And so the Wikileaks saga continues – with politics once again crossing with the technology side of things. After several DDoS attacks on Wikileaks’ website, the organisation decided to move their website over to Amazon’s cloud service yesterday. Today, Amazon kicked Wikileaks out of its cloud after being pressured by US Congress. Update: [Kroc] In a Q&A on the Guardian website, Julian Assange drops the bomb–Amazon failed the test: “Since 2007 we have been deliberately placing some of our servers in jurisdictions that we suspected suffered a free speech deficit inorder to separate rhetoric from reality. Amazon was one of these cases.”. Stunning.
By now, most of you will be familiar with Wikileaks. The organisation shines lights where governments generally don’t want to have them shine – in other words, it’s an organisation fighting for freedom of speech, government transparency, and since a free press is the cornerstone of democracy, it’s also an organisation fighting for democracy.
Of course, if you’ve got something to hide – like the US government or any other government in the world has – you’re going to get into trouble. Stuff like the video of American soldiers gunning down several innocent civilians and journalists isn’t something you want out in the open if you’re part of such a crime.
As such, several people high up the political spectrum in the world, and the US in particular, want Wikileaks, and Assange in particular, taken out – like US Senator Joe Lieberman, chairman of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee.
“WikiLeaks’ illegal, outrageous, and reckless acts have compromised our national security and put lives at risk around the world,” Lieberman said, “No responsible company – whether American or foreign – should assist WikiLeaks in its efforts to disseminate these stolen materials. I will be asking Amazon about the extent of its relationship with WikiLeaks and what it and other Web service providers will do in the future to ensure that their services are not used to distribute stolen, classified information.”
It’s an utterly crazy argument – it’s the murderer asking witnesses not to report him to the police because the family of the victim might target him. If you don’t want incriminating information out on the street, don’t commit the illegal acts covered by such information.
Still, Amazon, most likely afraid of more pressure from the US government, gave in. It has booted Wikileaks from its cloud service, as reported by Wikileaks’ Twitter feed. “WikiLeaks servers at Amazon ousted. Free speech the land of the free — fine our dollars are now spent to employ people in Europe.”
Politics and technology mingle once again, and as long as they do, I will report on these matters for OSAlert – even though I know some people might not like it. It’s not my job to tell you what you want to hear – it’s my job to tell you what I believe to be important. As you may have guessed from my tone so far, I’m a proponent of the kind of work Wikileaks does, for the simple reason that I am an advocate of transparency, freedom of speech, and democracy.
Governments, military personell, and large companies should not be exempt from scrutiny, and if they commit acts that appear to be illegal, than they should not be able to pull a 180 and say “yes, we done bad, but don’t tell anyone because those who did the bad might get in trouble!”
As a result of my position, it’s quite clear to me that there’s currently a smear campaign going on against Wikileaks’ founder and prime spokesperson Julian Assange. There are so many fishy things here it ceases to make any sense. First, the two Swedish women flip-flop on whether or not to press any charges. Then, the Swedish courts retract the case – Assange was even explicitly allowed to leave Sweden. Then, right after the latest Wikileaks reveal, the case is taken out of the freezer again, and Assange is put on Interpol’s list for something you normally would not end up on this list for.
On top of that, Assange has always stated he wants to cooperate with the Swedish courts. He has offered to answer any questions the Swedish courts might have, and has offered his full cooperation. If you add all these things up, it becomes clear this is nothing but a smear campaign. While I’m obviously not going to say anything about whether or not something actually transpired between Assange and the two women, it is clear that the way the case has been handled is fishy.
All of this ties in with a theme I’ve been trying to bring to the forefront on OSAlert: the internet is not just about porn, Facebook, Twitter, cat videos, and porn. The internet is changing the very distribution of power in the world, the same way the printing press did before it. This doesn’t just cover the shift of power from ‘big content’ to the individual consumer, but also from governments to us, the people.
And just like ‘big content’ can’t handle this loss of power, nor can our governments. In a kneejerk response, both of them are trying to take our freedoms away in order to retain the power they used to have – and this is exactly what we must be wary of, what we must fight against.
I don’t have the means to do what people like Assange do – but I do have this website. In the meantime, “Pulitzer for Assange. He deserves it more than anyone. His and his organisation’s struggle for transparency and justice makes him my man of the year. It doesn’t matter if you’re a beggar or a general – if you commit a crime, you must be punished, and the people have a right to know.” (I posted this on Facebook earlier today).
America hates our freedom.
What freedom? Can I carry gun? No. Can I make my own booze? No. Can I buy snuff? No. Can I watch TV free? No. Can I marry several women/men? No. Can I use repro Nazi uniform? Not in german.
Btw why hasn’t Assange and Wikileaks published any European stuff? Perhaps because he hates america and is typical leftwing anarchist.
Thank god! You know most of the world views that as one of the craziest things about America?
Yes you can.
Bullshit! In Finland it’s illegal to make alcohol by distiling. Same thing in many other european country.
FYI —
* There is no evidence that gun ownership in the US has any correlation with violent crime.
* Many peaceful countries — Switzerland and Finland, to name two — have high rates of gun possession.
This suggests that it’s not guns that are the problem in America, but the Americans who own them.
Switzerland does has very high rates of gun ownership. However there are very strict rules governing ownership and use of weapons.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland
Really? That’s odd. I am pretty sure there are several European countries where you are required to serve in the military and your weapon stays with you the rest of your life.
Anyway, I am licensed to carry concealed… and in my state (Arizona) we are allowed to carry in the open. I like being able to carry my weapon, especially when traveling in the wilderness as my wife and I often do.
No. You don’t get (military grade) weapons for free in europe.
No, I didn’t say for free. You had to serve in the military, your sidearm was yours to keep. Let me see if I can dig up what I saw… it was a message from the NRA and a video of an ex-military man from a European country, I want to say Sweden, but maybe Finland. And the point was that since everyone was part of the military they would be able to always defend their country.
This is NOT what I was looking for but it does mention the Swiss… (not the Swedes)…
http://www.portablenorthpole.tv/
…And I had thought Russia was similar (at least in the past). I’ll have to check that out.
http://wikileaks.org/about.html
This URL lists some of their “greatest hits.” Try a few of these expos~A(c)s from outside the US:
^a– The looting of Kenya under President Moi – $3,000,000,000 presidential corruption exposed; swung the Dec 2007 Kenyan election, long document, be patient
^a– Gusmao’s $15m rice deal alarms UN – Rice deal corruption in East Timor
^a– How election violence was financed – the embargoed Kenyan Human Rights Commission report into the Jan 2008 killings of over 1,300 Kenyans
^a– Financial collapse: Confidential exposure analysis of 205 companies each owing above EUR45M to Icelandic bank Kaupthing, 26 Sep 2008 – Publication of a confidential report that has lead to hundreds of newspaper articles worldwide
^a– Barclays Bank gags Guardian over leaked memos detailing offshore tax scam, 16 Mar 2009 – Publication of censored documents revealing a number of elaborate international tax avoidance schemes by the SCM (Structured Capital Markets) division of Barclays
^a– Bank Julius Baer: Grand Larceny via Grand Cayman – How the largest private Swiss bank avoids paying tax to the Swiss government
^a– Der Fall Moonstone Trust – Cayman Islands Swiss bank trust exposed
^a– Over 40 billion euro in 28167 claims made against the Kaupthing Bank, 23 Jan 2010 – List of Kaupthing claimants after Icelandic banking crash
^a– Northern Rock vs. WikiLeaks – Northern Rock Bank UK failed legal injunctions over the ~A‘^A!~AfA’24,000,000,000 collapse
^a– Draft Copenhagen climate change agreement, 8 Dec 2009 – Confidential draft “circle of commitment” (rich-country) Copenhagen climate change agreement
^a– Draft Copenhagen Accord Dec 18, 2009 – Three page draft Copehagen “accord”, from around Friday 7pm, Dec 18, 2009; includes pen-markings
^a– Climatic Research Unit emails, data, models, 1996-2009 – Over 60MB of emails, documents, code and models from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, written between 1996 and 2009 that lead to a worldwide debate
^a– The Monju nuclear reactor leak – Three suppressed videos from Japan’s fast breeder reactor Monju revealing the true extent of the 1995 sodium coolant disaster
^a– Inside Somalia and the Union of Islamic Courts – Vital strategy documents in the Somali war and a play for Chinese support
^a– The Independent: Toxic Shame: Thousands injured in African city, 17 Sep 2009 – Publication of an article originally published in UK newspaper The Independent, but censored from the Independent’s website. WikiLeaks has saved dozens of articles, radio and tv recordings from disappearing after having been censored from BBC, Guardian, and other major news organisations archives.
