Writer's Block: The more you know

[ssurgul]

[Error: unknown template qotd]

When that information is revealing deceit or anti-democratic standards and behavior or obvious criminal activity, yes definitely. When it is revealing classified troop movement information, no.

The former should be obvious. Just because a company or government declares something 'classified' it doesn't remove the reality that the activity is illegal. The government is not above the law, the Executive Branch (despite what BushCo tried to have us believe) is not above the law. There are all sorts of perfectly legal means of enforcing the law. Trying to cover up the wholesale slaughter of innocent lives by contractors or soldiers is not acceptable in any context. And on that same level, it's equally unacceptable to try and repaint a soldier (hunky though he was) as a 'hero' and saving all this life valorously when the reality was he was killed stupidly by friendly fire. These are all things that we, as the supporters of that government, have a right to know and should have bearing on the manner we treat our officials and elections.

When such information serves no other purpose than to endanger lives or again reveal perfectly legal governmental activities, then no. That is where it crosses the line.

In the case of some of those leaked State Dept. wires, I think they were fully reasonable to be revealed. While it didn't reveal anything 'untoward' about the manner in which cables are routed, nor about what was said (so many other countries almost literally laughed it off given how .... negative their own cables can get), I do believe that it showed some highly questionable if not illegal activities pushed by former Sec. of State Rice and current Sec. Clinton. THAT, again, makes such revelations justified.

Comments

[ihuitl.livejournal.com]

"I do believe that it showed some highly questionable if not illegal activities pushed by former Sec. of State Rice and current Sec. Clinton. THAT, again, makes such revelations justified."

Do you have any examples? Because most of the cables were either irrelevant, not unethical, and in many cases a big "no duh" (making it questionable if some of those should have been classified in the first place - classification creep happens). Note that allegations don't count - for example, it is an insurgent tactic to claim detainee abuse even when none happened; thankfully we record all our interrogations now and have witnesses, so the allegations are almost always shown to be false.

However, unethical things still do happen...at that point they should be disclosed if and only if normal whistle blowing channels fail. Plus, ONLY that information relevant to the activity in question should be revealed. That's what Joseph Darby did in the case of Abu Ghraib: only direct evidence was disclosed by him, to those who brought down the hammer and the Army is actually protecting him from neo-con death threats (showing that in the end, we do take care of our own). Making a giant info dump that does not discriminate such information is utterly irresponsible, reveals things that should not be revealed, and illegal. It also betrays diplomatic secrets and negotiations that make the job of averting violent conflict through diplomacy that much harder.

Of course, Assange's releases ended up excluding some information (making him simply another, even more autocratic filter of what he thinks everyone needs to know). Even then, many human rights groups were concerned about the dangers posed to informants and sources...to which Assange either admitted he may have blood on his hands, or else assured us without proof they would be safe. Add to that his blatant editing of the "collateral murder" video, the fact he didn't speak out against the Anonymous goon squad tactics that he criticizes other nations for, and I can say that there are are more ethical, responsible, and less hypocritical people who could be part of the public whistle blowing process.

[ssurgul.livejournal.com]

Well, what I'm pointing out here is the methods of gathering the information for these cables. In several cases (and I haven't had time to research down to the individual names of the responsible parties yet, if that's what you're after) the cable was spawned by staff at the consulate that was NOT supposed to be gathering that data actively. But there are also orders in that bundle of papers from Rice and Clinton telling the people that aren't supposed to be gathering this (by international treaty on recognized consul staff, not just by American standards) to go out and gather this data.

THAT is not what I voted these people in for, or in the case of Rice shows just how expansive the BushCo Nightmare tried to flex Executive Privilege out to these absurd boundaries. When we agree to treaties internationally, we're bound by them entirely, not just by those pieces that are handy and the rest can be discarded cuz we don't like 'em no more. These weren't allegations of wrong doing, there were apparently documented cases of this happening across both administrations. And it needs to be shown in the light of day so it can stop. If we're really going to lead by example, then this shit has to stop.

[ihuitl.livejournal.com]

What specific treaties do you think were violated, and are you referring to the practices of "official cover" for CIA agents?

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Official_cover)

[ssurgul.livejournal.com]

I'm trying to find the specific day when this was covered. As soon as I do, I'll be happy to post it.

[ihuitl.livejournal.com]

Diplomacy and espionage have always been close cousins, and will continue to be such. Military attache, cultural attache, and other titles are more or less signs that scream "I'm a spy".

You may be referring to us spying on UN officials, which again should come as no surprise. I'm not even sure there are treaties against this, at least any we have signed on to.

[ssurgul.livejournal.com]

Still trying to find the info for you, but what was reported was that it WAS a violation of treaty. And of course, 'everyone else is doing it' is no excuse. If we end up being the initial domino to fall to clean up international antics like that, so be it. Unfortunately, we don't have any info from these regarding activities during Clinton, Bush1, or prior, so it's difficult to know if this was a game born of post-9/11 deciding that American 'Exceptionalism' trumps everything else or not. More to come, clearly.

[ihuitl.livejournal.com]

It's not an excuse in the normative sense, it's simply a positive statement of the way things are. Diplomacy has always had an espionage side to it.

I consider espionage to be fair game for, and to, anyone; properly done it can avoid outright open conflict. Technically, any espionage violates some law or treaty - diplomats are spied on all the time in spite of the 1961 Vienna Convention about diplomatic relations being invioable (which along with the UN charter saying the same of the UN, which is likely what is being referenced).

I say then, if the UN is part of the international theater or Realpolitik, then by all means let us be the first domino to fall and collect on them as we need to...assuming other people haven't been collecting on the UN all along as well. Our own allies collect on us, even the closest ones. Again, it's a statement of fact, not one of justification.

Fancy titles change nothing.

[gabrielhorse.livejournal.com]

All is fair game. You can hide whatever you are able, but who says you have any more right to it than someone else? If someone else finds it, what is to prevent them from doing what they want to do with it?