
Only time will tell.

Time is one thing the Wikileaks criminal will have in abundance. Being in prison will afford him plenty of time for reflection and regret.





Can Diplomacy Survive Wikileaks?

It would seem that Wikileaks may even be helpful to diplomacy: WikiLeaks: Arabs Agree That Iran Is a Threat.

http://www.aolnews.com/world/article/wikileaks-arabs-agree-with-israel-that-iran-is-a-threat/19736403

Maybe viewing truth as the ultimate enemy, is the real problem. Why wouldn’t Americans want to know that the whole region is viewing the security risks of terrorism and Iran in the same way?

I have not looked at the documents. It may be a crime to do so. That being said, for those that have, I ask you to think about this information in a different context.
Are American taxpayers getting their moneys worth out of our diplomatic service workers? Quit focusing on the titillating minutia and look at the whole of the release. Can our people write a report that has value? Are they spending their time productively?
What changes must be made?
Every communication should be written as if it will ultimately be in a historical archive. As storage of information gets cheaper every byte is retrievable. This includes voice communication as well. Don’t say it, if it doesn’t add to the working knowledge of the job.

We have too many middle managers that demand reports just to prove they are doing something, when might be better to say “All Quiet on the Western Front.” (The is the extreme in the other direction.)

We need our diplomacy, but we need to empower our diplomats to think and not just report. It takes a higher level of training than we are providing, if the leaks reported are any indication of the quality of documents.
As a taxpayer, I want my money’s worth from these employees.

I expect each page cost the taxpayer 50 to 100 dollars to produce before they were leaked. Now the cost likely exceeds 1000 dollars per page.
Better security on who sees the documents won’t make us smarter, better training on what to write may make us more diplomatic.
Isn’t that the goal?

Kids in school get a novice, apprentice, proficient or distinguish, on their work. What grade do your guests give our diplomatic corps?

Though I’m only begun reading the latest batch of leaks, and the more embarrassing, egg-in-the-face communiques that have thus been highlighted in the press, I’ve found the policy summaries from various foreign embassies to be extremely insightful and helpful without being damaging. For instance, Moscow’s summary citing their DPRK and Chinese contacts as well as their own experts on the country on why North Korea’s needed currency reform, which as many know proved to be an abysmal failure, is a gaze into the conflicts within the DPRK that are never reported here, the Japanese, South Korean or European press. And our own State people cite the “irony” of the DPRK’s ultimate goal to engage and forge closer relations with the US because they regard the US as the “only” guarantor of their security and economic stability.

How many talking heads have reported this?

So again, thanks wikileaks!

WHERE CAN WE DOWNLOAD THE LEAKS?!

I went to the Guardian website but their downloads only have the date, time, and other header information, not the body text! The BitTorrent “insurance” file uses a private key and the key isn’t published (assuming the BitTorrent file is even legit – some claim it isn’t).

???

I am from Jefferson County in east central Georgia.

Diplomacy has not been very effective for a long period of time before Wikileaks’ disclosures. U.S. foreign policy needs to be reassessed from top to bottom. Diplomacy has been given a bad name by G.W. Bush and others who seem to think it amounts to telling other nations what to do, calling it diplomacy, and then launching military actions. It is tempting to label most diplomats as little more than ineffectual bureaucrats. They are part of the American Establishment which is invested in maintaining the status quo when we need fundamental change. Both President Obama and Secretary Clinton are Establishment politicians who represent the interests of American corporations. They have not engaged in any paradigm shifts that are required for the world to move beyond war as a means of settling international disputes. It will be interesting to watch U.S. government actions before and after the promised upcoming Wikileak release of a major U.S. bank’s internal documents.

I’ve read that Leslie Gelb was a CIA asset while he worked for the NY Times. I would like to know if this is true. The present Secretary of Defense is a former Director of the CIA. While these are not revelations from Wikileaks, American citizens deserve to be told the truth by our own government. We have been lied to on many occasions. We are skeptical and welcome the sunshine that Wikileaks has shined on government actions that may not be in the best interest of the American people.

