Wikileaks creates diplomatic crisis

[zomgwtf]

Not quite sure what you mean by that, but newspapers routinely publish classified information that they acquire from someone in the government who leaked it to them. Yet, in recent history, the worst I've seen a reporter suffer for that was Judith Miller's 3-month jail term for contempt of court.

There's always the caveat of intent to harm the nation... no?

 

[lisab]

Not quite sure what you mean by that, but newspapers routinely publish classified information that they acquire from someone in the government who leaked it to them. Yet, in recent history, the worst I've seen a reporter suffer for that was Judith Miller's 3-month jail term for contempt of court.

Well, in the US and Europe, at least. There are plenty of places on Earth where journalists have to watch their backs.

 

[Gokul43201]

There's always the caveat of intent to harm the nation... no?

I think not, though I think primarily since that would be very hard to establish (also, which nation?). You don't think the people at wikileaks believe that all this is ultimately for the greater good? That revealing to the public all the dirty backroom dealmaking between governments might force the dealmakers to think twice the next time they participate in something underhanded, expecting protection of secrecy (or somesuch)?

 

[Gokul43201]

Here's the opinion of another libertarian:

 

[zomgwtf]

I think not, though I think primarily since that would be very hard to establish (also, which nation?). You don't think the people at wikileaks believe that all this is ultimately for the greater good? That revealing to the public all the dirty backroom dealmaking between governments might force the dealmakers to think twice the next time they participate in something underhanded, expecting protection of secrecy (or somesuch)?

Well I've read from various sources that Assange is quoted saying he intends to harm America. So that kinda sets the record straight on his intent does it not?

 

[Gokul43201]

Well I've read from various sources that Assange is quoted saying he intends to harm America. So that kinda sets the record straight on his intent does it not?

I couldn't say without reading/hearing it. By harming some short term effort, he may believe he is saving the future. If you show me a link to those quotes, I might have a more educated response.

 

[rootX]

1. If the US government believes that Wikileaks is in possession of additional documents as potentially damaging as the Afghan War Diary, it has the responsibility to go after Wikileaks with extreme measures, up to and including physical destruction of the Wikileaks servers and killing those involved in releasing the documents - if it believes that that could prevent further releases. That's how you have to deal with wartime espionage.

US government couldn't capture a real person (Laden) and you expect them to destroy information/data? Destorying wikileaks servers or capturing their members is not equivalent to destroying the confidential data. Information being released public is the least dangerous thing I would expect here knowing other possibilities such as selling it to unknown people if Wikileaks real intent was solely to harm the US.

 

[Mathnomalous]

Exactly.

Pick up a phone.
Call China.
Give them the info ($ or free).
?
Profit.

 

[Gokul43201]

I'd been away from this thread for a long time and this may not be new, but if it is, I think it is relevant to some discussion way back in the early pages of the thread.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN0619021420101206

U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder said on Monday the Obama administration was considering using laws in addition to the U.S. Espionage Act to possibly prosecute the release of sensitive government information by WikiLeaks.
...
Some legal experts have said it would be difficult for the Obama administration to prosecute WikiLeaks or its founder Julian Assange, who is an Australian citizen, for espionage.
...
"I personally authorized a number of things last week and that's an indication of the seriousness with which we take this matter and the highest level of involvement at the Department of Justice," [Holder] said.

He also declined to say whether the Obama administration could try to shut down the WikiLeaks site. The organization has had to switch to overseas web hosting services after Amazon.com last week terminated their arrangement.

"I don't want to get into what our capabilities are," Holder said. "We are looking at all the things we can do to try to stem the flow of this information."

 

[Galteeth]

You know, a good analogy here I think is the printing press. One could certainly have made the argument at the time that the printing press, and the ability of people to interpret the bible for themselves, would have disastrous consequences. It could have been argued that such would lead to wide scale social destabilization, religious conflict, and the undermining of traditional structures of power, economy, and social order.
And such criticisms would have been spot on. However, from our modern viewpoint, the revolutionary spread of information was a net beneficial thing. One could argue that it lead to the decline of authoritarian religious power and the enlightenment.

