so i don't fully understand why this would be perceived as a bad thing
could someone explain to me what is so wrong?
because diplomacy is based on trust. The entire point of dealing with another country is that you trust them to
a) keep their word on deals they make with you
b) act professionally and keep their scuttlebutt confidential
If a country knows that you can't keep your shit to yourself, why should they deal with you? Certain things need to be secret, because it's not politically smart to air your dirty laundry all the time. It's not really a good idea to announce the fact that you want the U.S. to get militarily involved with your neighbor.
And the most important thing is this: that is ok. There is no need for that to be released until the government thinks that it should be. People talk about transparency as if keeping things secret is the highest sin an entity can commit. It's not. Some things should stay in the dark, because we live in a real world where real things happen, dealing with real countries who don't have your citizens' best interest at the forefront of their thought.
Despite our disagreements in the last thread, i completely agree with what you just said here.
Congratulations wikileaks, you've exposed no major conspiracy but have managed to make the middle east region more politically unstable.
It's hilarious that so many of you think U.S. diplomats should be held to a standard of complete honesty and forthrightness. Yeah, as if even our own allies are completely honest and candid with us. They'd be just as pissed off if someone leaked a bunch of confidential diplomatic documents. It's absurd to expect that diplomats are completely honest with each other and that this is somehow airing U.S. dirty laundry that needed to be exposed.
It should be emphasized that none of this information, so far, has alluded to anything criminal or any kind of wrongdoing. You can make a serious argument that the military records released earlier this year should have been released, because they document crimes that had gone under the radar.
These cables show none of that. They are simply messages between countries and the political process at work. It's kind of neat to see it, and it actually might have some sort of positive impact in regards to China or Iran, but on the whole it has set back diplomatic relations with the US in a big, big way. There was no need. A lust for information because of some vague "Well, we should just all know, man, information wants to be free, you know?" is naive. Diplomacy involves secrets because that is how the world works, politically.
Langly on
0
Options
Zen VulgarityWhat a lovely day for teaSecret British ThreadRegistered Userregular
Most of that stuff would have been released eventually. The reason they just don't throw it out there immediately is because it could effect policy and relations.
No reason to change the way that stuff is handled unless you want your government and its representatives to be made up solely of dimwits.
but if there is the possibility that the information will be leaked, a couple different things could happen
1- step up security through either
a- prosecuting those who leak the information
b-telling even less people
or
2- rather than worry about the information getting out, make it so what does get out doesn't embarrass them. that would either mean falsification, or actually sticking to their word
plus there is a grand different between information such as codes
and information that helps people make better informed decisions
take the iraq war for example. if information didn't get out about it, it wouldn't be nearly as unpopular
but hey look it is unpopular because information is being spread about it and people are being more well informed
Well, obviously states must keep some secrets, at least.
I think Langly has the right of it though. You have a lot of countries bad mouthing other countries, and in many cases, this would look better for the US if the world knew the opinion of those governments. But those countries are usually looking for regional stability, so on one hand you have a country that's threatening region stability, but on the other hand, you don't want to make it worse.
I hope this information would have made it out eventually. Some of it is just interesting, like the guy who escaped out of Iran into Turkey on horseback. Other stuff is more touchy, but stuff I think we will want to be able to look back on to be able to determine whether the right thing was done, or the wrong thing.
End on
I wish that someway, somehow, that I could save every one of us
it is a faulty premise to assume that since someone is in a position of power means they make the right decisions
At some point, you have to let them, and deal with it later. What would you do? If they can't say, then who? You have to put every message through a committee to see if it should be public or not? Who makes up the committee? Who selects the people who selects the committee?
What information that was currently released, needed to be? What information is currently so morally damming that the citizens had an overbearing right to know it?
seems to me like it is good that this information is out
i think they should be a different standard set for what is better left secret and what people should know
In any situation where candid discourse is necessary, confidentiality is important. That's why the law is so protective of communications between doctors and patients, attorneys and clients, etc.
I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that, in diplomacy, candor is kind of a big deal.
Diplomacy involves secrets because that is how the world works, politically
So we keep it secret that our diplomats are also, in some cases, spying on foreign countries.
Ostensibly, those foreign countries do the same thing, because "that is how the world works".
