TREASON OR TRANSPARENCY - SECRET DOCUMENTS NOT SECRET ANYMORE

Since any of the now-infamous "cables" have been published, do you have any more access or input into ANYTHING you've read or heard about? Do you feel more "connected" to international politics, now that we've stuffed our entire diplomatic core through a full body scanner? Probably not.

Because there is a time and a place to discuss issues of national security, and sitting around a coffee table at starbucks while reading the NY Times is not one of them.

There is no shortage of angles from which to argue about publishing these communiques: Conceptually, of course we're all for increased government transparency, we all believe in free speech and a free press. Those are core concepts of American democracy. But this is bigger than "us." Information that we civic citizens claim we have a "constitutional right" to has the ability to do more damage than good.

Beyond our own borders, you won't find "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances..." taught in every classroom. Many "high courts" simply don't rule from the top down, based on one's "inalienable civil right to happiness." In fact, the job description we'd identify as belonging to an "Investigative Reporter" is ostensibly illegal practice in middle eastern countries where the cliches about curiosity killing the cat and losing your head over something have COMPLETELY DIFFERENT MEANINGS.

Truth is, the NY Times, the Guardian and Der Spiegel have all known what WikiLeaks had their hands on since something like May. The NYT actually dumped the totality of what they intended to publish back in the State Department's lap and asked, "Anything here we REALLY shouldn't be flying up the flagpoles?" We may never have a truly transparent version of where the next cuts got made but lets let transparency end there, shall we? It wasn't just the particulars of what was said these cables exposed. They compromise the names of many informants working for US intelligence agencies. Some are drug lords who have given information leading to drone strikes killing thousands of their fellow tribesmen. If their identities were known they would immediately be forced to flee, and valuable friends of the US might be lost. And, for the record, the NY Times did not get the documents from wikiLeaks.

So here we go again. The arguement isn't as ugly as the right to produce child pornography but we're still having the same debate: Freedom of the press, freedom of information, free to be you and me, blah-blah-blah. It's not "innocent children" being bought and sold; it's faceless foreigners working for shreds of democracy, trying to empower themselves and their children towards a better future. So this time around it's a lot less painful to rally around the NY Times and WikiLeaks, proudly flying our First Ammendment banners and thanking them for all this transparency which is, after all, the hallmark of a civilized society.

That's nice. Can you hold it down over there?

Surely it is understood the NY Times HAD to publish a large quantity of the leaked cables because the Guardian, Der Spiegel and a few other big names in foreign press were basically delivered the same bundle of information. If the Times took what so many are claiming to be "the high road" and passed on publishing the cables, the land of the free and the home of the brave would have a whole lotta egg on its journalistic face. I dunno. We invaded a soverign nation without the backing of the United Nations. We probably already look bad enough. We'll never know what NOT publishing the classified cables would have done to our reputation but why not? Newspaper sales are way down and don't we all believe in capitalism alongside all those First Ammendment rights? You betcha! So I think much time has been wasted in fingering the Times for doing what it is we EXPECT them to do: sell newspapers.

I'm an IT guy. I also held (what used to be) a "Secret" security clearance when I worked at Lockheed-Martin. What was originally so amazing to me is that more than a quarter of a million independent transmissions were taggable and able to be downloaded onto portable media, then waltzed out the front door of what was designed to be a "secure location." Given the necessary access I suppose the process could have been as simple as snagging a set of back-up tapes, stuffing them into a backpack and taking it to an offsite lunch. Then something else struck me: After sifting through the first --oh, let's go with 50,000-- of these notes, how could anyone have survived the excruciating boredom this must have created? It is my understanding that, of the 250,000+ cables, only about 100 (or .0004%) will be published. Obviously, what we're viewing is the cream of the crop, the most damming and --you guessed it-- the most sensational.

Meanwhile, the remaining 249,900 remain wholly uncharacterized and largely ignored. Could it be that the OVERWHELMING majority of the diplomatic dribble is nothing most people would find objectionable, shocking or newsworthy? Is the biggest "thank you" here being ignored: The one which says "thank God somebody else is willing to take that job"?

Meanwhile, if you've never taken a PoliSci class, spent a summer reading all about World War II or been trapped on an overseas flight sitting next to someone who actually works for one of our embassies, one's imagination can be stretched as far as to believe those 100 cables might make for interesting reading. I'm more inclined to believe the majority of those celebrating transparency are sticking to the 2010 equivalent of Cliff's Notes and getting the highlights from CNN, MSNBC or (God forbid!) Faux News. Though the lines between NYT and TMZ do seem to be blurring here, remember two things: (1) The people who had these dialogs ALREADY KNOW ABOUT THEM --duh! and (2) Our own State Department has known for approximately seven months what the NYT had in their possession and was given editorial right of first refusal. CONCLUSION: The damage control you're seeing now is intentionally taking place as everyone looks on. (Ergo, The TRULY DAMAGING CONTENT may have either held back or has already been dealt with.)

Allow me to distill the nature of the content even further: There's not an enormous amount of shocking revelation, never-before practiced diplomatic protocols exposed as widely in use or unexpected candor to any of it. "Documents of mass destruction" is not an appropriate label. Honestly, you wouldn't want to have dinner with the people that wrote most of these things. Additionally, the sheer volume of information will serve to detract from most of the granular details; some of which, in other circumstances might be worthy of swiping onto a slide and throwing under the microscope. But collectively, the information "reveals" what most thinking people already knew:

- International politics can be just as messy and inflamatory as a congressional campaign. - Not everybody plays well together; and- many of the players hate each other and say mean, untrue things about their opponents (like on Fox news, only in emails to each other)

The Top 10 "Revelations" (So Far) are as follows:

1. Many Middle Eastern nations are far more concerned about Iran's nuclear program than they've publicly admitted.

2. The U.S. ambassador to Seoul told Washington in February that the right business deals might get China to acquiesce to a reunified Korea, if the newly unified power were allied with the United States.