^a– Secret gag on UK Times preventing publication of Minton report into toxic waste dumping, 16 Sep 2009 – Publication of variations of a so-called super-injunction, one of many gag-orders published by WikiLeaks to expose successful attempts to suppress the free press via repressive legal attacks
^a– Media suppression order over Turks and Caicos Islands Commission of Inquiry corruption report, 20 Jul 2009 – Exposure of a press gagging order from the Turks and Caicos Islands, related to WikiLeaks exposure of the Commission of Inquiry corruption report
^a– Bermuda’s Premier Brown and the BCC bankdraft – Brown went to the Privy council London to censor the press in Bermuda
^a– How German intelligence infiltrated Focus magazine – Illegal spying on German journalists
^a– Toll Collect Vertraege, 2002 – Publication of around 10.000 pages of a secret contract between the German federal government and the Toll Collect consortium, a private operator group for heavy vehicle tolling system
^a– Leaked documents suggest European CAP reform just a whitewash – European farm reform exposed
^a– Church of Scientology’s ‘Operating Thetan’ documents leaked online – Scientology’s secret, and highly litigated bibles
^a– Eutelsat suppresses independent Chinese-language TV station NTDTV to satisfy Beijing – French sat provider Eutelsat covertly removed an anti-communist TV channel to satisfy Beijing
^a– Internet Censorship in Thailand – The secret internet censorship lists of Thailand’s military junta
If you are saying that breaking news like this is typical for the left wing, then the left wing must be full of patriots and superheroes. But, hey, your words, not mine.
> Left wing bullshit everyone hates america
Ameriphobiaphobia?
Last time I checked, USA is America, but America isn’t USA.
(As we are becoming pedantic)
Last time I checked, the US were part of America, but were not America. Or would you agree that Canada *is* USA?
late correction: “[…] that canada *is* America”
Well guys, now you see the difference between the speech and the actions…
Well, well, united states (you are not america[america it’s composed by a lot of countries], nor you are north america[USA, Canada and Mexico].) it’s time to USA citizens take action and protect the well known FIRST AMENDMENT. I hope the USA citizens take stood about the freedom of speech.
Thanks Thom, I was thinking why the news wasn’t here before, but it got it.
I agree 100% with you, this is revolutionary, as was the press with the governments years ago. People, this is bad shit happening, all the good citizens and people who think and care about the others and the freedom should make difference in this matter. We cannot afford to dismiss such a opportunity to make history.
Sorry about my english, I trying to concatenate my ideas (I got a lot about this).
Edited 2010-12-01 23:17 UTC
I know you aren’t a US Citizen, so I don’t blame you for not understanding the first amendment of our constitution.
This in fact, has nothing to do with first amendment issues, as no one is debating a right of speech. People are upset over his possession of documents which do not belong to him and were declared sensitive by their owners. There is a complex and still evolving standard of what is considered acceptable for people who divulge classified information.
Thom – you should be much more careful about praising Assange, what Wikileaks is fighting for may well just be anarchy.
That is exactly what Wikileaks in fighting for. I don’t care what those documents have to say. The release of the information with out the use of proper legal processes (Freedom of Information Requests and Legal Suits in court) constitutes Anarchy and should not be supported by anyone who values civil society.
And since when has anarchy been bad? Anarchy is merely direct democracy taken to its fullest form. USA once had a president who was an anarchist.
This is absolutely a matter of free speech. It is not a matter of “ownership” or other craszy ideas of IP. In a democracy WE are the government (the president as such are merely our elected caretakers). It is about leaking secret government information to the rightful rulers – The People.
Let’s look at a picture here. Imagine you were a shareholder of a company, and some of your companys employees were committing crimes in your name without you knowing it. What happens now is that some of the shareholders has found some information in the archives and are now distribution it to the rest of the shareholders while the board is desperately trying to hold the information away from shareholders.
That’s what’s happening.
We are the people. We are the government. We are entitled to this information.
No, it’s not. Anarchy is the lack of order, and direct democracy implies an order that is imposed by the majority. They’re opposite concepts. For example: anarchy means your neighbor can blow your head off one night and not worry about getting in trouble, while the majority in a direct democracy would likely consider it to be bad (and worth punishing).
I agree that in terms of trying to shut him up, it’s a matter of free speech and he should be allowed to say what he wants, even if i disagree with it. What I don’t think is a matter of free speech was getting the secret documents in the first place, which has nothing to do with free speech. That’s all about open governance, which is a completely different topic.
The thing is, most of the stuff being revealed isn’t related to the crime at all. It seems to be intended to simply cause embarrassment and harassment, there’s nothing illegal being exposed. Or at least, nothing that everyone didn’t already know was going on behind closed doors.
BULLSHIT!
Incorrect. It is a lie and a myth that anarchy means chaos and no order. Anarchy is not without rules, nor without order. It is however order and laws through voluntary association and participation rather than use of force (with the possible exception of social force; read up on your Bakunin). Open Source is a prime example of anarchy as is p2p networks.
Your example of a neighbour blowing a head off without getting in trouble is nonsense. Such violence is not allowed in anarchy (which definitely has rules but no single ruler), and the neighbour would definitely be sanctioned. Anarchy is no without order nor without rules, it is however without forced participation. The likelyhood of an anarchist association supporting oppressing of man by man is pretty small, so the neighbour would not get away with it. The sanctions would however be a result of direct action rather than through decisions made by an abstract institution.
The first part of how the leaked came to happen is irrelevant. The moment somebody leaks information to you, you are free to pass it on. Unless Assange himself hacked his way inside computers to gain this information, he has committed no crime. Besides that the information is of such a kind that there is no crime. The only crime is to keep it secret. The politicians and the bureaucrats are our servants. We cannot steal information from them. They can however keep it from us. If some of us manage to get access to that information it is completely within our rights. There are no authorities except the individual.
One thing is to have an understanding of what is likely to happen behind closed doors. Another thing is actually knowing what happens behind closed doors. Publishing leaked information is never wrong. It may on occassion be irresponsible (a good topic for a later discussion) – but never wrong. In a correctly working democracy there is no such things as closed doors, except for the private domain (e.g. the home of any individual (and only there)).
It may be embarrasing for diplomats and so on but that’s irrelevant. They know (or should know) that there is a risk of leaked information. The core reason why there is a risk of leak is not that somebody is leaking the information, but that somebody is trying to keep it a secret. The latter is the real crime.
If our employees (and that’s all they are – they are nothing but our employees and not our authorities; we are the authority) are committing embarrasing acts as a part of their job it is important for us to know that, so we can prevent it from happening again.
The question is: Do we want to rule our public servants or do we want our public servants to rule us? If we choose the latter we have no rights at all, and therefore are not entitled to this information. But if we rule, we have the right to this information. A democracy is defined by the people ruling (either directly (anarchy, if it happens through voluntary particapation (e.g. the concept of the selfgoverning individual, think voluntary association (or friendship))) or indirectly (representative democracy) through elected servants).
No its a very bad example. In fact its a great counter-example.
Do you not have people in charge of certain portions of the application? Certain people with veto powers, who decide what gets accepted and what doesn’t?
Name one single open source project where anyone can upload any patch they want and have it accepted without question? That would be anarchy.
You obviously don’t understand the concept of anarchy.
Anarchy does not mean without organisation, nor does it mean that everybody can do everything the want to (against other persons).
Anarchy means you can do whatever you want to – with your own life.
Open Source _is_ anarchy. Nothing prevents me from forking any open source project. OTOH anarchy does not grant me the option to enforce my patches on other persons, so your definition is plain wrong.
In anarchy you can have persons in charge of certain portions of an application. What makes it anarchy is that the rest of us agrees on it. If we don’t we’ll either fork it or recall the delegate.
It is true that not all open source projects are using organisational forms common to anarchy, but other projects do however use forms common to anarchy. And the principles of Open Source itself are also core principles in Anarchy.
And therein lies your misunderstanding. Anarchy precisely means without a centralised (or at least, enforced) authority.
Anarchy doesn’t necessarily _mean_ you can can do anything you want without repercusions. However, an essential premise of anarchy is the absence of a centralised authority and without such authority I have no fear of _centralised_ repercusions.
That is 100% correct. It also carries with it the implication that in doing “whatever I want” I may positively or negatively affect others.
This is more in the right direction. If every individual maintained their own project then they have the ability to make any changes they want. Its still not a satisfactory metaphor though because I cannot make changes to other peoples forks without permission. In Anarchy I don’t need such permission (of course they might fight back by undoing such changes – but this would be on an individual against individual basis).
With or without anarchy we have the _option_. The difference is in a more centralised governmental system we _agree_ not to do certain things as part of the greater good (of course, things like murders still happen from time to time). In anarchy we don’t make this agreement and therefore I can indeed force my patches onto others!
Look all of this is a little bit pointless because there is no such thing as an Oxford dictionary definition of Anarchy. Its a concept, one that evolves over time. You are, however, making several conclusions which are counter to anything I have ever learnt on the topic. I’m not claiming I’m an expert, more of an enthusiast, but I have read quite a bit on philosophy related to governmental systems.
I would suggest you take a look at Marx’s “The Communist Manifesto” (should be on projectguttenberg). It’s not directly related to Anarchy but you will get a much better understanding of Anarchy by looking at it in comparison to other governmental systems.
I can’t even be bothered now.
You can have organisation without central authority. That does not mean you cannot have a central organ, it just does not have power in itself but is merely coordinating. Anarchy can be implemented in many ways. It is a typical mistake to think that Anarchy cannot be organised. It cannot have a ruling organ, but it can have a coordinating organ. It does have a tendency to be informal rather than formal but that’s a different issue. There are thousands of examples through the last 170 years on anarchist organisations.
