Again with the torture? I haven't and won't defend or condone it. The US does not need to be in the torture business.
I'm just saying that allowing our state department to have secrets is something that I believe is necessary for them to deal with the harsh world. Torture has nothing to do with it.
The world doesn't make any sense. If someone seems to be making sense and their ideology seems reassuringly consistent, there lies dragons. That's religion, not reality. Marx is pretty hard to dispute when you read him.
Also, we should definitely stop attempting to be the world's "daddy."
Alright, how far back do you want to go?
Should we abandon Japan? Should we abandon Korea? Should we give back our Pacific territories? What about Hawaii - that was ill-gotten. So was most of the American West. Give that back to Mexico. Really we took most of the continental US from the natives - that should go back as well.
Seriously. The reason we are all over the world is due to past actions - some bad, some laudable. If you want to increase our self-sufficiency and isolationism, I think I can get behind that. But that doesn't happen overnight, and it'll require a hell of a lot of diplomacy since we'd need to abandon our friends in Japan, Europe, and Korea. I can't believe that you think we'd be able to extract ourselves from the rest of the world without any secrecy at all.
but if the USG expects its privacy to be respected, it needs to respect the privacy of others.
It will not respect the privacy of others, nor will any other government.
And I certainly don't expect enemies of the US to "respect its privacy"! There are two issues here: 1. We have a ineffective security system for some of our sensitive data. 2. We have a traitor in our midst, passing information off to our enemies.
Both problems need to be resolved. Note that I am not in any way suggesting that we cannot also try to improve privacy protections. These issues are exclusive of one another.
I didn't realize we were that weak of a nation that we had to violate our principles to win.
You have to violate your principles just to survive. Nature does not care what your principles or morals dictate - we are all bound by her law "survival of the fittest". It's very good to have ideals, and I think we should stick to them whenever possible - but you really can't stick to ideals at all times if you hope to survive.
If we're actually losing a war then I'd say it's time to evaluate tactics but when war is this asymmetric there is no excuse.
Agreed - which is why, for the most part, we have not embraced any "total war" philosophy in Afghanistan or Iraq. On the other hand, we have certainly aligned ourselves with some pretty unsavory characters. War itself is a failure of our ideals, so this should not be a surprise.
They don't have to torture.
I was not defending torture. Though I myself would use it if I knew the tortured could provide some extremely important information - but such situations only occur in movies.
Protecting yourself against a clear and present existential danger is one thing, aside from that, I find "protection" to be a rather flimsy argument.
And yet earlier you acknowledge that it is a basic human impulse.
I'm not claiming that "state secrets" are right - I'm claiming that they are necessary. Excusable is the word you used. Yes, we could probably make the US impossible to occupy with your strategy. Would that provide a suitable deterrent, though? Would people still try even if it seemed impossible to us? Are you prepared to wage a gorilla war just on the off chance that someone miscalculates and attacks us even though it seems like folly?
I don't have that risk gene. I like having a military large enough that countries don't dare even try - but if they did, they'd lose in a couple of hours or, at worst, weeks.
Do I think we should be on these overseas adventures, protecting the world's oil supplies? No. I think we should try to become more self-sufficient, even if we have to pay more for things. But that doesn't mean we need NO diplomatic corps or that they don't have to play just as dirty as everyone else.
Are you serious? Can't a corporation have secrets? Or should the entire public know the contents of every email passed between engineers or every negotiation with a supplier?
But the people who tell us "Innocent people have nothing to hide" - they better f*cking start by being okay with all their laundry in full public view.
If I was a public servant, I would expect my work to be public as well.
I have no problem with their work becoming public eventually - but many of the issues in this leak have to do with current events and negotiations that are in-progress.
You sound like the people in San Francisco when Bush was President - they all called him "your President" rather than "our President". But I digress.
You aren't as in control of your life as you think. You were born purely by chance into the US. You ARE represented by these diplomats, whether you like it or not. Their success or failure directly impacts your life. You could have been born into Sudan, Afghanistan, or a number of other places where the local warlord would be "your" warlord, so it could be worse.
