Slashdot Mirror
Wikileaks and Democracy In Zimbabwe
OCatenac writes "The Atlantic has an interesting story on the collateral damage of exposing diplomatic communications in Zimbabwe. From the article: 'The reaction in Zimbabwe was swift. Zimbabwe's Mugabe-appointed attorney general announced he was investigating the Prime Minister on treason charges based exclusively on the contents of the leaked cable. While it's unlikely Tsvangirai could be convicted on the contents of the cable alone, the political damage has already been done. The cable provides Mugabe the opportunity to portray Tsvangirai as an agent of foreign governments working against the people of Zimbabwe. Furthermore, it could provide Mugabe with the pretense to abandon the coalition government that allowed Tsvangirai to become prime minister in 2009.' Undoubtedly there are lots of things that our governments hide from us which should not be hidden but it's a shame that no one from Wikileaks could be troubled to consider the potential repercussions of this particular exposure."
Why exactly some decent Western power has had that vile repugnant monster Mugabe filled so full of holes you could use him as a soup strainer is beyond me. That incompetent tyrant has turned Africa's breadbasket into a ill-run starving madhouse.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Why exactly some decent Western power has [not] had that vile repugnant monster Mugabe filled so full of holes you could use him as a soup strainer is beyond me. That incompetent tyrant has turned Africa's breadbasket into a ill-run starving madhouse.
They were going to, but the assasination plan was leaked on the Internet.
"it's a shame that no one from Wikileaks could be troubled to consider the potential repercussions of this particular exposure."
NO. WRONG.
it's a shame that no-one criticising wikileaks realises that mugabe is an insane criminal and murderer who will take advantage of *anything*.
it takes wikileaks reporting to expose mugabe by "triggering" him to act out his true (insane) nature, for the world to observe how inappropriate a leader he really is.
the days of living in the shadows are over, and the leaders and dictators of the world, as well as the rest of us, need to wake up and realise this.
Someone made a comment on a previous story about how this is "diplomacy". But how can a democracy work if the officials involved are all lying to the people? We need to work towards a government that doesn't lie to it's own citizens for fear of embarrassment and/or losing power. It is unfortunate that an evil person is taking advantage of a liar, but blame the specific politicians/liars involved, not Wikileaks!
While Ellsberg supports Assange and what they are trying to do, in actuality he redacted many names and even entire sections of diplomatic reports that assessed the allies of the US who were secretly supporting the Vietnam war, like Poland.
He felt he wasn't doing the world any favors by exposing the murky dealings and backroom pacts that make the globe spin, and may delay his goal of a swift end to the Vietnam war.
Assange has no goal, and that is part of his problem. His treatise is to make the world more open, as if the very nature of classified conversations and secret deals between nations offends him, so he is to bring a giant flashlight to things regardless of what happens.
He has some very large bombshells to drop, such as I believe he has documents which tie Bank Of America to the Feds knowing that CDOs had no accountability, and that most mortage notes didn't have legal basis, and then of course TARP money - much of which is unaccounted for despite being taxpayer money. But like his bombshells that showed US helecopters attacking what may or may not have been journalists in the street, it did nothing. Nothing has changed despite Manning smuggling that video from the Apache gunning those guys down, including wasting their van that had children in it. I don't think it altered the US Army's engagement policy one iota.
Despite all these findings he has, nothing will change and his duress which may cause him to continue to reveal all kinds of things without edit, he simply WILL cause collateral damage. The question is, is it worth it? To see how the bankers and the financiers and the heads of state control the world and the wealth in the world? Will it REALLY help democracy and display capitalism's flaws? Haven't we known that since Marx?
I hope Assange or his followers continues, but does do more selective editing. the truth is not always its' own reward, as we are now seeing.
How many Prime Ministers would not be vulnerable at the ballot box for supporting sanctions against their own country?
IBM doesn't play chess with the Universe.
There will be never be democracy in Zimbabwe with Mugabe in power.
But Lord High Julian never made a mistake and ALLL information needs to be free ALL the time.
When it comes to my government once again fucking about in a country it has no business meddling with, absolutely.
...it's a shame that no one from Wikileaks could be troubled to consider the potential repercussions of this particular exposure.
Yeah, and it's a damn shame that a surgeon hit and killed someone on his way to a life-saving surgery. Just as unfortunate that thousands died in the Revolutionary War so America could become independent.
Bad things can happen during the commission of a good thing. It sucks, but that's life for you.
Sent from my CR-48
It's too bad this might happen, but it makes sense. If what you want freedom of information this is the consequence. You can't say that you only want the information released that will justify your own morals or political agenda. That's the job of dictators and some governments.
What does this story have to do with news for nerds or affect my rights online in any way?
The fact is that zimbabwe is a basket case ruled by a dying dictator. It's been well known Mugabe was going to take back all the power to himself someway somehow
The face wikileaks came out with this just gives him a convenient excuse now.
I had no idea there was democracy in Zimbabwe. I was under the impression that Robert Mugabe bullied his way into power and has fixed it so he never leaves? Is this not right?