You cannot expect to force your patches onto others in an Anarchist organisation. It requires you have write access to that particular part. Not to mention that you may lose the write access if you misbehave. Just like one can be expelled from the community. We are talking voluntary associations and they have to be voluntary both ways. If you enforce patches on the rest of us you’re likely to lose write access. We don’t want to be in the same project as you. If we cannot prevent you from having write access, we’ll just fork the project and make sure you cannot be a part of the new project.
You are gravely mistaken if you think that there are no agreements in Anarchy. There is definitely agreements – they are just voluntarily entered rather than enforced. But that does not mean there are no agreements.
In a more centralised govermental system, we agree to nothing. We’re simply oppressed by the system, which is oppressing the individual – either on behalf of a minority or on behalf of a majority. But none-the-less it will still be institutional oppression of man by man.
I know Karl Marxs manifest very well, and I mostly disagree – as does anarchists in general – apart from the labor theory of value. Communism and Anarchism are in many aspects opposite each other. At least Communism with capital C. The Communist state is no different than the Capitalist state in its nature. When it comes to the state Communists and Anarchists take different routes.
If you don’t have a fine set of rules and people specifically set in place to uphold those rules the “crowd mentality” will override any semblance of order in something like an anarchy. It’s an unworkable model. Just like communism and democracy. We (USA) do not live in a democracy, but a democratic republic – you and I hand off our authority to people we (presumably) trust to make decisions for us.
Typical statist myths. Anarchists have proven repeatedly that the model works.
In anarchy everybody participates in upholding the organisation – in democracy. It is the opposite op mob rule where there the majority is oppressing the minority. Mob rule is democracy without minority protection. Anarchy is there fore not mob rule. The smallest minority is the individual and as such any kind of decision overruling the individual is mob rule.
Anarchists have proven the model works repeatedly. Really. That’s why there are a great many anarchy-managed nations.
[edit]
You told me to use MY head… maybe you should use yours.
Edited 2010-12-05 05:05 UTC
So basically you have no arguments, so you have to fall back on insults and ad hominem-attacks… way to go.
Anarchy worked quite fine in Spain. And there are several anarchist organisations there, which work without the oppressive nature found in marxist “workers” unions. The thing that didn’t work was the union with Communists, Reform Socialists, Social Liberalists (not Liberal in U.S. sense) and republican Liberalists (again, not U.S. Liberal).
The U.S. founding fathers did not intend U.S.A. to become a democracy (in its modern deceptive meaning). They repeatedly warned against that because representative democracy is oppression by majority – or “mob rule”. The U.S. founding fathers effectively created an anarchy, though it didn’t last long before it was replaced with the first steps towards the semi-fascist republic we have today. U.S.A. even had an anarchist for president (Thomas Jefferson).
That wasn’t REALLY an ad hominem attack.
I’m just saying that you aren’t thinking this through. I concede that something like anarchy CAN work, but NOT in large population groups. If it could, don’t you think it would have already? Governance is not science. If something works for a group of people then they use it.
Okay. In that sense.
Yes, anarchy is difficult to practice in large groups of individuals. That’s why no implementation of Anarchy has ever tried to do that. Larger groups of individuals are interconnected through abstractions, e.g. one might participated directly in the local association. The association is voluntarily federated with other local associations, and these federations are again voluntarily federated with other federations, creating a multi-level organisation.
The difference between this organisational form and existing State federations is the lack of a central organ entitled to enforce anything. The councils of these federations are merely coordinating, but have no powers. The power resides with the individual and co-operating individuals. It is a very common organisational model in Denmark. Rather than voting on matters people will debate until consensus has been reached. “At tale sig til rette” as it is put in Denmark.
Do they implement a show of hands for concensus? How is it decided when concensus is reached? (Not being snide here, genuinely curious).
I am a Freemason, and in our governmental meetings cases are stated, discussion is encouraged to (hopefully) establish concensus, and then a vote occurs.
I’ve already stated that we do NOT have a democracy here in the USA. Everyone knows that. Never did, and you know, like anarchy there never WILL be a true democracy.
I’m not going to use the word “never”. I think it will depend on the exact definitions of “true democracy” and “true anarchy”.
True Anarchy has existed. It does have certain weaknesses as the experiences of the Paris commune, the anarchist revolution in Czar-Russia and the Spanish Civil War shows.
So you are an individualist or a collectivist? What is your take on local versus world wide economy? You previously said you had the right to defend yourself, so I am guessing you also support private property. How would decisions be made regarding infrastructure, resource sharing, etc? Maybe you are right, maybe I have a log in my eye, but I just don’t see how this can work, at least not across language and cultural barriers.
[edit]
No matter how I look at it, implementing anarchy generally has to be done by some form of governing body. At least to organize and come to some form of communal agreement.
Edited 2010-12-05 06:05 UTC
I actually prefer to style myself as a Social Individualist. Or put differently: I am an individual capable of thinking outside my own direct needs. I am not only thinking of myself, I am also thinking of other persons. I’m definitely not a Collectivist (at least not in the Statist sense), but neither am I an egoist. I reject the Individual-oppressing nature of the Left and I reject the Egoism (the Me-Me-Me and Only-Me) nature of the Right.
I support certain forms of private property, depending on the exact nature of private property. That however has nothing to do with self-defence. Everybody has the right to self-defence. This is related to living, and not owning.
Cultural and Language barriers are – as you state – barriers. They can be solved, and are not as critical as you might think. They would be very critical if individuals allover the world was organised in one level, but since this isn’t the case it is less of a problem. The centralised State would have the same problem if it tried to govern everything from one level. You usually have several administrative levels. This is also the case in Anarchy. The difference is that in a the State the administrative levels have powers to force the individual, whereas the administration in Anarchy have merely coordinating “power”.
You do not need a governing body. You do however need some sort of organising (or coordinating) body. I agree with that. But this can be done without using institutional force on the individual. You definitely need a coordinating body, but again: This does not imply using force against the individual.
And that, my friend, is the REAL problem with the world. That’s what starts wars, that’s what allows governments to enact outrageous policies and manage to get the populace to go along with it.
I am not really that different from you in some respects. I have my own ideas of how this (my country) should be changed (including government structure, internal and external policies, etc. I am a member of the Libertarian party here, because I think it is the only potential way we can take a step toward the changes I would like to see… on the other hand I think I am just a dreamer because short of a revolution, that kind of change just won’t occur. The two dominating political parties are really one, corporate party in the current day and age.
True, I just applied it there because it reminded me to wonder about the right to “protect” one’s property as well.
When forming the federated anarchies, would one have to be careful to form them in overlapping areas that do not encompass any one previously existing state?
It would require education and establishing a mind-set from childhood, I should think.
Oh, and thank you for the conversation.
Ditto. My brain hurts. Need sleep.
Take care.
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=anarchy
Your point is that a google search is anarchy, or what?
Wow, you seem to have completely misunderstood what Anarchy actual is. My advice would be to read up on the concept, especially before you start telling an actual anarchist what it is that he believes in.
Anarchy does not mean lack of order, that’s chaos. Anarchy does not mean lawlessness, that’s chaos. Why you are equating Anarchy with Chaos is anyone’s guess but it seems to me that you have been grievously misinformed.
Ahh.. that’s the word I couldn’t remember (we don’t you -nesse in Danish, we use -heit instead (hed)), so I had to try explaining it differently.
Does that mean I qualify as an anarchist? Usually I style myself as Social Individualist
Lol! Sure, whatever suits. Who am I to impose an unwanted label? That would be coercion!
I am not an anarchist yet even I know more about anarchism than you. A direct quote from the Wikipedia article for anarchy:
“Anarchists are those who advocate the absence of the state, arguing that common sense would allow people to come together in agreement to form a functional society allowing for the participants to freely develop their own sense of morality, ethics or principled behaviour.”
Both http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchy have plenty of stuff to read and I really, really do think you should study them.
You know what all this “anarchy means people voluntarily following their own rules” stuff reminds me of?
George W. Bush’s stance on climate change. Allowing energy companies to voluntarily sign up and help come up with the rules, because who better to figure it out, right? That idea was rightly laughed at, because it’s obvious they never would have done anything.
In the real world, the left-wing anarchist dream would quickly turn into a Hobbsian nightmare.
So, one minute you don’t even know what Anarchy actually is and the next you start passing off expert opinion on it. Way to go giving yourself a leg to stand on.
Anarchy has worked in practice time and time again. Anybody who has ever study the concept’s history has quickly come to the conclusion that it a viable and fair form of government.
Like others have said before me in this very thread, do yourself a favor and study up on Anarchy before you make an even bigger fool out of yourself.
Sheesh, I’d of thought you’d of gotten the message already!
Anarchy (absence of oppressive Govt) != Chaos
Check your premises.
Thats misleading. Democracy to the extreme is where every single law change is voted on by everybody (government by referendum). Every law can be drafted by anyone, etc. There is no group of people known as politicians, since everybody is one.
In democracy, the majority still dictates, on average, what not only they but also the people who vote against must/must not do. Anarchy is every individual acting independently of each other for their own benefit and with their own set of laws (which not suprisingly, with such diversity, leads to very few laws everyone follows :p).
The difference being that people in a democracy (willingly or not) sacrifice with laws they disagree with from time to time (when they’re in the minority) because most of the time the laws they do agree with are passed and they don’t have to worry about every single person who disagrees breaking that particular law. It creates a common direction for the state as a result of sacrifices by the individual.
