Comments on: Is Wikileaks reliable?

By: Mark Biernat

Mark Biernat — Fri, 03 Jun 2011 08:33:02 +0000

This is a good point about Wikileaks.
However, they are not the ones who stole the documents. Someone else did, and it is not proven in a court of law who did. Obama made the statement that ‘He (Bradley Manning) broke the law’. That is crazy. In the USA you are innocent until proven guilty, further Manning is not connected with Wikileaks.

Assange’s organization just provides a portal for others to view. I do not see the US government denying that the documents are not true or unreliable. Rather their stance the release of these documents are not legal. It is a different argument.
If you saw the video on Collateral Murder, you have to ask how could this have been altered? It most likely was not. In fact, two soldiers from that US Army unit came forward and apologized.

I find it possible but highly unlikely that Wikileaks is in the business of altering documents. Agree or disagree with their operation, I think they are trustworthy in regards with conveying the truth.

Are they legal? Well that is what the US justice department is trying to determine with respect to the first Amendment. Can a foreign news or reporting organization report war alleged war crimes or killing of civilians to the world, and does a government have the right to hide this?
I believe in the law and the US constitution which is the highest law in the USA. That is my position.
I would tend to agree with Congressmen Ron Paul’s elaboration on this subject.

By: Roy Sonne

Roy Sonne — Fri, 03 Jun 2011 01:17:31 +0000

How do we know Wikileaks documents have not been altered? Why should we trust an individual and his company, who are admittedly thieves, and who have a political agenda? With their expertise, it would be easy for them to alter a few key sentences in each cable, so as to completely change or misrepresent the meaning. Do you really trust Julian Assange to present you with a genuine and unaltered product?
I do not.

By: Mark Biernat

Mark Biernat — Sat, 25 Dec 2010 14:40:26 +0000

You make good points and you know history. That I appreciate. Most people do not even know about the Hull note. And sorry if I rambled a little, I think I am off track a little. But I refer back to a Ron Paul view on this, that is the truth hurts but is good for change.

By: Mark Biernat

Mark Biernat — Fri, 24 Dec 2010 07:28:40 +0000

One more example of the hypocrisy of politicians. I am a Republican but I think it is ridiculous someone like Mitch McConnell, the head of the Senate Republicans had a very and I repeat very questionable way to get out of the military during the Vietnam war, yet he is the one that beats the loudest drum.
On the other hand Ron Paul served in the US Air force with honor, like a patriot and he is the one who is for openness and non intervention.
I believe in democracy and 100% loyal to the US but I do not trust politicians that much and diplomats less.

By: Mark Biernat

Mark Biernat — Fri, 24 Dec 2010 07:17:55 +0000

I do see your point. And I do consider what you say, its is just now, in my life I have lived enough to see countless police actions with Americans from Vietnam to Iraq come back in body bags, and really question if either nation was a direct threat to US security like we were told. I feel someone lied to the American people.

By: Mark Biernat

Mark Biernat — Fri, 24 Dec 2010 07:15:03 +0000

I strongly disagree about selling Poland out. I mean what if the US was attacked and someone sold the USA out. How would you feel. The Poles were the first ally. They fought from the start to finish and they deserved the allies to stand up for them, not betray them and trade them off.
They could have given more or all of Germany to the Soviets to keep Poland their trusted friend and ally free.
I think the USA puts itself out there as a morally good nation, but when it pulls dishonest things likes betrays and ally, it is clear it is an imperial nation not a morally principled nation.
An Imperial nation does what is in the best interest. An honest nation does what is right.
For example, we could have paid the Barbary states in the 1800s like the of Europe, but the USA decided to go to war, because even though it was not convenient, it was right.
If you have a piece of paper like France and Britain did to defend a country called an alliance and treaty, and you were working with the Polish government in exile and using, Polish troops in your campaigns, why would you lie in secret?
I do not like it.
I think the 20th century was a failure of diplomacy that cost like 100 million lives in wars. That type of dreadnought diplomacy and Jason Bourne action is not the future.
Look at Ron Paul’s stance on all this. Ron Paul a respected congressmen says things should be open. Why not?
He also says bring the troops back home. I mean do we still have men defending rich Germany?
I agree, we entered the WWII because Japan attacked us. That was clear. It was a war of self defense.
But WWII was a declared war.
An official act of congress declared war against Axis powers.
We have been fighting today and there is no act of war. Congress, the voice of the people will not officially declare war. We are fighting like, Vietnam, an undeclared war.
I think the US should be open in diplomacy and only engage in declared wars, by an act of congress and bring the troops back home.
Sounds crazy I know. But the cloak and dagger diplomacy of the 20th century was a failure in my opinion. I am again a patriot and only writing this because I a am patriot and loyal and love America. I think a new approach would impress the world.
Truthfully I think a lot of people thought Obama would do this, and that is why he won the Nobel peace prize. What a joke that was, he is more of the same.

