'm not, as JTT likes to accuse, afraid of the US being shamed. By comparison, I can't even imagine the fear of those who try to diffuse suspicion by condemning the US in the strongest terms.
In the mean time, I'll await a WL release that shows criminal corruption in Monsanto's GE corn production. The public will understand somehow intuitively that they are supposed to be upset, but few will actually start to read their food labels. In the end, no new policies. Only known villains in new costumes, still in business because people mistake blame for accountability.
The world is getting flat.