I personally have always been an anti-pragmatist when it comes to evaluating the morality of a situation. That is because the long term consequences of actions can never be accurately predicted, and hardly any positive action can avoid having negative consequences for some. I think it's better to evaluate the morality of an individual action based on a priori principles, i.e, murder is wrong, truth is desirable, etc. There are of course, always shades of grey, and I am not going to go so far as saying things like troop movements or weapons schematics shouldn't be kept secret.

I hear from a lot of people that the transparency will make it harder for international systems to functions. To me, if things like bribes, torture, and realpolitik support for shady characters is necessary, perhaps the international system as it exists deserves to die. It is a very dark view of humanity that all these things are necessary, and furthermore that the public is better off not knowing. In a democracy (or republic), theoretically, choices are made based on accurate information. A lot of the information that came out highlights the real costs of our foreign policy; literally, in terms of money, ethically, in terms of what is being done in the name of the US, and perception wise, as far as how our actions are perceived by other countries. How can people make informed choices if they don't have a clear picture of what is occurring?
Increasingly, we deal with a government that claims individual citizens have little right to privacy. From monitoring conversations and financial transcations, to profiling "domestic extremists" for their political views, even to having images of our body available, the notion of personal privacy has changed. Many see it as hypocritical that those in highest office, acting theoretically as servants of the people and funded by our labor, have a double standard for themselves and the "common man."
History has shown that access to information can revolutionize society, and attempts to censor or stifle it fail in the long run. Perhaps the negative reaction is partially a fear of a world that is potentially on the brink of change.

On a final note, many have made ad hominem criticisms of the central character here, Julian Assange. It is often useful to turn a larger political debate into a discussion of one man. I do not believe that even if this man is killed or wikileaks is shut down, the issue of the internet changing what information is kept secret is going away. However, i have think many criticisms of the man are off base. I would like to submit this link to an interview, in which I believe he comes off as very thoughtful.

http://blogs.forbes.com/andygreenberg/2010/11/29/an-interview-with-wikileaks-julian-assange/

 

[Proton Soup]

Well said.
For example,i think i have the right to know if the us gov, has a "http://46.59.1.2/cable/2007/12/07BUENOSAIRES2345.html"" who disguise themselves as "Independent journalists"

And if the "Average" people "cannot understand..." then from that to " the average people is not qualified to vote" is only a very small step.

this has bugged me since i first read it, and i think i now know why. sure, captive journalists are a concern to the Argentinian. but how many captive journalists does the US government have in the US?

 

[Gokul43201]

More recent releases (I don't think these have been mentioned here yet):

A key Israeli cargo crossing for goods entering the Gaza Strip was rife with corruption, according to a U.S. diplomatic cable released by WikiLeaks on Thursday

The June 14, 2006, cable, published Thursday by Norway's Aftenposten daily, says companies told U.S. diplomats they were forced to pay hefty bribes to get goods into Gaza. It was unclear whether the practice still continues.
...
Other companies, including Procter & Gamble, Caterpillar, Philip Morris, Westinghouse, Hewlett-Packard, Motorola, Aramex and Dell, had complained of corruption at the crossing, according to the cable.

It was not clear which companies had actually paid the bribes, though the document said Caterpillar executives refused to pay.

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diploma...ntering-gaza-1.335585?localLinksEnabled=false

Israel told US officials in 2008 it would keep Gaza's economy "on the brink of collapse" while avoiding a humanitarian crisis, according to US diplomatic cables published by a Norwegian daily on Wednesday.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4009311,00.html

These releases, I think, shed a little more light on the role Israel has played in shaping the economic development of Gaza over the last handful of years.

 

[Evo]

These releases, I think, shed a little more light on the role Israel has played in shaping the economic development of Gaza over the last handful of years.

This is the point of a blockade, no? The point is to cause hardship.

 

[humanino]

This is the point of a blockade, no? The point is to cause hardship.

The Israeli government does acknowledge that their purpose is to cause the maximum hardship to the entire people inside the strip while making sure the international community does not diagnostic a "humanitarian crisis". First of all, this official stand is not necessarily the point of a blockade. The point of a blockage could be to make sure that no material usable for making weapons goes through. To cause maximum hardship means restricting food for instance. I guess you know that food supplies are short there. Do people use food to make weapons ?