That aside - conduct this mental experiment: Would you protect yourself at the expense of a stranger? Would you protect your family at the expense of another family? Would you protect your friends at the expense of other people? Would you protect your town at the expense of another town? Would you protect your county at the expense of another county? Would you protect your state at the expense of another state? Would you protect your country at the expense of another country? Would you protect your alliance at the expense of another alliance?
At what point in that sequence did I lose you? I'm suspecting somewhere around protecting your state or county, right? You see how that line is arbitrary and different for everyone?
As far as I'm concerned, public officials should not be permitted to keep secrets of any kind.
On a theoretical and ideological level, I agree with you.
As a practical matter, we (in the US) have no way to enforce this on foreign politicians. Forcing our diplomats to work out in the open while allowing others to work in secret puts us at a significant disadvantage.
Do you, as a shareholder, have the right to know what happened in every back-room meeting? Every negotiation with a supplier? Every email between engineers?
In business, leaks like this would endanger a business's competitiveness - a competitor would know how you do business, how you make decisions, and how deals are struck.
Openness only works when EVERYONE is open, which is why public companies can all release annual reports. A private company still has an advantage in this regard.
The government never, ever claimed that the diplomatic corp did nothing "wrong". US diplomacy would be completely ineffective if they did not have to encourage close relationships with really nasty people. I dare say most world leaders are not nice people, but you still have to treat them as royalty.
These people won't necessarily talk to you candidly if they think the conversation will show up on the web.
Right, because you don't have any embarrassing secrets. You don't tell friends things in confidence.
Thanks to this leak (and to the idiotic flubbing of security in the first place), it will be at least a little bit harder for American diplomats to make friends who will tell them things in confidence.
This obscure reference just went over 99% of Americans' government-educated heads.
Oh, we learn a lot of obscure, meaningless history over here... just the American sort. Do you know who Squanto is? We made a holiday out of him! Do you know who the guy was that signed the Declaration of Independence in REALLY BIG LETTERS was? We name buildings after him! How about that "Monroe Doctrine"? "Remember the Maine"? Betsy Ross? Yeah, Betsy sure was important.
We can't be expected to keep track of every culture who ever raped, pillaged, invaded, or otherwise defiled the British Isles - let alone what the protection payments were called!:)
I think history books the world over concentrate too much on the names and dates, and not enough on the lessons.
the IFPI organization doesn't have any more right to the domain than sunde did.
If neither has any fundamental "right" to it, then why give it to Sunde? There are rules in place for just such disputes, and Sunde is not on the winning side of these rules. The rules may be flawed, but they are very much in the same vein as Trademarks.
I don't think I'd support the "finders keepers" rules that Sunde seems to prefer. That, to me, indicates that his mind never left the 6th grade schoolyard.
First, he didn't pay for it - it was given to him. But that's not really germane.
The main point is that they didn't "steal" it. He put up a BS site to try and claim the initials IFPI after the real IFPI forgot to renew. This would be like lucking into the coke.com domain and then creating an organization called Computer Organization of Knowledge and Education to provide an excuse to hold it.
In my opinion, the whole nissan.com debacle is a much more abusive situation. Nissan has been suing this poor guy for over 10 years, even though he sells computers rather than cars! He's won so far, but at considerable cost.
Slashdot Mirror
Why do we have to torture people to survive?
Again with the torture? I haven't and won't defend or condone it. The US does not need to be in the torture business.
I'm just saying that allowing our state department to have secrets is something that I believe is necessary for them to deal with the harsh world. Torture has nothing to do with it.
Which is why we need something like Wikileaks or something similar.
I'd say "something similar". The New York Times was never this reckless, IMHO.
I'll go further: People do not have a natural right to privacy either.
The world doesn't make any sense. If someone seems to be making sense and their ideology seems reassuringly consistent, there lies dragons. That's religion, not reality. Marx is pretty hard to dispute when you read him.
Also, we should definitely stop attempting to be the world's "daddy."
Alright, how far back do you want to go?
