Wikileaks military whistleblower in solitary confinement: inhumane treatment

[VirusType2]

What does that have to do with anything? She said authorities. I assume she meant the police.

If I found evidence of such a crime in the army or the public sector, I would report it through the chain of command or present it to the authorities.

I helped.

 

[StarBob]

StarBob, you're a young private in the military in charge of encrypting classified information. You get a memo you are asked to encrypt that shows the US government covered up the gang rape of a 19 year old girl. What do you do?

I consider the repercussions of leaking information to the public. Considering I'm a young private in the military in charge of anything so potentially damaging is fascinating in its own right, but if I'm willing to basically sacrifice myself to spread secret information, I guess that's a strange choice.

I don't really understand all of this anyways. Why are you so up in arms about the idea of secret government informaiton being public domain without any consequences to those who perpetrated the obvious illegal activity? Do you think it should be legal for people to share anything and everything the government does? Don't you think that might .. well you know.. compromise very important situations? What would you do in the exact same situation? Would you be willing to break one of the most harshly punished laws in America to let 300 million people know some stuff that maybe a few million care about and a few thousand would actually act upon?

Basically I have to assume if the government wants a secret to be secret they have a reason for doing so and it's not my authority to personally decide what is right and wrong for 300 million other people... sure as hell not at 22. Call me crazy, but I live my life not assuming that everyone who ever has or ever will work for the US Government are evil bastards trying to perpetrate crazy ass conspiracies to make everyone's life miserable. You act like because of some bad apples we should ****ing dig up the apple tree and throw it in a wood chipper, burn it in a fire and piss on the coals.

 

[Krynn72]

If you follow the chain of command and nothing gets done what do you do then?

Just deal with it, because you wouldn't want to risk destabilizing the "mentality of the military." I mean, the mentality of the military, with its desire to cover up their crimes and punish good people, is certainly worth preserving.

 

[Sulkdodds]

Hi guys, I just showed up to this thread. This guy is dumb for doing what he did. Even at 22 (all of two years ago) I could have easily figured out "hey I'm stealing classified secret documents from the government, there could be harsh consequences." Seeing something you think is bad and taking action is one thing, but seeing something you think is bad and taking illegal action is another. ESPECIALLY being in the military where you don't have the same civil liberties and rights as a civilian. That's how it's been forever. Once you're within the rigid structure of the military, you're basically telling youself and the US Government you no longer act as an individual and do what is told to you by your superiors. Hell you can be put in military prison for just LEAVING without permission.

What is with all these 'arguments from dumbess' all of a sudden? Like, what, because he could have anticipated all this happening, we shouldn't care about his predicament? How is it in any way relevant except to cut off discussion about the ethical meaning of his actions and the armed forces'? If a bank robber was caught but he was really smart and smooth, would you be saying "hey, this guy is clever for what he did" and implying he shouldn't be behind bars? Get a grip.

Anyway, it's probably worth reminding ourselves that this thread started with news that the authorities are essentially sentencing him without trial by treating him badly before he's even been convicted. If anything this is itself an indicator that trust in military justice is potentially ill-placed.

Do you think it should be legal for people to share anything and everything the government does?

I realise the situation is more complicated than this, but you should try a little exercise.

Imagine a world where everything the government does is totally transparent. Everything is known. Nothing can be hid.
(one effect of this is that the Prisoner's Dilemna - a cold-war allegory for the behaviour of people in game theory and therefore of nations in diplomacy - always ends nicely)
Now imagine a world where everything the governent does is completely secret and nothing can be discovered.
Which one would you rather live in?

 

[No Limit]

I consider the repercussions of leaking information to the public. Considering I'm a young private in the military in charge of anything so potentially damaging is fascinating in its own right, but if I'm willing to basically sacrifice myself to spread secret information, I guess that's a strange choice.

It is fascinating, isn't it? A 22 year old that's been in the military for less than 3 years had access to over a million state department memos, millions of classified military documents, as well as classified videos. And then the system was set up so he could take that information and burn it on a CD. Even the networks I'm responsible for we usually limit such ability, I guess the US military is still living in the 80s.

Basically I have to assume if the government wants a secret to be secret they have a reason for doing so and it's not my authority to personally decide what is right and wrong for 300 million other people... sure as hell not at 22. Call me crazy, but I live my life not assuming that everyone who ever has or ever will work for the US Government are evil bastards trying to perpetrate crazy ass conspiracies to make everyone's life miserable. You act like because of some bad apples we should ****ing dig up the apple tree and throw it in a wood chipper, burn it in a fire and piss on the coals.

