OK, once again, I am the hardline minority on this brand of issue.

True transparency, if that is the aim of wikileaks, would be crippling to economies and governments everywhere - as it would be in your own household (imagine if you held a policy of true transparency with your spouse, your kids... or worse, if true transparency was forced upon you after the fact). But the stakes are much higher. If our economies were truly crippled, most of us would not have jobs, would not have social services, would not have legal recourse and would live in utter chaos - THERE WOULD BE NO GOVERNING IN AN ENVIRONMENT INIMICAL TO THE ACT OF GOVERNING.

Hate it all you want, but you benefit greatly from the system as it exists. Not to say it should not be scrutinized - I am just saying that the effective line of scrutiny is more elusive than many care to admit. There need to be checks and balances, and, as Vovin pointed out, the various news media used to fulfill this role; I am not entirely convinced that they do no longer, but i am convinced that an unmonitored unsourced entity like wikileaks will certainly not.

To govern is to accept responsibility for protecting your people. And to think that's always pretty is, frankly, naive. The world is a dirty place, and i personally don't begrudge it that; it is the natural and necessary course of human advancement (wow, I feel the heat of the flaming from here ). It's easy from a throne of relative luxury to sing the praises of absolute transparency and accountability; but look under you, the throne that elevates you above the dangerous flotsam and jetsam below was built on a foundation of diplomatic subterfuge. Necessary diplomatic subterfuge, if you value your present life.

We all lie. To save face, for the better good, to evade pointless conflict and to win allies who help keep us safe and protect our families - in the boardroom, the ballroom and the bedroom alike. Some lies conceal good; Some lies veil certain evil; some veil acts perceived as evil out of context - and to expect us to understand the global context of all governement actions and contexts is globally unrealistic and naive.

That is why we vote. To place our trust in someone to perpetrate perceived acts of "evil" in a context of a "greater" good. It is such a very fine line, but whether you like it or not, it is a line that will always exist in a stable and effective and, ironically, equal community. So I seem to stand alone in the recognition that some things need to happen behind closed doors. Honesty is the fool's policy when absolute and bare. The only thing I demand of a politician is that their acts, overt and covert, open and secret, plain and unscrutinized, be true and honest to the principles they sold to the people who voted for them. And even this, in the scale of things, is probably naive...

Trust is not an expectation of honesty, but rather faith that the trusted one's honesty AND dishonesty will not bring harm our way.

I have my asbestos suit on for the inevitable flaming.

JBArk

I apologize for those comments. I didn't fully research the whole issue, which will take some time. I should have done what I normally do when I don't have the full picture, and that's not say anything at all. However, I will remain fully transparent with my comments and not try to hide them.

Yeah but jbark, what are the costs of these lies? If you are talking about you making the life of your wife softer by saying things in a certain way, thats one thing, but if you're talking about decisions that cost many innocent lives and all sorts of measures against basic human rights, can you really consider it worth it? How much is the price of an innocent live? What if its someone from your family? What about thousands of innocent lives? Or millions?

Personally I would say as much as I benefited from the current system, there's no way to know that I wouldnt have benefited from another system, and plus, coming from a third world country, I have seen how unfair this system is and I do not feel its right according to my conscience to defend it, even if at first sight it seems I may at this moment be in a good social position and therefore take benefits from it.

The world has to change, this machiavelic domination of the world is completely unsustainable in so many ways, it has to be substituted by something else. Wikileaks seems to me just one more step towards it, but the hole the current system is falling into was being dug since much earlier.

maybe in an ideal world...
but it is your view, my friend, that is naive.


major banks and corporations who have the gov't in your back pocket don't exist so you can benefit. they benefit majority stockholders, people who've been in the old family business for centuries.
they actually perpetuate the disproportionate allocation of resources while all but suppressing the idea of a free market system. it's analogous to Markovnikov's rule in chemistry..."the rich get richer, the poor get poorer".
look at the big picture: a person's individual vote stopped mattering in the grand scheme when corporations gained the legal representation of an individual.....and they have way more money behind their vote.
if you want to play blind man with the shepherd, by all means, do so...but not I. my eyes are wide open.

