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.
"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.
...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
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.
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.
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.
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?
BadAnalogyGuy? Is that you?
Do we blame the best friend who tells the stalker where their victim is living? Yes.
Do we blame the reporter for telling the mafia where the witness under protection is? Absolutely.
Wikileaks exposed information actively damaging those fighting for reform in Zimbabwe. Only a blind, idiot apologist would try and excuse those actions. Just say it: Wikileaks fucked up. You can do it.
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.
Honesty.
Someday, you're going to die. Get over it.
It's not wikileaks' job to keep things under lock and key.
It's the responsibility of every thinking, breathing adult to act, well... responsibly.
Or, I suppose if you found out the PIN for your friend's bank card, you'd make sure to post it on Facebook for everyone to see?
Further, it is naive of you to think Mugabe needed this information to achieve his aims.
It's moronic of you to believe it hasn't helped. Reality, with it's actual events and consequences, proves you wrong.
Best red herring I've seen today!
brandelf -t FreeBSD
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!
It's moronic of you to believe it hasn't helped. Reality, with it's actual events and consequences, proves you wrong.
Well it hasn't. This is akin to you living in the country, me reading a list of what you ate for dinner and watched on TV that night, and Mugabe spinning that as atrocious treason worthy of capital punishment. I may have been a jerk, but Mugabe is the one to blame for these actions.
Blame the transgressors. This shouldn't be some fringe extremist concept.
No, it sounds to me like he is saying that his government (which I suspect we share) has no business mucking about in the internal politics of other sovereign nations, PERIOD, even *if* they have oil or other readily exploitable resources, a sentiment with which I rather tend to agree.
MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
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.
Blame the transgressors. This shouldn't be some fringe extremist concept.
If two men stand are standing over another, and the first man hands the gun to the second, and the second pulls the trigger, both are to blame.
Wikileaks has handed Mugabe the gun. To claim they are blameless in this is, frankly, ridiculous.
Honestly, the apologists here are amazing. First, the claim is "well, wikileaks hasn't hurt anyone yet". Now we have a black-and-white example of information released by wikileaks resulting in negative consequences, and suddenly it's "well, really it's not their fault, and anyway, information should be free!"
It's insane. Really.
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
"Do we blame the best friend who tells the stalker where their victim is living? Yes."
if i tell a man where someone is, i'm stupid. if i use that information to hurt someone, i'm evil
do you understand the difference between stupidity and evil?
of course, the friend may KNOW that the information will be used to hurt someone. if they KNOW that, and they share the information, they ARE evil. but if they don't know how that information will be used, they are chumps, dupes, idiots. but they aren't EVIL
apparently, right now, you don't understand the difference between stupidity and evil. therefore, you lack the the foundational understanding of human nature to make moral judgments. i am sincerely saying that about you: you currently lack an understanding of morality
people who believe in wikileaks and absolute transparency in diplomatic relations are naive, foolish, idealistic in an uneducated, unsophisticated, and hamfisted way... but they aren't EVIL. now did assange KNOW mugabe would use wikileaks to hurt his people? if he did, he's evil. but if he's just an idealistic zealous wannabe revolutionary whose mind is clouded with visions of punishing evil governments, he's just stupid for not thinking things through. but he's not evil
you don't blame the stupid for what evil people do. then you are letting criminals get away with crimes
repeat: you don't blame the stupid for what evil people do. as soon as you agree to that statement, you are a moral person. if you do not agree to that statement, you are simply not a moral person, and you have no business making moral judgments, as you lack the cognitive capacity
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Some of us don't give two shits about another country regardless of whether they have oil or other readily exploitable resources. At least as far as our government is concerned.
do you understand the difference between stupidity and evil?
Huh?
I never said wikileaks was evil. Seriously, go back and re-read what I wrote. I never once made that claim. You simply inferred it, for reasons I'm at a loss to explain.
In fact, I think we agree. I personally think they're simply, well, stupid. Well, okay, not stupid. Naive is probably more fair. But evil? Certainly not.
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.
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.
if they aren't evil, then they don't deserve any blame. mugabe does, 100% of it. if you agree with that statement, then indeed, as you say, we have no disagreement
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
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!
Do we blame the best friend who tells the stalker where their victim is living? Yes.
what? I hope you have a mouse in your pocket.
They did not fuck up. If people weren't acting against the wishes of there people, this would not of been an issue. wikileaks exposed someone claiming to be for the people doing exactly what the people don't want.