@Richard:

Thanks!!

maybe you should be asking: Is our brand of fascism and polic-state style status-qou possible without secrets?

It is a really dumb question to ask is diplomacy possible without secrets?–on one hand we preach democracy and open-governmnet, and on the other (when it concerns us) we support authoritarianism, torture, illegal wars, crimes against humanity, state-sanctioned murder, etc…

The ridiculous question obviously implies this show will be about maintaining the criminal status qou and painting wiki-leaks and open-democracy as something insane. One more reason Americans and the mainstream media is clearly a charade–and a harmful lie that serves only to manipulate, control, and oppress people.

You people in the media are weak. You are appeasers.

To be fair, these wiki-leaks dont really reveal anything that we didnt all ready know. We know the US gov. is fascist and totalitarian–a farce-controlled by war-mongering monsters. We know that US soldiers rape and torture and murder. We know China doesn’t care much about humanity. We do know that they care a lot about money and power.

I haven’t viewed any of the documents yet, but on the one hand, when one thinks about diplomacy in the workplace, for example, there are things said behind the scenes and things said in public. Often the most difficult people prompt behind the scenes discussions on how to “handle” them or in dealing with situations involving them, and often the behind the scenes discussions would surely interfere with the best outcome if made public. On the other hand, if we didn’t have such secretive (and what I would consider bordering on corrupt [being kind] ) ways when it comes to dealing with other nations (all in the name of national security, diplomacy, mutual agreements, etc.), leaks such as these would neither be necessary nor shocking to so many, nor would they pose a risk to our security and world reputation.

” I don’t think that we should jeopardize our military and our security by conducting a grand social experiment to force military and others to accept something that they see as morally wrong.”

Data from other countries’ military where gays serve openly haven’t proven to support your opinions that a military with openly gay personnel would jeopardize security, morale, or any other flimsy arguments levied at this issue.

From Calais [pronounced "Cal-us"], Vermont:

It’s mortifying to have one’s private discussions put out for all the world to see.

But does it help to tear out our hair over how damaging it all is? The leaks happened. They may be regrettable, but they won’t be undone. The authorities are sure to bolt the barn door after the 250,000 horses are gone, per usual. But do they have the true diplomatic skill to turn a lousy situation to our advantage?

There are plenty of opportunities on the face of it. Although a lot of foreigners are bound to feel burned and a lot of relationships ruptured, it’s not unheard of for some relationships to grow closer and move to a higher level after a dose of brutal honesty for one side and of humiliation for ourselves.

And I agree with those who see great educational potential in the leaks. Most of us have no idea what diplomats really do. For someone accustomed to the dull, trite, and evasive stuff that normally gets doled out to the public, the big surprise is how incisive, literate, perceptive, and even wise these cables can be. And from a government agency! Who would have guessed? Despite the embarrassment, there’s something to be proud of, and a lot we can learn from.

I don’t think it is fair to assume that our diplomatic dirty laundry is any stinkier than anyone else’s. I imagine nations not being much different than individuals in that honest and straightforward ones are hard to come by. I also imagine it has always been this bad or even worse. Think about Metternich’s peace in the 19th century or the behind the scenes dealing with the treaty of Versailles. Diplomacy has always been and will always be a dirty business. This wikileaks business just gives us a cloudy window into the seldom seen back room of diplomacy.

Leftfield, Wisconsin

Tom,

Can you talk about the connections between Wikileaks and George Soros? It appears to be funded and the founder of Wikileaks also uses a lawyer connected to George Soros.

In an exclusive interview with WikiLeaks’ Julian Assange reportedly told Forbes that leaked classified documents from the U.S. State Department and Pentagon are “just the beginning.”

Forbes reports that early next year, Assange claims that a major American bank will “suddenly find itself turned inside out.”

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/wikileaks-next-target-wall-street/

Is Wikileaks trying to crash the US economy and discredit our government? I think YES

And because of this the progressives won’t let it be shut down since it is doing their work.

The actions of Wikileaks has nothing to do with transparency, only stupidity.