I am awake.

ahh but you're in canada... socialism doesn't have the same effect. even in the lower income areas of montreal, the poor are still entitled to free social programs.

if there were a natural balance against injustices like oligopolies, rogue governments, and
alternate agendas, then wikileaks would not be as relevant; but there isn't.
media outlets such as wikileaks are very necessary

meanwhile, the ignorant/oblivious/complacent will eventually lay in the bed they made

Do you really believe it is possible for the world to operate, given human nature, without loss of life? If it is, maybe I am naive. But it has never happened, so the naivete lies on the other side until it does. The point I was making is that there is an elusive line of permission. Whispering a sweet lie to your wife to make her day better is clearly not on par with fibbing about MOWs in Iraq - but there is a very large grey zone between. Where do you place the line? For you must place one if you admit the wife analogy above, and admit that the grey area of increasing "lie gravity" exists. I have gone one step further, and I am sure this is where I lose most of you, in asserting that for a government to function it must hide some questionable decisions and actions in order to operate in a moral sphere.

Let me provide a simple example. A hypothetical nomadic tribe on the russian steppes in neolithic times needs to move fast to keep up with migrating food sources and to escape the cold. A segment of the population are slowing them down: the aged. If they do not move faster, the tribe will perish. The only solution, the only "moral" solution (if morality can be defined as what is "good" and "bad" for the tribe), is to kill off the slower ones to allow the faster ones to keep up with the food sources and sustain the tribe. Atrocious!! But moral and "right" for that tribe at that time.

To push the analogy a little further, would you begrudge the elders who made this decision, and the executioners, if they did not tell ALL the tribe of what was transpiring, knowing that they probably would not be able to overcome the atrocity of the acts to fully comprehend the necessity? And would likely stall the decision making process to effectively negate the decision and jeopardize the survival of the tribe? And what of the snitch who told everyone, handicapping the tribe with revolt and indecision and ultimately causing their demise?

Wikileaks is ideologically indiscriminate in its divulging of information. Total disclosure is inimical to the effective operation of government. There need to be checks and balances, to be certain, but full disclosure is a crippling force. The world does need to change - just let's be careful about the means we use to change it.

And benzyme - I am not saying nothing should be done by any means. Complacency IS the real enemy. Your example of the corporations and banks may be correct, but can you honestly say you have a full command of all the variables at hand, and understand enough about the global situation to make that assertion with absolute authority? And please, give me some credit. I do live in the social democracy known as Canada (and I have my serious beefs with the system here, rest assured), but I have been around the block as well. Even to your neck 'o the woods.

JBArk

o ok, just making sure you're not playing devil's advocate to Harper.

money isn't the only factor, people get intoxicated with power. those two factors are the primary reason it's a dog eat dog world.

it's already been said.. as long as people are dumbed down and programmed to mindlessly consume, this travesty against mankind will always exist; haves vs. have-nots.
at the very least, we need to reveal the shocking truth to the public.

I have found that nearly all pain and suffrage in life comes down to greed and fear.

I think you mean suffering. Although there is a fair and cynical argument for suffrage having been born of greed and fear also.

ooooooo, eeeeeeeey, oooooooo, eeeeey
eeee-eeee-eeeey

No man should have all that POOOOOOOOOWERRRRRRR

The clock's tickin', I just count the hours
Stop trippin', I'm trippin' off the power
(21st century schizoid man)

I could discuss your analogy later on if we considered it valid, but first of all I wanna question: Is that analogy valid at all?

You were talking about a tribe looking for basic necessities (food, water, etc). But is that so in our world? What is it that hiding weapons and making diplomatic pressures 'saves' ? The way I see it, all this sneaking and lying isnt helping to achieve any basic necessity, its just to maintain the unsustainable status quo. In fact, I would go as far as saying the inverse, while the world could be feeding the hungry, they are not. And how do they maintain the system that makes millions die or be stuck to poverty? Amongst other things, by making hidden pressures and keeping hidden agendas for selfish reasons, instead of letting the truth coming out and doing what they are really supposed to (maintain the structures so that human endeavor can flourish in a balanced way and our species evolve as a whole)

Until you live in a self made hut and eschew all technology and progress and live self-sufficiently off what your own garden produces, I must respectfully take that with a grain of salt. We all profit directly and indirectly (and arguably suffer directly and indirectly) from the employment of these forces. A basic necessity of the global economy is oil. I would like to see that change as much as anyone, but it is presently undeniable. The foundations of your entire life, like it or not, are built on oil. If you do not agree, look at the keys you are tapping in response to this: plastic.