Those who can, do. Those who cannot, sue.
do we blame the woman and her short dress for her being raped?
do we blame the parents and their inattentiveness for their child being molested?
of course you should be modest in the wrong places and you should pay attention to your children's whereabouts, but you blame transgressions on transgressors, and the transgressors alone, 100%. this is the only way morality can be read: blame always falls 100% on the criminal, not the victim
if i leave $100 on my front porch, i'm an idiot. but the guy who goes on my front porch, and takes something which is clearly not his and on someone else's property: that's a crime, and he's the criminal. there is a difference between evil and stupid, and you don't blame the victim, no matter how stupid they are. innocence IS stupidity: not understanding the danger of transgressive criminals in the world at large. you blame the criminal, always and completely, or you simply don't understand what morality is. morality is about protecting the victim, not prosecuting them
likewise, you can say that those who support wikileaks are naive, idealistic, and unsophisticated in their hamfisted approach to world affairs and transparency. but they are not evil, and they aren't criminals, they're just dumb and unsophisticated in their reading of how wikileaks will be used by evil men. and so, blaming the naive and foolish for what someone clearly evil like mugabe does is not morality. who deserves the blame for what mugabe does because of wikileaks? answer: mugabe, and only mugabe. he is the criminal, and zimbabweans are the victims, and wikileaks is just a convenient excuse like "well, its her fault, look at her dress" or "where were the parents?"
unfortunately, those who don't understand the difference between weakness and evil, will accept mugabe's lame argument. understand true morality: you don't blame wikileaks for what evil people do. of course it would be nice to have some awareness of evil people and their predictable actions, but evil people, and evil people alone, still shoulder 100% of the blame. that's the only view compatible with morality
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Undoubtedly there are lots of things that our governments hide from us which should not be hidden but it's a shame that no one from Wikileaks could be troubled to consider the potential repercussions of this particular exposure.
I thought Wikileaks contacted the US government asking for help redacting to avoid potential repercussions such as this, yet received none. Was this the case? I have heard it mentioned on slashdot a few times.
It does unfortunately read as though the wikileak cable could be replaced by another pretence and still have the same effect, as if any excuse was being looked for and wikileaks was the first one that came along.
I'm very suspicious of Christopher R. Albon, the author of the article at the Atlantic.
Albon seems to have ties to the US military, and the web seems to have been scrubbed of anything on him prior to the last few months.
Does anyone have any info on him?
If the cable proves that Tsvangirai is working with foreign governments to subvert Mugabe, shouldn't the people of Zimbabwe know that? It seems like it would be in their interest to know.
FTFY. Like all politicians, he says one thing to one person and the opposite to another. He got burned because he wasn't being honest with everyone.
The poster ended with "Undoubtedly there are lots of things that our governments hide from us which should not be hidden but it's a shame that no one from Wikileaks could be troubled to consider the potential repercussions of this particular exposure."
Not to mention probable couple hundred of other really crap things that will be leveraged by those in power due to wikileaks.
If you blow diplomacy out of the water by what is now going to be an ongoing threat that every communication may be made public, you're left with what...so tell me what is better than diplomacy for resolving things?
I don't see how they've managed to call this undemocratic - nothing undemocratic has been done yet. Even though your or I might dislike Mugabe, him gaining popular support is part of the democratic process. It's the exact point of democracy. I am surprised at how they manage to label this as undemocratic when just as bad smear campaigns make the local television stations in the US.
What happened was Anti-American. Not Anti-Democracy. People need to stop using Freedom, Democracy, Liberty, and other similar terms as synonyms for America. Mugabe would be a fool to scrap the democratic process if he had popular support of the people, and any under-handed rigging for the next elections he might set up could be just as possible in the States as anywhere else.
It's funny, as AG he brings up charges against the Prime Minister which might have been, in fact, not in the interest of the Zimbabwe people (knowing how the US likes to exploit developing nations and all that).
However, worse crimes are done by US Officials and the judicial system does nearly nothing about it. I wonder which state is actually more democratic right now.
This case:
Tsvangirai (good) hiddenly supports sanctions against his own country to harm his opponent, Mugabe (bad). That scheme comes to light, possibly spelling doom for democracy. Shame on Wikileaks for screwing it up.
Now let's try in reverse:
Mugabe (bad) hiddenly supports sanctions against his own country to harm his opponent, Tsvangirai (good). That scheme comes to light, possibly spelling doom for the tyranny and opening way for glorious democracy. Glory to Wikileaks for uncovering Mugabe's shady deals.
I don't like double standards. Christopher R. Albon seems to be saying that the end justifies the means, and so long that the end is democracy, pretty much anything goes.
IMO, the problem here is not with Wikileaks. It's one of two things:
A. Tsvangirai isn't all that saintly, and not that much better than Mugabe, so he must to resort to underhanded means to defeat his oponent.
B. The people don't really want democracy. They either like Mugabe for some reason, or he convinced them his oponent is worse, or just don't give a damn. Whatever the issue in such a case should they get this democracy it's unlikely to make things all that much better for them, because democracy requires people who care, and parties willing to represent the will of those people. If the people don't care, or all the choices are horrible, it's democracy in name only.