By: Bruce

Bruce — Fri, 24 Dec 2010 00:52:44 +0000

In WW2 you’re not considering Japan and the US actions against Germany and Japan that caused the US to enter the war in the first place. The US entering the war was not a fiat accompli, and had we not and the Germans and Japanese been beaten anyway it would be a far worse outcome, with all of Europe falling under Totalitarian Stalinist domination. What caused Japan to attack pearl harbor was US interventionism in the pacific, condemning the formation of Manchuria, secretly helping Nationalist China against Japan, privately telling Japan they needed to back down… look up the “Hull Note.” Without that secrecy we probably wouldn’t have even gone to war with Japan for years letting them gobble up all of Southeast Asia and kill who knows how many Chinese.

I do agree that there are too many wars, and again let me say that diplomatic secrecy on the part of N_zi Germany and Stalin was a serious problem, but I think some level of secrecy for Democratic nations is helpful.

Also again, a lot of the problems you’re mentioning have to do with popular opinion not government secrecy. Selling Poland out had to do with the fact that we weren’t willing to go to war with Stalin over Poland after the war.

By: Mark Biernat

Mark Biernat — Tue, 14 Dec 2010 19:36:15 +0000

I can not resist, to write more.
WWII, I think the USA wanted to put its head in the sand, I agree.
But the public was not opposed to the lease program to the Allies. I think this helped the effort but did not win the war.
Once the USA was involved everything changed.
But before that, I also think Russia really was helped by our aid but not the key factor for their victory.
I think the German were stopped in the first year of the invasion. 1941 the Germans were stopped in front of Moscow and that was it. They could do nothing once winter hit. The Germans were done in 1941 in front of Moscow and the war was basically over.
Game over. The Russians were to strong as it was to them the Great patriotic war.
1942 saw not great German headway and even some reversals and 1943 it was over.
So I think diplomacy did not help that much, in fact all these back room deals prevented the Poles from attacking the Germans in 1930s before Germany got strong. Piłsudski wanted to crush the adder in the egg.

I live in Poland and it was very unfair they sold Poland, the first ally and other only country that did not surrender in Europe to the Soviets. That was a crime.

Cold war, ended not because of diplomacy but they would not keep up with the USA, their economy collapse. Diplomacy did little.
Vietnam another 15 years of wasted money and lives. Diplomacy was all fake during this time. Lies and arrogance of government.
These Iraq afghan wars have been basically 20 years from the first invasion and it looks like 2014 is not realistic anymore. So who knows we will have a presence there militarily for 30 years it looks like. That is a lifetime. It is the biggest waste of US money.
We could have built a great nation for the next generation but now we have problems.
1984 all over again. I do not believe the liberation of Kuwait WMD was anything more than US imperialism.
Honesty would have gone a long way to help people see the reality before we got all pumped about it and went in.
I think lying is not patriotic. Ron Paul basically believes secrets do not help diplomacy only honesty. Ron Paul has some interesting ideas. I think we tried the 20th century Jason Bourne way it did not work. Too many wars.
I am a total flag waving patriot but can not understand why the US has so many useless secrets. Too many useless wars and big money spend on diplomats with stuffed shirts and cocktail parties that really do not do much as the generals and business and oil interests have their way.
One man I respect was Holbrooke and I think his last words were “Stop this war”.