Should we abandon Japan? Should we abandon Korea? Should we give back our Pacific territories? What about Hawaii - that was ill-gotten. So was most of the American West. Give that back to Mexico. Really we took most of the continental US from the natives - that should go back as well.
Seriously. The reason we are all over the world is due to past actions - some bad, some laudable. If you want to increase our self-sufficiency and isolationism, I think I can get behind that. But that doesn't happen overnight, and it'll require a hell of a lot of diplomacy since we'd need to abandon our friends in Japan, Europe, and Korea. I can't believe that you think we'd be able to extract ourselves from the rest of the world without any secrecy at all.
but if the USG expects its privacy to be respected, it needs to respect the privacy of others.
It will not respect the privacy of others, nor will any other government.
And I certainly don't expect enemies of the US to "respect its privacy"! There are two issues here:
1. We have a ineffective security system for some of our sensitive data.
2. We have a traitor in our midst, passing information off to our enemies.
Both problems need to be resolved. Note that I am not in any way suggesting that we cannot also try to improve privacy protections. These issues are exclusive of one another.
since the USG
No one said the US diplomatic corp was morally superior to anyone else. But "keeping secrets" is hardly its cardinal sin.
looks like Julian is doing exactly the right thing, doesn't it?
He's doing exactly what an enemy of the US should do, yes.
I didn't realize we were that weak of a nation that we had to violate our principles to win.
You have to violate your principles just to survive. Nature does not care what your principles or morals dictate - we are all bound by her law "survival of the fittest". It's very good to have ideals, and I think we should stick to them whenever possible - but you really can't stick to ideals at all times if you hope to survive.
If we're actually losing a war then I'd say it's time to evaluate tactics but when war is this asymmetric there is no excuse.
Agreed - which is why, for the most part, we have not embraced any "total war" philosophy in Afghanistan or Iraq. On the other hand, we have certainly aligned ourselves with some pretty unsavory characters. War itself is a failure of our ideals, so this should not be a surprise.
They don't have to torture.
I was not defending torture. Though I myself would use it if I knew the tortured could provide some extremely important information - but such situations only occur in movies.
Protecting yourself against a clear and present existential danger is one thing, aside from that, I find "protection" to be a rather flimsy argument.
And yet earlier you acknowledge that it is a basic human impulse.
I'm not claiming that "state secrets" are right - I'm claiming that they are necessary. Excusable is the word you used. Yes, we could probably make the US impossible to occupy with your strategy. Would that provide a suitable deterrent, though? Would people still try even if it seemed impossible to us? Are you prepared to wage a gorilla war just on the off chance that someone miscalculates and attacks us even though it seems like folly?
I don't have that risk gene. I like having a military large enough that countries don't dare even try - but if they did, they'd lose in a couple of hours or, at worst, weeks.
Do I think we should be on these overseas adventures, protecting the world's oil supplies? No. I think we should try to become more self-sufficient, even if we have to pay more for things. But that doesn't mean we need NO diplomatic corps or that they don't have to play just as dirty as everyone else.
Transparency of government
I'm all for that - just not in the middle of negotiations. Controlled disclosure of information after the fact is preferable to showing your hand.
Anyone who tells any diplomat anything because they think they're their "friend" is an idiot anyway.
Nevertheless, it seems to be a useful tactic. Idiots are found in government, apparently.
Are you serious? Can't a corporation have secrets? Or should the entire public know the contents of every email passed between engineers or every negotiation with a supplier?
But the people who tell us "Innocent people have nothing to hide" - they better f*cking start by being okay with all their laundry in full public view.
Okay, when did you hear a diplomat tell you this?
If I was a public servant, I would expect my work to be public as well.
I have no problem with their work becoming public eventually - but many of the issues in this leak have to do with current events and negotiations that are in-progress.
still be as naive as you to the extent that you are able to believe that the concept of 'national secret' can be an innocent one.
Who said anything about innocent? If the other side isn't playing fair, you either play dirty or lose.
I might change my tun on some of these positions.
You sound like the people in San Francisco when Bush was President - they all called him "your President" rather than "our President". But I digress.