Of course, the article is all speculation about what might happen.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
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.
Do we blame the reporter for telling the mafia where the witness under protection is? Absolutely.
Wikileaks exposed information actively damaging those fighting for reform in Zimbabwe. Only a blind, idiot apologist would try and excuse those actions. Just say it: Wikileaks fucked up. You can do it.
Your analogy is indeed good. But it actually serves to undermine your point. The people who released the documents to the public are...(get ready)... the journalists and reporters! Wikileaks supplied a few select organizations with the cables, then reprinted them after the New York Times and others published them widely. So it appears that the "blind idiot apologist" here is you. Why is your anger directed at Wikileaks, and not the people who did the real "harm" of releasing this information to the public? Could it be that you are just buying into the propaganda and FUD that has been relentlessly spread by the government and others since this incident took place?
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.
It's moronic of you to believe it hasn't helped.
Let me clue you in on something: Tsangvirai's mere quality as the Zimbabwean opposition leader has been far more of a problem for his ongoing health than any discussion he's ever had with "foreign powers". Your focus on something that was widely suspected before and which was already known in bits and pieces by Mugabe betrays your actual goal: to find something where Wikileaks has caused death. This, again, isn't it.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
evil != blame.
You can do something stupid and be to blame for the fallout from your actions.
Do we blame the best friend who tells the stalker where their victim is living? Yes.
So Mugabe didn't know where Tsangvirai lives?
Do we blame the reporter for telling the mafia where the witness under protection is? Absolutely.
So Mugabe didn't know who the opposition leader was?
Wikileaks hasn't done squat that wasn't already known. Even to Zimbabweans. Anyone who considers Tsangvirai a traitor based on the Wikileaks cables already believed that he is a traitor, and the non-existence of Wikileaks wouldn't have changed squat.
For someone who throws around terms like "moron" and "bad analogies", you sure haven't made sure you aren't living in a glass house.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
"so tell me what is better than diplomacy for resolving things?"
Honesty?
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.
I find it both worrisome and amusing that Abcd1234 appears to dominate the commentary on this particular story (and is the only one repeatedly modded up).
Take that as you will, but it seems more than a bit suspicious.
Wikileaks had the newspapers handle the redactions. Blame them not wikileaks.
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?)
What if the internal politics include genocide, or involve practices that involve significant oppression of a given group? Do you keep trading with them (tacit acceptance of their internal policies) or do you stop trading with them (indirect disapproval of their internal policies)? The latter is definitely something that could bring about political change if they need the trade and will not get it unless they change their ways.
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
You can be neither evil, nor stupid, and get into a car accident where you are to blame.
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?
Just say it: Wikileaks fucked up.
Okay: "Wikileaks fucked up".
So the conclusion is...Wikileaks should be shut down?
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
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.
Where did you get that conclusion from?
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...
Suspicious of what? That I happen to disagree with many here who would blindly excuse all actions by WLs, even when it appears clear their actions have resulted in negative consequences? Suspicious that, *shock*, some people might actually agree with that view? What, you think all people who criticize WLs must be government agents? Please.
Sorry, buddy, if that goes against your precious narrative, but I happen to hold a somewhat more nuanced view of WLs than your average Slashbot. Are they evil? No. Do they have a political agenda? I don't think so. Do I support the concept of government transparency? Of course. Do I believe governments can be completely and totally transparent without negative consequences. *NO*.
But, unfortunately, that kind of position is far too complex. It's far easier to blindly demonize or unquestionably praise WLs. It's a lot harder to actually fucking *think* about these issues for a few minutes.
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?
yes. but in a situation where an actual evil person does something transgressive, then the evil person takes all the blame. that's the situation with mugabe and wikileaks. you are correct, but what you are saying does not apply to this specific situation
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
absolutely true
but here with mugabe and wikileaks an actual evil person does something transgressive. the evil person, in that specific situation, takes all the blame
you are correct, but what you are saying does not apply to this specific situation
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
What if the internal politics involve practices that involve significant oppression of a given group?
Are you thinking about Israel possibly?
That's why I said that I tend to agree. The world isn't black-and-white, and therefore some inconsistency is inevitable. As a general rule, I think we should keep our noses out of other countries' business. However, I can't quite bring myself to say that *any* intervention is *always* evil.
MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
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".