The incident I posted about here is a real one, a 19 year old girl working as a contractor for halliburton in Iraq was gang raped by her fellow co-workers. The government covered this up, atleast we can safely assume they did seeing how they handed all the evidance of this crime to Halliburton. Evidance of this cover up I would say must exist exactly because of the way chain of command in the military works, which Virus needed wikipedia to explain.

Again, even if you are only 22 and see this evidance you would not do anything about it? You would assume that it's being kept secret for a reason? What reason is that?

 

[StarBob]

What is with all these 'arguments from dumbess' all of a sudden? Like, what, because he could have anticipated all this happening, we shouldn't care about his predicament?

Yep, if you are ever in a situation where you are very clear about the consequences of your actions, and those consequences are terrible, you should expect people to sympathize with the results. If I say to myself "hey I'll put my in a wood chipper, though I know it will be destroyed and cause great deals of pain," I don't think anyone should go get crazy angry and made at wood chipper companies for creating such a dangerous product.

Anyway, it's probably worth reminding ourselves that this thread started with news that the authorities are essentially sentencing him without trial by treating him badly before he's even been convicted. If anything this is itself an indicator that trust in military justice is potentially ill-placed.

I realise the situation is more complicated than this, but you should try a little exercise.

Imagine a world where everything the government does is totally transparent. Everything is known. Nothing can be hid.
(one effect of this is that the Prisoner's Dilemna - a cold-war allegory for the behaviour of people in game theory and therefore of nations in diplomacy - always ends nicely)
Now imagine a world where everything the governent does is completely secret and nothing can be discovered.
Which one would you rather live in?

In the military that is how it works. There's no bail or anything. He'll be court-martialed most likely.

Also I don't live in either of those worlds. I live in a world where secrets are kept because they must be kept or it is beneficial to the masses for them to be kept. We find things out that we need to know all the time and often times it's public domain but our media sources don't cover it or discover it.

Again, even if you are only 22 and see this evidance you would not do anything about it? You would assume that it's being kept secret for a reason? What reason is that?

I certainly wouldn't expose thousands upon thousands of secret documents to the world to tell someone about it. That's stupid. There's not even a ridiculous logical sidestep to it, it's just a terrible choice. He made a bad choice and now he's dealing with the consequences. My choice (as well as yours) in the matter is entirely irrelevant. The point is he's in solitary confinement because he was convicted of possibly treasonous crime while in the military. If he is convicted I'm sure his punishment would probably end up being a good bit worse than 7 months in jail.

 

[No Limit]

Anytime you would like to answer the question I actually asked you then please, by all means.

 

[Eejit]

Also I don't live in either of those worlds. I live in a world where secrets are kept because they must be kept or it is beneficial to the masses for them to be kept.

Some might find such naiveté charming.

 

[Krynn72]

Also I don't live in either of those worlds. I live in a world where secrets are kept because they must be kept or it is beneficial to the masses for them to be kept.

Holy shit, how did you get there? Do you need a spaceship? I want to come live there!

Unless you're of course talking about the world the rest of us live in, and you're just delusional.

 

[Kaptain H]

Just deal with it, because you wouldn't want to risk destabilizing the "mentality of the military." I mean, the mentality of the military, with its desire to cover up their crimes and punish good people, is certainly worth preserving.

We also have bake sales.

 

[Sulkdodds]

Yep, if you are ever in a situation where you are very clear about the consequences of your actions, and those consequences are terrible, you should expect people to sympathize with the results. If I say to myself "hey I'll put my in a wood chipper, though I know it will be destroyed and cause great deals of pain," I don't think anyone should go get crazy angry and made at wood chipper companies for creating such a dangerous product.

So what you're saying is that blowing the whistle on a great many important issues has absolutely no ethical dimension at all. Or that we shouldn't "sympathize" (which is dodging the question; we're talking about justice) with people who know the likely consequences of their actions and do it anyway. Without wanting to draw false equivalences or invoke some kind of backwards Godwin's law, tell it to Schindler, Ghandi, Martin Luther King, or any political prisoner.

We also have bake sales.

Yeah? They're probably like...secret bake sales. That nobody's allowed to know the location of. Let me ask you a question. If you found evidence that the cake had been laced with poison, would you cover it up??

 

[Krynn72]

We also have bake sales.

How much of the proceeds go towards the corporations sponsoring rather than the soldiers? I won't buy anything if its less than 87%.

 

[No Limit]

We also have bake sales.

Yup, I think that started as soon as they allowed vagina in to the ranks.

 

[Kaptain H]

How much of the proceeds go towards the corporations sponsoring rather than the soldiers? I won't buy anything if its less than 87%.

Admittedly, I've never seen one.

 

[VirusType2]

Evidance of this cover up I would say must exist exactly because of the way chain of command in the military works, which Virus needed wikipedia to explain.