I am, however, a supporter of Wikileaks. Although this latest release makes you think that maybe the damage (very likely reduced communications between embassy’s, and less communication is never a good thing!) maybe, _possibly_, outweighs the benefit.
Absolutist positions like all informaion is free, free speech, etc etc sound great in isolation but, like with all absolutest positions, break down in the real world. There IS a reason that no government divulges the identities of spies, for example.
Not that I necessarily agree or disagree with you in just case, I’m just rambling
Edited 2010-12-02 08:32 UTC
How about me and couple of Hells Angels come your house and plung bear pump up to your anus. That’s anarchy. What you seem to refer is some kind leftwing fairyland reality, wake up time to die.
Yo are wrong. Study Bakunin, Proudhon, Kropotkin and so on.
What you are talking about has nothing to do with the concept known as Anarchy (first used by Proudhon). What you are talking about is just plain violence. Anarchy is the concept of voluntary participation and association. There is nothing voluntary about your hypothetical actions…
What I’m talking is how you plan to protect yourself in your anarchy? What if Hells Angels decide to kill you because you have stupid hat. So someone is voluntaring to protect you? Why should they?
First of all I’m allowed to protect myself with no limitations to how I’ll do that. A Colt M4 wouldn’t be bad in your scenario. I would be in a better situation in an anarchist society than in a modern “democracy”, where I have zero protection (the police isn’t around to help me and cannot come here until after I’m dead).
The why in “why would other person voluntarily protect me” is simple to answer. Because they need the protection themselves. It is mutually guaranteed protection. It is quite common. It does require a sociery with a high social capital. A society with a high social capital is characterized with respect for the individual, individual liberties, mutual respect between individuals and a sense of belonging together as well as having responsibility for eachother. The social capital is quite high in Denmark (amongst Danes) and in Scandinavia in general. Unlike USA we also have true freedom of speech (guaranteed unlimited in Denmark by the constitution).
The answer to your question can be found in every well-working group. Think of friendships. That’s essentially what we’re dealing with here.
First of all I’m allowed to protect myself with no limitations to how I’ll do that. A Colt M4 wouldn’t be bad in your scenario. I would be in a better situation in an anarchist society than in a modern “democracy”, where I have zero protection (the police isn’t around to help me and cannot come here until after I’m dead).
And so are we in “America.” We are not obligated to call or wait for the police if we are threatened.
Nobody has to volunteer to protect you for free (though they very well could), just like nobody has to volunteer for free to teach you how to play guitar or build you a car; however, you and your neighbors could voluntarily subscribe to the services of a defense agency that protects you and your property from harm.
I should note, there are various forms of anarchism; personally, I am an anarcho-capitalist, which is a form of individualist anarchism.
Basically:
1) Free, voluntary exchange and association (i.e., true “free market”) is the only moral, just form of exchange and association.
2) Any aggression — theft, pollution, assault, etc — against someone else’s person or private property (except in self-defense) is immoral and unjust.
3) Government is immoral and unjust because it is inherently coercive; it strips each individual of his right to self ownership and of his right to make his own choices and live his life the way he pleases (so long as he’s bringing harm to no one else), and forces each individual to hand over a significant portion of his income every year (taxes) so that it can forcefully tell us what we can and cannot do.
For those interested, you can Wikipedia anarcho-capitalism, and also probably the best book on the anarcho-capitalist philosophy is For a New Liberty by Murray Rothbard, which you can read for free, legally, here: http://mises.org/rothbard/newlibertywhole.asp
Edited 2010-12-02 16:43 UTC
Anarchy is NOT direct democracy. Direct democracy has rules and structure. Anarchy is simple mob rule and whomever rules the mob rules. There are no laws under Anarchy and civil society cannot exist without rules. Even the most basic tribal civilization has rules. Anarchy does not fit into the picture of Human society.
Anarchy have laws, and have structure. It has nothing to do with mob rule and chaos. You do not understand what anarchy is.
Anarchy is absense of State (in its centralised oppressive form), but not absense of structure, laws nor organisation. It is however voluntary organisation instead of forced organisation.
Mob rule is what you have when you have a state. USSR was a mob rule. USA is becoming one.
You keep saying that. HOW is structure maintained “voluntarily”? So everyone is expected to know “the rules” and to not only obey them but enforce them? I suppose the rules would have to indicate “due process” because otherwise yeah, it is a MOB MENTALITY.
http://www.infoshop.org/page/AnAnarchistFAQ
Use your brain – Think for yourself
Since you provide a link and don’t answer for yourself I’ll assume you don’t really know and that you just regurgitate some college campus, rebellious youth movement.
Ehh? college campus, rebellious youth movement.
I’m living in Denmark, not going at what an american would call college, am 32 – been political active for … a very long time. When I was younger I was a frequent “guest” in the Danish Folketing (our parliament) sitting in various “udvalg” (committees?)
I have repeatedly answered for myself, but you just keep going in the same circle. “It cannot work. It cannot work. It cannot work. It is mob rule. It is mob rule. It is mob rule”.
You do now want to grasp the concept of voluntary organisation and as such I cannot (and will not) do further to enlighten you. You must transcend your own limitations and prejudices, and most important: You must do your own thinking now and reach your own conclusions.
I have and I am done with this conversation. YOU don’t seem to be able to realize that something like this won’t work in a large population. Maybe someday when our brains are all physically networked in something like this might be possible, but not now. But hey, it’s something to look forward to in a century or so.
It works right now. Open Source is prove of that. It worked before. In Spain and Ukraine. It works many places.
Of course one cannot ever see an anarchist state, because Anarchy is the absense of State. So asking for an Anarchist State to be prove of Anarchy working is hilarious. Why not asking for me to fly by waving my arms really fast?
Yeah, it works for OPEN SOURCE. It worked in Spain? In the Ukraine? If so why isn’t it still working there? See, that’s my point. Facist republics, monarchies, socialist republics, etc. They work.
How would economy work within an anarchical society? You just have to hope everyone is trustworthy and hope that you or someone will notice when someone is circumventing or manipulating the rules? What if someone is REALLY good at manipulating rules and people… I think it would be more susceptible to that sort of thing than a centralized government without any oversight because people have to trust that the person next to them means well and is doing right. Don’t they?
Open Source software works because there has to be some peer review. Life doesn’t work that way.
What about world resources and vying for them? You would have to have 100% buy in to make something like this work.
Fascism didn’t work. That’s why Spain and Italy are no longer fascist countries. Communism didn’t work. Socialism (in the marxist sense) does not work. Just look at the former USSR. Or what is your point?
Anarchy is applied in many different ways everyday, so it obviously does work.
Life is totally peer reviewed. Pretty much everything you do is reviewed by everybody else, whether you like it or not. Open Source works because people are free to participate – or fork the project. That’s why it works. And not because there is somebody somewhere who gets to decide anything.
You ask interesting questions about the economy and how it would work. It wouldn’t work particularly different. The main difference being the lack of central banks (a lack of those is quite common btw. – central banks are very recent invention – in the history of mankind that is – it’s been less than 2 centuries with those, so it’s like yesterday they were created). And of course the lack of corporations. They would be replaced by voluntary organisations, with the workers (incl. the bosses, CEOs, CTOs etc. of today) deciding what to do. Not on daily basis but occassionaly, where after daily management will be delegated to managers. Not much different than today, except that the managers are elected by the employees who also “owns” the factory.
In regard to the 100% buy in. You are partially correct. The voluntary association only works if everybody in the group wants it to work and participates in making it work. This require a high social capital, which is difficult to achieve in larger groups of inviduals (but not impossible). That is very correct assessed. This is why there are no large groups in Anarchy. There is however voluntary federations between groups, e.g. instead of having large groups made up from a large number of individuals, you will instead have small federations made up from a small number of groups with small numbers of individuals. E.g. multi-level organisation. In many ways similar to how international relations work today between countries.
The resources of the world belongs to the local community. E.g. one cannot own water or air resources. One can be in possession of the Earth, but not own it (at least that’s Danish law – I think you can actually own the Earth in U.S.A. which is very odd). The resources of the world can be considered ‘Common Private Property’ – or in Danish “Privat f~A|lleseje”. It is difficult to translate and reflects how Danish law has come to exist through tradition and customs. It is based on the organisation of pre-medieval Danish organisation. If you find it important to have it detailed how that works I will do my best, but be aware that I might fail.
All governments tend to fall at some point, I agree. Ours will in the next century or so, I am sure. But the same forms of government are repeatedly implemented because there is a certain efficiency when goverment is small and focused and can make and implement decisions rapidly. This is a reason why a true communistic or democratic society is infeasible, as (*I* believe) well as a true anarchical society.
Yes, of course, as I conceded already, it has been successfully used but as you note below there are difficulties that would have to be overcome to implement it successfully. I appreciate that concession, and really that is all I was looking for.
Actually I am 100% with you on this point and I wish that the small-town, local banks still existed and had not been consumed by these mega-banks…
Here is where you lose me… I just… again, it very well MIGHT be me, but I just cannot see people buying into this… how would the CEOs be chosen, how would compensation occur? (Sorry, typical capitalist question, but I assume capitalism will remain). And what would those CEO-like entities do when NOT meeting to make some sort of policy change?
While in my heart I believe capitalism is entropic, people in some countries are settled into their lifestyles, would they not need to change? Perhaps radically?
