Hooray For WikiLeaks

[poliphilo]

1. I've returned to reading the papers online. That's mainly because I want to keep abreast of the WikiLeaks saga. Today we're hearing about Russia- and how the Government and the mafia are hand in hand. 

2. A little of nugget of British interest is this. Britain signed up to a treaty banning cluster bombs. The US didn't. The House of Commons was told that all supplies of the bloody things would be removed from US bases on British territory, only- behind the scenes- the Foreign Office cooked up a wangle which allowed things to carry on as normal. David Miliband is choosing not to comment.

Cluster bombs are foul. The bomb bursts and distributes lots of little bomblets which can hang around forever. People in Vietnam are still being killed by bomblets that were dropped over 30 years ago. 

3. The US government has pressurised Amazon into pulling the plug on WikiLeaks. The methods are different, but I don't see- morally- that this is so very different from what happens in China. Either you cherish freedom of speech- or you don't.  

4. Here's an article- from the L.A. Times in which two federal agents argue that WikiLeaks (if it had existed back then) might have stopped the 9/11 attacks. 

Comments

[airstrip.livejournal.com]

I think you're under an illusion about what a transparent system would do.

A transparent system would reflect the public will. Check the polls. Think about the fact that Fox News is America's most popular news outlet. Think long and hard about the implications of Beck and Limbaugh and their massive popularity.

Now ask yourself: do you really want someone to try to be a hero in the public's eyes? Remember, most of America think Ellsberg is a traitor; a good chunk think Obama is a Kenyan; a vast number have a "crack the glass" strategy for the Middle East.

In a fully transparent organization, morals do not push the button. The mob, the crowd, the mass howling for bread and blood, they push the button. That's not a world I can sleep easy in.

[michaleen.livejournal.com]

Seems to me that so-called liberals have slept for too long, in this country.

You are arguing for keeping the secrets of state and the levers of government in the hands of some ruling elite, whether intellectual or moral. Yet, having observed this elite in action, particularly over the past decade, I have come to believe that they are no better than the mob they propose to keep at bay. That they are more devious and fundamentally corrupt than that mob goes without saying.

In point of fact, I am not arguing for transparency; I am arguing for confounding a corrupt and injust system, for fighting the influence of both neocons and neoliberals alike. I am arguing for forcing a change in how the US conducts itself, something that is obviuosly no longer possible through the polls. If wikileaks prevents Clinton from doing her job effectively, that is an un-alloyed greater good. If wikileaks makes it more difficult for the US to project military power outside our territories then all humanity benefits thereby. I agree that wikileaks is an attack on the US government and I say that attack is well-deserved. I applaud what they are doing and I only hope that the damage done to the US government exceeds all expectations.

After all, if the US government were really, truly devoted to promoting the general welfare of its citizens, there would be no wikileaks; there would be no need for wikileaks. The US would be too busy insuring that its people are housed, fed, clothed, well-cared for and educated, first, before it went abroad in search of monsters to slay.

[airstrip.livejournal.com]

I think you're wrong: I think you have a misguided view of people and I think you're not aware of what's actually in the cables. You seem to have an impassioned, though selective, cynicism.

But there's really nothing I can say to correct any of that, so I'm going to leave this here with the reason why.