3. The Obama administration offered sweeteners to try to get other countries to take Guantanamo detainees, as part of its (as yet unsuccessful) effort to close the prison.

. Afghan Vice President Ahmed Zia Massoud took $52 million in cash when he visited the United Arab Emirates last year, according to one cable.

5. The United States has been working to remove highly enriched uranium from a Pakistani nuclear reactor, out of concern that it could be used to build an illicit nuclear device.

6. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton ordered diplomats to assemble information on their foreign counterparts.

7. The State Department labeled Qatar the worst country in the region for counterterrorism efforts.

8. Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin and Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi are tighter than was previously known.

9. Hezbollah continues to enjoy the weapons patronage of Syria.

10. Some cables reveal decidedly less than diplomatic opinions of foreign leaders.

After the diplomatic dust settles and the NY Times moves onto their next big story, an infinitely more secure computer network will no doubt handle the communications between infinitely more cautiously-spoken individuals. Ultimately, diplomacy is going to be the biggest loser, with transparency itself falling close behind. Diplomacy cannot exist where there is no trust so the absence of future transparency will be a non-issue.

Interestingly, the fact this information has been hauled so violently into the sunlight to disinfect, translated into a multitude of languages and made globally avaiable has created a whole second tier of reporting. Those who are enraged, embarrassed or endangered by these cables are not protesting in place. What we're going to see is a great deal of detail emerging on the damage this has and will continue to produce. A very carefully constructed, meticulously managed "I told you so" case is soon to wash over the Internet like the tsunami which follows an earthquake. Why? Because there are plenty of us "Americans" who are tired of being thrown into the same global melting pot as the capitalist, self-serving egomaniacs unable to understand anything beyond their own borders, hell-bent on shoving their way of life down the rest of the world's throats (a/k/a our "fellow Americans")

The truth is: SOME disclosures do put "open government" at risk, despite the paradox that seems to present. And just because something is true doesn't mean you have to say it. Where the rubber meats the road, it would be difficult to ascertain whether or not AMERICAN lives or the safety of our troops overseas are at risk. The bodies that could begin to stack up will belong to members of humanitarian organizations, and those who have teamed with our troops to try and furnish us with accurate information regarding the location of our enemies and other "inside information" we can only obtain from individuals who --legally and otherwise-- aren't Americans. So the whole fantasy about Julian Assange --an Australian citizen-- facing high treason indictments is probably not going to materialize soon on a television near you. Treason can only be committed by U.S. citizens against U.S. citizens.

Meanwhile, back in Municipal Court, it's still a crime to read other people's mail and taking things that don't belong to you is also against our laws. That's probably about as exciting as any trial will get since everybody else leaking the [stolen] information wasn't responsible for stealing it. I don't know what to make of the whole rape story; right when half the blogosphere is ready to string the man up on general principles and the other half is applauding him for his principles. Yet everybody's weighing in: "The New York Times ought to be put out of business," and "PFC Bradley Manning should go before a firing squad," not to mention all the conspiracy theorists that have re-emerged from the woodwork just because the opportunity to post yet another byte of insanity has come along.

What's truly missing from all the complaining is a track record of actions speaking louder than words. I would find it refreshing if some of these ranters would even go as far as to post SUGGESTED ACTIONS which, if executed by those with more motivation, could potentially bring about the kind of changes most of the postings indicate as necessary. For example, if you truly believe the New York Times should be put out of business and its management prosecuted for their publishing practices, there are things one can do. First of all, don't buy it. Encourage your friends, clients and relatives to do the same. Boycott those who advertise in the Times. Convince them that a signifficant number of other voting consumers are doing the same. Request these companies withdraw their advertising from the Times. Tell them you are now buying the products of their competitors. Anyone who says one person can't make a difference hasn't been paying attention. (Tell that to PFC Bradley Manning.) There are a number of ways a small number of people can affect change other than just raising their voices and "liking" the postings of like-minded individuals. Behavioral change is brought about most effectively by affecting the bottom line (i.e., the revenue stream) of those you wish to change.

I would also suggest that more of the truly-blindsided tune into news broadcasts such as BBC-World or the News Hour on PBS where the lead story is likely to be based in another country simply because its the biggest story IN THE WORLD. (I'll say this for the whole WikiLeaks phenomena: It's taken the spotlight off Sarah Palin for longer than anything else has been able to in quite some time.) Next time you're near a magazine stand, pick up an English-version copy of another country's newspaper. How many of those stories have you been following for a week?

The truth is, we don't produce news broadcasts with lots of time dedicated to what people on the other side of the globe are experiencing. For a while, we embedded reporters with the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan but those stories (yawn) got boring and repetitive. Apparently, we were really more interested in the emergence of something called the Tea Party. The only story about the troops with any legs to it concerns the shocking number of them returning home with P.T.S.D. Despite the coverage of this growing phenomena, funding for the treatment of PTSD remains dramatically below what's actually needed. Our track record at home for actually instigating change isn't the greatest. Optimism is low that anything we have learned or will learn from these communiques will actually result in anything being done any different than it is now.