Can we then assume that there's nothing in these documents they didn't already know?
What problem is there in publishing something that everyone already knows?
because, once it is public, you have to react to it. You can't say, "oh yeah we knew that because hey we spy on you too, also you probably told us in those meetings we had about X."
Now your international policy is forced to involve this shit, because it is out in public now and if you don't act a certain way, there will be further consequences. Politics is a good percentage of theatre, and once something enters the arena, you have to react to it.
Langly on
0
Options
Zen VulgarityWhat a lovely day for teaSecret British ThreadRegistered Userregular
but if there is the possibility that the information will be leaked, a couple different things could happen
1- step up security through either
a- prosecuting those who leak the information
b-telling even less people
or
2- rather than worry about the information getting out, make it so what does get out doesn't embarrass them. that would either mean falsification, or actually sticking to their word
plus there is a grand different between information such as codes
and information that helps people make better informed decisions
take the iraq war for example. if information didn't get out about it, it wouldn't be nearly as unpopular
but hey look it is unpopular because information is being spread about it and people are being more well informed
Point 2 is incredibly naive. You're suggesting the U.S. should alleviate the problem by being more honest and forthright, yet I assure you other nations would not do likewise which would just put us at a significant disadvantage. Diplomacy isn't suddenly going to become more honest and friendly across the world just because the U.S. decides to "clean up" their act so to speak.
Druhim on
0
Options
Zen VulgarityWhat a lovely day for teaSecret British ThreadRegistered Userregular
Munkus BeaverYou don't have to attend every argument you are invited to.Philosophy: Stoicism. Politics: Democratic SocialistRegistered User, ClubPAregular
I'm just saying, i dont think the United State's version of democracy should be a model
Dadouw on
0
Options
Munkus BeaverYou don't have to attend every argument you are invited to.Philosophy: Stoicism. Politics: Democratic SocialistRegistered User, ClubPAregular
edited November 2010
Democracy is just a codeword for democratic elections.
Munkus Beaver on
Humor can be dissected as a frog can, but dies in the process.
0
Options
Zen VulgarityWhat a lovely day for teaSecret British ThreadRegistered Userregular
edited November 2010
I'm currently listening to my professor talk about things that aren't on the exam
Cross knows the law better than us (this is true in a way based on reputation)
I don't really know the law on releasing diplomatic cables.
But I was just giving an example. We don't have the attorney-client and doctor-patient privileges Just Because.
We have them because if people thought that whatever they said to their doctors or attorneys could be easily disclosed to third parties, they're not going to be open and honest with them, and in such relationships, honest and candid communication is important for them to work.
Admittedly not being an expert, I was just saying that diplomacy seems to be another situation where candor, and therefore confidentiality, is important, so releasing these cables may not have been the best idea.
CrossBuster on
0
Options
Viscount Islands[INSERT SoKo HERE]...it was the summer of my lifeRegistered Userregular
edited November 2010
I actually think a lot of the information is quite useful for the public to know.
Viscount Islands on
I want to do with you
What spring does with the cherry trees.
Cross knows the law better than us (this is true in a way based on reputation)
I don't really know the law on releasing diplomatic cables.
But I was just giving an example. We don't have the attorney-client and doctor-patient privileges Just Because.
We have them because if people thought that whatever they said to their doctors or attorneys could be easily disclosed to third parties, they're not going to be open and honest with them, and in such relationships, honest and candid communication is important for them to work.
Admittedly not being an expert, I was just saying that diplomacy seems to be another situation where candor, and therefore confidentiality, is important, so releasing these cables may not have been the best idea.
I meant in terms of knowing the law in general and being knowledgeable about how the law interacts with the world due to experience
It was a compliment
Zen Vulgarity on
0
Options
Munkus BeaverYou don't have to attend every argument you are invited to.Philosophy: Stoicism. Politics: Democratic SocialistRegistered User, ClubPAregular
Posts
Despite our disagreements in the last thread, i completely agree with what you just said here.
Congratulations wikileaks, you've exposed no major conspiracy but have managed to make the middle east region more politically unstable.