There is a cake you can have, and a cake you can eat. Spitting on the cake helps no one.

Let's change the world, but let's do it without destroying it. Full and sudden and uncontrolled and unsourced disclosure, such as wikileaks espouses, I contend, is more dangerous than the web of lies it reveals ever was or will be. And I do mean FULL disclosure. Governments and societies should be held accountable for their actions. I just don't believe that something like wikileaks, or at the very least what it inevitably proposes, is the right mechanism.

And I am quite certain that most here will (respectfully, I hope) disagree.

JBArk

But notice how you're lying in an assumption I touched upon in my other post. You are assuming that another system couldnt have delivered technologies such as the amazing internet. You're also relying in the assumption of the direct and necessary relationship between government sneaky secrets and cultural development. Sure there was technological development that happened related to the military for example but this does not in any way prove that it couldnt have been otherwise in a society who's objectives and sense of purpouse where another.

Also, notice I never said or meant that we should romantically go back to living in the jungle. What I meant is that there is a necessary transformation to this system which is inevitably happening, and welcoming the dirt that is being purged at this moment because it just could not continue as it is.

Lastly, I completely agree lets change the world and not destroy it. We're not the ones destroying, and neither is spread of information necessarily destroying. They are using the withholding of information to destroy lives, structures and nature all around the world, again I ask you to show me direct examples nowadays that a significant amount of this withholding of information is for the benefit of mankind. Its not, its for selfish objectives of a few, for the dumbing of the masses, etc.

Personally I believe in exposing that, and working for education and investing in sustainable development. Wikileaks is not the solution to all the worlds problems but it can be a part if there is a good continuation of this momentum... Only time will tell, but Im trying (and im sure you too) to make my part in helping the world.

I voted yes as the way i think ths is we need less hypocracy in this world.
However it's sure true that diplomatie is sometimes borderline with it for good reasons.
Not most certainly.

I think the amount of squirming by the various governments attests to the veracity of these leaks.Personally, I find it all very amusing but unsurprising.The Western governments in particular who have a nasty habit of criticising other governments on for example, 'open government' and 'human rights' have been shown to preach one thing but practise another.The scope of these leaks is the only new revelation here; the duplicity, the 'honeyed words and cheating hands' seem to have been taken by most of the public as shocking and surprising but anyone who knows a modicum about history knows thats the way its always been.It also confirms that there is no such thing as a permanent or fully loyal ally, and a nation really gains no respect by kow-towing to the big boys (ie the USA).

Many of these leaks relate to diplomatic communiques and the etymology of the word 'diplomacy' is instructive;it comes from the Latin word 'diplomaticos' and derives from the word 'diploma' which means 'an official document conferring a privilege'- the privilege in this case being the 'right' to say one thing in public but something completely contrary in private!

The Western governments pride themselves on their openess and accountability; Wikileaks have revealed this to be an epic delusion.

I'm still undecided.

It would be totally unacceptable if warcrimes as committed or supported by our governments would be kept hidden from our view forever.

So then i MUST be in favor of wikileaks..?

But Jbark makes some good points and the question here is: is my enemy's enemy by definition my friend?

I also must add that the obama administration is dodging the difficult questions by focussing all the attention towards the whole phenomenon of leaking itself.
They're not talking about the war crimes or how the government tried to keep them secret...they're making a big case of how these things where being leaked and what an enormous disgrace that is for diplomacy worldwide.

I don't know what to think of all this. I think i trust neither our governments, nor wikileaks.

so what mechanism do you propose? what is the right mechanism?

internet is the ONLY option, agencies filter televised newscasts.
informing people is the only way, because keeping it quiet doesn't benefit anyone, except those with the power.