Second, even if one would consider acceptable to restrict the supply of food in order to cause the maximum hardship possible, the use of the term "bribe" indicates illegal corrupt taxes by individual border agents. To provide pocket money to border agents is certainly never the official point of a blockade.

Once again, this is a perfectly meaningful "leak" : everybody knows, but no-one has a definite proof, therefore nobody can do anything to prevent it. And the situation remains unchanged for years or decades.

 

[Gokul43201]

The only reason I've ever heard from Israel is that the blockade is necessary to prevent movement of weapons and ammo into Gaza, so as to end the rocket attacks by Hamas. I've never heard that the point of the blockade was to bring the civilian population to its knees. So this is news to me.

 

[JaredJames]

The only reason I've ever heard from Israel is that the blockade is necessary to prevent movement of weapons and ammo into Gaza, so as to end the rocket attacks by Hamas. I've never heard that the point of the blockade was to bring the civilian population to its knees. So this is news to me.

Well I suppose there's an official reason and an unofficial one. Especially in this case given the history of the area.

Officially, it could be to stem the flow of weapons.
Unofficially, it could be to bring the population to its knees.

The key with any situation such as this, is to justify what you are doing (official reason) in order to achieve the underlying motive (unofficial reason).

Of course, this is somewhat speculative and extremely difficult to prove. But the history of the area certainly lends itself to that sort of situation.

 

[humanino]

The only reason I've ever heard from Israel is that the blockade is necessary to prevent movement of weapons and ammo into Gaza, so as to end the rocket attacks by Hamas. I've never heard that the point of the blockade was to bring the civilian population to its knees. So this is news to me.

Well, officially we have never heard anything different. Simply, the facts do not match. When some obscure group of french activists try to bring in plastic pipes to repair water wells, and Israel refuses their entry because the plastic pipes can be used to manufacture rockets, this does not make headlines within the US. Why is that so ?

If someone would like a reference to the above events I am mentioning, please just take them as an imaginary example. There are enough other occurrences so that, if they do not know already, one specific reference will not change much.

 

[mheslep]

These releases, I think, shed a little more light on the role Israel has played in shaping the economic development of Gaza over the last handful of years.

So far this is published, 2nd hand, only in some Norwegian paper? I'm skeptical until and unless we see the cables.

 

[zomgwtf]

So far this is published, 2nd hand, only in some Norwegian paper? I'm skeptical until and unless we see the cables.

I agree with this statement.

 

[AlephZero]

When some obscure group of french activists try to bring in plastic pipes to repair water wells, and Israel refuses their entry because the plastic pipes can be used to manufacture rockets, this does not make headlines within the US. Why is that so ?

I heard a good answer to that on a BBC (UK) radio feature on how international diplomacy really functions. A retired UK ambassador told the story, about a dinner held to honor the retirement of an Israeli ambassador to the US.

After the main event and speech making was done, somebody asked him privately what he thought his greatest achievement in Israeli-American relations had been.

His answer was: "I have convinced America that the words anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism are synonyms."

 

[Evo]

I heard a good answer to that on a BBC (UK) radio feature on how international diplomacy really functions. A retired UK ambassador told the story, about a dinner held to honor the retirement of an Israeli ambassador to the US.

After the main event and speech making was done, somebody asked him privately what he thought his greatest achievement in Israeli-American relations had been.

His answer was: "I have convinced America that the words anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism are synonyms."

And that is an anecdote, not a fact. Let's be careful.

 

[humanino]

So let's go facts first hand then (~30s googling)
http://www.aftenposten.no/spesial/wikileaksdokumenter/article3972840.ece

 

[russ_watters]

Do people use food to make weapons ?

No, but they do use food to buy weapons as well as use food to coerce their own populace into obeying them.

 

[humanino]

No, but they do use food to buy weapons as well as use food to coerce their own populace into obeying them.

Do you propose to make sure each of them receives only the minimal amount of food and water to survive ? That's going to be costly in medics.