Undoubtedly there are lots of things that our governments hide from us which should not be hidden but it's a shame that no one from Wikileaks could be troubled to consider the potential repercussions of this particular exposure.
A philosophy professor in college proposed the following which feels applicable.
Say you go through your life with friends, popularity, and just a genuinely high status among your social circle and peers. However, all those relationships were completely fake, your family (mother perhaps) goes around bribing your various friends/peers to treat you as if you were their best of friends. Would you prefer to live your life with the collection of "fake" relationships or would you rather know the truth and try to have real relationships on your own? That's basically the premise of The Truman Show.
Or to go more sci-fi, should Neo rage out on Morpheus about humanity being enslaved by the machines (because Morpheus breaks him the news), or should Neo rage out on the machines instead?
Do we shoot the messenger because we do not like what he says? Perhaps the next one will only bring us good news.
What happened was Anti-American. Not Anti-Democracy. People need to stop using Freedom, Democracy, Liberty, and other similar terms as synonyms for America.
Well said, sir. And I believe correct on both counts.
You're special forces then? That's great! I just love your olympics!
Well, the United States directly destroyed democracy in multiple countries - Afghanistan (1992), Iran (1953), Guatemala (1954), Chile (1973). And we are the good guys. :)
So let's stop talking about democracy like we mean it. We never cared about democracy. We only cared for their resources.
The truth has a force and direction of its own. It is not Wiki Leaks task to be concerned about the path that information takes nor the consequences of exposures. Almost all information will do harm to some and good to others and the effects can be very,very indirect.
These charges are mostly just to distract the media from Mugabe's involvment with blood diamonds, but it's not obviously working.
We've also got lovely summaries of Mugabe's criminality by U.S. ambassadors.
Btw, the 'sanctions' being discussed don't hurt people beyond Mugabe's immediate circle.
The Christian religion has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world. -- Bertrand Russell
Publishing a PIN is a bad analogy because a PIN is one part of a two factor authentication. Without a chip, magnetic stripe or even a card number, a PIN is worthless. And, yes, I'd rather someone published my PIN rather than use it on the sly.
Forget that Tsvangirai has been cheated out of two presidential elections he legitimately won. Heck even forget that while the combined opposition controls the parliament, it has little or no say in serious matters of the state. You know how I know there is democracy in Zimbabwe? It's for this simple reason: Even a treasonous son of a gun like Tsvangirai (charged at least once before) is not only the Prime Minister but arguably the most popular politician in the country.
Treason uncloaked!
This isn't the first time Tsvangirai has been accused of treason..more like the 5th but whos counting.. Several years ago he was even implicated in a plot to kill Mugabe (No doubt by violent reduction of his tx side window)
He was arrested many times and sometimes tortured for political speech.
Apparently politics is somewhat of a contact sport in Zimbabwe as it is in many countries. I don't see anything positive coming out of this particular leak.
However if you found out the president of your country kept your people from prospering for purely political reasons you would be upset too..wouldn't you?
We must all live within the context of our time. Unfortunatly the clock is centuries behind in some parts of the world.
If we could call foreign leaders openly on corruption and wrong doing we would all be better off. Unfortunately we have problems with being open, it seems it would affect business to call some foreign leaders corrupt or even suggest that the state sponsors terrorism. We live behind the curtains of our own creation.
No where in this story is anything along the lines of - "Has the minister committed treason against his country?"
You see, I don't think people who support Wikileaks care about "repercussions" for a corrupt politician. If he's made his bed, let him lie in it.
That's what accountability is all about. It's time the world learns about accountability for a change...
Assange has no goal, and that is part of his problem. His treatise is to make the world more open, as if the very nature of classified conversations and secret deals between nations offends him, so he is to bring a giant flashlight to things regardless of what happens.
You seem to give Assange too much credit. Assange is simply a part of the bigger wave, the same wave that has brought us the privacy transgressions of Google and Facebook. He is simply riding the wave to a more "open" information regime. Whether such openness is a good thing (tm) or an evil that deserves to be nuked or sued to extinction is a different question. (Glastnost brought differing results across the countries of the former Soviet bloc.) But if Assange and WikiLeaks go down, another, more likely less scrupulous organization will rise, like a submarine in the night. And that will make WikiLeaks look like Napster to the Pirate Bay.
I think Wikileaks is great. I am sure Zimbabwe would be a different place if the majority of people had access to unbiased information - the vast majority of people only have access to state media check out http://www.herald.co.zw/ and http://www.chronicle.co.zw/ for a taste of what that's like!
However, worse crimes are done by US Officials and the judicial system does nearly nothing about it. I wonder which state is actually more democratic right now.
This is the kind of mind-blowing stupidity that make me lose all hope for humanity.
The people seem to be responding by kicking his ass. Democracy!
Short clarification - the people have NOT yet responded by kicking his ass. TFA is an editorial by a guy who says this all of that stuff will happen. The only thing that appears to have happened so far is that Mugabe and his administration have thrown a fit.
Libertarians somehow believe that private businesses should be stronger than governments but weaker than individuals.
then I will never trust government. Period.