Actually, I did explain it for you. Do we need to color code all of our posts? Are you retarded, bro?

To simplify it in civilian terms that you would be familiar with: It would be the equivalent of a worker reporting something to their direct supervisor, instead of going to the police, to the owner of the store, to the press, etc.

And I'll add to that, if a co-worker was stealing from the store, you most often expected to report it using the chain of command. You don't just call the police without telling anyone what is going on. There are certain ways of dealing with situations like this and it has nothing to do with covering up crimes.

Obviously, sometimes you have to jump higher in the chain of command if your superior is not dealing with it properly, or if they are complicit themselves.

Imagine a world where everything the government does is totally transparent. Everything is known. Nothing can be hid.
(one effect of this is that the Prisoner's Dilemna - a cold-war allegory for the behaviour of people in game theory and therefore of nations in diplomacy - always ends nicely)
Now imagine a world where everything the governent does is completely secret and nothing can be discovered.
Which one would you rather live in?

The secretive country will be in a much stronger position than all of their transparent enemies, and the only one capable of surprise. That's the most basic rule, basically.

I must say that I hope you guys all turn out to be right; I wish to live in this Utopian world you have imagined.

I'm not old fashioned, but you guys are dreaming. The US is one of the most transparent countries that ever existed. What does that say about the rest of 'em?

 

[Sulkdodds]

The secretive country will be in a much stronger position than all of their transparent enemies, and the only one capable of surprise. That's the most basic rule, basically.

Wouldn't the secretive country be completely mistrusted and barred from engaging in diplomacy or heavy trade until it joined the rest of the world in making its intentions more clear?

 

[No Limit]

Actually, I did explain it for you.

Yes, it's a good thing you posted a wikipedia link. Otherwise how could I have possibly known what chain of command means.

Maybe in your detailed research of chain of command you missed this part from your wikipedia article:

A service member who has difficulty executing a duty or order and appeals for relief directly to an officer above his immediate commander in the chain of command is likely to be disciplined for not observing the chain of command.

That means when you say something like this:

Obviously, sometimes you have to jump higher in the chain of command if your superior is not dealing with it properly, or if they are complicit themselves.

You are making shit up. Because if you try to go over your commanding officer because you think he isn't dealing with misconduct properly you would be disciplined.

 

[VirusType2]

Wouldn't the secretive country be completely mistrusted and barred from engaging in diplomacy or heavy trade until it joined the rest of the world in making its intentions more clear?

Apparently not when you have money. China is one of the most secretive countries and they are also the biggest exporters in the world.

 

[<RJMC>]

secretivism will be allways in a goverment

infact I would have found weird if the ambassadors wherent spying on the country

betcha more countryes do that

 

[Kaptain H]

That means when you say something like this:

You are making shit up. Because if you try to go over your commanding officer because you think he isn't dealing with misconduct properly you would be disciplined.

While it is normally out of regs to break the chain of command, in certain cases if you must do so, you aren't likely to be disciplined if you handle it in a professional and responsible way. Having evidence to support why you are going over the head of your immediate superiors helps.

 

[Absinthe]

 

[No Limit]

While it is normally out of regs to break the chain of command, in certain cases if you must do so, you aren't likely to be disciplined if you handle it in a professional and responsible way. Having evidence to support why you are going over the head of your immediate superiors helps.

So lets say you see something illegal. What do you do if nobody above you listens to you? How high up are you allowed to go?

 

[Solaris]

It doesn't matter what oaths you took, or what the consequences are. If you belong to an organisation that is involved in Evil shit, the right thing to do is to expose it.

 

[StarBob]

Meh. This is stupid. I don't care. If he goes on trial and is innocent, I might care. I'm not going to go around feeling bad about everyone who's unhappy in solitary confinement. People have gone through far worse for allegedly doing far less. Being up in arms and spouting irrelevant comparisons on a Half Life forum isn't going to make this guy any happier. He's going to sit there until his trial and then if he's convicted he'll sit there for a lot longer if he's convicted. That's just how it works when you do things that are illegal.

 

[elkaebee]

That's just how it works when you do things that are illegal.