How are they making the world a safer place for anyone?

This is Democracy!
In order to have a valid debate you need to have the unvarnished information.
Unfortunately here in the US and around the world information is subverted, spun, and created for ones (Governments) best interest.
Leslie said the papers show the US to be a evil player around the world.
Americans don’t want to be an EVIL player in the world. Things have been done in the name of AMERICAN DEMOCRACY and we’ve paid a hefty price.
I think WIKI LEAKS is doing a public service.
This is the only path to true DEMOCRACY!

The digital era has seen the steady erosion of the privacy of citizens (e-mail snooping, no knock search warrants, TSA body scanners, etc). So I say turnabout is fair play and let governments share the same feeling of vulnerability as their citizens.

I am also annoyed with the media drumbeat against Wikileaks. Imagine if the main stream media had been as aggressive in investigating the Bush administrations claims of WMD before the Iraq war. Instead the New York Times was credulous about the WMD claims and helped the Bush administration drum up war fever.

If everyone is transparent, countries that keep their secrets will have the power.

Washington, DC

I’m really getting tired of this line of argument by our former government officials. There’s a bit of wiff of “CYA” in their line of argument. Yes, the leaks are damaging. But really the story isn’t all about wikileaks. It’s about the trade-off which enables and constrains the flow of intelligence in our system, and how that trade off is implemented. After the Robert Hansen fiasco, the received wisdom in Washington and New York was “geez, it’s a good thing FBI and CIA don’t over-share or Hansen would have buried more bodies and the evidence against him”. After 9-11 the mantra became the opposite: “more sharing is needed.” This particular episode flows from over-learning the lessons from the first gulf war where lots of data collected by Signals intelligence never reached the field. (See James Bamford’s book The Shadow Factory for details.) A conscious decision was made to push more data down the chain of command. But it was done in a sloppy, and now we see clearly an unconscionable manner. They’re going to punish the foolish, naive low ranking individual who should never have had access to this stuff in the first place. They’re going to go after wikileaks for its data dump. But to what extent will they go after the upper echelon people (people at the level your guests were at) who are just as responsible by being irresponsible in how the policy was planned and implemented?

Yeah, let’s criminalize openness…

…that way, if and when we eventually find ourselves under a Totalitarian regime, they’ll have all the protection they need and the Public will have NO RECOURSE!

When did Asange begin this Wikileaks? If Gelb is right that he is trying to undermine American foreign policy (I don’t think he said “diplomacy” but a wider “goal”), then it seems to me it would have been needed and appropriate about the time Bush launched the various adventures that people like me still think might have more to do with the global-size oil-dreams of Texan types than the actual roots of al-Kaida threats. Those were the days when misinformation about yellow cake in Iraq and about — that was when Abu Ghraib was popping up on the net. The USA needed a major course correction. I believe we EVENTUALLY did it by vote. But Asange is 10 years too late.

JP,

Will you say the same when your medical records are leaked on the net? and published in your local paper?

It is funny to me to hear representatives of the press first decry the horrible irresponsibility of WikiLeaks and then hungrily proceed to feast upon the contents of its leaks. I have so far not heard any of your guests concede that they cannot point to a single negative consequence of any of the previous Wiki Leaks. Nor have I heard them admit that Wikileaks goes through any kind of screening process at all. My understanding is that these diplomatic cables are not highly classified so there are probably thousands of Government employees who have access to them. The question I have is why hasn’t the press reported on this information before now?

Democracy, in this world is not well served, and neither are we, when in the name of economics only.
We in public should know why and when our government, in our name is dealing with crooks, thieves, murderers and the rapists when it suits our purpose.
And when we are bad mouthing bribery and corruption while we ourselves are making deals with those who will sell their honor, their people their country and may be their ownmotther for a few dollars or may be a green card.

How clean we can consider our selves, in the company of pigs ( no disrespect to the pigs intended)

the cables reveal a US government that is arrogant, self-serving and operates around the world with a myopic sense of entitlement. the world is sick of this.

larry rocha
berlin, germany

Nathan Hale: “I only regret that I have but one life to lose for my country.”

