This video of some soldiers killing some people in Iraq is making its way around the blogosphere.
I submit that anyone with a historical perspective will find this video to be 0% shocking. In wars, this stuff happens. If modern warfare is remarkable for anything, it’s for how far some militaries go to avoid these incidents. Nevertheless, it is shocking and sickening and harsh . . . it is war and it can’t be otherwise.
What I find most interesting, is that no one talks of the most interesting part – namely, the fact that Wikileaks exists. It’s a site that coordinates an illegal activity – one whose only purpose is to facilitate government employees illegally undermining their government agency.
I understand that our system of government (the unwritten American Constitution) depends on leaks from official government (agencies) to unofficial government (press). But I still find it astounding.
If your theory of the way the US government works cannot explain why Wikileaks exists, then your theory sucks. If your plans to reform government do not deal with the Wikileaks phenomenon, then your plans for reform suck. As far as I know, Mencius Moldbug is the only person who has come up with a convincing explanation of why Wikileaks is allowed to exists. Am I missing anyone?
Foseti 
Foseti,
Ok…I’m not following it.
Wikileaks is allowed because the government is not a single strong faction, but rather a loose collection of disagreeing weak factions? To some extent its a safety valve, just in case the infighting gets too extreme. And it bypasses the normal channels that are controlled by one faction or another.
Because public outrage is the secondary check on a government power, after outrage of the selectorate, the ability to directly channel information towards the public, in order to generate outrage, is very important.
And I still don’t know Moldbug’s line well enough to figure out what he thinks of Wikileaks.
Regardless of the form of government, USG can shut down websites that it doesn’t like (it’s not that hard). USG shuts down half-assed gambling sites that are hosted in other countries. So, we must conclude that Wikileaks is open because government has allowed it to stay open.
As you say, in our government, “the ability to directly channel information towards the public, in order to generate outrage, is very important.”
And yet it’s also illegal when done in this way. These laws are enforced, but only selectively. Joe McCarthy can’t leak the names of Commies, but anyone can leak to Wikileaks (a lefty website). It’s also selectively enforced by agency/activity. For example, if someone at the NY Fed leaked certain bank data, that someone would get fired quickly. The same will not happen for the person who leaked this video.
These facts demand some explanation, do they not?