We are talking about an organization holding the special right to employ physical force against you as their means. That alone makes them deserving of the utmost scrutiny in every last thing they do. And what about the so-called social contract, where this organization supposedly works on my behalf? How in the world can somebody work on another person's behalf, while at the same time, lying and plundering behind the person's back (and breaking the contract they supposedly made together)? Tell me, how exactly does that work?
Again, as long as government keeps secrets, then I will never trust government.
Just who is the (wo/)man behind the curtain?
Until we get a good look at his/her face and understand who he/she is, blaming the wo/man behind the curtain is no better than blaming the puppet governments/presidents/dictators/editors/leakers/sources/etc.
Just who are all the people hiding behind the curtain thinking they are pulling the ropes? And are they, really?
Computer memory is just fancy paper, CPUs just fancy pens with fancy erasers; the 'net is just a fancy backyard fence.
The part I missed, apparently, is THE FUCKING OIL! Where the fuck is my oil? Even the US military is paying more for gas. I know I am. Show me where this oil is going and I will be quite indebted.
However, worse crimes are done by US Officials and the judicial system does nearly nothing about it. I wonder which state is actually more democratic right now.
This is the kind of mind-blowing stupidity that make me lose all hope for humanity.
Indeed. Luckily, the world is not Slashdot.
Nobody seems to be paying attention to Wikileaks' true motives.
Aside from Assange liking the attention, he has written before about his desire to end the practice of government secrecy. While I happen to think there is far too much government secrecy, I don't subscribe to his radical transparency agenda he espouses.
As such, his primary interest is not so much the specific content of the leaks and their geopolitical implications, more that they are kept secret by governments.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
--Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
Most great nations don't become great because of the apathy of the people, or by the politicians.
People have to FIGHT for the PRIVILEGE of not be a fourth world sh1t hole.
Let the apathetic scum of Zimbabwe rot in their own filth. They seem to be content with it.
You have no clue what you are talking about. Start with the Wikipedia article on Mugabe and work from there. Your post makes no sense at all.
I don't see how they've managed to call this undemocratic - nothing undemocratic has been done yet.
It's undemocratic because Mugabe isn't the elected leader of the country. He is a dictator who seized power violently when he lost the election. So any "investigations" against his opponent are propaganda, not campaigning. I think arresting and physically beating your opponent is kinda undemocratic.
What happened was Anti-American.
How does this have anything to do with America? Various sanctions have been imposed on the nation by the EU, the US, Australia, and the Catholic church. Almost no one recognizes him as the leader of Zimbabwe. America is taking the same stance as most of the rest of the world.
Mugabe would be a fool to scrap the democratic process if he had popular support of the people
ummm... what? He is not the democratically elected leader of the nation. He already scrapped the democratic process.
any under-handed rigging for the next elections he might set up could be just as possible in the States as anywhere else. However, worse crimes are done by US Officials and the judicial system does nearly nothing about it. I wonder which state is actually more democratic right now.
In the US, I have not heard of any presidential candidates hiring thugs to beat people for voting against them. Or holding a military inauguration before the official results were declared.
As if anybody really cared about Zimbabwe. Mugabe didn't exactly fall out of the blue sky last year.
Windows 2000 - from the guys who brought us edlin
I don't see how they've managed to call this undemocratic - nothing undemocratic has been done yet. Even though your or I might dislike Mugabe, him gaining popular support is part of the democratic process. It's the exact point of democracy. I am surprised at how they manage to label this as undemocratic when just as bad smear campaigns make the local television stations in the US.
I must have missed it in class when they suggested using militias to beat, torture and kill opposition supporters as being a part of the democratic process. Sure he might have won anyways, but don't pass this off as a legitimate will of the people situation. A legitimate will of the people does not require crimes against humanity to be expressed.
Amen, brother. Oil went up 50c/gal where I live in the past two months. Must be economic sustainability that'll let the oil refiners make untold amounts of jack.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
I see the US PsyOps team have all created /. accounts ..
echo '[q]sa[ln0=aln80~Psnlbx]16isb572CCB9AE9DB03273snlbxq' |dc
You thought you were going to get a cut?
Are you really that naive?
When Bush and Gore were head to head and the elections had to be repeated.
And when Bush came up with millions of additional votes by raiding democrat villages and terrorizing and killing people there, Gore withdrew from the election and Bush got himself inaugurated as president.
But later on, democrats and republicans got together and negotiated for Gore to be appointed the president of The Congress.
And during that negotiation, which is still taking place, Gore mentioned during his meeting with our alien overlords how it would be better if the Earth was not given alien technology (including holodecks, warp drive, cure for cancer, food replicators and the global climate adjuster) - just yet, as we are not yet ready for such advancements, being barbaric 0-worlders and all.
Unfortunately, Bothans got their grubby little hands on transcripts of those talks and beamed them directly to every satellite floating around this planet.
And I'm just guessing here, but I suspect that the solution would be to start killing Bothans.