Now why would the US need immunity from war crimes?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_war_crimes
http://rupeenews.com/2010/12/07/us-complicity-in-sri-lankan-war-crimes-wikileaks/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordinary_rendition
http://www.halflife2.net/forums/showthread.php?92286-Iraqi-prisoners-beaten-with-baseball-bat&daysprune=-1
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_sterilization#United_States
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2010/oct2010/wiki-o25.shtml
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/video/2010/oct/23/iraq-war-logs-torture-frago242
http://www.iraqwarlogs.com/2010/10/23/us-commits-%e2%80%9cwar-crime%e2%80%9d-as-apache-helicopter-cleared-to-gun-surrendering-insurgents/
http://www.iraqwarlogs.com/2010/10/22/more-than-600-civilians-killed-in-error-by-coalition-forces-in-iraq/
This is a goody: http://www.counterpunch.org/stephens05132005.html
http://www.mediamonitors.net/gowans22.html
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2010/dec2010/afgh-d13.shtml
http://www.iraqwar.org/natowarcrimes.htm
http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2009/10/22/sri-lanka-us-war-crimes-report-details-extensive-abuses
http://www.thewe.cc/weplanet/news/americas/us/war_crimes_fallujah.html
http://hnn.us/articles/1802.html
http://www.the7thfire.com/Politics%20and%20History/us_war_crimes/us_war_crimes_in_world_war_II_2.htm
http://www.brianwillson.com/revelations-continue-to-mount-of-u-s-war-crimes-in-korea/
http://www.redstateprogressive.com/2010/11/bush-admits-to-war-crimes-america-yawns.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuskegee_syphilis_experiment
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MKULTRA
http://www.scribd.com/doc/4001438/US-Government-Experiments-on-its-own-people
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/experiment.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Lai_Massacre
All parties involved were given a good stern talking to.

And pretty much everything here: http://www.iraqwarlogs.com/

and here: http://www.iraqwarlogs.com/

Read it and weep...
And for the good people...

'If any question why we died,
Tell them, because our fathers lied.'

 

[Solaris]

Meh. This is stupid. I don't care. If he goes on trial and is innocent, I might care. I'm not going to go around feeling bad about everyone who's unhappy in solitary confinement. People have gone through far worse for allegedly doing far less. Being up in arms and spouting irrelevant comparisons on a Half Life forum isn't going to make this guy any happier. He's going to sit there until his trial and then if he's convicted he'll sit there for a lot longer if he's convicted. That's just how it works when you do things that are illegal.

What a cop out.

You continually refuse to accept that whilst he probably did it and knew the consequences, his action may have been morally acceptable due to what it uncovered.

Answer me this, if there is a private in the US army who finds information revealing the US army had been up to some real evil shit and leaked it, would you speak out in his defense?

 

[Maestro]

It doesn't matter what oaths you took, or what the consequences are. If you belong to an organisation that is involved in Evil shit, the right thing to do is to expose it.

Whether he is morally correct or not is irrelevant, what he did is highly illegal. I somehow doubt that any sane legislature is going to create some sort of 'moral extenuating circumstances bureau' that pardons people based off of their intentions or imagined moral justifications. The Law is the Law. The only defense that can be offered is 'Not Guilty.' He can hope for a lighter sentence, but considering how all the countries involved are clamoring for blood he will likely get a very, very long sentence.

The best way to avoid getting screwed for doing the right thing is to not get caught. His decision to speak of it on an IM chat was a masterstroke of poor forethought, and something that he should have expected to be incriminating.

Once again, I make no bones as to whether his actions are ethically justifiable. Ideological debate on the Internet is as masturbatory as the pornography that infests it.

 

[Bob_Marley]

It doesn't matter what oaths you took, or what the consequences are. If you belong to an organisation that is involved in Evil shit, the right thing to do is to expose it.

Quite right.

From a moral stand point, if this chap genuinely believed that this leak was the right thing to do, it is entirely reasonable that he came to this decision and took this action. One would indeed regard him as brave if he knew the consiquences of his action - he chose to follow his own moral code over his own position.

But again, from the military's point of view, regardless of the morality of the action, this is not a good thing. The military is a force for use in warfare, where denial of information is key. Which means it fosters an opaque culture and enforces it with it's rules. Rules this fellow signed up for. The military will persue this as long and as hard as they can because they cannot be seen to allow a leak - if one leak goes unpunished, the chance for more increases (or at least thats how one would imagine thier logic works). They'll claim this is a matter of operational security.

Sadly, this is what happens when the government employs people for a rather less than nice purpose. While there is a military it will have reason to keep secrets and will do everything it can to prevent any of them coming to light, morally acceptable or not.

 

[StarBob]

Some might find such naiveté charming.

Holy shit, how did you get there? Do you need a spaceship? I want to come live there!

Unless you're of course talking about the world the rest of us live in, and you're just delusional.

So what you're saying is that blowing the whistle on a great many important issues has absolutely no ethical dimension at all. Or that we shouldn't "sympathize" (which is dodging the question; we're talking about justice) with people who know the likely consequences of their actions and do it anyway. Without wanting to draw false equivalences or invoke some kind of backwards Godwin's law, tell it to Schindler, Ghandi, Martin Luther King, or any political prisoner.

That's how it works? Psychological torture for people who aren't yet convicted of anything? Is that how it works?

