WikiLeaks.

[Lady Kayri]

The WikiLeaks stuff harms not only the US's, but also other countries, ability to engage in diplomacy. In the long run, that means that it could make war MORE likely. Who is going to talk privately with US diplomats if they know their communications may be outed? How many diplomats are going to express to Washington their true views of foreign leaders and other diplomats? Further, although so far most of the media focus has been on US diplomatic missives, from what I've heard they've also released some material originating in other countries, so those currently being so snide about the leaks involving the US may soon find their own diplomatic issues under scrutiny.

That being said, what really worries me about this is the fact that this low-level intelligence analyst was able to so easily access all this material. Further, one of the things that made it so easy to hack into this stuff was due to the effort to open up background material to all intelligence agencies, as a reaction to the fact that one of the reasons the 9/11 terror attack was so successful was because various intelligence agencies weren't commuinicating to each other. We (the US) have to figure out a way to properly balance security with open communication / sharing of information between agencies who need to know. (I spent two years of the 14 I had in the USAF as a wing intelligence officer; back before widespread access to the internet and what not - it's hard for me to imagine all those hundreds of thousands of pages of communications being accessible to a private - heck, I was an O-3 (Captain) and didn't have access to any material at that level back then!)

I'm definately not a proponent of the adage "Information wants to be free." Sometimes sharing too much information can cause more damage in the long run than help...

 

[aborgman]

And you're still wrong. There are many mechanisms built into the military precisely to combat this very thing. The chain of command is not all powerful in the military. You clearly know nothing about what it is to serve in the US Armed Forces, and I'd suggest to you to stop trying to act like you do - you're wildly off base.

Well, I know someone who spent days incarcerated for failing to follow an order that was later deemed illegal.

Sure - he eventually was vindicated... after spending almost a week locked up.

The chain of command ain't all powerful - and you might end up getting treated right... but you're likely to suffer in the short term.

...and moral/immoral doesn't come into it, only legal/illegal.

Thus one IS expected to follow an order which is legal, but immoral.

 

[aborgman]

That being said, what really worries me about this is the fact that this low-level intelligence analyst was able to so easily access all this material.

The stuff was all "secret" classified - one of the lowest levels of classification.

I don't know how many people have "secret" classification, but we're up to almost 1 million people in the USA who have "Top Secret" clearance... so the number is way larger than that.

 

[Noseferatu]

Am I the only one who thinks Wikileaks is a complete fabrication?

 

[Doctor J]

Probably. Did you just hear about it this week?

 

[Chris K]

What worries me is not the patriotic issue. The gov should just make sure they store away their secrets properly. Morons will try to break into computer systems, houses, anything; that can hardly be surprising. And they will always have some kind of explanation ready for doing so.

But, as we shouldn't laugh when somebody breaks into our neigbour's house, we'd better not laugh if WikiLeaks violates the privacy of governmental information. Others might try to do the same, and we might be the next victims ourselves.

I'm not very eager to live in a society where all information is public property. That's true totalitarianism. Let's be very, very precise when it comes to fundamental human rights. The protection of privacy is one of them.

 

[12bass]

I'm not very eager to live in a society where all information is public property. That's true totalitarianism. Let's be very, very precise when it comes to fundamental human rights. The protection of privacy is one of them.

Ah... but there's a fundamental difference between privacy of citizens and privacy of the state. They are not at all the same. The state exists to serve the citizens, but not vice versa. Yes, a free society requires protection of the privacy of its citizens. However, it also requires transparency and accountability of the state.

 

[Cabazon]

I'm not very eager to live in a society where all information is public property. That's true totalitarianism. .

Could you explain that a little? To me, at first, it seems counter-intuitive.

 

[DwaynieAD]

Although I hope to not take this thread too far away from the topic, I thought that this was relevant:

Link Removed



The article goes on to say that the above only applies to lawful orders. However, what recourse would a low-ranking individual have in questioning the legality of a superior's order during conflict, a circumstance where there is no practical way to seek the ruling of a higher authority on the legality of the order? Further, lawful does not imply ethical (and note that those in the highest offices have been known to "stretch" the definition of lawful so as to contravene the Geneva Conventions). Somehow I doubt that the battlefield is a place where a soldier is free to make a cogent philosophical argument regarding the unethical nature of her orders. After doing some reading on the topic, and given the harsh consequences for insubordination, I gather that any person in the military who refuses to obey the orders given them does so at their own peril.

well then please post the rest that clarifies what was being discussed without your thoughts on what is and isn't possible for a person other than yourself

at any rate this $*** is too heavy for me.. i'm out

 

[Pacman]

Well, I know someone who spent days incarcerated for failing to follow an order that was later deemed illegal.