You aren't as in control of your life as you think. You were born purely by chance into the US. You ARE represented by these diplomats, whether you like it or not. Their success or failure directly impacts your life. You could have been born into Sudan, Afghanistan, or a number of other places where the local warlord would be "your" warlord, so it could be worse.
That aside - conduct this mental experiment: Would you protect yourself at the expense of a stranger? Would you protect your family at the expense of another family? Would you protect your friends at the expense of other people? Would you protect your town at the expense of another town? Would you protect your county at the expense of another county? Would you protect your state at the expense of another state? Would you protect your country at the expense of another country? Would you protect your alliance at the expense of another alliance?
At what point in that sequence did I lose you? I'm suspecting somewhere around protecting your state or county, right? You see how that line is arbitrary and different for everyone?
To blame Wikileaks for this is just hypocrite.
I can't blame both?
It is irresponsible that such a leak happened, and it is an attack on the US that the information was published publicly.
Obviously, we need to fix the broken "secure" system. We also need to arrest and try the people who stole and published the information.
As far as I'm concerned, public officials should not be permitted to keep secrets of any kind.
On a theoretical and ideological level, I agree with you.
As a practical matter, we (in the US) have no way to enforce this on foreign politicians. Forcing our diplomats to work out in the open while allowing others to work in secret puts us at a significant disadvantage.
If you like an analogy
I'll run with your analogy.
Do you, as a shareholder, have the right to know what happened in every back-room meeting? Every negotiation with a supplier? Every email between engineers?
In business, leaks like this would endanger a business's competitiveness - a competitor would know how you do business, how you make decisions, and how deals are struck.
Openness only works when EVERYONE is open, which is why public companies can all release annual reports. A private company still has an advantage in this regard.
The government never, ever claimed that the diplomatic corp did nothing "wrong". US diplomacy would be completely ineffective if they did not have to encourage close relationships with really nasty people. I dare say most world leaders are not nice people, but you still have to treat them as royalty.
These people won't necessarily talk to you candidly if they think the conversation will show up on the web.
"suspected rapist Julius Assange"
I'd have gone with Anti-American douche-bag, myself.
At least isn't that what the government tells us?
Right, because you don't have any embarrassing secrets. You don't tell friends things in confidence.
Thanks to this leak (and to the idiotic flubbing of security in the first place), it will be at least a little bit harder for American diplomats to make friends who will tell them things in confidence.
This obscure reference just went over 99% of Americans' government-educated heads.
Oh, we learn a lot of obscure, meaningless history over here... just the American sort. Do you know who Squanto is? We made a holiday out of him! Do you know who the guy was that signed the Declaration of Independence in REALLY BIG LETTERS was? We name buildings after him! How about that "Monroe Doctrine"? "Remember the Maine"? Betsy Ross? Yeah, Betsy sure was important.
We can't be expected to keep track of every culture who ever raped, pillaged, invaded, or otherwise defiled the British Isles - let alone what the protection payments were called! :)
I think history books the world over concentrate too much on the names and dates, and not enough on the lessons.
Mr. Nissan is still winning - look at nissan.com
But it has cost him a fortune.
the IFPI organization doesn't have any more right to the domain than sunde did.
If neither has any fundamental "right" to it, then why give it to Sunde? There are rules in place for just such disputes, and Sunde is not on the winning side of these rules. The rules may be flawed, but they are very much in the same vein as Trademarks.
I don't think I'd support the "finders keepers" rules that Sunde seems to prefer. That, to me, indicates that his mind never left the 6th grade schoolyard.
First, he didn't pay for it - it was given to him. But that's not really germane.
The main point is that they didn't "steal" it. He put up a BS site to try and claim the initials IFPI after the real IFPI forgot to renew. This would be like lucking into the coke.com domain and then creating an organization called Computer Organization of Knowledge and Education to provide an excuse to hold it.
In my opinion, the whole nissan.com debacle is a much more abusive situation. Nissan has been suing this poor guy for over 10 years, even though he sells computers rather than cars! He's won so far, but at considerable cost.