Oh, wait, yes. That is how it works. But usually not for American citizens at least.

Of which, what, you don't consider yourself a part? Or are you just too darn tootin' humble to think you have the right to an opinion on what your democratically elected government does behind your back and in your name?

Oops! No he wasn't! That's the exact opposite of the truth! And how can you be "convicted" of a 'possibly' treasonous crime?

Yeah? They're probably like...secret bake sales. That nobody's allowed to know the location of. Let me ask you a question. If you found evidence that the cake had been laced with poison, would you cover it up??

What a cop out.

You continually refuse to accept that whilst he probably did it and knew the consequences, his action may have been morally acceptable due to what it uncovered.

Answer me this, if there is a private in the US army who finds information revealing the US army had been up to some real evil shit and leaked it, would you speak out in his defense?

Morals are subjective. Law is absolute. Stop trying to make them the same thing.

 

[15357]

Morals are subjective. Law is absolute. Stop trying to make them the same thing.

This. Seriously this.

Law is absolute.

I'm not going to say, what he did wasn't right. Truth be told, I don't know much about morality. But as people have pointed out, doing illegal things have consequences.

 

[Krynn72]

Morals are subjective. Law is absolute. Stop trying to make them the same thing.

Law doesn't trump morality. Stop trying to make it seem like it does.

 

[15357]

Law doesn't trump morality. Stop trying to make it seem like it does.

What the heck are you talking about? Morality differs from person to person, but when those morals are almost universal, they become law.

 

[Krynn72]

Since when has holding people accountable for their disgusting crimes been immoral?

And as a separate thought, so as to avoid getting off-topic, I reject the notion that morality is relative to each person.

 

[15357]

Since when has holding people accountable for their disgusting crimes been immoral?

And as a separate thought, so as to avoid getting off-topic, I reject the notion that morality is relative to each person.

I'm pretty sure that you wouldn't agree with me that breaking the law itself is immoral, so uh... I'm not sure we're going to get anywhere with this argument.


As a separate thought, my notion of morality is that

1. Man has no moral instinct
2. The primary, the most basic underlying motivation for man is the survival instinct
3. To increase chances of survival, men must come together in a society
4. Naturally, there is an non-explicit agreement that members of the same society will not harm each other
5. This agreement is called morallity.
6. When written down, it becomes law.

 

[Sulkdodds]

Once again, I make no bones as to whether his actions are ethically justifiable. Ideological debate on the Internet is as masturbatory as the pornography that infests it.

Morals are subjective. Law is absolute. Stop trying to make them the same thing.

hurrrr, you guys are so edgy and coolio, being 'above' debate on the internet. Really, if your whole attitude is that law is unquestionable and there's no point talking about it, you shouldn't be in this thread. And if your response to arguments that point out the flaws in your own is to smugly claim the whole thing pointless after you've already gotten involved, you shouldn't be in this section of the forum.

I'll try and remember for future occasions that neither of you believe we can debate the ethics of any law or prosecution through the law.

Apparently not when you have money. China is one of the most secretive countries and they are also the biggest exporters in the world.

Ummm, yeah, in a world where secrecy in the norm. My whole point was that if there was only one country that engaged in a behaviour, international pressure would be levelled against it. China does actually play the diplomatic game, and so it gets taken into account. Want a list of countries that don't? It starts with North Korea. But the point is only that when people ask "DO YOU WANT EVERYTHING TO BE OPEN AND PUBLIC???!?" they don't seem to realise that "yes" is a fairly reasonable answer. There could at the very least be much stricter criteria for what constitutes 'national security' and a much faster deadline before declassification. It's really simple: both governments and militaries are institutional bodies, and the character of institutional bodies is that A) their rules form in part to protect the people who work in them, B), these people will always at some point and in some measure attempt to make their own lives easier, and C), they behave collectively to defend themselves.

 

[VirusType2]

hurrrr, you guys are so edgy and coolio, being 'above' debate on the internet. Really, if your whole attitude is that law is unquestionable and there's no point talking about it, you shouldn't be in this thread.

Well, that's not fair to them. If they agree the law is right in this case, then they shouldn't share their opinion?

Some of us aren't willing to devote 5 hours a day arguing with No Limit, Inc., who couldn't have a fair argument if he tried.

I'll try and remember for future occasions that neither of you believe we can debate the ethics of any law or prosecution through the law.

You sound like Assange. "You are hereby suspended, effective immediately." I don't recall anyone saying you can't continue to discuss it. It's just people will continue to defend themselves if you continue to belittle them.