WHAT?! At least my bullshit story has SOME relevance to the topic at hand.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
If you're doing nothing wrong, why are you worried about privacy? This is what the authorities tell us all the time. Obviously, there are a number of fucking good reasons to keep certain information hidden, even if there is no wrong-doing. I say we keep slapping the government with this big dead fish until they wake the fuck up and admit that.
I think the OP (OCatenac) is just trolling. This has nothing to do with collateral damage.
A few excerpts from the Wikipedia page: ...violent land seizure...disputed presidential elections...opposition leaders mysteriously died...an opposing newspaper's printing press was bombed and its journalists tortured...widespread vote-rigging and intimidation...another election marred by allegations of election fraud and intimidation...a campaign marked by widespread intimidation, outright violence, and Mugabe's threat to continue the civil war if he lost...
etc etc.
Just remember, it wasn't WikiLeaks that released the cable, it was one of the major news organizations that WikiLeaks partnered with that redacted and chose to release the cable. WikiLeaks has only released the same cables that their partners did...
Well, based on looking at the rest of sub-saharan africa, maybe they LIKE living in an impoverished anarchic shithole of a dictatorship.
I'll agree with people before who were discussing the need of a country's citizens to overthrow their own leaders by themselves to really get democracy. BUT that's assuming that democracy is the best choice for the culture in question.
Maybe it's better for violent cultures in third world countries to have strong dictators for leaders. Maybe they understand what is needed to bring acceptable (for that culture) order to their people. Maybe the USA and americans don't have the perfect solution for the rest of the world. Maybe we should just let well enough alone?
That's why I'm all for pulling all monetary/humanitarian aid and foreign influences out of africa permanently. That will let them fight and squabble and have genocides or whatever they do on weekends until they get tired of it and decide to join the modern world. Unless they do that then they'll always be in trouble.
Call me racist or whatever you want (which would be a red herring if you can't dispute my points) but this is the only solution that the rest of the concerned "1st world" countries haven't brought themselves to consider yet.
Isn't it a better idea to build up some credit, before you burn it? Now the USA can claim some actual credibility in attempting to take down wikileaks.
Don't attack a hero, because you will create a martyr if he dies.
an important part of wikileaks' legitimacy is that they don't play favourites. they are about publishing leaks, not about deciding which leaks are "safe" to publish.
doing otherwise would lead to them being accused of political bias (they are already, but the accusations would be true if they started self-censoring in this way).
also, appeasement of dictators or lunatics never works. deciding not to publish something because some nutcase somewhere in the world might take offense and use it as an excuse to do something undesirable or wrong or even atrocious would mean that wikileaks may as well just pack up and go home because that's going to be the case with almost everything they publish that's actually worth publishing.
BTW, wikileaks is just the latest excuse for Mugabe. it's not as if he hasn't used other excuses in the past to prosecute (and persecute) Tsvangirai or that he won't do the same in the future.
Is that with a straight face people are saying we have damaged democracy in Zimbabwe. Doesn't something have to be present to be damaged? Mugabe has been president since 1987 when he began to oversee the election process, using violence, ballot box stuffing and registering false voters. The international community refuses to acknowledge his last election its so bad. His country has 80% thats right, 80! unemployment. He seized all the farms from white people and says that that white people are the real enemy. He commonly blames the US and Britian for the atrocious state of affairs his country is in.
Reporters without Borders ranks Zim 151st out of 173 for freedom.
Here is a gem of a quote" Our votes must go together with our guns. After all, any vote we shall have, shall have been the product of the gun. The gun which produces the vote should remain its security - its guarantor. The people's votes and the people's guns are always inseparable twins." thats a quote from the last election
Oh wait here is another " This Hitler has only one objective: justice for his people, sovereignty for his people, recognition of the independence of his people and their rights over their resources. If that is Hitler, then let me be a Hitler tenfoldofficer" This was after the UN called his transgressions unpardonable, and called his years in power a reign of terror.
Oh, he also cancelled the last election for 2 yrs as a cost saving measure.This article is priceless. Priceless. If you buy it i have some land for you in Florida, its a real steal....
Too funny
Bwahahahahahaha - Wikileaks sure screwed democracy in Zim! It was like, so close too! Next we will say Wikileaks made Kim Jong Il an asshole! The US won't even let Mugabe travel to the US for refusing to let us monitor the last set of elections... T
sig loading.......
Do you think the oil never surfaces? We should see an effect somewhere. Where do you see it?
I'm all for wiki leaks, but we're just not leaking *enough.* We’re saying here on /. that absolute power corrupts, and that the only way to keep power from corrupting absolutely (with apologies to Acton) is complete transparency, so let's get wiki-leakin ! And you /. IT folks are in exactly the right place to siphon off the terabytes of private communications of those in power. I say we start by leaking all of the private emails of my CEO and his competitor. After all, they're likely price fixing or up to some sort of wrong doing. How bout we start leaking all the names of the Confidential Informants for the police? I'm sure that there are some cops who're on the take. And, while we're at it, let's post the voting for most improved player for my kid’s soccer and swim leagues. I'm sure all the other moms would want to know how many votes their kid got by the 'in power' coach. How about what you and your spouse watched on late night TV? You're the power around the house, but don't your kids deserve to know what you watched? Let's just chuck it all out there indiscriminately and let the internets decide.
