Why The Wikileaks Document Release Is Key To A Functioning Democracy
from the the-difference-between-democracy-and-the-state dept
As various politicians and bureaucrats freak out and get the wrong message from the latest Wikileaks document leak, the Economist has an excellent explanation of why the leak is actually a very good thing in preserving American democracy. Will it make some diplomats jobs harder? Absolutely. But diplomacy isn't supposed to be easy. And what the documents reveal is that the US has a history of doing things it's not supposed to do. The really key insight in the Economist piece is that there's a difference between elected officials and "the state" made up of career bureaucrats, who are not necessarily subject to democratic pressures -- allowing them to make moves where they are not, in fact, answerable to the American public. And that's a problem:The United States is nominally a democracy, but it's sadly ridiculous to think this means very much. To get at the value of WikiLeaks, I think it's important to distinguish between the government--the temporary, elected authors of national policy--and the state--the permanent bureaucratic and military apparatus superficially but not fully controlled by the reigning government. The careerists scattered about the world in America's intelligence agencies, military, and consular offices largely operate behind a veil of secrecy executing policy which is itself largely secret. American citizens mostly have no idea what they are doing, or whether what they are doing is working out well. The actually-existing structure and strategy of the American empire remains a near-total mystery to those who foot the bill and whose children fight its wars. And that is the way the elite of America's unelected permanent state, perhaps the most powerful class of people on Earth, like it.A better informed public is not a bad thing... except if your entire job is based on trying to keep people in the dark. Look at who's complaining the most about Wikileaks and you realize that it's the people who benefit from not being held accountable for their actions.
As Scott Shane, the New York Times' national security reporter, puts it: "American taxpayers, American citizens pay for all these diplomatic operations overseas and you know, it is not a bad thing when Americans actually have a better understanding of those negotiations".
...
I'd say providing that information certainly would have been a socially worthy activity, even if it came as part of a more-or-less indiscriminate dump of illegally obtained documents. I'm glad to see that the quality of discussion over possible US efforts to stymie Iran's nuclear ambitions has already become more sophisticated and, well, better-informed due to the information provided by WikiLeaks.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: democracy, free speech, information, wikileaks
Companies: wikileaks
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
It's not very effective as a democracy, in my (foreign) view.
But I look at it with Dutch eyes, in The Netherlands anyone can start a political party and get elected.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hephaestus - jumps up and down and does a rumpelstiltskin
"Republic, Republic, Republic ... "
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Forgive me for this quote.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
....or maybe it just kind of sucks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
the US does not have a functioning left wing party of any significance. it has a center right party and a slightly-less-center right party. and panics about communism the moment anyone suggests that a centralized, organized system is the best way of dealing with certain things on a national level. (oh, sorry, it's 'socailism' that's the scary word these days, isn't it? for some bafflingly unknown reason...)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
not many, but they're out there.
not surprisingly, they're smaller :P
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Or am I supposed to just shut up and be appreciative?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
it does. it just sucks less than everything else.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hephatitus
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
So, what you have to ask yourself is which is worse: abuse of secrecy, or too much openness?
For my way of thinking, I'd rather have our govt. be too open than too secret....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I recall a story here about a guy that had his email pilfered, all because it's on a third party site.
So if the government wants to keep secrets, it's all fine, but don't go throwing stones if your bureacracy is made of glass.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Guy had his email pilfered in a whistleblowing trial. Judge okayed for people to expose his email for letters in whistleblowing.
Also, let's not forget the guy who blew the whistle on the people who put their money in Swiss bank accounts in UBS. That judge didn't say one word as he put that guy in jail.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"The basis of our governments being the opinion of the people, the very first object should be to keep that right; and were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter."
--Thomas Jefferson to Edward Carrington, 1787.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
MSM
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Typo
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The government does not have a right to privacy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The government does not have a right to privacy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The government does not have a right to privacy
note how the USA seems to be almost constantly either at war or trying to cope with some sort of crisis?
it's to partially legitimise this kinda crap.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The government does not have a right to privacy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You can't have it both ways
On a related note, I saw some cable commentary show talking about Wikileaks and for ten minutes they were trying to decide of Assange was left or right. It apparently never entered their mind that someone could support the idea of government transparecy outside of the context of the binary view of "conservative" or "liberal".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You can't have it both ways
So on one hand, the Media denounces his actions, yet it's intoxicated by the information they can now stew over for months/years.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: You can't have it both ways
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: You can't have it both ways
1) They want to suck up to those in power so that they will continue to be granted easy access to the scraps of information they are given.