Asange accused of stealing secrets: “I only regret that I have but one life to lose for my planet.”

Some things are definitely worth giving everything you’ve got for. The State Department is right to go after Asange; and Asange has his reasons, which I definitely respect. I don’t see it either/or.

I have a few questions and comments:

1. Now that they are public, were these documents properly classified?

2. This appears to be huge bulk download of documents. What percentage of the government’s intranet library does it represent?

3. How did such a bulk download go undetected in a secure network?

About eight years ago the Department of Energy shut down public access to its “Occurrence Reports” (ORPS) website because of “bulk downloading” of documents.

Donald Moniak. Aiken, SC

First, I hope the On Point regular crowd had a nice Thanksgiving. Although I find some of the information released interesting, it is definitely harmful to our national security and international relationships. Foreign leaders, particularly in the Middle East among governments that are not directly hostile to the US, (such as Saudi Arabia, UAE, and others) will not be as willing to give candid private counsel to US officials.

the government works for us. we have a right and a moral obligation to know what they are doing. Q.E.D.

larry rocha,

It is good that the “US government that is arrogant, self-serving and operates around the world with a myopic sense of entitlement” I hope they continue with this because once they intend to serve someone other than the US citizens the government is corrupt and must be changed.

Would you be pleased if it was revealed that your government attempted to serve another country’s interests over its own citizens?

IOWA

Ms Leslie Gelb, I’d like to know how you can assign an “intent” to the actions of any other human being.

Tom just said the leak went “to the New York Times and others,” but last night on Charlie Rose, David Sanger was setting forth that the New York Times had got access through the UK’s The Guardian, and described a chill that came about between the NY Times and Wikileaks. I think Sanger said that there were a larger number of newspapers provided the dump than the previous dump, but the Times was out of the loop this time. They had to finagle. That’s my best recall.

Gentlemen,
Below is a core excerpt from the 1955 Quaker essay:

Our title, Speak Truth to Power, taken from a charge given to Eighteenth Century Friends, suggests the effort that is made to speak from the deepest insight of the Quaker faith, as this faith is understood by those who prepared this study. We speak to power in three senses:

To those who hold high places in our national life and bear the terrible responsibility of making decisions for war or peace.
To the American people who are the final reservoir of power in this country and whose values and expectations set the limits for those who exercise authority.
To the idea of Power itself, and its impact on Twentieth Century life.
Our truth is an ancient one: that love endures and overcomes; that hatred destroys; that what is obtained by love is retained, but what is obtained by hatred proves a burden. This truth, fundamental to the position which rejects reliance on the method of war, is ultimately a religious perception, a belief that stands outside of history. Because of this we could not end this study without discussing the relationship between the politics of time with which men are daily concerned and the politics of eternity which they too easily ignore.

But our main purpose is not to restate the many prophetic expositions of the pacifist position. Beginning with The Sermon on the Mount, the Christian tradition alone has produced a library of enduring religious statements, and the same can be said for the literature of other great faiths. The urgent need is not to preach religious truth, but to show how it is possible and why it is reasonable to give practical expression to it in the great conflict that now divides the world.

In recent years, outside of theological circles, and infrequently there, there has been little able discussion of the pacifist point of view. Pacifism has been cataloged as the private witness of a small but useful minority, or as the irresponsible action of men who are so overwhelmed with the horror of war that they fail to see that greater evil sometimes exists and that the sacrifices of war may be necessary to turn it back. Whether condemned or in a sense valued, pacifism has been considered irrelevant to the concrete problems of international relations.

This study attempts to show its relevance. It is focused on the current international crisis. It begins with a survey of the same concrete problems with which any discussion of world affairs must deal. It is concerned with problems of security, the growth of Russian and American power, the challenge to American interests presented by Soviet Communism. It recognizes the existence of evil and the need to resist it actively. It does not see peacemaking as the attempt to reconcile evil with good. It speaks to the problem of inevitable conflict.

