From "The Economist" In Defence of WikiLeaks

[Better Believe It]

In defence of WikiLeaks
By W.W.
November 29, 2010

Greg Mitchell's catalogue of reactions to the leaked cables is a trove of substantive information. For example, drawing on the documents made available by WikiLeaks, the ACLU reports that the Bush administration "pressured Germany not to prosecute CIA officers responsible for the kidnapping, extraordinary rendition and torture of German national Khaled El-Masri", a terrorism suspect dumped in Albania once the CIA determined it had nabbed a nobody. I consider kidnapping and torture serious crimes, and I think it's interesting indeed if the United States government applied pressure to foreign governments to ensure complicity in the cover-up of it agents' abuses. In any case, I don't consider this gossip.

I think we all understand that the work of even the most decent governments is made more difficult when they cannot be sure their communications will be read by those for whom they were not intended. That said, there is no reason to assume that the United States government is always up to good. 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.

If secrecy is necessary for national security and effective diplomacy, it is also inevitable that the prerogative of secrecy will be used to hide the misdeeds of the permanent state and its privileged agents. I suspect that there is no scheme of government oversight that will not eventually come under the indirect control of the generals, spies, and foreign-service officers it is meant to oversee. Organisations such as WikiLeaks, which are philosophically opposed to state secrecy and which operate as much as is possible outside the global nation-state system, may be the best we can hope for in the way of promoting the climate of transparency and accountability necessary for authentically liberal democracy. Some folks ask, "Who elected Julian Assange?" The answer is nobody did, which is, ironically, why WikiLeaks is able to improve the quality of our democracy. Of course, those jealously protective of the privileges of unaccountable state power will tell us that people will die if we can read their email, but so what? Different people, maybe more people, will die if we can't.

Read the full article at:

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2010/11/overseeing_state_secrecy

[jannyk]

1. This totally sums it all up, doesn't it?

"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."


k&r

[Catherina]

3. It does indeed. n/t Rec'd

[Better Believe It]

5. Yup. WikiLeaks is helping to take the blinders off.

[hedgetrimmer]

2. bump-diggity

[glinda]

4. Excellent article.

[EFerrari]

6. Kick

[kgnu_fan]

7. kick!

[leftstreet]

8. K&R

Excellent article

[emilyg]

9. k/r

[peacetalksforall]

10. If I were seated next to a CIA agent I would never ask the person to reveal a secret.

But the horrendous acts of governments behind the veil of secrecy is everybody's business. They have not been honest. I want no harm to innocents, but it's time to stop the corporations-banking-military-religious-politican-media-intelligence wacko-mercenary-lobbyist-crook takeover of our lives.

If this leak event doesn't result in harm to innocents, but helps them - I'm behind it, but when will we know whether the innocents are safe? A couple of years?

I am seeing the leaks more and more as a message-lesson for our leaders who act for the above group before us. We are always the criminals and will be the serfs if we keep moving in the direction they are heading us.

[BlueMTexpat]

12. Unfortunately, it's not "will be" the serfs, but "are." Sigh. nt

[truedelphi]

23. Also, just what actions has our government taken in the last thirty years that made us safer?

We need Wikileaks as much, if not more, than a guy in the desert needs water.

Especially considering the actions of the last forty years. (In writing this, I offer thanks to E Ferrarai and several other DU'ers.)

We destroyed the nation of Vietnam, as an effort to prevent the "dominoes" to fall across the world. Never were any dominoes, but Gosh almighty, that didn't prevent our Military Industrial Folks from raping and pillaging our Treasury while our young servicemen and the Vietnamese of all various paths of life were dying or being made into refugees.

We spent something like 39 trillion dollars on national defense between 1954 and September 11th, 2001. (This would be a much, much larger sum, if expressed in today's dollars.)

Yet, still somehow, we managed to be attacked without so much as a bow and arrow launched against the planes that took our buildings down.

We have a corporate and military defense complex based government, which suppresses those "democratic rights" we are told we need to defend across the Globe. We have a "free press" only with regards to a handful of reporters - Hersh, Fiske, Pallast, and a few others. (John Pilger is now making waves, and he probably deserves to be included in that number.)

The "Two Party Political" system, which was set up to guarantee that someone would look after our interests has been revealed to be mere kabuki theater. It is valuable only in that its monies help the Main Stream Media Outlets receive Hundreds of Millions of dollars each election cycle. but neither party cares about the working person, or the middle class. When Katrina took down the people of that area of the Nation, we could content ourselves that once a Democratic president got into office, nothing like that would happen again.

But then the BP oil catastrophe occurred, under the Obama Presidency during Katrina. His reactions were mirror images of what Bush Administration did during Katrina. So in response to the "spill" Americans are forbidden to walk on beaches, and reporters are told to print the Corporate line. While fishermen and women will tell you that it is a dead zone, and it is not just nine miles by nine miles that is dead, but a region that is five hundred miles by four hundred. (Only "nine by nine" means that area is 100 % dead, while other areas are 70 to 99% dead.) No one knows what health effects the EPA approved dispersant will have on the entire population of mammals, fish and people in that area, but those results will probably be "offset" and hidden from our view just like everything else surrounding the catastrophe has been.