Sure - he eventually was vindicated... after spending almost a week locked up.

Well, a week in lockup seems a small price to pay for keeping your integrity intact.

Thus one IS expected to follow an order which is legal, but immoral.

Having done Law of Armed Conflict training about 25 times now, this question has come up over and over. It is extremely difficult to come up with a case of "legal but immoral" outside of a classroom.

In the video of the helicopter shooting on the journalist, that was a clear violation of the LOAC....

 

[Deluge Of Sound]

Could you explain that a little? To me, at first, it seems counter-intuitive.

Chris, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

The way I took the statement:

If information is available to everyone, then the government(s) could ostensibly use that information to control the governed with greater ease.

 

[Chris K]

Ah... but there's a fundamental difference between privacy of citizens and privacy of the state. They are not at all the same. The state exists to serve the citizens, but not vice versa. Yes, a free society requires protection of the privacy of its citizens. However, it also requires transparency and accountability of the state.

Of course, but not in a naïve way. Neither transparancy nor accountability of the state can be absolute. They will always have to be regulated by law. That law, of course, being the result of democratic processes.

There may be good reasons for not publishing info. Think of causing commotion/panic, giving information to enemies, influence on the economy, etc. etc. Keeping information a secret may in some cases be the better way to serve the people.

The problem of course is that the need to keep secrets might be misused to cover up corruption or blunders. So control mechanisms (check and balance, remember ) will have to exist. Total control by the public, however, is an illusion, IMHO.

Unfortunately we are living in a society where the respect for privacy is declining. If you see how the private life of politicians and celebreties is being turned inside out, because the media think the public has a right to know... which is one big lie. It's because for the media, it is good business.

I find that disgusting.

 

[Lady Kayri]

This speaks to the rest of the privacy question - where do you draw the line between celebrity and 'normal person?" We already know that a lot of our own private lives are being monitored, either by the government or by corporations; do you really want your own interweb browsing history laid out for the entire world to look at? (In my case, it wouldn't bother me that much, but I suspect a lot of people have been surfing through sites they may not want the rest of their families, employers, etc. to know about...even if it's just because you're shopping for Christmas presents online!)

 

[Chris K]

On the contrary: I would like privacy rules to be the same for all. Monitoring people, using their private info, following them around, all of that should be subject to privacy rules. No sneak pictures, no digging up private life, no collection of information without specific and accountable goals, etc. etc.

You correctly mention that not only the state, but also others seem to be allowed to collect all kinds of information. So I disagree with those who say that the state holds a special position when it comes to privacy. The law should say (and partly says already) which info is public, and which is not, for all public organisations, companies and private persons.

My point is that the media and public have gotten into a mood of wanting to know everything. IMO that's the underlying problem. The public wants to know, so the media deliver, and vice versa. It's a spiral.

Classic examples can be found where the public raves to hear all kinds of juicy details about the private lives of politicans, moralists chime in to say that politicians shouldn't have affairs, former neighbours, ''friends', 'lovers' etc. come up with their stories of what happened years ago, trying to make a few bucks out of it as well. The correct attitude, IMMHO is: I don't wanna know as long as he or she gets the job done. I prefer to ignore media that have this kind of 'news' as main reason for their existence.

Of another category are those who blow the whistle on corruption etc. Maybe Wikileaks is of this latter catagory. But the essence of whistleblowing is that it is basically illegal, and can only be justified afterwards, if f.e. a politician gets convicted for crimes in the line of office. Along this same line is what Pacman wrote about military orders. Soldiers should refuse unlawful orders, but if they were right to do so, will only show when they are getting courtmarshalled.

So, until proven to be right, Wikileaks is wrong. They should be trialed, and justice be done.