Ummm, yeah, in a world where secrecy in the norm. My whole point was that if there was only one country that engaged in a behaviour, international pressure would be levelled against it. China does actually play the diplomatic game, and so it gets taken into account. Want a list of countries that don't? It starts with North Korea. But the point is only that when people ask "DO YOU WANT EVERYTHING TO BE OPEN AND PUBLIC???!?" they don't seem to realise that "yes" is a fairly reasonable answer. There could at the very least be much stricter criteria for what constitutes 'national security' and a much faster deadline before declassification. It's really simple: both governments and militaries are institutional bodies, and the character of institutional bodies is that A) their rules form in part to protect the people who work in them, B), these people will always at some point and in some measure attempt to make their own lives easier, and C), they behave collectively to defend themselves.

Well sure in Fantasy Land, where everyone is open, but the world doesn't work like that, so it's pretty silly. If you know what your enemy (or competitor) is going to do, you can completely prepare for it and/or counter it. It's the most basic rule, as I've said.

The US is waaaaayyy to transparent. The enemy knows what were doing, when we are going to do it, how the people feel about the war effort, how much longer we could continue. They know our finances, our will, our strategy, etc. And all this transparency isn't even including any leaks, it's just the local news. Of course we are going to lose the war. We'll be leaving in 6 months, and would have only emboldened them.

I don't think there is secrecy to North Korea on the world stage. They have been testing rockets, working on nuclear technology, and rattling sabers. Sure, the citizens are brainwashed, but it's no secret what North Korea feels about the rest of the world: death to South Korea; death to Amerika.

There could at the very least be much stricter criteria for what constitutes 'national security' and a much faster deadline before declassification.

What, because maybe a dozen documents out of a million should have been declassified then we are doing it all wrong?


Our soldiers are mostly 19 and 20 year old "kids" who want to kill bad guys. They are not politically correct human rights activists. They are trained and expected to kill people. When they accidentally kill civilians, they document it and they may not even get 'a talking to' (I don't know, actually). Civilians are commonly a casualty of war throughout history. On the other hand, one of our enemies prime goals is to kill civilians.

 

[Eejit]

Morals are subjective. Law is absolute. Stop trying to make them the same thing.

Because that's what I was doing when I called you naive for believing that governments only ever keep secrets for 'good' reasons. I wonder how many Watergates have failed to be uncovered?

 

[Sulkdodds]

Well, that's not fair to them. If they agree the law is right in this case, then they shouldn't share their opinion? Some of us aren't willing to devote 5 hours a day arguing with No Limit, Inc., who couldn't have a fair argument if he tried.
....
You sound like Assange. "You are hereby suspended, effective immediately." I don't recall anyone saying you can't continue to discuss it. It's just people will continue to defend themselves if you continue to belittle them.

Hahaha, no. These two can agree with any law they like, but that's not what they're arguing if you (heaven forbid) actually read their posts and read the point I made. I might as well spill it out, since I'm just typing in an office and have no particular interest in my actual work.

Starbob quoted four posts. Two of them were objections to his view of reality and his claims regarding the viability of state secrecy. These had nothing to do with the response he made, as Eejit just pointed out. One of the posts (mine) pointed out specific inaccuracies in his post and particular things in his attitude that I disagreed with. The other called him out on not engaging with the argument.

His response to these posts was that "law is absolute" (a meaningless statement that could only be made by someone who's never studied the law) and that every man jack of us should stop "pretending" that it has anything to do with ethics. That would be an interesting argument if it was backed up by anything. But it is not: it's an inadequate response to a variety of different claims and arguments which fails to value our time and our effort in bothering to debate here in the first place. That is a failure of debating conduct and a failure of personal respect as well as a ludicrous argument in itself. I feel quite justified in telling the guy to fuck off.

Maestro, meanwhile, swings by to offer us tautologies ("the law is the law") and tell us there's no point having this debate in the first place, because hey, debating about anything is pointless, right, especially politics, I mean who cares, in the end he got caught and he's going to get punished and that's all there is.

These people can agree with the law all they want, but what they are actually doing is denying anyone can disagree with the law or denying that it even matters whether you agree or disagree with it. It is saying we can't (or mustn't) discuss it, and it's obnoxious. Imagine if you were at a bar, talking deeply with some friends about politics, and then someone piped up saying "ha, this debate is pointless, you're a bunch of idiots thinking you have any place discussing what's going to happen anyway. The law is the law." Even worse, imagine that he said this after having already tried to engage in the debate, so that it looked like he was actually saying it in order to dodge questions that were aimed at him. I think you'd be quite right to be angry.

I'm not going to take moderator action, but I do consider it borderline trolling to enter a discussion board and espouse at length an opinion which is against discussion itself - especially if it looks like a way to shrug off hard questions. My pledge to "remember" is simply a pledge to remind them of their arguments here if they ever go back on what they've said.