I giggled until I almost peed about Yar thinking it is a crime to read Wikileaks. Yar is not paid like the Brandaddy and Winston tastes good. When a neutral citizen observer shares such a reaction as Yar’s it shows how chicken little many American citizens really are.

Reading the foibles of US officials and foreign counterparts also serves as a leveling device. It shows they have no powers of expertise not possessed by your local hair stylist. The wealthy class knows nothing about finance that the single mother doesn’t: They simply have more. It will be like the Sunday funnies to me when Wikileaks turns the big American banks inside out. But we all know what to expect: the same expletives as come from pre-teen boys fighting over a game controller. People get more powerful with secrecy, and that is not productive for the majority. We need a Revolution; French styled or otherwise. It is the powerful who will not surrender ill-gotten gains and illegitimate perogatives without violence. Criminals are criminals despite net worth or forged credentials.

culture of diplomacy is what was exposed, i feel it is disturbing that U.S. diplomats feel comfortable calling leaders that have the ability to cause harm names on one hand and act diplomatic on the other. The leaks represent how childish and irresponsible our ability to conduct foreign policy has become. I think we are at a greater risk by not knowing the actions of elected officials to appoint diplomats that have such little regard to a point they would expose themselves and our security to disengenious negotiations. If Clinton has no problem with double talk then the system is truly broken. Man up, tell the leaders how you feel instead of resulting to childish office gossip, you are negotiationg for peace and the security, act like it.

The Wikileaks dump is not treason, it’s karma. U.S. foreign policy has led us into 2 illegal wars and torture. When soliders reveal what they know no one should be surprised that U.S. foreign policy machine is embarrassed. It’s so hard to manufacture consent when the truth is known.

Soph

Leaks? The truth? What’s wrong with the truth? If we know that a leader is shooting at the Taliban, that’s good – the’ll know it too (if they don’t already.) Keep it open.

I wholeheartedly agree with Brandstad. We live in a democracy and if our government thinks we need to know something, then it will tell us.

And as for Mr. Assange trying to destroy our economy with his leaks, he needs to back off and let us do it ourselves. So far, we’re doing a great job without his help.

WINSTON SMITH,

Your information is inacurate, & very outdated, I’m afraid. Most Americans now know that homosexuality isn’t a lifestyle that ANYONE would choose, & that many gay individuals commit suicide when someone finds out that they’re gay.

The majority of those in the Military welcome anyone who is openly gay, & will defend their right to fight along with the rest. Every American should be allowed to sacrifice life & limb for their Country, if that’s their choice.

There are plenty of gays in our Military right now. What difference does it make if they’re “out of the closet” or not?

How are they making the world a safer place for anyone?

Well, just to give you an example, the earlier Wikileaks uncovered all sorts of nasty stuff US and British military were doing in Iraq involving torture and killing. But we get into these wars because the government lies to us and too many people believe those lies. By exposing the lies and hypocrisy of the government it will make people more skeptical and so less likely to enter into such wars. You don’t think that enhances safety?

I applaud any disclosure of the actions of government servants . We live in a global community that wants the truth to be seen – we want to see a global candidness! Needing to be “confidential” bespeaks a lack of candidness – a failure of diplomacy. Any diplomacy that needs to be secret just perpetuates the cold war paradigm, a status quo of fear, and always masquerading as “we are good, they are evil” – of various nations trying to manipulate each other. Break this antiquated model that keeps billions separated by artificial boundaries kept standing by a handful of war-minded, brainwashed puppets. The best response for all, in lieu of these leaks should be more candidness, more honesty, more openness, not less.

“But we get into these wars because the government lies to us and too many people believe those lies.”

Yes, power corrupts. That’s why the founding fathers were weary of strong centralized government. And democracy is not the antidote, as electorates (and elections) are easily manipulated, especially by strong centralized governments.