When Julian Assange was a teenager he lived in a place with a highly corrupt State Government and a police force so corrupt that the drug "street value" joke (go round the corner and sell the evidence so we know it's street value) was a reality right at the very top of the police force. The local newspaper had a pile of dirt on the government but had lost advertising contracts when they released some. The remaining government advertising contracts were required to keep the newspaper running.
Eventually someone at the newspaper leaked the information they were sitting on to a national TV network when the leader of the state was out of the country. About the only honest member of the government was temporarily in charge and called an inquiry. The inquiry was scaled back dramaticly but the damage had been done. Many members of the government and the police commissioner ended up in prison for their obvious and blatant crimes. Knighthoods were stripped from the convicted and the Queen ceased offering honors in Australia from that year onward.
He's seen from a young age what continues when scared media sits on information of criminal acts within a government and seen what happens when it is exposed. I think that is what influenced him to set up something like wikileaks that will not just sit on the information or water it down to irrelevance.
I don't think it would have got this far if there were "no goals".
"The sanctions placed on Zimbabwe are "smart sanctions" against specific members of ZANU (PF) (Mugabe's party) and their personal interests"
I have never understood why every time someone talks about the sanctions on Zimbabwe they say that they are "smart sanctions" on Mugabe and his people. If you take a Look at the Zimbabwe Democracy and Economic Recovery Act of 2001 ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zimbabwe_Democracy_and_Economic_Recovery_Act_of_2001 ) you can see that the sanctions also include a credit freeze which prevents International Financial Institutions and Multilateral Development Banks from loaning money to Zimbabwean government or comapanies.
The aim of the sanctions is not to squeeze Mugabe and his people, if that was the case then they would not need to prevent the loaning of money for projects that benefit the country and it's people. The aim of the sanctions as put by Chester Crocker the Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs under Reagan "In order to separate the people of Zimbabwe from the ZANU-PF, we have to make their economy scream, and I hope you senators have the stomach for what you have to do" during his testimony before the Senate. These sanctions have punished the people of Zimbabwe not a handful of people as is claimed. Tsvangirai knows the harm that the sanctions have caused to the people and economy ( They really did make it scream) but he seems to be willing to do anything and align with anyone that will help him come to power. It's not only the American Ambassador that wishes that there was a better opposition leader in Zimbabwe.
The interesting thing about Crocker's quote is that Henry Kissinger said "the US had to make the Chilean economy scream" before Salvador Allende was overthrown.
However, worse crimes are done by US Officials and the judicial system does nearly nothing about it. I wonder which state is actually more democratic right now.
Okay genius. Tell you what.... go move to Zimbabwe and start criticizing their president and organize another party to go against him. Report back on your findings.
See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
You have to love how the website that features the original article says Wikileaks compromises Democracy and that Tsvangirai should have the right to do things secretly from the people of Zimbabwe, and yet they don't allow anonymous comments. Hypocrites.
Also, if Tsvangirai did something the people of Zimbabwe don't approve of, then these people should have the right to know so that they can decide whether to support him or not. THAT is democracy.
What the article is saying is "Tsvangirai is a good guy, the people of Zimbabwe are too stupid to realise it, so let's lie to them in order to make them vote for him".
Now, if the things Tsvangirai is accused of are false, Wikileaks certainly did not create the lies. Wikileaks only said "here's what American diplomats said", which in no way means "American diplomats said this, so it must be true".
Wikileaks is not the bad guy here, Mugabe is. Corrupt dictators have long found excuses to persecute their political opponents without the aid of Wikileaks or anyone else resembling journalists. That that should even need to be clarified is just astonishing.
lools like rain in sahara
It is interesting that the only comment from someone in Zimbabwe disagrees with the idea that Wikileaks fucked up because they know what the deal is.
If I was a local, it would be informative for me to know that the person that's currently eligable to replace Mugabe is playing deceitful games too.
Now imagine if Wikileaks hadn't of let this story out..
In n years time they think that they've elected a leader that is being honest and is looking after the country's best interests but in fact is not.
If I'm fighting for reform, I want to know that the end result will be someone and something worthwhile, not more of the same. What is the point of replacing Mugabe if the person that replaces him is just as corrupt?
What if the "will of the people" includes massacring the dissenting minority?
So wikileaks is a bad thing for democracy?
Explain then why this story isn't getting the play that one is:
http://www.elpais.com/articulo/internacional/EE/UU/sospecha/Gobierno/Bolivia/simulo/trama/terrorista/elpepuint/20101229elpepuint_17/Tes
When did the fucking DoS get pull with slashdot?
Fuck you all!
Your traitor is somebody else freedom fighter.
Govt must constitute a panel to rewrite US Constitution and Quran
If anyone, ever, develops a software that detects sarcasm in texts he will beat Zuckerberg and Gates combined.... :P
There's so many people in dire need of it.
"Science can amuse and fascinate us all, but it is engineering that changes the world. " - Asimov.