Our economy is bled dry, and the future could be scary. As John F Kennedy once noted, if the People have no recourse to stop forces larger than themselves from destroying their lives, violence is usually, in the end, where they are forced to put their attention. And if/when that happens, the Powers that Be will have only themselves to blame.

[BlueMTexpat]

11. I concur with many of the points in the article. But ...

I do feel compelled to point out that, insofar as the criminal abuses conducted under the guise of national security occurred primarily from 2001-2009, they were NOT the work of the "careerists" but of a specific administration - BushCo.
In fact, it was largely the "careerists" who opposed the neocon agenda. Many resigned in protest. I know personally of several senior (non-appointed) officials who were pushed out, albeit quietly. Moreover, it was NOT the intelligence "careerists" who manufactured the WMD disinfo that provided the "excuse" that BushCo wanted for war with Iraq. BushCo replaced many of those dedicated careerists with their own chosen hard-liners who are STILL there. Until the Obama Administration replaces them, they will continue to wreak havoc. They are not benign at all; they are cancerous tumors.
The great majority of "careerists" at all levels are dedicated statespersons in the truest sense of that word, even though most Americans will never know their names. They remained where they were either because they had families to support (hostages to fortune) or thought that they could at least mitigate some of the worst excesses of BushCo because eventually the politicos would move on.
So, no, I will NOT give BushCo a pass and place the blame on the "careerists" generally. BushCo was a corrupt, immoral and even criminal administration, as terrible as any has ever been in the history of the US. I personally maintain that it was much, much worse.
So, please let us not tar all civil servants with the same tainted brush. Please.

[liberation]

18. I don't think people are really blaming individuals but the system itself...

... however, the whole "just following orders" excuse was put out of fashion during the whole Nüremberg trials.

[BlueMTexpat]

25. True, but let's not throw out the baby with the bath water.

Those prosecuted at Nuremberg were also either major policy makers or implementers - at least, those of the major policy makers and implementers who were not spirited away beforehand to Allied countries to help those Allies build their own missile/weapons systems, etc. The problem with Nuremberg is that it was one-sided "justice" of a sort - only the losing side was punished for war crimes - granted that those were on an unprecedented scale. Given that the US has always seen itself on the "winning" side, whether that is true or not, it seems to believe that its actions are untouchable and that it is accountable to no one, not even its own citizens. That is simply wrong, wrong, wrong.

But when we start using too broad a brush and see "the government" or "the system" as "the enemy," we begin to look and sound a lot like Teabaggers. Civil servants are regarded with almost as much scorn as are teachers. The overwhelming majority of those in both groups - and I have been part of both - work long, hard hours because they believe in public service and also in their country. It is true that some parts of the system need drastic change. I believe, for example, that all functions clumped together under the massively swollen bureaucracy known as "Homeland Security" (and that name has always sent chills down my spine) need the most scrutiny. That bureaucracy was created, after all, during the period of unprecedented and rampant lawlessness known as the Bush Administration. And there also needs to be a rooting out of every single personnel placement in the system or creation of a bureaucracy that has Cheney's or Rove's fingerprints - much less Bush's - on it, as well as anyone who simply went along with them. Otherwise, the lawbreakers do indeed become part of the system. How to find them? Well, that would not be a problem if the WH and Congress really want to conduct investigations or, better yet, name a Special Prosecutor. As we have seen, however, we must "move forward" and "forgive." No way! I, for one, NEVER will.

I will NOT give BushCo a pass and attribute its failed actions and dealings merely to endemic problems with the system. Yes, other administrations, Democratic and Republican, have done bad, perhaps even unforgivable, things to screw up the world, and our own country, generally. I believe, however, that Republican Administrations have been much worse on the whole. Facts bear out that opinion. But Bush Two took scorn for the Rule of Law to whole new dimensions. And they've gotten away with it so far.

[northernlights]

13. K&R nt

[kgnu_fan]

14. knr

[mudplanet]

15. "There is no reason to assume that the United States government is always up to good"?

Kidding aside, I'd like someone to give me an example of what the US has done in foreign affairs in the last five decades that could honestly be considered "up to good"? I really can't think of one example.

The statement reflects the framing of reality or worldview that lead up to the current situation in which the most powerful country in the world is the perpetrator and enabler of perpetrators of a continuing series of crimes against international law and against humanity, while simultaneously its citizens believe themselves to be "the good guys."

I've tried like hell to hold on the the idea that America is, at its core, good and beneficent, but what's going on today isn't an aberration, it's a continuation of five decades of malevolence and evil that has become the character of our country.

[bertman]

16. Thanks for posting this, Better Believe It. Rec. nt

[Quantess]

17. This:

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.


:wow:

[gateley]

22. Yeah. Sobering, isnt' it. nt

[Quantess]

24. And so true!

[kgnu_fan]

27. Totally transparent from outside USA, You can see if you travel abroad

[earcandle]

19. Thanks!

[malaise]

20. Must read

Nice to see someone break ranks with the criminals who run our planet.

[gateley]

21. K&R nt

[zeos3]

26. KICK