The privilege of secrecy

Never Done: Read WikiLeaks cables

I didn't even consider reading the WikiLeaks until I had a whole day to recover from overworking, when I stayed in my pajamas all day and cleaned the apartment, caught up on email, and made a website for the menorah project. But I don't actually think it was merely the time issue that kept me away; I think it was more that they seemed dense and potentially inpenetrable to me -- somehow out of my realm. I also think the word "cable" kept me away; the word "leaks" is clear, but it didn't immediately dawn on me that cables are just ... cables. Forms of communication. In this context, I have now read, a "cable" is a written form of communication between an Embassy or Consulate abroad and the State Department, or between an Embassy or Consulate abroad to another Embassy or Consulate.

As it turns out, the cables are dense, and the search function is complicated, but WikiLeaks are not inpenetrable. They are a little addictive though. I hopped from Afghanistan to Israel to Iran to Zimbabwe to Sri Lanka -- like an international game of telephone, secrets whispered in my ear, and I'm sure if I had to whisper them back to someone else, I would create an international incident from the misinformation.

I wrote a post about secrecy on this blog before -- one that I didn't manage to wrap up very well. I ended up posing the question: what is the difference between privacy and secrecy? which is an interesting question when you are thinking about the construct of a family, or ones personal life. It's one that I've continued to think about -- since I value both my own secrecy and my own privacy, but I fear that the secrecy is a flaw of some sort while the privacy is a virtue. When you're thinking about the construct of a government or a country though, it is flipped: people value secrecy for countries -- we think we need state secrets -- but we don't believe that governments or government officials are particularly entitled to privacy.

I tend to believe in transparency, but I also know that there are situations which require a delicate touch in order to finesse, and that can be killed by transparency. I'm actually involved in one of these now -- uncomfortable that I am one of a few people who hold information that others don't hold, and pushing for a more open conversation. Which brings us around to Mussar and ethics and the legitimate concern of the other.

I am a cynic. I don't see the Afghan Minister of the Interior Hanif Atmar taking the legitimate concern of the other into account when he asks the US to suppress the story that U.S. government contractor DynCorp threw a party for Afghan security recruits featuring trafficked boys as the entertainment. To be fair (and cynical) he actually was taking the concern for the other into account -- the concerns of the men who bought the boys as entertainment. But isn't there some kind of over-arching moral code that should be clear and enforceable that explains that we are first responsible to the concerns of the boys, and not the men? Is that not obvious already? Of course there are situations where it's difficult to prioritize people's legitimate concerns. The right of Palestinians to a national homeland -- not to mention food, water, and free access to work and the rest of their livelihoods. The rights of Israelis to the same. This one has proven to be difficult for people to work out. But the right of little boys to not be forced into sexual slavery vs the rights of men to make money from them?

Some things don't deserve the privilege of secrecy.