Wikileaks

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ioan

There are occasions when principles have to take priority over a few lives, I know it sounds macabre but that's how the society obtained it's freedom back in the 18th and 19th centuries.

---

To that I would add that there is an inherent contradiction in the attitude of many, especially in the USA, who believe in the concept of the so-called 'war against terrorism'. When civilian casualties occur in Iraq and Afghanistan as a result of coalition activity, they quite rightly state that, sadly, a certain death toll is to be expected. I agree with this — if a country's troops are to go to war, it is a fact of life. However, there is increasingly little tolerance of the notion that, if their country is at war, there may be casualties closer to home, hence the levels of paranoia surrounding what the USA refers to as homeland security.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eki

The Chinese political prisoner (what's his face?) got the Nobel Peace Prize this year and China is pissed off. Maybe some year Assagne and the Wikileaks gets the Nobel Peace Prize and the US will be pissed off.

---

A very good point. While I would far rather live in the US than China because of the restrictions the latter places on democracy, free speech and its citizens, one cannot apply one argument to one country and another to another. If we wish US-style freedoms (in the literal, non-emotional sense of the word so rarely used by right-wing Americans themselves nowadays) upon China, a laudable aim, then we should have greater confidence in our own society and political processes. This includes swallowing some home truths once in a while.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa

In this recent release, no one is in danger, but Wikileaks in the past was putting up information on how the NATO coalition was dealing with IED's and locations of their troops. You don't think the Taliban didn't get some use out of that?

---

They seemed to be managing perfectly well without such information.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa

Free speech is one thing, taking conversations that are merely cables of communication between two people conversing at the diplomatic level may sound like good sport, and it is amusing, but if the conversation is being held with the understanding it is a "secret" and "private" conversation protected by government law (yes, it is lawful for secrets to be kept on what people REALLY think of other nations when they are in the diplomatic service), then outing it means someone has decided they are the judge and jury...

---

On this, as I intimated earlier, you do have a point. It's that old 'public interest v interesting to the public' question again, isn't it? But it is, to me at least, most intriguing to see laid bare the content of this material. I am a firm believer in open government, and I have never seen it opened up further than this. Little damage has been done, there have been some genuinely notable revelations (like the US 'mole' in the German foreign ministry — deemed serious enough for him to be sacked) and it goes to prove that there should be far greater disclosure of confidential material than many governments, e.g. the UK's, currently allow. Having made numerous Freedom of Information requests of the UK government myself and often been denied access, I am more than ever convinced that the reasoning behind these refusals to release these, and other, documents into the public domain must be unjustifiable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa

I don't see him as noble at all....and what is more, if he had such dirt on the slime balls who run many other countries such as China, Russia or wherever, he would be worm food by now. It is why he picks on the West...because he knows THEY have laws and due process.

---

For one thing, I would hope we all expect the West to have higher standards than China, Russia et al. That these are not always maintained, for instance in the treatment of prisoners, is more notable than are similar abuses in the countries you mention. And for another, it's not as if Russia for one has exactly got off lightly in the release of the recent lot of cables. After all, they contained some damning, and surely accurate, indictments of the Russian regime.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

They seemed to be managing perfectly well without such information.

---

True. You have to remember the delay between the actual happenings and the publishing of the information. Most, if not all, of the information is moot when it's published. Hindsight 20/20. This just gives information on the reasoning abilities of our politicians, nothing else.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

They seemed to be managing perfectly well without such information.



On this, as I intimated earlier, you do have a point. It's that old 'public interest v interesting to the public' question again, isn't it? But it is, to me at least, most intriguing to see laid bare the content of this material. I am a firm believer in open government, and I have never seen it opened up further than this. Little damage has been done, there have been some genuinely notable revelations (like the US 'mole' in the German foreign ministry — deemed serious enough for him to be sacked) and it goes to prove that there should be far greater disclosure of confidential material than many governments, e.g. the UK's, currently allow. Having made numerous Freedom of Information requests of the UK government myself and often been denied access, I am more than ever convinced that the reasoning behind these refusals to release these, and other, documents into the public domain must be unjustifiable.