I have never heard of such events and would be interested to see the evidence.

Let me anticipate that you have the evidence and follow logically. If the principle of the blockade would work, they would have nobody to buy the weapons to. So either the principle of the blockade has failed, or they should be allowed to receive food.

 

[JaredJames]

Is it not common knowledge?

Humanitarian aid supplies being held by gang lords (or whatever they're called) such as in Somalia?

 

[humanino]

Is it not common knowledge?

I think I have done my share at providing references. The reason I am unwilling to dig out the french story is that it came from a french journal (le monde) whose older articles are accessible only through subscription. I also saw the same story on a european news channel available in french and german.

edit
I was able to find this

The blockade has taken its toll on Gaza's water and sewage network. Lack of spare parts has made repairs difficult. Intermittent power supplies have made pumps reliant on generators, which in turn have lacked spare parts and fuel.
The WHO says Operation Cast Lead worsened an already bad situation. Before the operation, it says Gazans had only half the water they needed according to international standards, and 80% of water supplied did not meet WHO drinking standards.
At the height of the January fighting, half of Gaza's population had no access to piped water.
[...]
Restrictions on construction materials, particularly cement, and spare parts for machinery, have had a big impact on projects ranging from water treatment to grave digging. Reconstruction of buildings and infrastructure destroyed in the 2009 Israeli operations in Gaza has been virtually impossible.
The UN says restrictions on cement have made the reconstruction of 12,000 Palestinian homes damaged or destroyed in Israeli military operations "impossible".

One would have to research in UN reports to find the best information.

The reason I am unwilling to provide this is simple : I try to follow both european and US news, and the coverage is simply too different. In the past, I made some attempts for some time at opening threads when there were events happening. At best I get skepticism. I estimate that it would be a part time job to obtain results trying to do that. I simply do not have the strength.

Now again : I would be interested to read the evidence for the claims that weapons are traded against food in Gaza. I am not claiming that it is false. I am requesting help.

 

[russ_watters]

Do you propose to make sure each of them receives only the minimal amount of food and water to survive ?

No, I propose that aid be provided directly to the people who need it or not be provided at all. When you just drop it of on a pier, you give it to the enemy to use for coercion/profit.

I have never heard of such events and would be interested to see the evidence.

This is common knowledge - a huge problem with aid in any war-torn area. It's virtually always a problem. A few examples:

The United Nations relief agency United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) is demanding that Hamas return food and blankets intended for Gaza Strip civilians in Palestine, which was seized by Hamas' Ministry of Social Affairs.

http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/UN_demands_return_of_aid_seized_by_Hamas

Islamist fighters in Somalia said Friday that they seized food from the World Food Program from markets in Mogadishu and burned more than 500 bags of maize and wheat.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38787871/ns/world_news-africa/

Food is power. Food is money.

Let me anticipate that you have the evidence and follow logically. If the principle of the blockade would work, they would have nobody to buy the weapons to. So either the principle of the blockade has failed, or they should be allowed to receive food.

Is the word "to" extraneous? Anyway, if the blockade works, weapons would be limited, yes. And yes, no blockade is perfect. Using the food for profit is only half the story, though, as I said: at least as big is the coercion factor of having food that people need.

Now again : I would be interested to read the evidence for the claims that weapons are traded against food in Gaza. I am not claiming that it is false. I am requesting help.

Clarification: weapons aren't directly bartered for food typically, AFAIK, it's just that food is worth a lot of money in a place where it is scarce, so militants can profit from selling it. That enables them to buy more weapons (among other things).

 

[russ_watters]

Googling "food for weapons" turns up this interesting, old article:

For the U. S., food distribution is an economic and moral problem. Hitler uses food as a political weapon. Last week, in Foreign Affairs, Economist Karl Brandt listed some of the ingenious and devastating uses to which this weapon has been put by Nazi experts in the last seven years.

At Home & Abroad. Both Stalin and Hitler use food to destroy internal opposition, reward accomplishment, punish failure, establish the class distinctions of their "new orders."

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,765334,00.html

So I realize I need to append my original statement:

Do people use food to make weapons ?

No, food is a weapon.