We need hiding places for victims from their stalkers because we don't know where the stalkers are, and we have to hide witnesses from mafia, because we don't know where the mafia's hit man is. If you have global openness, then you don't have these problems with exposure to begin with. Being open is by all measures the better path, but Assange has the very hardest of jobs, weening us off of secrecy one giant batch of secrets at a time. It's going to sting a bit until our ethics have ratcheted up a notch or twelve.
And keep in mind, for all the saber rattling from the US gov't, his leaks haven't led to one death yet. That may change, but I'll put the secrets behind the Iraq war and the hundreds of thousands of people it killed up against the numbers of dead Julian can do.
Julian Assange is the most important man alive today IMO.
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
Wikileaks hasn't done squat that wasn't already known. Even to Zimbabweans. Anyone who considers Tsangvirai a traitor based on the Wikileaks cables already believed that he is a traitor, and the non-existence of Wikileaks wouldn't have changed squat.
Precisely. Mugabe destroyed his country and wreaked havoc and death and destruction and prevented free and fair elections and blocked Tsvangirai years before Wikileaks was even a twinkle in the media's eyes. The way they paint it, you would think Mugabe was sitting around thinking "drat, I wish I had something against Tsvangirai but my hands are just tied" until this leak. Please. Mugabe does what Mugabe wants to do.
So Mugabe didn't know where Tsangvirai lives? ... So Mugabe didn't know who the opposition leader was?
You aren't that dumb, are you? That's not the point. The point is that Assange has provided Mugabe with now-public information from another source that he can use as a bludgeon. His own people know that he's full of crap most of the time, but he has this nice new bit of Eeeeeevil Foreign Information that he can use to score fresh new points. WikiLeaks is, in the interests of getting fresh press and sychophant points for Assange, not really caring which good guys get screwed. It's no different than his recent ID-ing of an ex-pat Iranian, sympathetic to the opposition in Iran, who was providing information on Iran's foreign industrial sources. Now the Mullah's know which of his still-in-Iran extended familiy members to lean on. Same sort of collateral damage as done in the Tsangvirai case.
But that's OK, right? Collateral damage that happens when you're generally doing the right thing is OK. Well, unless Assange says it isn't when someone else does it, which is different.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
I'm not him but I'd have to agree and say it is NOT the business of the USA to be the world's policeman or decide what is and is not allowed. We have been down that road for a century and what has it gotten us? The CIA killing elected leaders to put in tyrant "pro US" dictators like the Shah, selling weapons to scum, and making a hell of a lot more enemies than friends in the world.
Maybe if we spent more time caring about our own people instead of trying to tell everyone else how to run the planet the world would be a better place. Considering our history of tyrants and clusterfucks it certainly wouldn't be any worse. Our economy is in shambles, the government is bankrupt and a corrupt mess, we have borders that leak so bad you could slip a dozen bombs through without anyone noticing, the business districts of most small towns look like something from "Escape from New York", abandoned houses everywhere, and waaaay too many good people living like animals simply because there is nothing left but "McJobs" that won't even give you enough to feed yourself without food stamps. Let's start paying attention to our OWN problems instead of trying to tell the world what to do, how about that?
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
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.
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.
Right! We need a way to figure out what is the legitimate scope of what our government can do in the name of national security.
We can't exactly poll the entire American people, but maybe if we had some "representatives" of the people elected by a "vote", those representatives could confer with the elected President to determine a policy that, as best as possible, represented the will of the people...
That is, until, some asshat decides to disenfranchise all 300+ million of us by completely derailing that foreign policy.
has the latter ever worked to bring about political change? admittedly my knowledge of politics in this area is pretty limited but of the 4 instance i can think of nothing happened except the plebs found it harder to get food.
This is a joke. I am joking. Joke joke joke.
lools like rain in sahara
What if the "will of the people" includes massacring the dissenting minority?
... At least you didn't put us as genocidal maniacs, or were you?
In the current atmosphere of "Israel is to be blamed for GW, Al-Qaeda, world hunger and, well, Opera", I could actually consider your post fairly-balanced.
So, just before I go about my business (which apparently includes slaughtering baby seals, burning their corpses in an effort to release additional CO2 to the atmosphere), care to explain in what exactly we did this time?
- Gilboa
If you think a logical fallacy deserves a logical response as if the fallacy was an actual point point worth acknowledgment, then you've been watching too much Fox News. It does cause intellectual impairment, perhaps that explains the irrationality of your expectations.
brandelf -t FreeBSD
You aren't that dumb, are you? That's not the point.