By: Mark Biernat

Mark Biernat — Tue, 14 Dec 2010 14:45:58 +0000

Bruce I am not going to rebut this comment as you made a lot of good points and I will let them stand and readers can judge for themselves. I think like King Solomon said you have to hear both sides of the story before you cast judgment.
However, I would reiterate the 20th century was the worst in terms of human life loss from failed diplomacy. Including selling Poland out, the first ally in WWII to the Soviets with a secrete deal.
I do not assume that everything has worked out for the best. We do not know what the world would look like if people were more open in diplomacy.
I think in relationships honesty is the best policy. Even if it is embarrassing and changes the paradigm.
Sorry I said I would not write more and I did, it is a very interesting but emotional topic.

By: Bruce

Bruce — Tue, 14 Dec 2010 09:21:44 +0000

I agree with everything you propose – in theory. However I think you’re discounting the fact that people in government positions are already widely aware of the very things you mentioned. Do we support Saudi Arabia while Saudi Arabian interests support terrorists? Yes, but the Saudi government does not directly as a matter of policy support terrorists. That is in fact the reason we support the Saudi Government, Saudi Society itself is very conservative – if the Saudi people had free reign and the current Saudi Government were over-thrown it is a near certainty it would be replaced with a government which would openly support terrorists and endorse extremist preachers even in their own lands.

And yes, there has been some sort of conflict the US has been involved in most of the century, but would this have been improved by less secrecy on our part. Let see…

WW2… American public totally against intervention. Without government and especially diplomatic secrecy the US wouldn’t have been able to begin assisting the UK, China and the Soviets against fascist aggression. It’s quite likely we would have still been drawn into the war, but with more casualties and more Soviet gains.

Vietnam War… tough one. The agreement to give it back to France as a colony might not have happened, on the other hand a lot of peace initiatives might not have happened, the war might have gone on longer.

Cold-War… Detente would have been much harder. A lot of diplomacy happened behind the scenes which would have been politically impossible had the initial feelers had to be public.

First Gulf War… no secret wrangling with Israel to keep them from attacking Saddam. That’d been great (not).

Iraq War… the short coming in the WMD intelligence were known before the war, so secrecy wasn’t really the problem, moreso the way Bush pushed it and the way the media reported it (as well as Saddam’s foolish intransigence and paranoid secrecy, but that’s his secrecy not ours).

I’d really like to you address these issues, especially World War II. You seem to be thinking that secrecy is a bad thing with the over-riding concern of what Authoritarian Communist governments kept secret, and I agree that things would be better if Authoritarian governments were less secret, but it’s pure fantasy to even consider because Authoritarian governments are by their very nature secretive. But even then, sometimes Authoritarian governments do the right thing with secrecy, like Arab governments being much more friendly to Israel and doing much more to fight extremist Islam than there their populaces would support… I notice you don’t mention this fact of the Wikileaks cables.

About Diplomats, when talking about diplomatic secrecy I don’t mean diplomats at state dinners but the kind of behind the scenes (secret) diplomacy that for example allowed Israel and Egypt to make peace with each other.

The founding fathers would not have had a different view about diplomatic secrecy, we know they wouldn’t have because of all the secret diplomatic dealings they in fact engaged in.

Let me ask you this, is there any government secrecy you would support? Should every military development program be required by law to post blueprints online? Should all dealings between any government officials be a matter of official record? Should US military operating procedures in Afghanistan be openly published so the terrorists know what to expect?

I mean you must support some level of secrecy, so you also do in fact support secrecy, you just draw the line at a different spot. I think Nixon type security or Eisenhower level is too high, it allowed the US to engage in some bad diplomacy which otherwise would have been politically unworkable. Today’s level of government and diplomatic secrecy seems about right. You mention oil companies and what not, where are the leaks that reveal some horrible collusion? Not there.

About your examples… of course I don’t support child prostitution for military contractors, but wasn’t that already being addressed prior to this leak?

Do you support Arab leaders now being much more reticent to support the US against terrorism and try for peace with Israel because they’re afraid extremist elements in their populace will find out they’re dealing with the “big devil?” Do you support China taking a hard line in their support of North Korea because the fact they were growing tired of North Korea came out before they were ready to admit it?

Simple fact is, some things are better off secret, others not. SUNSHINE laws, which clearly establish general guidelines for what should be secret and what not are the way to do things, not blanket openness (even if it were legal openness).