It's going primarily to Britain via contracts assigned by the Iraqi puppet democracy. They've always seen Mesopotamia and Persia as their exclusive colonies. They blockaded it by building Kuwait as an artificial state before WWI, blockading other Great Powers from accessing it. They tore down the railroad access from Baghdad through the Ottoman Empire (Turkey) to the Axis powers, they convinced the US to assassinate the pro-communist elected head of Iran and place the Shah because they would lose their exclusive oil access to Persia, and so on.. to the Iraq war. They've had assistance from the big superpower since the sun finally set on their empire after WW2.
Tell that to the people of the French Revolution.
However, worse crimes are done by US Officials and the judicial system does nearly nothing about it.
This is the kind of mind-blowing stupidity that make me lose all hope for humanity.
Don't. You can always move to a more democratic country.
First of all, to get my own opinion aside - while I think whistle blowing and leaking information about criminal/unethical activities of government and big business must be one of foundations of democratic society (there is no other working alternative so far), I see WikiLeaks more like sensationalism. Assange is an ass, I don't like him, but I don't see how US or Swedish government can get him sentenced, and while I strongly disagree with his naive point of view (realistically governments should have possibility to keep secrets, and no, no government would be good enough in such case), I still vote with all four to have him free rights to speech, free rights to release papers he got.
One important detail though - releasing such information as cables you must understand that there will be consequences - and far reaching ones. You can't just release them and think - well, it's their problem now. Maybe, but if you are reasonable, then you will admit that cable leaks will do some harm. No matter how anarchists would like it, there will be no world without responsibility. If cable leaks will create tense political situation which will result in something nasty - you will have to live with that.
That's what I don't like in this new wave of neoanarchism. They clearly hate everyone with a power, and want to bring system down. But they don't want take responsibility for that. In old days, activists did bad things in a eye of the law (but necessary for society) - and they went to prison for that. Now Internet and Web gives them tools to do that without putting their feet where their word is. It is not anarchism, it's pure irresponsibility.
Talking about Zimbabwe - while this particular cable is bad for situation there, Mugabe needs very little if any reason to go nuts. He knows that everyone except his supporters want to seem him gone. So of course he will react on such news. So what we see here there are real consequences WikiLeaks and their supporters will have to live with. There is no blame, there is no accusation or incrimination. Just a fact that it is quite possible that we will have to wait a quite longer for Mugabe removal from power.
user@ubuntubox:~$ stfu This server is going down for shutdown NOW!
mugabe, even though the bastardly filth he is, is a player who wouldnt play with usa in any way. and, a few years ago, suddenly this 'movement for democratic change' came into the headlines, with tsangvirai. at first, i took it at face value, thinking that people of zimbabwe started an upheaval against a dictator. but, the american news channels were leaning on this story SO much that, i had started to think something was afoot. it wasnt every other headline, this or that, but they were entirely bent on this, making specials on it, broadcasting random zimbabweans running around if they couldnt find something to broadcast at that particular hour, despite a lot of other important issues (ranging from koreas to somalia and somalian pirates, iraq, afghanistan) was going about at that particular period. some british news channels were following suit, but in less density, and european channels were basically uninterested.
it was as if most important of the world's issues was the dictator in zimbabwe, and movement for democratic change, for angloamerican news channels.
at that point i thought, 'yeah, i think america is trying to topple that crook and replace it with a crook of their own'.
and it turns out that, it was as such. all that this leak damages, is the ability of america replacing a crook, with its own crook.
Read radical news here
back when this movement for democratic change and zimbabwe thing hit the headlines, i first thought that people of zimbabwe were trying to topple a dictator. but, the american and british media had made SO much of that in their news over all the other simultaneous issues on the planet (korea, iraq, somalia, somalian pirates) going on at that time that, i had started to think somethign was afoot. it wasnt this or that - american news channels were filling almost every slot with zimbabwe. if they couldnt find anything to make news of, they would put random video in which zimbabweans would be running around, and have pundits talk in front of them. european news channels were largely uninterested.
at that point i thought, 'alright. america is trying to topple this crook, and replace it with their own crook'. for, mugabe was a piece of filth that wouldnt play along with america.
so now it turns out that it was as such. all that i see this leak damaging, is not the potential for democracy in zimbwabwe, but, the capability of america to replace a crook, with their own crook. zimbabwe is very rich in natural resources, which angloamerican corporations werent able to monopolize yet.
Read radical news here
Right, all messengers should be blamed or exalted for the content of their messages.
> I must have missed it in class when they suggested using militias to beat, torture and kill opposition supporters as being a part of the democratic process.
All you have to do is call them "terrorists" or "enemy combatants" and it's perfectly okay, even if you accidentally grab the wrong guy.
In fact, we did do this. And we did get the wrong guy. But that was in another cable, so you might have missed it.
I think the advocates of Wikileaking are making the following argument:
Openness is a virtue in itself. Hence, it doesn't matter if there any possible negative effects that can be traced to such a leak.
An analogue would be free speech. Most liberals (old sense of the word) believe in free speech as a good in itself. So, while accepting all the benefits of free speech, they disclaim any responsibility for any bad effects.