2) Wikileaks shows the people just how bad the mainstream media are at their job. For whatever reasons (laziness, corporate control, greed, corruption, partisanship - pick your favorite mix) today's media and what passes for "journalism" on it are exceptionally bad at telling the truth and holding people and governments accountable for their actions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: You can't have it both ways
I think this is why they don't like bloggers either. The unwashed masses shouldn't interfere with big media's rightful control of information.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just me...?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Republic v. Democracy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Republic v. Democracy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Republic v. Democracy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Thank you!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Techdirt
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
its not like anybody who these documents dont concern changed the way they live their lives.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Anyway, like I said above, governments are not humans. Therefore they do not have human rights. Their "private lives" are made up - entirely - by our public lives, because government is, ideally, made up of us. Therefore, it's actually OUR right to know about the private things our government is doing. Because that's us: it represents us, it reflects our decisions, it implies our ideology and ethics as a people. Should we not be allowed to control what face is presented to the rest of the world? Or should we just let a few unelected agents represent us instead?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Defense secrets should be kept secret
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Defense secrets should be kept secret
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Defense secrets should be kept secret
the people need to know, what is being done with the people's tax money and what is being decided up there about the people's future. That is democracy, dont forget it is all built upon the concept of the people ruling themselves.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Also, these cables go all the way back to 1966. If nothing else, they are historically meaningful, which is just as important.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
What we are discussing are the interesting and sometimes disturbing matters illuminated in the cables. Judging by the volume of people weighing in, they find it interesting enough to talk about.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2010/11/wikileaks
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Typical of government and big business. It's a secret, you just have to trust us. Like we trusted you on those WMDs in Iraq. Like we trusted you about deregulating financial industries.
Government can't be trusted and big media is not doing their job as watchdog on the government because they feed from the same trough.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Lets start with the Bush administration "pressured Germany not to prosecute CIA officers responsible for the kidnapping, extraordinary rendition and torture of German national
I'm sure there will be more.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Suprised more people don't realize the situation
In addition, more people should visit the wikileaks site. They've only released 1/1000th of the diplomatic cables they have. It's way too early to say these cables contain nothing of serious note. Not to mention the fact that Wikileaks has already said 50% of the leaks they have are about the private sector. Maybe the insurance file already contains everything they have. Taking out Julian or the Wikileaks organization will do nothing to stop the leaks. It's futile and a waste of time to even consider the option.
But more to the point, it's not about what the wikileaks information contains. The demonstration of power is all that's needed. The message to the elite that they have even less power than they thought. I find it incredibly amusing the trap they've fallen into. It was little more than 15 years ago the internet came about. People said in the beginning that internet lines should be public domain and treated like a utility and managed by the government, but free-market greed took over and they made billions. Now they need the internet to survive. They never stopped to think about the consequences, they were too busy making money and now we've got them by the balls.
Welcome to the 21st Century old white men, you're in our world now... and it's playtime :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Freedom of press
Godwin
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"A better informed public is not a bad thing"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Best quote
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Right.
I for once find Wikileaks awesome.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Only a criminal would object to the truth!
Only a criminal would object to the truth!
That's what the government keeps saying when they spy on us and molest our children at the airport.
Wikileaks is a TSA scanner for the government.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wikileaks
There won't be Wikileaks if the elected and not-so elected officials
were open to the public who "don't know nothing about nothing" and because of this God-given characteristic, their "government" is a big secret to them. No see, No hear, No speak. That's the American public.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wikileaks - US a Democracy? Republic?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wikileaks - US a Democracy? Republic?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Close, but ...
It's one thing for a journalist or organization to expose specific graft, conflicts of interest, or hypocrisy within government, be it in the purview of elected officials or the "permanent state" described in the Economist piece. It's a very different thing to publish personal information about aid workers in politically sensitive zones and uncensored diplomatic conversations, some of which amount to playground trash talk.
There is a need for national security, including the protection of both official and off-record information. There's no small amount of data regarding foreign and domestic affairs that the American public, including you and I, has no business accessing. From how The Economist presents his quote, this seemingly-obvious point appears lost on the Times' Scott Shane. It's hard for me to believe Mr. Shane, if pressed, would suggest complete (or in the case of WikiLeaks, broad) transparency as a useful strategy for international stability.