 

[humanino]

Clarification: weapons aren't directly bartered for food typically, AFAIK, it's just that food is worth a lot of money in a place where it is scarce, so militants can profit from selling it. That enables them to buy more weapons (among other things).

Thank you for the clarification. Note that the emphasis is not mine below.

No, but they do use food to buy weapons

 

[humanino]

No, food is a weapon.

Well, you said that you do not want food dumped on a pier, but that you would rather have the aid directly given to the people. That is (more than) acceptable to me, I would be quite favorable to this. It is not acceptable to me to propose to starve more than a million people.

Back on topic I would suggest.

 

[russ_watters]

Thank you for the clarification. Note that the emphasis is not mine below.

It's not any less true than it was before, it's just that there is a more direct issue of food being a weapon in addition to being used to buy weapons. Either way, your rhetorical question is still nonsense.

Well, you said that you do not want food dumped on a pier, but that you would rather have the aid directly given to the people. That is (more than) acceptable to me, I would be quite favorable to this. It is not acceptable to me to propose to starve more than a million people.

Well the problem is that you can't provide the food directly to the people without employing a large military force to distribute it. That's the point! If you can't protect the food (and as I've shown, it often isn't protected), you may as well be just dumping it on a pier for the terrorists to take.

You're also being short-sighted about this. These people are ruled by terrorists (that's the Palestinians and the Somalis. Starving isn't the only concern of theirs. There is a benefit to not providing the aid to the terrorists in that it can help rid these people of their oppressors (or at least, not make their oppressors stronger and better able to oppress them).

 

[humanino]

It's not any less true than it was before, it's just that there is a more direct issue of food being a weapon in addition to being used to buy weapons. Either way, your rhetorical question is still nonsense.

The question "do people us food to make weapons ?" was indeed rhetorical. The premise is that it is not an acceptable solution to starve a million people. I may be short sighted, but I still believe that the situation, complex as it is, can and will ultimately be solved. Only question is how. You say you need a large military force to distribute the force. Maybe we can quote numbers about the military force in Israel. Nowhere else on Earth is so much spent per capita into the army.

You do not fight terrorism within a population by starving the population. It is however an ideal strategy if you want to maintain the terrorism into this population, especially if your own economy depends so much on your military force.

 

[mheslep]

Googling "food for weapons" turns up this interesting, old article: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,765334,00.html

What a great old Henry Luce era find Russ. See the last paragraph for a time warp, yuk, yuk.

> Crying "appeasement," 35 prominent liberals, in a letter to Secretary Hull, denounced the release of food to France. Their argument: French industry is working for Hitler; Nazis seized 1,000,000 tons of French wheat to hold in Occupied France; food shipments will undermine the British blockade, lead to Nazi-prompted demands for U. S. feeding of other conquered lands.

 

[humanino]

Is this very quote in support of my position against political decisions to starve population for strategy purposes ? I can also contribute further by asking my wife to recount soviet horror stories

The Communist leadership perceived famine not as a humanitarian catastrophe but as a means of class struggle and used starvation as a punishment tool to force peasants into collective farms.

Maybe we will just get back to topic now ?

 

[nismaratwork]

Well, officially we have never heard anything different. Simply, the facts do not match. When some obscure group of french activists try to bring in plastic pipes to repair water wells, and Israel refuses their entry because the plastic pipes can be used to manufacture rockets, this does not make headlines within the US. Why is that so ?

If someone would like a reference to the above events I am mentioning, please just take them as an imaginary example. There are enough other occurrences so that, if they do not know already, one specific reference will not change much.

What the...


You post this (bolding mine):

The Israeli government does acknowledge that their purpose is to cause the maximum hardship to the entire people inside the strip while making sure the international community does not diagnostic a "humanitarian crisis".

And then in one move you pull a 180 degree spin! Do you have any sources for what you're saying in the last page before this became about the absurd notion that withholding food, or stockpiling, isn't an aspect of warfare. See "SIEGE TACTICS".

You can't just keep making nutsy points in the midst of vast internal contradictions in your 'logic', AND make **** up. I have a new respect for mheslp and russ's patience!