For those making the point that we elect people to make decisions for us - surely we can’t make correct decisions upon who to vote for without access to information.
I think the stinger missiles are particularly important because they were (commonly believed to be) amongst the crucial factors in driving the Soviets out of Afghanistan. If their usage had become widely known before the election it may have changed people’s votes based upon the perceived winnability of the war.
In effect lying about this may have kept up public support regarding the war longer than would otherwise be the case.
Equally some of the shocking stories of children being killed by secret “black squads” may be simply considered the cost of war to some, but I believe that hearing the distressing details would have lessened overall public support. So again these secrets weren’t based upon operational security but upon falsely maintaining public support for the war, which is something that I don’t believe governments have the right to do.
And this is a little more abstract but if we think of this of a reiterative game theory kinda thing, then with leaks of this style does anybody think that it will alter the behaviour of governments when it comes to future wars? Particularly thinking about action against Iran, may having Wikileaks there make certain people think twice?
Fine if people are against the war I have no problem with that but its really sad to see people think this is a good thing…yet
I doubt any one here has reviewed the 92000 documents already and are satisfied that allied lives aren’t in danger because of the release.
2)Even if they have I doubt people have their military expertise to decide what’s dangerous and what isn’t, including the Anti-War folks at Wikileak.
I think you’re grasping at straws here. The leak mostly covers a period when Bush was in office but it doesn’t hurt him - he doesn’t have to convince anybody of anything. This will cause nothing but trouble for Obama, who is trying to sell continued involvement in the war even though the public is very divided about it. So, since you believe you’re mostly addressing the left, where is the partisanship? You could plausibly make an accusation about anti-war bias, but it seems to me you’re accusing Dopers of an anti-right wing bias when they are supporting a leak that hurts a Democrat. That doesn’t work.
I can’t speak for anybody who thinks the Plame leak was treason, but there’s a pretty solid argument to be made that it’s a different matter: that was a case of the government going after a critic and not the other way around. Whether she was officially under cover or not, the issue there was the perception that her name was leaked to discredit her husband’s comments about the Iraq-Nigeria uranium connection. (And of course he was completely correct and there was no truth to what the administration was saying, which they should have known even if Joe Wilson never existed.) And the reality of it is that the leak itself may have just been an error by people in Cheney’s office who thought reporters already knew who she was. Even so, that was part of an attack on the Wilsons rather than a disclosure or an attempt to reveal more information about an issue.
I think now would be the right time to buy lotsa shares in the paper shredder industry. There’s going to be a lot of demand for those over the next few weeks…
So long as we cannot trust governments to tell the truth, so long as governments lie by commission or omission and so long as war crimes go unpunished then we need whistle-blowers and leaks.
I’m hoping the International Court opens a file on the Polish revenge mortar attack on that village.
And it would be nice if the Marine unit that went on a many mile murderous road rampage were dealt with more harshly than being withdrawn from the country.
I read an article today saying the Pentagon says the leaks do not present any problem. That would suggest that we over classify.
I want the Pentagon to explain the approx. 9 billion dollars they misplaced in Iraq reconstruction funds.
You’ll notice I didn’t say it was a good thing! (Actually, deep down inside, I thought it was kind of funny. A very simple mistake to make, and I’ll bet the guy who made it felt sheepish.) Anyway, I doubt that anything really bad would be happening to donors, but yes, it was a breach of confidentiality, albeit an accidental one.
Look, I hope all of us including RWs can agree, at this date, that Daniel Ellsberg and the New York Times did the right thing in publishing the Pentagon Papers. So, how is this any different?
Re: Pentagon Papers. “They demonstrated, among other things, that the Johnson Administration had systematically lied, not only to the public but also to Congress, about a subject of transcendent national interest and significance.”
Re: Wikileaks. “Over all, the documents do not contradict official accounts of the war.”
I think the Gray Lady sums up the difference pretty well.
Well he says that while there are differences to the Pentagon papers there are important similarities as well like the sheer scale of the leak. He says this matters because it helps people see what is not present in the official reporting: a good reason to be in Afghanistan and any prospect for success.
This makes sense. If you have an enormous 90,000 page leak you have the ability to analyze the war in much greater detail than before. If you still conclude the war is pointless you have a better basis for doing so than before. After all supporters of the war will often claim that people in power have access to much better information on which to base a decision and that’s why we should trust them. Similar arguments were made before the Iraq war as well.