This is what I have been so poorly trying to get at.
Ah! O.K. That makes more sense… but… and don’t hate me for saying this, but doesn’t a federation then take on some form of self-identification? Naturally?
Yes and no. Property can go back to the state if a family line dies off with no heirs. And the state reserves the right to “purchase” land if it deems it necessary to do so. And technically, the banks in China own everything now anyway. (That was a joke).
But we never had an anarchist government.
We are not IN a Democracy.
No, that comparison does not work. A corporation is more like a dictatorship or a monarchical heirarchical government, not anarchy, not democracy. Even the shareholders in most modern corporations have specific self-interests in the boards on which they sit.
No we are not. We elect people we hope will make the right decisions FOR us. We have no say in the day-to-day operation of our governments, not without rebellion.
Anarchy, or could wikileaks be more for accountability?
Given the past actions of Governments – around the world – having everything in the open allows for people to hold their governments responsible for their actions and this is very important in systems of representational democracy.
For too long there have been nasty enterprises carried out in the name of the people and the people have been unaware due to lack of transparency and the use of state secrets. No more. Let us see the emperor and his shiny new cloths.
Anarchy (absence of oppressive Govt) != Chaos
Check your premises.
Anarchy is absence of Government but that does not mean absence of oppression.
A strong, centralized government is essential to maintain order. Neither communism, democracy nor anarchy can work in this world. In SMALL groups, perhaps yes, but not in large groups of people.
Well said.
In the English language, “America” is not a continent. “North America is.” “South America” is. “The Americas” (plural) is a region, as is “Latin America,” “Central America,” etc. There is no ambiguity. Anyway, it was Europeans who named it.
The real kleptonymaniacs are the good people of so-called “Europe,” i.e., the European Union, which contains neither Europe’s largest nor second largest country, nor its two most populous countries, nor its most powerful one.
As for the leaks, the latest ones don’t seem to show “America” doing anything wrong, unless being polite in public and frank in private is somehow wrong.
As for the government’s response to the leaks, it’s about what you’d expect in a free country. The nation’s newspaper of record, the New York Times, along with hundreds of others, prints excerpts without fear of censorship or retribution. Politicians posture and blather. Companies like Amazon simper, but Amazon is not a news organization, it is a retail outlet with a different mission. You can find out anything at all about the leaks on do-no-evil Google.
Do you think a Russian newspaper will print the leaks about Putin and Medvedev? Can you discuss the leaks about North Korea in a Chinese chat room?
In the english language, or in your common parlance? I ask because all english/german dictionaries handy translate “America” with Amerika, which is the continent, and afair this is also the way I learned it in school.
Well you were taught incorrectly. The continents are named North America and South America. Two distinct land masses separated at plate boundaries.
Then you were taught incorrectly, too. It is not Europe, nor Asia, but Eurasia, and further, Asia as you know it is also part of the north american continent.
AFAIR my post was less about geography, but speech.
Edited 2010-12-06 09:40 UTC
Hmmm… well geography terms can overlap with common terms. I was thinking technically.
Hello,
I read somewhere (leave it up to you to find it) that the US government psuhed the New York Times to not publish certain facts that were released by wikileaks.
There is a difference between telling your version of the story and the full story … They can’t force anybody to not publish a story about it, but they can control what appears in it …
I think there are too many interests here that you have to be very strong to withstand them. Information is something powerfull and who in the US would like to share/lose their power?
Michel
The way it is working is several news organizations are voluntarily advising Wikileaks on what to redact, with indirect, informal assistance (not pressure) from the US government:
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=23666
I’d mod you up but I’ve already posted.
Wikileaks just makes people aware of what has already been thought of, in electronic version. Come on, didn’t you know all that stuff ? Many resignation letters should be signed these days.
I just thought I would point out that you forgot the word “out” in your title.
[cue whistling]
“America” is a shortening of United States of America because that is a mouthful. Some people actually say “United States”… but then that isn’t accurate either because Mexico is the “United States of Mexico”. Yet Mexicans call their country “Mexico” as well, no? So people who live in the country of the United States of America call their country America.
He deserves it more than the bloody-handed Kissinger.
Hopefully this marks a paradigm shift in world and corporate affairs. There is no better disinfectant than sunlight – as Obama himself said.
Shame on Amazon – history will judge them as collaborators.
For what? Causing more conflict on countries? Forcing China to officially support more North Korea, since they lost there face after gossip. Cause Iran to be even more hostile against it neighbours. Cause distrust between severaly countries.
Wikileaks hasn’t bring anything new out. What they did was release bunch of gossips that offered nothing new. Keep mind that those cables aren’t facts, they are opinnions of people and stuff. The goal of those cables is to offer more accurate view of politics and people by using non-political talks(batman and robin reference for example). Releasing them to public eye is idiotic. It’s like having your friend publish conversation where you blame your boss for been idiot.
The helicopter video was biggest load of bullshit populism and propaganda. What it showed is leaders making bad decision based on information they gained from 2km away in fuzzy helicopter feed on situation where they were looking hostiles that just had made attack on them. Natural any sane person would go inside if they find out bunch are soldiers running on streets. There is tons of similiar videos in Youtube. Search “A10 strafing taliban position” and you find amazing videos.
I hope the lock him up (at best) and throw away the key.
Well-argumented comment.
*golf clap*
There are times when the antics of US politicians and and the citizens that keep voting them back into office get so bad I want to drop everything and move to a saner country. This is one of those times. So Thom, how hard is it to learn Dutch anyway?
Unfortunately, this is not the best of times to move to our country with the current political climate.
Julian Assange doesn^aEURTMt care that people get killed due to his actions:
^aEURoe1,300 people were eventually killed, and 350,000 were displaced. That was a result of our leak,^aEUR says Assange. It^aEURTMs a chilling statistic, but then he states: ^aEURoeOn the other hand, the Kenyan people had a right to that information and 40,000 children a year die of malaria in Kenya.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/aug/01/julian-assange-wikileak…
Uh, he exposed massive corruption in Kenya. How many people have gotten killed over exactly the same kind of reports made by traditional media over the years? More than 1300, I can tell you that.
If the traditional media is already doing their job, then what did Julian add?
Next, backup your statements that traditional media is killing 1300 people with its reports.
And last, who cares, 1300 people? Only Kenyans. All sacrificed in the name of the truth as your intentions whitewash your methods.
That is the point, the traditional media is too afraid of getting their “face time” not granted with the politicians, so they stopped doing their jobs…
So you say that people shouldn’t be informed about corruption because there may be clashes between the corrupt and those who want to end the corruption? You support preventing justice to uphold short term corrupt stability? How about the indirect loss of life caused by poverty deepened by the corruption?
You skipped an important bit at the end of your quotation:
” ‘On the other hand, the Kenyan people had a right to that information and 40,000 children a year die of malaria in Kenya. And many more die of money being pulled out of Kenya, and as a result of the Kenyan shilling being debased.’
It’s the kind of moral conundrum that would unnerve most people, that made some wonder last week what the potential ramifications of the latest leak might be, but it is a subject on which Assange himself is absolutely clear: ‘You have to start with the truth. The truth is the only way that we can get anywhere. Because any decision-making that is based upon lies or ignorance can’t lead to a good conclusion.’ ”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/aug/01/julian-assange-wikileak…
Let’s start leaking your medical records sultanqasim, your private emails, your private photos, all of it. Because we have to start with the truth.
If he commits a crime, then yes…leak his emails, his photos, what ever shows that he committed the crime.
If his leaks were just exposing crimes or something ‘evil’, that would be great. When the leaks are things like ‘this ambassador said blah blah blah about Prince Charles’ type of stuff, it’s really not about protecting us from the governments or crimes, it’s just airing the private comments people are making. The Kazakh leaders have a lot of money / homes / parties? Well damn, so do the US leaders and the leaders of every other country! Who would have thought!? But did you need these leaks to figure out that politicians are majorly corrupt, influence peddling egomaniacs?
If the leaks were redacted to uncover the actual conspiracies (Saudis heavily pushing the US to attack Iran on their behalf – or as their oil-junkies, for example) and relevant issues (Kenyan corruption, etc.), I’d say he’d be more on-target. Airing *everything* and hiding behind ‘because it’s the truth’ is lame, particularly when it creates an environment where the wheat is hidden by the chaff – the press is busy talking about Kazakh horses instead of Saudi puppeteering! A good journalist wouldn’t do that – and the Pulitzer was supposed to be for journalism, not just re-publishing content.
Now the ‘shooting civilians’ video – while watching it, I kept thinking that I’d have shot too. Here are folks with AK-47s and some with a larger tube attacking troops or getting in position to – were they supposed to guess that some are reporters? You’re taking a bit of a chance doing that, right? Now here comes a van to pick up some of the wounded, not a marked ambulance… etc. Way more gray than black/white ‘murdering civilians and reporters’.
Well, if it’s relevant to some public decision making process, then sure, leak them.
Why are you placing the blame on the operator of a place where the files got put up for access, and not on (say) the military recruiter who couldn’t tell a self-important “hacker” from someone who could be trusted with the information, or the military network administrator who did not require diplomatic levels of security clearance to access the shares with that level of documentation?
