Here's why diplomacy sometimes requires secrecy.

[TheWraith]

A good example comes from the end of the Cuban Missile Crisis. Kennedy worked out a deal with Khrushchev, that if the Soviet Union removed the nuclear missiles from Cuba, the US would remove their missiles from Turkey, missiles which presented an equivalent threat to the USSR. Despite being the only rational deal available to be made, it would have been massively unpopular in the US, as well as with US allies. So the US made the deal secretly, dismantling the US missiles months later when no one was watching. If they'd had to do it in full public view, it's highly unlikely that the deal could have been made, and there might have been a war.

Here's another example, straight out of the Wikileaks documents. They detail an effort by the US to remove highly enriched, i.e. bomb grade, uranium from an improperly secured site in Pakistan. The effort has to be kept secret, the cables argue, because if it got out then Pakistani media would almost certainly characterize it as the US taking away Pakistani nuclear weapons capability, and it could trigger a massive backlash against an already unstable nuclear-armed government.

Another example via Wikileaks: the US has strong reason to believe that Iran has bought missiles from North Korea with a 2,000 mile range, that could allow them to hit some European cities including capitals. Suppose for a second that the Russians who provided this information, knowing that it was volatile, made sure to inform the US and no one else. This information being widely known to the European nations in the affected area could sway them to support, or at least block any effort to oppose, an Israeli attack on Iran.

It's not uncommon to run across situations where actions which are necessary and/or beneficial are going to be highly unpopular with someone, either here at home or somewhere else in the world. Does it go the other direction, with things being hidden that should be public knowledge? Sure. But the simplistic "information wants to be free" viewpoint that's being espoused about these leaks is at best inaccurate, and at worst naive. I have no problem with whistleblowing to reveal genuinely important information, but blindly releasing all sorts of classified information without caring what it is isn't that far from what Rove and Cheney did, exposing Valerie Plame as a NOC and Brewster Jennings as a CIA front corporation.

[harun]

1. The fact that you know about the Turkey deal proves you are wrong. If it

was totally secret and never leaked you would have never known about it.

Wikileaks is the same way. It is happening now, much later than the actual event.

[TheWraith]

8. We know because it was revealed long after the fact.

Thousands of these documents are from THIS YEAR, and are about things that are still ongoing--like the attempt to remove weapons-grade uranium from unsafe storage in Pakistan.

[nadinbrzezinski]

39. That happened ten years after the fact

This is happening in almost real time.

Of course, we spy on others and they do on us...like that Is a revelation. Really...

[proud2BlibKansan]

2. And another reason

The president authorizes torture. And he needs to keep it secret so he can get away with it.

[Catherina]

34. +1

:cry:

[xchrom]

3. Unrec. Nt

[Pavulon]

4. Yep, fuck us for trying to secure 90% HEU in pakistan. I mean

the uranium gun device was so simple it was never tested before it was used. I mean lets ignore that shit and let is proliferate.

I am proud of the wikidicks for breaking up such a wasteful and warmongering amerikkan operation.

To bad stupid is not cancer the herd is getting collectively dumber.

[originalpckelly]

7. If they didn't have such an incompetent government it wouldn't have to be secured.

If you fuck up, just cover it up. That way no one will know.

Maybe if the people of Pakistan knew how bad off they were, they'd change their government.

[TheWraith]

10. And you assume they would automatically choose a free, democratic government?

As opposed to the strong support in Pakistan for a radical theocracy?

[originalpckelly]

16. This manipulation of people worked so well for Iran, now didn't it?

You know it's eventually going to be that Pakistan is ruled by a theocracy, right? If the people want it, that's where the government obtains its power from, and what they want will eventually take over. It happened here in the US, didn't it? We wanted to be lazy and focus on our little gadgets, and have a hands off government. Eventually, that's what we got.

[originalpckelly]

5. Maybe there would be fewer tense situations in the first place if there was less secrecy.

How many people in the USSR knew their leaders were about to put their lives on the line, and risk extermination of their entire country, and possibly all human civilization? Maybe it would have sparked a backlash and prevented them from putting the missiles there in the first place, eh?

Maybe people in Pakistan would have made sure to protect the uranium if there was transparency over there and it possible for people to know this.

Maybe the people of Iran should know that their government has bought missiles that make their nation a target?

Maybe we shouldn't have covert agents in the first place?

It's all radical, but open dealing with the truth may be the best way to save ourselves from ourselves. Most of the root problems of the world lie in centralization of power and deception in the first place. Secrecy is the prime tool of incompetent leaders to cover up their incompetence.

[EFerrari]

6. Secrecy and discretion are not the same thing.

But it is quite interesting to see how many posters are out advocating for government secrecy.

[originalpckelly]

9. Don't you know that the best way to deal with a fuck up is to cover up?

You know, instead of actually making the leaders responsible for it pay.

[Pavulon]

12. Enjoy the party, its on your tab

all the cash used to fix this mess comes from your paycheck. Have fun.

[EFerrari]

14. It's even easier than that, imo. The unwashed are poking their noses

in their betters' business.

We can't have that.

That's why authoritarians all over the political spectrum are freaking up one side and down the other.
:)

[TheWraith]

11. As you said, secrecy and discretion aren't the same thing.

And it's interesting to see how many people here are suggesting that they are. I wonder how far their belief in "government openness" really goes. Has DU suddenly done a 180 on whether it was okay to expose Valerie Plame? After all, she was doing all sorts of secret government things, and by the "shoot 'em all" standard employed with regard to the Wikileaks documents, that justifies her exposure. How about the military? Should they be required to post up to the minute locations and operational details for the public to read?

[EFerrari]

17. BushCo outed Valerie Plame to further their crime spree

and they still lie about it today. There is no comparison.