I don't know if you've been around long enough to actually observe the economic infrastructure transition from a manufacturing-based economy to a retail-based one; in the process, the system has managed to widen the socio-economic gap between the lower and upper-class, while blurring the middle-class. the best thing to do would be to inform the working-class about what's going on, so they can boycott certain large businesses (which have such heavy influence on national elections), and support smaller local ones; this would be far more effective than voting.

I will again risk attack and risk putting myself in a minority here . I think the media do a fabulous job of disseminating information. You just need to choose your sources wisely and widely. Never have we had access to such a wide and varied array of information from such varied sources. Online news from reliable sources, blogs, fringe news sites...

But it is a double edged sword; the more sources there are the more likely people are to find one source they like (most often the source that approves of their world view - democrat, republican, ecologically bent, new agey, occult, conspiracy theorist, antibank anti corporation...), and refer to it almost exclusively, fomenting blind partisanship, ignorance and a false sense of belonging to a "movement", often at the expense of the truth.

They did a study once (sorry can't source it) where they placed 5-6 different brands of jams on a table in a supermarket. People enjoyed the choice and different people bought different brands and flavours. The researchers concluded that in the grocery industry, choice is a good thing and encourages competition and variety. So they upped the ante in their study and placed 20 brands on a table - lo and behold almost everyone chose the most popular and widely available brand AND flavour, foregoing the choice presented them.

There is a profound lesson there and a glimpse into human nature. Too much choice breeds conservatism and a preference for the known quantity.

So with the wide array of choice, discipline is needed, particularly armed with the knowledge, in your words, that "agencies filter televised newscasts" - and I would also add print, radio, AND net content (on larger publications at any rate). Everyone has an agenda, every source is questionable and has ulterior motives and is guided by unseen forces (including, my optimistic friends - wikileaks) so the responsibility falls on us to read widely and from a variety of sources. Personally i frequent many popular sites from right wing to left wing to fringe... I take all these sources as op-ed and try to glean the truth from examining many perspectives.

I think wikileaks appeals to an unhealthy sensationalism, and its unsourced content (correct me if I am wrong, this is what i have read) to me is no more valid than the content of the national enquirer. But I KNOW that given all the choice available, and the predilection in our times for kneejerk anticorporate and antigovernment thought, many will choose it as their sole source of information, and this strikes me as ultimately irresponsible and dangerous.

Wish i had more time. Rather hard to express one's entire world view in a few meagre sentences.

JBArk

like i said, and particularly in this country (US), many media sources are filtered, and don't tell the whole story. they leave out details like civilian casualties incurred by coalition forces in conflicts overseas. they seldom give the dirt on major corporate agendas.

people shouldn't have to dig for this type of reporting, they don't have to dig for news about N. Korea or Iran, because it's obvious how media moguls want to sway opinion.
this sort of information, the information about corporate agenda and collateral damage of war, SHOULD be widely available, so people can see exactly what it is they're supporting. you won't see it on CNN, MSNBC, or FOX; you'll get hints of it on BBC, PBS, and hear it on NPR...

but as you say, we need more choices, choices which reveal all. nothing good comes out of withholding information or sugar-coating the story.

Yes.

And jbark the information in wikileaks is not 'unsourced' and unreliable like some gossip newspaper, just look at the reactions around the world, as I already mentioned. Its coming from the diplomatic contacts, and all the information regarding date and people involved in the communication are known.

And look at the reactions: Hillary Clinton calling leaders around the world to appologize and ask to 'look forward', in Brazil the minister admited that indeed they did not accept guantanamo inmates as the conversations said, a minister (I think) in germany was fired after finding that part of the information was passed by him. In spain it seems its even gonna be used as evidence in a case where a family of some news reporter killed in Iraq by troops is sueing the government for accepting US pressure to stop investigation regarding the death. Also leaders all around the world are giving statements regarding these informations, and not to mention look at how wikileaks is trying to be shut down (paypal cancelled their account, amazon stopped hosting their page, the DNS server stopped re-routing wikileak address to their IP, etc). Then notice how all major newspapers are accounting this (and they definitely dont want to lose their credibility as news sources)

Also one of the people responsible for passing information to wikileaks, Brad Manning, is imprisioned and many american politicians are asking for death penalty.

Do you have any doubt regarding how true it is, jbark? You really think if it wasnt true all these reactions would happen?