If a government decides some information is secret, it is the onus of the government to keep it secret, and the right of the public to use any information when it becomes public. (Right might not be strong enough; obligation might be more fitting, for once it has been proven that information has been kept from the citizenry, it is the duty of the public to find out what this information was and what it implies their government is doing in secret.) Similarly, if the government relies on secrecy to protect the lives of people, their deaths are on the government’s hands if secrecy is lost, because the government was the one who promised them secrecy and protection.
The government is trying to keep it secret and is certainly interested in finding who is leaking the information. Assange is helping to get this information published, so how could he not bear some of the responsibility if it’s illegal? It’s the concept of someone leaking your medical records and him publishing them because they’re true – yes, they’re the truth, but that doesn’t automatically it needs to be published. What the hell is that? He knows what he’s doing.
Along those lines, some of the information leaked is interesting, but bits like Yemen covering for US air strikes are more likely to cause civilian deaths (as a result of terror groups getting safer havens as various governments will now fear allowing US action if they think that won’t stay covered up – and correctly, given the leaks), in which case not only is he not exposing some coverup/corruption, but is exposing other things that will directly lead to less security for civilians around the world.
Thanks, Julian. Again, Pulitzer? Exposing Russian government / mafia ties (corruption) seems to be one thing, making it easier for terror groups to find safe havens is quite a bit more dubious. And that’s the truth too.
Assange is right though. The kenyan people had the right to know, and Assange and everybody on Earth had the the duty to let them know.
When crimes are committed against humanity there is no such thing as not being involved. WW2 taught us that. Whenever and however we find that crimes have been committed this information MUST be shared. It is our duty as humans.
I can agree with you there.
So I guess you would support this saying.
“Rather live on your knees than die on your feet”
You mentioned Kenya.
Here in africa we struggle with despotic governments that hold their people to ransom and suppress any regime change violently.
The sort of “if we cant have it nobody will”
Democracy is sort of joke here. Just like in America.
Personality cults, vested interests and secret societies.
Hey, you, get off of my cloud!
Something tells me there’s a might big storm coming – and it has nothing to do with “terrorists”.
The Governments of the World does not think that much about of their citizens.
I think they privately hate the fact that their success or failure in elections depend on such unsophisticated folk like us:-/
How can we ordinary poor dumb people really deal with this kind of sensitive information
It would cause mass hysteria and the issues call for smart and tactful diplomacy. The kind of diplomacy that solved such matter as Sarajevo, Rwanda and Iran.
Only now that politician themselves are embarrassed by their leaked emails is Assange vigorously pursued.
Not earlier when war secrets got out. No, just now when their back and forth “diplomacy” is leaked out.
What does the “Freedom of information act” then really mean then?
What makes me sad is that even if each and every citizen has the true picture of what’s going on the world, would this bring about changes of governments?
Would the world become a better place?
There is such apathy for this kind of stuff that the average american voter vote solely on how those candidate can convince him of better/more high paying jobs. And thats all. Not moral issues about who was lying ten or other stuff. They could care less. Their to tired making a living. Just give them jobs and keep them ignorant.
So why are they pursuing Assanga then anyway? They’re jobs are secure.
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/30576
Oh, and Assange deserves the Pulitzer about as much as Obama deserved the Nobel Peace Prize. I like you Thom, I enjoy this site, and I appreciate the effort you put into it, but that high horse is looking a little wobbly on its legs.
Edited 2010-12-02 03:16 UTC
There is so much conjecture in that article, not to mention tin hat black helicopter conjecture, it’s really hard to take it seriously. Then I noticed the tag line “…Because without America there is no Free World.” That’s some statement!
Anyway, I clicked on the “about us” link and not surprisingly found the following: “Espousing Conservative viewpoints, cornerstone of which contain love of God, love of family, love of country…”
[sarcasm] Now that is what I call a credible news outlet! [/sarcasm]
Please, if you want to put a different slant on Assange’s motives, try and use an article that hasn’t been written by such a blatant right-wing crank. It makes you look like one by proxy.
this is credibility?:
“Copyright ^A(c) Douglas Hagmann
Douglas Hagmann, founder & director of the Northeast Intelligence Network, and a multi-state licensed private investigative agency. Doug began using his investigative skills and training to fight terrorism and increase public awareness through his website.
Doug can be reached at: [email protected]“
I didn’t say the guy was right. It was merely a demonstration of the wide variety of conclusions that could be drawn from this whole thing.
There is more than one side to this story (as the lively debate here indicates), and we probably do not have all the information.
Some people praise Assange.
Other people say he is criminal.
Things are so simple, but so simple, it’s incredible:
1. a government (or several) committed crimes and had several mistakes.
2. these same governments have dumb people protecting their own documents
3. the documents are stolen and published for everyone to see
I only see two options:
1. These governments should have better protection for this information
2. or, they should avoid committing more crimes
Sometimes, things are so easy, and we spend so much time arguing about them.
1. These governments should have better protection for this information
The US Gov has a history of being shall we say, ‘rather lax’ in this area.
Look how easy it was for a certain British UFO fan to get into some very sensitive US Computers. Then look at the relentless pursuit of him by sucessive administrations.
They will probably go after Julian in the same way.
Sigh.
I’d rather see the US Gov hold their hands up, admit they goofed and then fix their problems (And their are many) themselves.
This latest haul of docs to appear on wikileaks can IMHO only show that there is ‘Something rotten about the State of America’, rotten to the core.
It may take another revolution to solve the problems of vested interestes and far too many lawyers for their own good making silly laws that only benefit other members of the legal cabal sorry profession.
I guess I’ll be on a DHS ‘no fly’ list now.
If some company were doing these things and a whistle blower came forward the media would praise them as a hero. However, because it is a country instead of a company there are congressman calling for the death of the leaker accusing this person or persons of teason. Perhaps instead attacking the owner of a website maybe they should either 1. plug the leaks in the information chain or 2. stop doing things that would mert being released in this way.
This is something I think we can all agree on!
Ex Aussie Assange must have balls/nerves of steel. Hat’s off to him. I saw footage last night of a U.S rep that suggested he be assassinated. It seems they are turning the story so that wiki leaks is endangering lives so the focus shifts. That’s the world we live in.
For one of our Reps to say that… he should have his behind kicked out of Congress. I certainly hope he will at least be censured. That’s more thoughtless than all of the comments in this now huge thread. And there might be someone out there crazy enough to try that now…
People should really do some research on this subject before just reading a few headlines and immediately coming to a quick conclusion. Unfortunately that’s not the way the world works.
Both Assange and the US government are being assholes about this, and neither one really cares about freedom, democracy, or any other buzzword you want to insert. Assange seems to have a God complex, and gets of on “screwing powerful bastards” like the US government. He doesn’t give a crap if his work does harm to innocents or not, he has a vendetta that he’s pursuing. He’s also a dictator in his organization, going on a witch hunt and instantly throwing out his lieutenants after they asked him a couple questions and wondered if he was being too cavalier and partisan.
On the other hand, there are US congressmen saying he should be declared a terrorist and shot while “evading” arrest. These guys are even worse than Assange and make me ashamed to be an American. They’re playing this up in the media for all it’s worth just for politics, and the world would be better off if everyone ignored them. Unfortunately, that’s not the way the world works either.
This is kind of like the Apple vs Flash stuff that went on, it’s really tough to root for either side because they both suck so much.
You need a**holes to fight a**holes…
As you say, these guys are just a few individual posturing politicians, not representing the position of the US government as a whole.
True, but I think that is still inexcusable.
And you seem to do the classic ‘let’s focus on the persons and not on the subject’ maneuver. Let’s not shift focus from the real matter here, which is what these leaked documents contain, the rest is really just smokescreens and mirrors.
Wikileaks has shown sheer stupidity in this matter! It is one thing to leak videos or crimes, of soldiers gunning people down and of illegal operations. However it is sheer stupidity to leak confidential information and conversations between diplomats, that no one needs to know. Leaking comments made by diplomats regarding other diplomats that are currently under taking illegal actions is stupid. The comments about Korea by China and the comments about Zimbabwe by South Africa are all well grounded and within reason give the situations that were faced. But to publish them to the world and tell Korea and Zimbabwe (who have both partaken in illegal actions and extensive infringement of human rights) what is being said about them is stupidity!
Whats next? Publishing of legal military operations against enemies before they take place? Leaking of private discussions between diplomats during peace talks that results in them breaking down!?
I have no problem with how wikileaks initially started. And exposing the wrongs of government is very important. However endangering lives and potentially breaking down peace by publishing material they could have kept to themselves is stupid!
WIKILEAKS YOU HAVE TAKEN IT TOO FAR!!!!!!
Three million people already had access tothese documents.
They weren’t secret to begin with.
So why bother to expose them?
I second you as this is what I have been thinking about this whole matter. Exposing videos of crimes and illegal operations is different from leaking diplomatic messages!
Some things are meant to remain secret and prior to that Wikileaks publication, I don’t think anyone sane had a problem with diplomacy and the double language it involves.
According to one of the comments, Assange said “You have to start with the truth. The truth is the only way that we can get anywhere. Because any decision-making that is based upon lies or ignorance can’t lead to a good conclusion.” True. But how does the leaking of diplomatic messages affect the decision-making of Wikileaks’ target audience? Nobody supporting him in this matter (to the point of nominating him for the Pullitzer price) ever explained what benefit this specific leak brought and to who. My life didn’t change and I’m sure no OSAlert reader has seen his life change due to this. So… what’s the agenda? Have Ms Clinton resign as he reportedly suggested? Nobody talked about the revolting “crimes” that are being denounced either. What are those crimes exactly?
