And so we have a tension between two requirements for democratic statecraft, one that can’t be resolved, but can be brought to an acceptable equilibrium. Indeed, like the virtues of equality vs. liberty, or popular will vs. fundamental rights, it has to be brought into such an equilibrium for democratic statecraft not to be wrecked either by too much secrecy or too much transparency.
I'm conflicted, too. I think the key question has to do with the extent to which these leaks put lives in danger(and I certainly don't think Julian Assange's life should be given pride of place).
See also Assange victim of Honeytrap?
Also this: Why is Lady Gaga’s music better protected than our state secret?
This was all over NPR today. Yes, it's complicated. But speaking as a good anarchist-progressive, not that complicated.
ReplyDeleteThe most interesting program among the string of them today was when a specialist in intelligence was on Wisconsin Public Radio, arguing against the leaks, and almost every single caller was disagreeing with her stance of utter secrecy. One caller made the point that the government cannot run on secrets and lies—and that we should have already learned that from the Nixon era. (Not to mention to Reagan and Bush Jr. eras.) Several callers made the point that only an informed public can make smart choices. That whatever presumptive damage this leak may have done, it also exposed to the light the ongoing tendency of government these days (and the pattern was strongly reinforced under Bush) to want to "protect" its citizens be keeping more secrets than it really needs to.
Sometimes I'm very proud of the people in my state.
I would add, Art, that it has been even further reinforced by the present administration.
ReplyDeletePerhaps so.
ReplyDeleteBut then again, much of what the current administration has had to do, and had to deal with in terms of policy, was an inheritance from the previous administration. Leaving policies in place that came from before might indeed be less than wonderful, but then, trying to undo them has proved equally impossible when faced with an opposition party whose only apparent goal is blatant obstructionism. Damned if you do, and damned if you don't.
There is some irony - unintentional, I'm sure - in the timing of this State Department press statement, released yesterday:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2010/12/152465.htm
I agree, Lee, there is some irony there, just as there is in the NYT's arguments that it couldn't publish the Climategate emails because they were stolen, but felt it necessary to publish the Wikileaks material even though it was stolen.
ReplyDeleteHi Art,
ReplyDeleteI have to disagree. Obama ran as a post-partisan candidate, but did not meet with the Senate minority leader until 18 months into his presidency. Given the size of the Democrats' Congressional majority, they needed no Republican votes and sought none.
Then there's these: Leaving Gitmo open; no trials for terrorists; 30,000-soldier surge in Afghanistan; extending tax cuts; re-upping the Patriot Act.
These are all Bush policies kept in place for no other reason than that this administration has found them to be as useful as the former administration did -- and in spite of the current administration's rhetoric.
Oh, Art, and there's also the FCC's desire to control the internet and the DOJ's attempt to read private email without a warrant and also its attempts at warrantless wiretapping. Undertaken by the Bush administration, such things would have brought howls of indignation from the left.
ReplyDelete