Also, the Economist's suggestion that unelected American bureaucrats and department workers are "perhaps the most powerful class of people on Earth" is snicker-worthy. The writer might have a different take after visiting the Social Security Administration, one of our military bases, and an American DMV office (assuming his "state" isn't just federal.)
Finally, there's the question of potential harm to human life posed by these leaks. Wikileaks suggests the information it's dumping has been carefully reviewed by attorneys and personal, and sensitive information has been redacted. But we're talking about hundreds of thousands of documents. Realistically, how much individual examination/vetting could each of these cables and emails have received? While considering this, keep in mind that it's not just an issue of international embarrassment. Lives are on the line. In fact, this afternoon, our State Department offered protection to aid workers placed in jeopardy by the leaks.
I'll stop short of calling Wikileaks' actions terrorism. The situation is sufficiently challenging without the adding hyperbole. What these leaks ultimately amount to is good intentions refashioned into a campaign of intellectual theft and violence--one which thinking people should not condone, and certainly not as a result of one Economist columnist's fears of an impenetrable American state.
Ben Patrick Johnson
Los Angeles, CA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nearly everyone here who has been highly critical of Wikileaks is not only very US-centric, thinks for some reason these sort of leaks are a new thing [go back 10-20yrs guys.. even Fidonet had some major leaks with BBS's etc], but they are also extremely hypocritical.
If the same type of information was released by say the Usa's cyber espionage taskforce (think USA hackers working for NSA etc) on Iraq, Iran, or Upper WhateverStan then these people would be over the moon that the "evil regime" has been ousted for its despicable conduct on the world stage.
Another example might be the release of emails by some anonymous source that were found on a legal site that had major ties to the copyright industry. Again these people would fall over themselves in reading them and talking about the evil solicitors and their clients. [Hang on, that actually happened didn't it. hmmmm]
Stop placing the blame on Wikileaks for failings on the USA's bureaucratic security, diplomatic ethics, and underhanded dealings and maybe unlawful behaviour. Though do remember that Diplomacy by its very nature EVERYWHERE is to do and say the nastiest things in the nicest way (whilst holding a bigger rock if possible), which is why Diplomatic immunity is such a needed thing.
Alex Carey once said that "The twentieth century has been characterised by three developments of great political importance: the growth of democracy, the growth of corporate power, and the growth of corporate propaganda as a means of protecting corporate power against democracy. "
I think in the 2000's we can add "State power" alongside "corporate power", which means the checks and balances that Wikileaks provides (and it is only the first of many more of its ilk that I foresee in the future) is a much needed and required beast!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
wholesale
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Daniel Ellsberg was doing what he thought was right, he was a patriot. Julian Assange is a criminal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Seeing as how US laws don't apply to him, he stop by for visit. I am sure they would happily issue him a visa.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
People are getting dumber.
The system is a pos.
The politicians are getting dumber.
Americans are becoming more and more entitled by the generation.
We need a revolution. Fuck the system and lets make a new one! =)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
However "John" does the right to run his mouth recklessly to a point and have his own opinions without taking an oath. That's why he elects people to office, pays taxes to hire police officers, and fire fighters, and goes to the doctor when he's ill. He also damn well better understand that secrets need to be kept when his country sends troops to war as well. Each one of these professions I've mentioned has issues of secrecy and confidentiality to respect and is sworn to an oath.
The way I see it, the only thing here that isn't ok is mob rule, and this is exactly what it seems Wikileaks is advocating by the unregulated release of sensitive information. There has to be some sense of responsibility in place for the repercussions for such an act on the part of the person releasing the info.
What good does it serve for someone to expose one or two problems only to create 20 or 30 more? Maybe their initial goal in the first place is to create chaos. What a great way to get a pack of dogs fighting than to throw a bit of red meat into their midst. Hitler knew this, so did Stalin, Lenin, and Mao. Hell, all people manipulating for power in some way shape or form do.
Human nature being what human nature is mandates some regulation in the dissemination of information be in place. Incidentally,this is a Republic, meaning "Rule of Law" not a Democracy. Not once in any of the founding documents of this country is the word Democracy used. This is a word that has far too often been misused to define our form of government, more often then not by people who advocate Socialism. We may use the concept of Democracy to elect our officials, but the law is the law, and any changes to the laws must be acted upon by the officials that we elect. Remember, a lynch mob is a form of a Democracy too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
document disclosure
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]