Why the US Govt Should Be Happy About Wikileaks 232
angry tapir writes "WikiLeaks' leaking of classified information should be considered a blessing for the US government, and other governments should take heed of the lessons when it comes to information sharing, according to Computer Sciences Corporation (CSC) research associate, Professor Mike Nelson, who spent four years as Senator Al Gore's science adviser and served as the White House director for technology policy on IT, and was also a member of Barack Obama presidential campaign."
Too bad about Obama (Score:5, Insightful)
"was also a member of Barack Obama presidential campaign."
Too bad the Obama administration hasn't done anything to increase openness - in fact, they've done just the opposite.
If only this guy had actually been appointed to a position of power - or maybe this kind of opinion is why he wasn't.
More to the point (Score:5, Insightful)
95 per cent of those leaked memos were incredibly well written and well reasoned, with one paragraph that might be sensitive
And the other 5% are the ones that cause a scandal. And while they may help garner domestic support (which is unlikely, because the media only covers that 5%), diplomacy could get a lot trickier when you have to explain your conversations with others.
Before I get modded into oblivion for this, all I'm not passing judgement on Wikileaks in either direction. Leaking can be argued as being necessary depending on the situation, but saying that the US government should be happy about it is just ridiculous.
Re:Yeah, so bad (Score:5, Insightful)
What did you expect an official commission to say? That privacy and freedom are more precious than safety and that the terrorists win if we turn into a police state because of their actions?
Duh. I tell you what else they won't say. They won't say that maybe we wouldn't have these problems if we didn't keep meddling in the Middle East's affairs, often brutally. Nah, there is no connection between repeatedly provoking them and finally getting attacked by them. Clearly information sharing now that they already want to attack us, yeah that's the real issue.
Government lies to you. It lies to you routinely, naturally, and without remorse. Why you fucks can't bring yourselves to accept it is the only mystery.
Re:It depends on the objective. (Score:5, Insightful)
However, Obama is actually more interested in stability in the region, and will do everything to maintain that regardless of what it takes to achieve that stability.
As Noam Chomsky points out, in US foreignpolicyspeak "stability" means "obedience to US corporate demands".
Re:It depends on the objective. (Score:2, Insightful)
To clarify:
'Stability' does not mean 'peace' or 'happiness of the local people' or whatever else in the context of the post above.
'Stability' means things are calm and thus, easy for politicians and governments to deal with. The local population could be forced into working like slaves for their nation's leaders, women could be raped daily, kids taken from their parents to be brainwashed into becoming soldiers, as long as the people don't rebel against their government it's considered 'stable'.
Re:Yeah, so bad (Score:5, Insightful)
Arab Brothers? (Score:3, Insightful)
Iranians are not Arabs.
Re:Yeah, so bad (Score:3, Insightful)
It's also worth recalling that the "meddling" that Osama bin Laden was concerned about was Operation Desert Shield. Not Storm, when the U.S. invaded Iraq, but Shield when the U.S., at the Saudi government's request, led a multinational coalition of forces to defend Arabia. He was upset that non-Muslims and non-Arabs were allowed to set foot in the land of the two cities, even if they were 1,000 km away from Mecca. To call this a justification for terrorism, you would have to assume that OBL is the proper authority over Arabia and the House of Saud is not.
OBL was also upset that there were still Jews living in Judea, Indians in India, and Christians in Spain. Not everything is the Americans' fault.
Obviously not (Score:4, Insightful)
Does it actually manage to do something in a reasonable timescale without completely stuffing it up?
Yes?
Well in that case the CIA are not running it.
Remember that the only reason Homeland Security exists is because the CIA was unable to be a centre to co-ordinate all of those other intelligence agencies - you know, the job the CIA was set up to do in the first place.
Re:It depends on the objective. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:What does Private Mean????? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:It depends on the objective. (Score:4, Insightful)
As Noam Chomsky points out, in US foreignpolicyspeak "stability" means "obedience to US corporate demands".
Well, he who pays the piper calls the tune. The United States offers a host of pretty compelling benefits, not among the least of which is the protection of our vast military, to our allies and friends. It's only natural that we should ask for certain things in return for these benefits. That's the way the world works after all.
Re:It depends on the objective. (Score:2, Insightful)
Maybe the Noam-Chomsky-quoting-AC has the radical idea that the people in those foreign countries should be allowed to make up their own minds and have their own government that does what is good for *them*, not necessarily good for the USA.
Re:It depends on the objective. (Score:2, Insightful)
As Noam Chomsky points out, in US foreignpolicyspeak "stability" means "obedience to US corporate demands".
Well, he who pays the piper calls the tune. The United States offers a host of pretty compelling benefits, not among the least of which is the protection racket of our vast military, to our allies and friends. It's only natural that we should ask for certain things in return for these benefits. That's the way the world works after all.
There, corrected it for you.
"Prosperous little democracy you have there going. It would be such a shame if something happened to it."
Re:It depends on the objective. (Score:2, Insightful)
This is the hypocrisy that the world hates the US for.
Your government plays the democracy tune when they wish a people to overthrow a tyranny that doesn't suit their agenda. And when a peaceful, fair election [wikipedia.org] such as the one in Palestine happens, and somebody who you don't like gets elected, the West get their panties in a twist and starts their pathetic economic bullying [nytimes.com].
Maybe because Chomsky is a linguistics professor (Score:1, Insightful)
I find it amazing how Chomsky can be considered a public policy expert on anything with no training in public policy an economics expert with no training in economics and a philosopher with not much background in philosophy. The supply of oil to an advanced country can be a matter of life and death in a cold winter
so yes stability isnt just about corporations. Whats even more funny is his awful writing style, it makes pseudo-intellectual rubes think how brilliant he must be that they cant understand him.
see chomskybot http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chomskybot [wikipedia.org]
Re:If You Are Right (Score:5, Insightful)
Okay, we can consider price as the example. If I'm willing to pay as $3 for a loaf of bread and the seller is willing to accept as little as $2.50 for it, then there's 50 cents of grey area in there for us to negotiate over. If I were being REALLY idealistic, I'd say that we both reveal that information and then agree on $2.75 as the final price because we want to be fair to one another. Alternately, I offer $2.50 at first; the seller requests $3.00 at first, and we negotiate toward $2.75.
I am, however, willing to pay $3 for the bread. I don't think it's being "taken advantage of" if I offer $3 and end up paying it. So what if the guy selling the bread makes 50 cents that he didn't really expect to make? So what if I could have had a share of that 50 cents? If I have set my boundaries such that paying $3 for a loaf of bread allows me to be content with my purchase, then I have no reason for complaint. In my opinion, this is a fundamental flaw in what I consider to be the typical free market. People allow their utility, wellbeing, happiness, etc. to be predicated on their ability to capture that grey area.
Put another way, I don't think it's reasonable to choose to be happy because I saved a quarter on a loaf of bread and merely indifferent about getting a loaf of bread at my threshold price. I think it's more reasonable to choose to be happy about enjoying my bread that I paid a fair price for rather than fretting over how much less I could have paid for that bread.