And our armed forces should come home before the empire kills them.

[TheWraith]

19. Please clarify how you draw a legal distinction.

Legally speaking, how is the Plame case different from the various covert diplomatic and intelligence efforts exposed by the Wikileaks release?

[EFerrari]

21. I already did.

And there is no one that has been exposed by Wikileaks as Plame was exposed. Analogy fail.

[TheWraith]

30. No, you didn't. You offered a subjective distinction, not a legal one.

Again: How do you draw a legal line between what is "good secrecy" and what is "bad secrecy"?

And you have no idea what has or hasn't been exposed by the Wikileaks dump.

[originalpckelly]

20. If this nation was an open dealing democracy, the CIA wouldn't even exist. NT

[ChimpersMcSmirkers]

26. Yeah, we shouldn't spy on our adversaries. How immoral!

I'm outraged that we have a government that would do such a thing. Let's just let our enemies roll right over us I say.

[originalpckelly]

31. That's the problem. Even in your sarcastic response you bely the real problem.

You view the people of the world as our enemies, and you think they're more dangerous to us than we are.

[Overseas]

41. The Wikileak documents were submitted to scrutiny to protect as much as possible.

Media partners and some government agencies have been reviewing the documents for weeks now, to decide how to balance the public's right to know and the need to protect sources and methods and sensitive operations.

Plame was deliberately outed in order to take revenge on her husband having told the truth about Iraq not having purchased yellow cake from Niger.

[Drale]

13. I agree with you sort of

this stuff needs to all come out eventually I say maybe 15 years is long enough to keep it secret. You wouldn't have crazy stuff like wikileaks going on if the US government declassified a bunch of stuff that was old and no longer relevant.

[originalpckelly]

18. Excuse me, but if the government controls the flow of information, how is this a democracy?

How will you know who to pick in the elections, if you have to hear 15 years later how badly they fucked up?

[Toucano]

27. It isn't. Democratic government derives power from the consent of the governed.

The governed can't consent when it doesn't know or understand to what they are consenting.

[originalpckelly]

32. I know we're not a democracy.

I'm just trying to show our friend that we're not.

[Abq_Sarah]

36. The governed consent

In the voting booth.

[Toucano]

38. "Though the people may acquiesce, they cannot approve what they do not understand."

"I know no safe depositary of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education. This is the true corrective of abuses of constitutional power."

- Thomas Jefferson


There is no consent when information is kept from the electorate.

[Toucano]

15. "You can't handle the truth!"

Your position really boils down to that alone, doesn't it?

The theory that the public lacks the ability to comprehend the complexity of choices and decisions is patronizing at best.

It relies on a whole set of self-perpetuating assumptions which can't be proven.

[Drale]

22. Well we have the Tea Baggers

you think they can handle the truth? They can't even handle the truth that the Presidents is a citizen and isn't a secret Muslim.

[Toucano]

25. Secrecy is the fuel of conspiracy theories.

People mistrust the government because it lies to us, so it has to lie to us because people mistrust the government because it lies to us...

[originalpckelly]

29. Fuck just being fuel, it's fucking rocket fuel.

No one would believe the weird 9/11 bullshit if our government wasn't as secretive. You name all the weird conspiracy theories, what they really say is that in the minds of a growing number of people, there is an ever present and growing distrust. Same thing with the elections and voter fraud allegations.

[TheWraith]

23. What a nice strawman you have there.

Thanks for proving that you didn't read more than the title of my post, since you're claiming "assumptions which can't be proven" on a post that is literally NOTHING BUT REAL WORLD EXAMPLES.

[Toucano]

24. Your examples are weak as water and full of assumptions.

The US public would have freaked out if they knew our missiles in Turkey has been dismantled as part of an agreement to keep missiles out of Cuba? Prove it. There's no evidence of that.

You can't prove it because it's a patriarchal assumption.

The Pakistani's would have revolted if they believed their precious nuclear arms were being taken away? There are at least 3 unprovable assumptions right there!

You theory still boils down to the belief that the unwashed masses can't handle the truth and that secrecy has to exist because there's secrecy.

If you can provide an example that doesn't make baseless assumptions about public reaction, I'm all ears.

[TheWraith]

35. Please educate yourself about history.

"The US public would have freaked out if they knew our missiles in Turkey has been dismantled as part of an agreement to keep missiles out of Cuba? Prove it. There's no evidence of that."

There was a trial balloon, leaked to the press by JFK and RFK. The public sentiment was overwhelmingly negative, as was the reaction within the government and the military, to the point where the only person JFK trusted to go and actually MAKE the deal with the Soviet ambassador was his brother.

"The Pakistani's would have revolted if they believed their precious nuclear arms were being taken away? There are at least 3 unprovable assumptions right there!"

That it would provoke a negative public reaction was the expert opinion of the US diplomatic mission in Pakistan, actually.

As for your demand that I prove a negative, you're welcome to examine the case of the Zimmerman Telegram, a confidential diplomatic cable that the British used the public revelation of to drive the US into World War I, killing 117,000 Americans and quite likely helping to create the 1918 influenza pandemic.

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

[Windy]

28. Good luck getting some here to think critically...

many on the left are as bad as those on the right. Blinded by ideology and immune to rational thought

[LAGC]

33. You're right! We best just trust our government to keep us sheeple ignorant and safe.

We can't have governments subject to democratic and popular outcry now, can we?

Unrec.

[Catherina]

37. Unrec, I denounce and distance myself from the dirt my government conducts in secrecy

Bring it all to light so we can end the fairytales that get so many innocent people killed.

[stray cat]

40. Why did any DUers object to wiretaps? All communication should be transparent and published

Even what you say to co-workers or significant others -even in bed