 

[12bass]

Of another category are those who blow the whistle on corruption etc. Maybe Wikileaks is of this latter catagory. But the essence of whistleblowing is that it is basically illegal, and can only be justified afterwards, if f.e. a politician gets convicted for crimes in the line of office. Along this same line is what Pacman wrote about military orders. Soldiers should refuse unlawful orders, but if they were right to do so, will only show when they are getting courtmarshalled.

So, until proven to be right, Wikileaks is wrong. They should be trialed, and justice be done.

Which is essentially to say that anyone reporting abuses of power is assumed guilty of treason/insubordination until proven otherwise. Given that the system is skewed in favor of those in authority, this is not a reasonable proposition if justice is our goal.

 

[jmattbassplaya]

Which is essentially to say that anyone reporting abuses of power is assumed guilty of treason/insubordination until proven otherwise. Given that the system is skewed in favor of those in authority, this is not a reasonable proposition if justice is our goal.

Kinda have to agree here. I'm really not in favor of all this power the government seems to be gaining over the public.

 

[Chris K]

Which is essentially to say that anyone reporting abuses of power is assumed guilty of treason/insubordination until proven otherwise. Given that the system is skewed in favor of those in authority, this is not a reasonable proposition if justice is our goal.

Unfortunately it is the only way to do justice to both sides. If anyone makes accusations, he/she is the one that has to come up with proof. The government is not an abstract force, they are people as well, entitled to the same rights as everybody. There's a penalty on false accusations, and for very good reason. We can't allow people to pick up a document somewhere, run to the media, and slander public officers at will. There's only one place where abuse of power can be dealt with: court.

Indeed the systems may favor those in authority, but we cannot expect the media and the public to balance that authority, unless we want to have ourselves governed by nice faces uttering oneliners. It's a vicious illusion, for most political issues, to think/to make people think that the public can ever come close to a sophisticated opinion. We are lucky already if they are capable to understand and vote for the basic ideas of democracy, human rights and the kind of society they would like to live in.

That's not because they are stupid, but simply because matters are extremely complicated and require professionals to deal with them. Those specialists will be powerful. As a consequence, to control the ones in power, we need to keep the power divided among them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_powers

 

[12bass]

Don't want to venture much further in the current direction.... However it is important to note that it would be wrong to suggest that there ought to be an equivalence between the privacy of citizens and the privacy of the state. A state ought to be accountable to its citizens, while the converse is false. Yes, the privacy of individuals within the government ought to be respected, just as any other citizen, but not the government itself, as it must retain accountability to the citizens it serves, at least in a democratic model. The only way to ensure this is to facilitate whistleblowing if and when state transgressions might occur. Putting the burden of proof on whistleblowers, when the system is already set up to protect its own interests, shifts the balance of justice too far toward authoritarianism.

 

[mindbass]

Chris,

you argue that people in offcial functions representing the state have the same rights as private people. this is not true: everyone if office is accountable for his or her actions because they work 'for the people' and the 'people' are ultimatley the authority.

Having a free media that can report whatever it wants to keep the government/state in check is a fundamental part of democracy.

This is all very theoretical, but essentially that's how it is.
As an example i would like to bring up the Watergate scandal. It was a case of 'illegal' Whisteleblowing that allowed facts concerning the people of USA to come to light. Strictly speaking, publishing this info was illegal because it was obtained in dubious way, but no of that changes that the person in question could prevent that from happening on the grounds of privacy laws. They are not applicable because the person in question wasn't a private figure but a public one and the leaked information was not of private nature.

 

[TheVoiceless]

Incorrect. The military member cannot question a lawful, moral order. If an order is unlawful or immoral, it is the member's responsibility to question, and report such orders.




Wrong. They are 100% accountable for their actions because they were illegal actions. "I was following orders" is never a defense in cases like this. We are not trained to blindly follow orders.

Also, to say that they are being forced is inaccurate. Our military (the US's) is 100% volunteer force. No member is forced to commit illegal acts.

From what I can tell is that you are currently serving, or have served, so I will take your word.

I would have to assume it happens based on your statement, but I doubt many soldiers ever question an order, even if they are allowed to. Not saying the people behind the curtain are using these guys as pawns, but motives and objectives can be kept from the ones following the orders. And I would have to guess its in everyone involved best interest to not have to know all the details.

And I would have to assume that you can't monitor every solider all the time, meaning soldiers could be doing bad things without an upper person knowing.