To PW in TX, who wrote, “America has the most powerful the military force and displays it frequently” –

This summary from what I heard over the BBC while half awake this morning (an impression; I’m not an expert; I gleaned what I gleaned):

Somalia/Mogadishu newly elected top dog, message to the US diplomatic front: “Send us money because we have many people who cannot provide their own basic necessities, and because of this, we will otherwise become a launching pad for terrorists if we don’t have American money.” (Note he didn’t ask for American troops; he will pay for their own troops; he SAYS he welcomes transparency and accountability.)
Now, if the United States is sort of responsible for making sure no human being is struggling for basic necessities anywhere in the world for fear of terrorists building a nest, we can be “hit up” by pretty much anyone, and the threat is something like, “If you don’t pay us to fortify our own military and feed our people, your mighty military will have to take over our country the way you did in Iraq and Afghanistan, which you know didn’t work out too well.”
So obviously (!!) we need a mighty military and huge coffers of $$ or the wider world will sic their terrorism on us. (By the way, did they look at our national debt, and the number here without health care, struggling to find food that isn’t plain empty government-subsidized calories?; would they care to consider the amount of drugs, legal and illegal, that keep afloat, ahem, the human engine powering this superpower that is apparently super-responsible for everything?) I’d like to see if our diplomats are grounded in that regard.

The comments already posted regarding this discussion of the Wikileaks are weighing heavily for public access to information. The guests on this show weighed heavily on the side of “treason”, risk to our nation – and there was little representation of the other side. I agree that you did a poor job Tom of balancing the conversation. For those of us who have not read the entire content of the documents, we cannot say for sure that anyone’s life was endangered by these leaks, or that an international crisis resulted from some specific information. It is also not clear that there was any malicious intent, as one of the guests suggested. There certainly was malicious intent when the identity of Valerie Plame was exposed by an aide to Cheney. However no one seemed to want to throw the perpetrator in jail, and today he is free. If there are traitors, it is not from wikileaks. The derisive comments about other heads of state with whom our “diplomats” is mostly embarassing and reflects poorly on the State Department. If these diplomats are serious about negotiating, building bridges, this disdain reflects an arrogant attitude. I agree with the comments, that these diplomats are not well trained, or the kind of “diplomat” we should expect from our government. Unfortunately Hilary has to defend them. Whereas secrecy by agents of our government has caused enormous harm, (the Iraq war, the attack of Vietnam, Abu Graib), these leaks are unlikely to do any comparable damage. There is always a balance in freedom of information. It is one of the core values of democracy. This information appears to be a healthy wake up call rather than an imminent danger to our country.

I’d like to know why everyone is accepting so readily the allegation that a 22 yr old private is the source of the leaks? Also I would love to know if a real investigation from an agency outside of the military would be possible? If not, then I’m not drinking the coolaid here. My gut tells me there is no way on earth that a leak this huge would only include data that leads to the US agenda of going to war with Iran. I’m not saying that these leaks aren’t true – just that it seems very convenient that a couple of days after two nuclear scientists in Iran are murdered, wikileaks releases all of this information. It scares me that people are just believing that the government didn’t have anything to do with it. Just sayin’.

I’m not saying that these leaks aren’t true – just that it seems very convenient that a couple of days after two nuclear scientists in Iran are murdered, wikileaks releases all of this information. It scares me that people are just believing that the government didn’t have anything to do with it. Just sayin’.

All good points. I find it remarkable that a Army Private would have access to this much information. And certainly there are lots of conspiracy theories out there suggesting that this whole thing is an elaborate ruse where 99% of the content is true and accurate (so that it may be verified by those with the means to do so) and 1% is deliberately planted for some purpose.

On the other hand, alternate conspiracy theories suggest that the aforementioned conspiracy theories are themselves plants and false-flag ops designed to make it look like the government really knew what it was doing and that they’re not really as incompetent as this whole affair makes them look.

Napoleon famously said “Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence”

And Heinlein’s version is “Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity, but don’t rule out malice.”

Eventually transparency is going to win out over secrecy, truth over concealment. It may take ten years, it may take a thousand, but eventually transparency will win because it represents truth and is inherently and self-evidently good. Those who are fighting against this just represent the old world, fighting to stay alive and relevant. And just as the Church wasted years of progress trying to hold back science, so too do people of the old world fight at every turn to prevent the modern information age from full expression.