I'm glad you agree that the analogies that ABCD brought up are idiotic.
The point is that Assange has provided Mugabe with now-public information from another source that he can use as a bludgeon.
Good point. However, what would have happened in the absence of Wikileaks? The exact same thing. Hard to argue then that Wikileaks was responsible for anything.
It's no different than his recent ID-ing of an ex-pat Iranian, sympathetic to the opposition in Iran, who was providing information on Iran's foreign industrial sources.
Much better point. There is potential harm here that is possible. I would say though that ID-ing is overstating what happened. It's more that through the information in the cables, it is possible to get a short list of candidates together that fit the profile. Not good, but somewhat falls short of ID-ing the guy.
Same sort of collateral damage as done in the Tsangvirai case.
No. Not even close.
The Iranian industrialist is so far the only case where there's even potential for identifiable collateral damage that's a direct result from a Wikileaks leak.
Not too shabby for what Wikileaks is doing.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
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.
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
I didn't. It's called "sarcasm".
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...
Indeed! Heaven forbid you actually knew what your representatives were doing in your name! How could voting possibly work if you actually had some idea what effect a given vote might have?
Indeed, transparency is the worst enemy of democracy!
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
You may be disenfranchised when you discover that the people you voted for a fucking liars, but it was not the messenger that disenfranchised you.
Anyway, Assange is not an American. and has precisely zero responsibility to your democracy, so get over your authoritarian ass and recognise this gift for what it is.
Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
The latter is definitely something that could bring about political change if they need the trade and will not get it unless they change their ways.
Unfortunately, it doesn't seem to work. I think (but will be glad to be told otherwise) that the only example of embargoes effecting a regime change is South Africa, and that was more of a moral effect than an materialistic effect (the apartheid regime saw themselves as a part of the western world, so being embargoed by the western world was quite a blow to their self image).
Giving two shits is not necessary for this scenario.
Other countries can still participate in trade to get their desires , as can we.
Other countries have just as much right to see the extent of corruption of those representing/governing them.
Damage responsibility goes ENTIRELY to the miscreant involved in the subject of the leak.
What is hidden will be shouted from the rooftops. This bit of wisdom is pretty much universal.
However what is shouted from the rooftops comes in time to be a tool to the people of the earths in deciding future actions.
Whatever comes from the leaks from a short term view might be inconvenient in the short term (for the leakees and the method of government they practice) but vital for the people of the earth in the long run.
We should have a permanent, invulnerable Wikileaks to stand sentry for the people of the earth.
If you can't do business in the open, it's not business, it is crime.
If you can't do business honestly, I sure as hell don't want you representing my interests.
If you can't back the idea to have a permanent Wikileaks policing you as a government or corporation, there is nothing to qualify your right to exist. So go die.
*Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
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
I don't have mod points, but I can say he's the only guy I've read so far (about 10 minutes of skimming) that doesn't sound like a "OOOH the bad people are conspiring against us again" tinfoil hat guy, to include you and your implied mod point conspiracy.
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
It seemed to me that "significant oppression of a given group" could possibly be applied to the Palestinian population, at least to the eyes of some, among which the victims themselves.
Why?
Let's take a simpler example. A man walks up to you and asks for directions to "Jane" one of your neighbors. He has a package for her. Being helpful, you give directions. Turns out he's a serial killer and kills Jane.
He's obviously evil. But he could not have done evil if you had not been stupid. That should receive some portion of blame.
Seems the general consensus is the interventions that we engage on are evil and the ones we don't are needed
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
I mean, where did you find the argument made that wikileaks should be shut down? You're implying your debate opponents here said it.
I could have wasted my time and started by quoting article 42, of the 1907 Hague conversion (comments mine):
"Territory [Who's territory?] is considered occupied [from?] when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army [hostile to whom?]", pointing out that:
1. Israel has a peace agreement with Egypt which does not claim sovereignty over Gaza.
2. Israel has a peace agreement Jordan which does not claim sovereignty over the West-Bank.
3. There was never a Palestinian state in said territories. (Hence the "whom" part)
4. Hence, by all account Israel is legally free to continue holding these lands (at least until Egypt or Jordan change their position).
I could also point out that most of the Palestinian population is already living under Palestinian rule (be that the PA in the West bank or the Hamas militia group in Gaza) and has been doing so since the 1992-1995 Oslo peace agreement(s), which more or less negate the "oppression" argument (If anything, by all accounts the Hamas militia is currently violently oppressing the Palestinian populous under its rule - but somehow I don't see you demonstrating against them [Come to think about it, go to Gaza and demonstrate against Hamas' disregard for basic human rights, I'll bring pop-corn, it should be fun to watch).