Some things are better left secret. That’s the nature of diplomacy as no one, unless deeply stupid, would be fooled about what diplomats say. That’s also the point of counter-terrorism and national security agencies. Why not expose the names of undercover CIA or DGSE or MI6 or Mossad agents then?
Expose the truth, yes. Expose anything, no. I wouldn’t want any husband and wife privilege violated. I wouldn’t want patient and doctor confidential information revealed. I wouldn’t want the identities of intelligence agencies agents published. I don’t like the content of diplomatic communication disclosed. There are limits to everything, including “good intentions” for the greater number.
In the end, I am wondering if any “leak” from wikileaks ever benefited the general public. From what I can see, the only result of this specific leak was to embarrass governments. Does anyone think governments will stop their wrongdoings because of this leak? If you do, I don’t even feel sorry for you.
Actually, that’s not all those cables speak of. Check out the following article to see what else was uncovered:
http://motherjones.com/politics/2010/12/wikileaks-cable-obama-quash…
Basically, American diplomats, under orders from the whitehouse, where told to put pressure on Spanish officials in order to have them quash a court case alleging that several members of the Bush administration where in fact guilty of war crimes, something that is pretty self evident and should have gone ahead.
So yeah, some of the stuff to come out of these leaked memos and cables are actually more than just idle gossip.
Gee, American diplomats tried to avert what would have become a major international incident between two countries that are allied. What a shocker!
Now, if they had done anything illegal, like blackmailing the Spanish officials, that would be newsworthy. But doing their jobs?
Doing there jobs? Say whatnowhey? Interfering with another sovereign country’s citizens attempt to bring to justice six war criminals is doing their job? Did you actually read the article?
It quite clearly states that the human rights groups involved in this matter had a clear case and that even though the chief prosecutor didn’t feel comfortable, he still maintained the Spanish judiciary’s independence in the matter. This did not stop the US diplomats from continuing to apply pressure and to have one unfavorable judge removed from the case. If that isn’t a clear intervention in another country’s affairs, something I’d to point out is not a diplomat’s job, then I don’t know what is.
You may think there is no wrong doing here but what about the five Spanish nationals who where illegally detained and tortured in Guantanamo bay? What about their right to justice under their own country’s legal framework? US diplomats throwing their weight around to have this case quashed is a travesty at best.
What exactly do you think a diplomat’s job is, if it isn’t to let the foreign government know what the diplomat’s country thinks? They merely passed along the FACT that a trial would have had major international incident implications, and the Spanish government decided what to do with that information. That’s exactly how international diplomacy works. The alternative would be to not pass along the information, have the Spanish government merely guess at what the US is thinking, and make a decision without that information. How is that better?
You clearly think the trial should have gone forward, but that’s an issue you should take up with the Spanish government. Not US diplomats.
The where not letting Spain know, as you so concisely put it, they where coercing the Spanish. I agree that passing along a message that your government would unfavorably view a certain court case is indeed a diplomat’s job but to repeatedly badger different members of the Spanish government to have the case quash is not the same thing, not to mention ignoring the illegality of the request.
Anyway, what has that to do with this release having much more factual evidence than just gossip? If those files pertaining to the active attempt at interfering with another sovereign stat’s legal affairs is not something worth knowing for those that lost out, I don’t know what is.
You quite obviously have a bee in your bonnet about this release but all I can see you doing is to blame wikileaks for doing something it has advertised well in advance, being a forum for the release of leaked information. Shoot the messenger much?
I think you seem rather naive about how international diplomacy works. Maybe it shouldn’t be that way, but that’s what diplomats do, for all countries.
They didn’t interfere. They simply asked and the Spanish government made it’s own decision. The US had just as much right to get involved as the Spanish did, anyway. (Both had valid concerns)
Anyway, my point is that everyone already knew that the US was against the trial. A child could have figured that out. This “news” is nothing but official confirmation of what we all already knew anyway. That just doesn’t seem very newsworthy to me, beyond a kind of voyeurism, peeking behind the scenes.
I’m just saying some things have no place being leaked like this, because it serves no purpose. I had no problem with their Collateral Murder video, that seemed genuinely newsworthy even if I didn’t agree with all the conclusions. I just don’t see the point of leaking these kinds of diplomatic messages, when they don’t seem to have anything incriminating or even surprising in them. And I believe they can have a negative impact in the future.
Edited 2010-12-03 02:30 UTC
Fair enough but I do think it serves a purpose. I can understand that you think that the whole Spanish case was self evident but keep in mind that not everybody knows the machinations of the world’s various diplomatic corps. The citizens of any given sovereign state do have a right to see who is interfering in their rightful judiciary process but if that doesn’t persuade you, there is the other matter of seeming even handed, something Wikileaks needs to always be able to uphold if they want to be taken seriously.
Sure, these cables may seem self evident but to dismiss them as idle gossip to me seems short sighted. What to you seems like self evident gossip is for those that had their court case thrown out a deeper understanding of what they are up against. I think that alone is worthy information.
Hahaha! This is by far the worst quote ever!
A messenger delivers a message from one person to another, under orders of the initial person.
I am pretty sure that, back in the day when messengers were shot, the messenger would have been shot if he heard a conversation he was not supposed to about diplomacy and then started spreading it around town!
Which is pretty much what Wikileaks does.
Yes of course, because the US government asked wikileaks to publish its confidential messages!? (Sarcasm)
You don’t have a clue, do you? Since when does a messenger need to be ordered around? Look up the definition of a messenger before you post something as stupid as:
A messenger need only deliver a message for that person to be a messenger. No orders need to have been given.
Sheesh! The level of intellect in this forum has really hit rock bottom over recent months.
I kinda doubt the “original persons” ordered Wikileaks to deliver these messages to the Internet. I think the previous poster’s following paragraph, about spreading the message about town, more aptly applies.
You are missing the point there (or maybe not the point, but it’s relevance): the interesting bit about that leak is not only the pressure from the US diplomats, but that the Spanish government bent over and jumped over the separation of powers, which is illegal and almost borders treason.
And that’s not the only cable that shows how full of it the Spanish government is, they also forced dropping the case against the soldiers that shoot straight to a hotel that had been explicitly set up and marked for journalists, killing Jos~A(c) Couso and Taras Protsyuk.
I’m sure the family of Couso is interested in how our government put foreign interests over justice.
Just because the cables came from US embassies doesn’t mean that it’s all about the US alone.
Edited 2010-12-03 22:31 UTC
This dovetails nicely with the comment I made in the open dns server thread… I intimated there that yeah, it sounds cool but who owns the infrastructure? Who can squeeze the owners of the infrastructure?
Same deal here… gov’t applied pressure and the owner of the infrastructure caved.
That’s it. That’s how it will always be, how it will always play out.
Might be, but the vast majority of it (traffic wise anyway ) is.
Anyway, I by default stand for transparency over secrecy, but I know that nobody could stand being that transparent everyday (mind you me neither). But in a time where violation of privacy is performed for the sake of security (you know terrorism, pedophile, and …piracy ), I find this to be a nice kickback.
I also know that most people won’t understand the kind of information handled by security agency, politics but at least try to spend money on your communication.
In the end, I feel that the fight is lost anyway, as most of the media have already done their damage, and I really think that this “cablegate” is a mountain out of nothing, but most people believe that there really is some sensitive informations that could threaten US soldier and US secret agent.
There is not much way to release this kind information in a more sensitive way than wikileak have handled them (one of them being throw the data away).
I don’t think that Wikileaks would be as much reponsible for the release as any newspaper or television show, as there is always a bastard in the middle to ask the terrorist to pull the trigger.
If it wouldn’t be a whole organisation and wide media coverage behind wikileaks but just a single person godaddy or icann would’ve suspend the domain permanently just like they do with other malicious domains on daily basis.
And yeah when govt going after your webpage hosting providers will threat it like cancer. They will have to keep moving it around just like tpb and will end up in the ukraine and china.
It wouldn’t be fair if, once found out, information would only reach a few crowds (say countries).
My opinion is that the kenyan leak was a good thing. It’s not good to sit in poop just because you can’t smell well enough. The ideal situation would be for the kenyans to be constantly exposed to the truth (no more pauses that would allow invisible corruption to build up). But once invisible corruption does build up at some point the bubble has to burst. It’s not really avoidable.
One more thing, WikiLeaks is a lot like a news paper. Each newspaper has it’s allotted credibility. Some people trust some newspapers more than others. Everyone who has access to WikiLeaks has the same options.
First thing you need in order to achieve knowledge is exposure to information, good and bad. So that you can say “this is the good stuff” and “this is the bad stuff”. That’s what freedom of speech is about.
Secrecy, if needed, is wholly dependent on those who use it. It’s like software security. You can’t consider a security whole insignificant just because nobody found it yet.
for your clear stance in this matter.
It’s sorely needed.
The brainwashing – rather: brain-dirtying – is continuing everywhere with full power, on all media, and it’s not easy to keep thinking for oneself.
“1984” has arrived for some time already, and now it really starts to surface:
“Oppression is Freedom!”