It shames me, deeply, that so many of our people — from the society that is supposed to be the champion of freedom and openness — our laws, and the administration that was supposed to reflect something new, consider these heroes . . . “criminals”.

History will show Julian Assange is a true hero.

This leak seems to represent the inevitable outcome of our dependence on computers and the internet. It’s like trying to get the genie back into the bottle. We are trying to deal with 21st century electronic issues with 18th century thinking.>/i>

It’s hard to say at this point whether it’s technology or culture. There are lots of other high-tech-savvy nations and so far none of them have had leaks on this scale.

Sometimes leaks are a good thing. When those emails were released about “climate-gate” it finally exposed the big lie that Global Warming is all about.

I’m from Delray Beach, FL.

I’m an integration specialist for a radiology software company that provides EHR/RIS + PACS(Electronic Health Record/Radiology Information System and Picture Archive and Communication System) and when I train users I always make them mindful to not put anything in writing they don’t want the patient or an attorney to ever read! It’s fine to have opinions, but perhaps we all need to be mindful of what we document and even more importantly where document the information.

I applaud these recent Wikileaks diplomatic cables.

Diplomacy is political + politics is generally dirty, hypocritical, + self-serving.

More transparency is required from the top-down in political circles (national + international).

Why is no one even disputing the fact that diplomats are conducting spy activities? Isn’t that what the CIA and other covert operations are about? Instead the focus is on the leaks–

All this talk about the act of leaking secret information – really? Is this really worth the breath?
It’s just a distraction from the hog tied and hooded, elephant in the room.
Skeletons in your closet? Of course you’re going to throw a fit when someone opens the door.
If some government is behaving and speaking justly then there is no need such secrecy. Is your country having diplomatic communications with other countries about its war crimes?
Well you better believe the world has a right to know.
Awww – I’m sorry you can’t speak “candidly” about your criminal activity, dirty laundry and God knows what else but times are changing and sunlight is a good remedy.

As for “discrediting the U.S. gov’t”: well, if there’s credit there to dis, do it! If the U.S. gov’t was acting in a way it could be proud of, this wouldn’t have hurt it at all.

Next:
Someone unbelievably wrote:
“if our government thinks we need to know something, then it will tell us.”
What??? Nixon anyone??? Stalin? Bush&Cheney????

As for Hillary saying “every country must be able to have candid conversations” – candid only between themselves. Not candid to the rest of us.
Maybe if everyone was candid we wouldn’t be suffering under the rule of ego maniacs!

And lastly: The difference between my diary or med. records being published and national diplomatic doings is: my diary and my medical records are not effecting millions of humans lives. There is no comparison.
And also, as one caller said: if it’s something you need to keep secret, maybe you shouldn’t be doing it!

Let’s open up the whole world and expose everyone – maybe that will keep people honest for awhile.

Listening to the show tonight I was struck by the unified opinion among the shows guest diplomats that secrecy in diplomacy was needed in order to do the necessary work of government.

I’m an engineer so I like to see a working prototype first.

We’ve had discussions here where people say we should get rid of current economic systems like corporate capitalism in favor of theoretical alternatives like libertarianism or syndico-anarchism. And I always point out that lots of things look good on paper but no modern industrial or postindustrial society has ever successfully tried them. Maybe it would be a good idea to demonstrate their viability in some small state, province, principality or medium-sized city first before scaling up to a nation as big and complex as the US. Why do we have to be the guinea pigs?

Ditto with non-secret diplomacy. Secrecy and confidential conversations have been part of diplomacy for all of history. Of course there have been lots of failures and abuse of power. But there have also been lots of successes, and most countries in the world have friendly relations with their neighbors and are not at war with anyone.

So if you think that non-secret diplomatic relations are feasible, demonstrate it with some small prototype first, say, Norway or New Zealand. As far as I know it’s never been successfully tried.