But really, what we're doing here is in essence herping and derping about whether they have the 'right' to their opinion, whether I have the 'right' to tell them they don't have the 'right' to it, and whether you are 'right' to tell me I don't have the 'right' to deny their 'rights'. That's a little silly.

I don't think there is secrecy to North Korea on the world stage. They have been testing rockets, working on nuclear technology, and rattling sabers. Sure, the citizens are brainwashed, but it's no secret what North Korea feels about the rest of the world: death to South Korea; death to Amerika.

That's cool and all, but we only have suspicions as to how their economy is doing, what their politics look like, who's who in their government, what daily life is like for the majority of citizens, what convictions those citizens hold and how strong they are, etc, etc, etc. North Korea is a black hole of information, which is how they like it up there, and it does not properly play the diplomatic game that almost all other countries do.

Obviously the world doesn't work transparently. My point is that what is actually naive is to imagine it cannot work differently. The same is true of the system of nationalism generally, on which any defence of official secrecy rests.

I like that you followed my diagnosis of institutional thinking with "well, sure, in a fantasy world." I'm not quite sure they're what you meant to refer to. Maybe you should clarify just what's fantastical about my claims. They are not, by the way, something you have answered. What does the character of institutions say about the likely use they'll find for broad secrecy powers? From where I'm standing, the fantasy world is one where official secrecy is a genuinely necessary measure rather than a smokescreen for private vice and a cover for conspiracy.

Our soldiers are mostly 19 and 20 year old "kids" who want to kill bad guys. They are not politically correct human rights activists. They are trained and expected to kill people. When they accidentally kill civilians, they document it and they may not even get 'a talking to' (I don't know, actually). Civilians are commonly a casualty of war throughout history. On the other hand, one of our enemies prime goals is to kill civilians.

What are you saying here? That governmental crimes are inevitable and therefore should be covered up? Even if they are just something we accept, why shouldn't we know they happen, and say "oh well. It happens"? Because the masses are too stupid to be above ethics? Maybe you should ask yourself who's got the right end of the stick there.

But of course you've ignored a lot of things. You've ignored the question of whether the war needed to happen as it has happened. Or the question of whether it needed to happen at all. Or the question of whether US foreign policy needs to operate as it does. Or the question of whether the US in general needs to be structured as it is. Or the question of whether the world could be different. Whether there is any other way, ever, in all history. This is not the place to answer all those questions, but only to note that with greater transparency we might not have entered the war under false pretenses; with greater transparency we might not have so catastrophically mismanaged its aftermath; with greater transparency we might actually have rebuilt Iraq; with greater transparency the insurgency might never have arisen, or never arisen as powerfully as it has. An apocalyptic revelation of all possible information, some eschaton in which all walls are suddenly turned to glass, in which we stand face to face with each other, and for the first time see who and what we really are - that would be something. It's not going to happen, and in the real world, transparency and accountability are not silver bullets, nor can they save the whole world. But they are very important components of the liberal democracy you people claim to espouse, let alone the kind of properly democratic new world order that I'd like to see.

 

[Sulkdodds]

PS: I think your estimation of the US as totally 'transparent' betrays a very misplaced confidence in your own media and the government's attitude towards it. See, for example, this article. I'm not going to pretend your country is Soviet Russia, but there are a lot of powerful forces that work against clear, just and comprehensive information ever reaching citizens. They are perhaps all the more insidious because they do not obviously constitute censorship.

 

[VirusType2]

Hahaha, no. These two can agree with any law they like, but that's not what they're arguing if you (heaven forbid) actually read their posts and read the point I made. I might as well spill it out, since I'm just typing in an office and have no particular interest in my actual work.

Starbob quoted four posts. Two of them were objections to his view of reality and his claims regarding the viability of state secrecy. These had nothing to do with the response he made, as Eejit just pointed out. One of the posts (mine) pointed out specific inaccuracies in his post and particular things in his attitude that I disagreed with. The other called him out on not engaging with the argument.

His response to these posts was that "law is absolute" (a meaningless statement that could only be made by someone who's never studied the law) and that every man jack of us should stop "pretending" that it has anything to do with ethics. That would be an interesting argument if it was backed up by anything. But it is not: it's an inadequate response to a variety of different claims and arguments which fails to value our time and our effort in bothering to debate here in the first place. That is a failure of debating conduct and a failure of personal respect as well as a ludicrous argument in itself. I feel quite justified in telling the guy to fuck off.

Maestro, meanwhile, swings by to offer us tautologies ("the law is the law") and tell us there's no point having this debate in the first place, because hey, debating about anything is pointless, right, especially politics, I mean who cares, in the end he got caught and he's going to get punished and that's all there is.