For one thing, I would hope we all expect the West to have higher standards than China, Russia et al. That these are not always maintained, for instance in the treatment of prisoners, is more notable than are similar abuses in the countries you mention. And for another, it's not as if Russia for one has exactly got off lightly in the release of the recent lot of cables. After all, they contained some damning, and surely accurate, indictments of the Russian regime.

---

Good points all Ben. My first reaction to Assange was to have him shot...lol...but seeing some of the bits and pieces that are coming out I think most of this stuff really isn't anything more than titillating. I do think though any information that COULD put someone in danger however has to be classified and stay that way. It isn't Julian's call to decide either. I dislike intensely his general idea that it is his call on what to release. There needs to be some sort of filter on a lot of stuff...and I don't think Julian is the guy I want as the filter.

As for the Russians, they are still likely slimier than most of the stuff that has been released. Being a journalist in that country has to be fraught with peril.....those are the tellers of truth I admire the most.

It just also irritates me to no end that this guy is basically making his name on others who will go to jail for giving it to him. Leaker's are essentially making the call that they are above the government they are sworn to. On stuff like this, a lowly private doesn't make that call...

I think that these leaks will open more minds to how the US, as the only "superpower" is trying to control the world.

Money and Power is all the wealthy in this country care about. The rest of us can get stuffed according to them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa

It just also irritates me to no end that this guy is basically making his name on others who will go to jail for giving it to him. Leaker's are essentially making the call that they are above the government they are sworn to. On stuff like this, a lowly private doesn't make that call...

---

But it's OK when a guy from the safety of his oval office in a white house sends thousands of those privates to Iraq and Afghanistan to die for him? Don't you think those privates and their families should at least have the right to know what they're dying for?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

On this, as I intimated earlier, you do have a point. It's that old 'public interest v interesting to the public' question again, isn't it? But it is, to me at least, most intriguing to see laid bare the content of this material. I am a firm believer in open government, and I have never seen it opened up further than this. Little damage has been done, there have been some genuinely notable revelations (like the US 'mole' in the German foreign ministry — deemed serious enough for him to be sacked) and it goes to prove that there should be far greater disclosure of confidential material than many governments, e.g. the UK's, currently allow. Having made numerous Freedom of Information requests of the UK government myself and often been denied access, I am more than ever convinced that the reasoning behind these refusals to release these, and other, documents into the public domain must be unjustifiable.

---

Is it really unjustifiable to not release these documents?

People talk to US diplomats (or any other diplomat) on the understanding that there is secrecy involved, that what they said won't reach back to their bosses. This is especially true in dictatorships which don't deal with leaks kindly. Given that this trust has now been shattered thanks to the leaks don't you think that diplomacy would be affected negatively?

Assange did a write-in interview on the Guardian late last week. I noticed that he had little difficulty in answering sycophantic questions such as "it must be so hard to cope with the stress of being targetted by the worlds greatest superpower" but refused to answer point blank an eloquently written question by a former diplomat as to whether he would take responsibility for any negative impact the latest leak would have on future diplomacy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

For one thing, I would hope we all expect the West to have higher standards than China, Russia et al. That these are not always maintained, for instance in the treatment of prisoners, is more notable than are similar abuses in the countries you mention. And for another, it's not as if Russia for one has exactly got off lightly in the release of the recent lot of cables. After all, they contained some damning, and surely accurate, indictments of the Russian regime.

---

Not to mention Italy ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by N. Jones

I think that these leaks will open more minds to how the US, as the only "superpower" is trying to control the world.

Money and Power is all the wealthy in this country care about. The rest of us can get stuffed according to them.

---

Not really.

I doubt similar level diplomatic cables from any other major power would read that differently. American diplomats should be working in their national interest, thats what they are paid to do. What does surprise me is how little local knowledge many of these diplomats seem to have.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dylan H

American diplomats should be working in their national interest, thats what they are paid to do.

---

Of course, but it's debatable what the national interest is. Long time or short time interest? They could be different. Is it better to ruthlessly accumulate as much money and power as you can while making enemies, or to settle for little less and live in peace and harmony with the rest of the world?