I could further point out that each time we tried to redraw completely from so called Palestinian territories, we were met by a suicide bombers and rocket attacks against restaurants, buses, hospital and urban centres. (E.g. In December alone [!!!] more than 40 rockets and mortar shells were fired from the Hamas held Gaza strip on Israeli civilian towns and villages surrounding the Gaza strip)
I could end by pointing out that the only thing keeping the PA alive, preventing the Hamas from taking over the west-bank by force (much like they did in t
Yes...yes, I think that's it!
MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
Providing support for the IRC to help farmers, small businesses, and vocational training?
Funding improvements in infrastructure, schools, agriculture, hospitals, and water distribution in both Gaza and the West Bank?
They weren't there. Even Bush admitted it -- several times. Or perhaps you missed out on that point?
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
Don't waste your time really. Have a look at what I just found though.
I believe this sums up my words (from the link you posted):
"We will not harm the supply of food for children, medicine for those who need it and fuel for institutions that save lives," Olmert said at the time.
"But there is no justification for demanding we allow residents of Gaza to live normal lives while shells and rockets are fired from their streets and courtyards (at southern Israel)," he added.
- Gilboa
It's ok, those people are untermenschen anyway.
*Sigh*
As expected, once you ran out of mock facts to spew, you switched to calling a me a Nazi.
How pathetic...
- Gilboa
Nazis do not have a monopoly for oppressing people. You don't need to be a Nazi to be an oppressor.
I see that you are self-righteous and unshakeable in your opinion that Israel is doing the right and necessary things regarding the situation, which is important for your intellectual comfort. You would obviously judge much differently if the situation were reversed though.
Which looks to me pretty close to the definition of "untermenschen": people who do not need nor deserve the consideration that we expect for ourselves.
Now let me answer your next message straight away:
*Sigh*
As expected, you pull out just another hollow justification that the situation is perfectly ok and that you're really entitled to sleep soundly on both ears, confident in your conviction that you're the good guys, with no regards to the actual suffering you're inflicting on helpless people.
Don't you realize that *all* oppressors are invariably deeply convinced that they're doing what is necessary? Can't you imagine that you may be one of them?
You do realize that my previous comments, which included large amounts of factual information were largely ignored by you, right? ... and I can continue.
Let me point a few:
1, By international law, the so-called occupied territories are not occupied at all.
2. Most Palestinians live under PA and Hamas control. Both of which violate basic human rights on a daily basis; a fact that's completely ignored by so-called human right groups.
2a. Unlike their PA and HAMAS controlled brothers, Israeli-Arab (Read: Palestinians who have Israeli citizenship) enjoy full civil rights (including the right to vote and be elected)
3. In a series of peace threats Israel redraw on a number of occasions from so-called occupied territories, treaties that were largely violated by the Palestinian side. (E.g. Stopping state sanctioned incitement for terror acts in PA controlled media and schools; Stopping state sanctioned terror acts; Changing the Palestinian treaty to acknowledge Israel's right to exist [...], etc)
4. Each time Israel withdraw from so-called occupied territories (with or w/o a peace treaty) the Palestinians immediately launched a wave of terror in return which usually targeted targets (like my Supermarket...).
5. In most cases, the attacks originated from Palestinian Civilian centers, relaying on Israel's reluctance to attack civilian targets.
Now, would I think different if I was sitting in Gaza right now? Most likely I would. Should it matter, as -my- house is being attacked by rockets fired from so-called Palestinian territories and when -my- Supermarket was blown by a suicide bomber killing and injuring dozens of civilians? Not really. ...Neither would you.
The only thing standing between us and peace is Arab recognition of the Jewish people's right to its own independent state. As the Palestinian still bluntly [1] refuse [2] to accept [3] our presence [4] here [5], peace could not be further away.
Last question? Might I inquire where do you live?
- Gilboa
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Amin_al-Husayni
[2] 10 point plan (which objects to SC 242), Official PA page in the UN site: http://www.un.int/wcm/content/site/palestine/pid/12354
[3] http://israelinsider.net/profiles/blogs/abbas-rejects-jewish-state
[4] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KPsOe9yRqTU
[5] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GueURvTbIss&feature=related