These cables show none of that. They are simply messages between countries and the political process at work. It's kind of neat to see it, and it actually might have some sort of positive impact in regards to China or Iran, but on the whole it has set back diplomatic relations with the US in a big, big way. There was no need. A lust for information because of some vague "Well, we should just all know, man, information wants to be free, you know?" is naive. Diplomacy involves secrets because that is how the world works, politically.
Top.
Men.
No reason to change the way that stuff is handled unless you want your government and its representatives to be made up solely of dimwits.
no way
but if there is the possibility that the information will be leaked, a couple different things could happen
1- step up security through either
a- prosecuting those who leak the information
b-telling even less people
or
2- rather than worry about the information getting out, make it so what does get out doesn't embarrass them. that would either mean falsification, or actually sticking to their word
plus there is a grand different between information such as codes
and information that helps people make better informed decisions
take the iraq war for example. if information didn't get out about it, it wouldn't be nearly as unpopular
but hey look it is unpopular because information is being spread about it and people are being more well informed
I think Langly has the right of it though. You have a lot of countries bad mouthing other countries, and in many cases, this would look better for the US if the world knew the opinion of those governments. But those countries are usually looking for regional stability, so on one hand you have a country that's threatening region stability, but on the other hand, you don't want to make it worse.
I hope this information would have made it out eventually. Some of it is just interesting, like the guy who escaped out of Iran into Turkey on horseback. Other stuff is more touchy, but stuff I think we will want to be able to look back on to be able to determine whether the right thing was done, or the wrong thing.
At some point, you have to let them, and deal with it later. What would you do? If they can't say, then who? You have to put every message through a committee to see if it should be public or not? Who makes up the committee? Who selects the people who selects the committee?
What information that was currently released, needed to be? What information is currently so morally damming that the citizens had an overbearing right to know it?
In any situation where candid discourse is necessary, confidentiality is important. That's why the law is so protective of communications between doctors and patients, attorneys and clients, etc.
I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that, in diplomacy, candor is kind of a big deal.
So we keep it secret that our diplomats are also, in some cases, spying on foreign countries.
Ostensibly, those foreign countries do the same thing, because "that is how the world works".
Can we then assume that there's nothing in these documents they didn't already know?
What problem is there in publishing something that everyone already knows?
A lot of shit could go down with it and not all of it good.
What spring does with the cherry trees.
And to think that the United States try to spread their model all around the world, boo
because, once it is public, you have to react to it. You can't say, "oh yeah we knew that because hey we spy on you too, also you probably told us in those meetings we had about X."
Now your international policy is forced to involve this shit, because it is out in public now and if you don't act a certain way, there will be further consequences. Politics is a good percentage of theatre, and once something enters the arena, you have to react to it.
hahahaha this cannot be a real statement
The United States is not a democracy, no democracy currently exists on the planet, and we don't try to create them.
Point 2 is incredibly naive. You're suggesting the U.S. should alleviate the problem by being more honest and forthright, yet I assure you other nations would not do likewise which would just put us at a significant disadvantage. Diplomacy isn't suddenly going to become more honest and friendly across the world just because the U.S. decides to "clean up" their act so to speak.
But representative democracy nope
You there.
What are you doing.
You have exams to study for.
And hush I'm not crwth
I don't really know the law on releasing diplomatic cables.
But I was just giving an example. We don't have the attorney-client and doctor-patient privileges Just Because.
We have them because if people thought that whatever they said to their doctors or attorneys could be easily disclosed to third parties, they're not going to be open and honest with them, and in such relationships, honest and candid communication is important for them to work.
Admittedly not being an expert, I was just saying that diplomacy seems to be another situation where candor, and therefore confidentiality, is important, so releasing these cables may not have been the best idea.
What spring does with the cherry trees.
This coming from the dude who went to Cuba and then bragged about the cheeseburger you had at your hotel. Cognitive dissonance what?
the difference between a full democracy and a republic isn't an opinion, it's a definition.
edit: and a complete democracy is a horrible way to govern, by the way. That is a political opinion.
Joke detected. Engaging laugh thrusters.
Pshlooooooool
White FC: 0819 3350 1787
I meant in terms of knowing the law in general and being knowledgeable about how the law interacts with the world due to experience
It was a compliment
Oh so you're planning on passing.
well on this one exam in particular.