These people can agree with the law all they want, but what they are actually doing is denying anyone can disagree with the law or denying that it even matters whether you agree or disagree with it. It is saying we can't (or mustn't) discuss it, and it's obnoxious. Imagine if you were at a bar, talking deeply with some friends about politics, and then someone piped up saying "ha, this debate is pointless, you're a bunch of idiots thinking you have any place discussing what's going to happen anyway. The law is the law." Even worse, imagine that he said this after having already tried to engage in the debate, so that it looked like he was actually saying it in order to dodge questions that were aimed at him. I think you'd be quite right to be angry.

I'm not going to take moderator action, but I do consider it borderline trolling to enter a discussion board and espouse at length an opinion which is against discussion itself - especially if it looks like a way to shrug off hard questions. My pledge to "remember" is simply a pledge to remind them of their arguments here if they ever go back on what they've said.

OK, sorry. I didn't see it like that originally, but I see your point.

I agree particularly about the section above (in bold). I remember No Limit telling us that actively taking part in politics (AKA signing petitions and contacting officials) was a waste of time if you don't actually do these things while standing outside, for some reason; being seated is just not active enough.

That's cool and all, but we only have suspicions as to how their economy is doing, what their politics look like, who's who in their government, what daily life is like for the majority of citizens, what convictions those citizens hold and how strong they are, etc, etc, etc. North Korea is a black hole of information, which is how they like it up there, and it does not properly play the diplomatic game that almost all other countries do.

And this secrecy has made them weaker, you think? I don't agree at all; I think being unpredictable is what makes North Korea dangerous.

Financially, by means of sanctions, they have been made weaker, but when you stand there defiant, whether you are willing to sit at a table and talk about it is largely irrelevant. They get sanctions, not because they are secretive, but because they are defiant of all the world leaders. They have had open, [multi]-party talks, and they continue to defy the world community.

Obviously the world doesn't work transparently. My point is that what is actually naive is to imagine it cannot work differently. The same is true of the system of nationalism generally, on which any defence of official secrecy rests.

Well, I can imagine it working differently to some extent, but I cannot imagine a world without conflict. And as long as there is conflict, there will be secrets to hide.

It's not the other way around though, I don't think: (as long as there are secrets, there will be conflict). It seems maybe you feel that way? How about if I call you and tell you in advance that I'm going to come rob you later, do you think we can avoid conflict? Well, it's true to some extent, I guess, maybe you'll just give me your stuff? Or maybe you will call some armed forces to protect you, escalating the conflict.

I like that you followed my diagnosis of institutional thinking with "well, sure, in a fantasy world." I'm not quite sure they're what you meant to refer to. Maybe you should clarify just what's fantastical about my claims. They are not, by the way, something you have answered. What does the character of institutions say about the likely use they'll find for broad secrecy powers? From where I'm standing, the fantasy world is one where official secrecy is a genuinely necessary measure rather than a smokescreen for private vice and a cover for conspiracy.

I'm sorry, I shouldn't have said it in that way. But I don't agree that having secrets is tantamount to having evil to hide/crimes to cover up. Do I need to make examples of why secrets are important?

What are you saying here? That governmental crimes are inevitable and therefore should be covered up? Even if they are just something we accept, why shouldn't we know they happen, and say "oh well. It happens"? Because the masses are too stupid to be above ethics? Maybe you should ask yourself who's got the right end of the stick there.

Oh, heck no. I'm saying that it is expected that people die in war, and mistakes are made. For example, thinking that a civilian in a combat zone is an enemy (Remember that the enemy wears civilian clothes).

If I wasn't making mistakes, I wouldn't be doing anything (a testament to just how much error humans commit, of course.)

This is not the place to answer all those questions, but only to note that with greater transparency we might not have entered the war under false pretenses;

I had an eyebrow raised. OK, I get you.

with greater transparency we might not have so catastrophically mismanaged its aftermath; with greater transparency we might actually have rebuilt Iraq; with greater transparency the insurgency might never have arisen, or never arisen as powerfully as it has. An apocalyptic revelation of all possible information, some eschaton in which all walls are suddenly turned to glass, in which we stand face to face with each other, and for the first time see who and what we really are - that would be something. It's not going to happen, and in the real world, transparency and accountability are not silver bullets, nor can they save the whole world. But they are very important components of the liberal democracy you people claim to espouse, let alone the kind of properly democratic new world order that I'd like to see.

In all seriousness, this is beautiful. But it's kind of difficult to say that everything could have been fine if we would have just been more open. I do like the idea of this, however.

Of course that's after the fact that everything has gone to shit. Maybe things could have been worse (if we were more transparent), and we would be saying "we should have been less transparent". In fact this is what I've been arguing all along, that it went to shit because we were too transparent.