“Lies are Truth!”
Doublethink coming into full bloom.
(Not that we have not been adequately “prepared” for this state of affairs throughout history. Just an example: some time ago I had to look something up for a friend at university, doing so I got a closer look at some medieval plays, and was amazed: the church was already an expert in propaganda, centuries before the word was invented! And I guess the church wasn’t the only one in that respect, and it’s not a matter of centuries either, rather millennia – just look at the designation “God-King” ……………………)
[Edit: more points added after “God-King”]
Edited 2010-12-02 12:31 UTC
He is not obligued to follow US laws outside of the contry, he didn’t sign anything and, AFAIK, whistleblowing is legal and welcomed in many european countries (where legal treatment should NOT depend on whether content of leaks suits some other government or not).
Also, the press is not responsible for repercussions of releasing TRUE information. Otherwise they’d be sued over every sex scandal they uncover. Exception could be confidential material, but in this case US only has jurisdiction over NY Times.
There’s a difference between whistle-blowing and just leaking confidential information. Unfortunately, Wikileaks seems to have taken the stance that the 2 are equivalent somehow.
There are distinctions between ‘the head of RJR authorized adding carcinogens to products’ and ‘the head of RJR has expensive homes’, and there are differences between ‘the US military is covering up civilian mass executions’ vs. ‘the US military is secretly cooperating with other governments to fight militants’. Leaking everything that is private because it may be correct information is a pretty screwed up policy. I wouldn’t support someone hacking Assanges personal information / private correspondence / etc. and posting it just because it’s ‘the truth’ either, FWIW.
There is more than one definition of anarchy. Check it out.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anarchy
I don’t support the leaking of government documents when it comes to diplomacy. If a backroom deal can avoid a war – then it’s a better solution !! Nobody should be that naive that all diplomacy can be done in the light of day. So whistle-blowers and revealing cover up of malfeasance, yes – leaks of personal information gather by diplomats on how to handle head of state is just stupid.
Nevertheless, I agree that the campaign against Assange personally (rapes, “must be aiding terrorists”) and against whoever hosts Wikileaks is wrong.
A good reading for understanding what Julian Assange tries to do with WikiLeaks:
http://zunguzungu.wordpress.com/2010/11/29/julian-assange-and-the-c…
The fact that our government is so furious over these documents shows exactly how important it is that they be released.. let’s look at the facts:
None of the foreign governments involved have expressed surprise or concern over these documents – these facts were already known to them, although they may not have had the exact wording before the leaks.. big f-ing whoop, they’re not stupid enough to think diplomacy isn’t dirty and unpleasant.
Nearly all of this information WILL eventually be released in some form, it’s just a matter of timing. I agree that if people’s lives are in more danger if the documents are released it shouldn’t be done, but if the information will lead to uncovering and dismantling long-term corruption, you just can’t deny that it should be done. Corruption kills, uncovering corruption kills as well – but that doesn’t mean they’re morally the same, one is fundamentally superior. And this is where the US gov’t is going wrong…
WikiLeaks provides a unique and possibly a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for nations to air some of their dirty laundry and make amends with the public, all while maintaining political neutrality regarding the specific leaks. The CIA and FBI rarely make public apologies (worth believing), and over time We Americans have grown to fear and distrust our own “democratic” government. We absolutely know that our government does despicable things, and waits far too long to apologise for actions which are SUBHUMAN. Experiments that were performed on students, foreigners, prisoners, _soldiers_… it makes me ashamed of my country sometimes… most of the time.
I often wonder if we won World War II… I know we defeated the Nazi German and Imperial Japanese regimes, but I think we became infected with their demonic mentality that states have the right to do anything in the name of “The State”..
..I feel like we all lost. Our founding fathers would be ashamed of what we’ve done with our freedom.
RIP: United States Liberty
1776-2001
A promise cut short.
By “Liberty”, why did it die in 2001? How about when the various Indian tribes were being slaughtered/driven out of their lands? When states rights were trampled in the Civil War (because based on Lincoln quotes in the museum under the memorial, it wasn’t to free slaves…)? Maybe the Spanish-American war? Or was it when we went into Vietnam after they managed to kick out their previous colonial masters – or when the student war protesters were being shot? How about radiation tests on the testes of black and hispanic prisoners in the 60’s and 70’s? Or…
I sometimes get confused because I know our government has forever been a shining beacon of purity that was just recently tarnished, but it seems to have had been busy with plenty of violations of rights and freedoms both here and abroad for a long time. Which actually probably would have upset the founding fathers since creating another global empire didn’t seem their agenda.
On the other hand, we allow do our women to go to school & vote, don’t whip them for showing their hair, stopped institutionalized segregation, etc., so there are some improvements as well, it’s just that a government doing dubious things isn’t new here (or abroad), and the violation of freedoms really isn’t either.
I’m not a supporter of the scummy kind of extortion being promoted by Hilary Clinton at the State Department — in asking ‘diplomats’ (aka CIA personnel) to steal information which could be used to blackmail or leverage opposing sides — but virtually every country does it. It’s not right, nor is it legal, but it happens. We should condemn it, and try to impress upon our elected/appointed officials that diplomacy at the end of a barrel isn’t the way to conduct diplomacy.
That said, a lot of what is said in back-channel communications is just diplomats venting their spleens, and isn’t meant to be heard by the public. I’m sure that we all say things in private email exchanges that we would prefer weren’t made public; either, because they demonstrate poor judgement or a complete disregard for other people’s feelings. If you take the position that ALL communications must be public, then nothing will get said, communication will grind to a halt, and it will completely derail legitimate efforts to conduct diplomacy because officials need to operate with a certain amount of privacy/confidentiality.
That said, the WikiLeaks scandal provides a very candid look at the way that these public officials typically operate, and it isn’t complimentary. Governments are greedy. Governments are petty. Governments spy. Governments exort. Governments lie. Governments spread false rumors. Governments pit rivals against one another for advantage. Governments steal. And since most operate in this manner, it’s a pretty safe assertion that espionage is often the only way to collect intelligence and understand the actual facts on the ground. So, it’s not so gray as “thou shalt not spy.”
Asange does not deserve our praise. He’s a tireless self-promoter and seems to have zero concern or remorse for the lives of people he’s put at risk. Whether or not you believe they should be spying is irrelevant. The fact is that some of them will die. It shouldn’t be an easy choice to put other peoples’ lives at risk, but I doubt that it troubles Asange at all.; in the end, it seems to be more about promoting his agenda and enlarging his public profile than anything else.
At the same time, the US government is also to blame. They slam the leaks as “irresponsible” and an “act of aggression against international diplomacy” but, really, when it comes right down to it, they’re trying to distract people from the fact that they’ve behaved BADLY. They want to make it about HOW the documents were leaked. Not about the documents, themselves, or whether the government broke the law. Not suprising or right.
For those who think Wikileaks believes that all information should be free and available to all, that is definitely not the case. Assange is extremely secretive about anything to do with the site, and investigates thoroughly whenever a “security breach” occurs. As in, someone giving a quote to the press that was critical of his leadership style within the organization.
His response?
This seems to be a pretty typical quote from him – the guy is living a rich playboy type lifestyle, and is a hothead that carries a grudge and tries to take down people he doesn’t like.
That’s not necessarily a bad thing – a strong motivation can often lead to better results for a journalist type than someone who’s just collecting a paycheck. But it also means that you have to take anything this guy does with a grain of salt, and remember that he’s biased.
Anyway, I support the idea of Wikileaks, I just think that the current leadership needs to reconsider a few of the recent decisions they’ve made.
This is really getting pretty off topic for OS News, though, and i honestly doubt that either one of us is ever going to change our opinions on the matter. So i’m dropping this topic – back to complaining about Apple for me.
All this talk about Wikileaks and how many lives it cost.
We should be asking how many lives it has saved and will continue to save.
How easily distracted are we from the core issue!!
For those who think anarchy would be a good form of government (or lack thereof):
Can you point to a good example of a modern day society where this has worked? I absolutely agree that the kind of informal agreements you think would happen do work quite well for many small organizations. Groups of people in an organization, working together, even small towns/communities. But where i think it completely breaks down is when you get large numbers of people (millions), massive cities, where people don’t personally know each other. I think it would be a disaster. Is there any example of it working on a large scale like that? I’m legitimately curious now.
P.S. I don’t think anarchy = chaos, like another poster argued against. I just think anarchy would inevitably lead to chaos. You could make a similar argument that any government would lead to oppression, and you’re probably right. I just think they key is coming up with a government that can maintain order with the least amount of oppression possible, and currently democracy seems like the winner there.
Edited 2010-12-04 07:25 UTC
Exactly! Small groups, small communities even, sure. But on a large scale it breaks down rapidly. Just like every other form of “ideal” government.
A fact which you will never convince idealists of.
I will just mention that there seems to be a double standard towards the US here. Why is the US the only one being attacked for trying to silence this information? We may not like it being out there, but it is and it’s all over the news. Everyone who’s interested in it can freely view it and come to their own conclusions. Compare that to countries like China and in the middle east, where it’s being completely suppressed and censored. The average citizen there hasn’t even heard of this going on yet. And no one seems to complain about that at all, we just get headlines about how the US hates freedom.
Edited 2010-12-04 23:48 UTC