Otherwise, each application of free speech would be decided on the merits, and not on principle. E.g., violent video games, pornography, etc.
Whether that's a good thing depends on your philosophy.
I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog
"Because you cannot bring about Democracy by force."
Mr Wowbagger? I have a phone call for you. It's some British guy from 70 years ago asking for a loan? They're apparently involved in some sort of a disagreement with someone called Hilter...
... "the collateral damage of having a dictator" (wikileaks, rumor ... everything is ok to impose terror)
In the deep, deep pockets of the those who profit from oil. Why give the customers a break when you can charge them more and get away with it?
you cannot bring about Democracy by force
Every government that has ever existed was brought about by force. It is force itself which is the essence and foundation of all government. How can a government exist without its special right to employ physical force (coercion) as a means? Physical force is the defining trait of all government and the key difference between government and the rest of us: while the common man holds the right to employ force in self-defense (and sometimes not even then, depending on the government), only government holds the right to employ force in offense. And thus it is precisely that special right which defines government.
Yea, without Wikileaks Mugabe would never have moved against the opposition ..
.. His wife .. reported that he had been heavily tortured by police, resulting in deep gashes on his head and a badly swollen eye" link
.. He also acknowledged that his public statements calling for easing of sanctions versus his private conversations saying they must be kept in place have caused problems" link
"On 11 March 2007 a day after his 55th birthday, Tsvangirai was arrested
"ZANU-PF has implemented a strategy of reciprocity in the negotiations, using Western sanctions as a cudgel against MDC. He would like to see some quiet moves, provided there are acceptable benchmarks, to 'give' some modest reward for modest progress
"He [Tsvangirai] is the indispensable element for opposition success, but possibly an albatross around their necks once in power. In short, he is a kind of Lech Walesa character: Zimbabwe needs him, but should not rely on his executive abilities to lead the country's recovery" link
"Grace Mugabe sues Zimbabwe newspaper over Wikileaks diamond story" link
Disclaimer: As far as I know, Mugabe is a very bad man. This post is not meant to contradict that.
The cable provides Mugabe the opportunity to portray Tsvangirai as an agent of foreign governments working against the people of Zimbabwe.
Hmmm, how could the cable possibly make that portrayal possible?
The topic of the meeting was the sanctions imposed on Zimbabwe by a collection of western countries, including the U.S. and E.U. Tsvangirai told the western officials that, while there had been some progress in the last year, Mugabe and his supporters were dragging their feet on delivering political reforms. To overcome this, he said that the sanctions on Zimbabwe "must be kept in place" to induce Mugabe into giving up some political power. The prime minister openly admitted the incongruity between his private support for the sanctions and his public statements in opposition. If his political adversaries knew Tsvangirai secretly supported the sanctions, deeply unpopular with Zimbabweans, they would have a powerful weapon to attack and discredit the democratic reformer.
Ahhh, I see. The cable makes it possible to portray Tsvangirai as an agent of foreign governments working against the people of Zimbabwe because he is an agent of foreign governments working against the people of Zimbabwe. What a dastardly cable so shamelessly enabling Mugabe (a bad man, as far as I know) to make an accurate portrayal of his currently-believed-to-be-less-evil rival.
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
I don't see how they've managed to call this undemocratic - nothing undemocratic has been done yet. Even though your or I might dislike Mugabe, him gaining popular support is part of the democratic process. It's the exact point of democracy. I am surprised at how they manage to label this as undemocratic when just as bad smear campaigns make the local television stations in the US.
What happened was Anti-American. Not Anti-Democracy. People need to stop using Freedom, Democracy, Liberty, and other similar terms as synonyms for America. Mugabe would be a fool to scrap the democratic process if he had popular support of the people, and any under-handed rigging for the next elections he might set up could be just as possible in the States as anywhere else.
It's funny, as AG he brings up charges against the Prime Minister which might have been, in fact, not in the interest of the Zimbabwe people (knowing how the US likes to exploit developing nations and all that).
However, worse crimes are done by US Officials and the judicial system does nearly nothing about it. I wonder which state is actually more democratic right now.
Wow, so killing, imprisoning and harassing opposition party members is always the sign of a good democracy. Stuffing ballot boxes. Hiding them. Using paramilitary groups to intimidate voters. Killing poll workers. Withholding food relief unless a village votes for Mugabe. Yes, these are all signs of a good democracy. Ridiculous Western guilty conscience trying to make false parallels.
Hitler gained popular support by running smear campaigns against the Jews. Do you also consider Nazi Germany to be a shining example of democracy in action?
And, no, this is not godwinning. In the case of Mugabe, it is entirely legitimate to make a comparison to Hitler. Try learning about the man before you defend him.
Please mod up parent. The hypocrisy here is obvious when you realize this cable was first published by the Guardian. But of course it's much easier to attack the powerless individual that to criticize a major newspaper.
http://mobile.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1930156&cid=34719276
http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1916240&cid=34612834
http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1916240&cid=34647708
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1922942&cid=34665368
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1924664&cid=34669668
ROTFLMAO! I wouldn't listen to "professor hairyfeet" guys, he's only an ITT Tech student.