Wikileaks

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob Riebe

Not really. If the standard is the Taliban are bad, then what helps one is good but what helps them is bad.
If it were the Taliban are bad, but my cousin Ninny who is a Taliban is just misguided so leave him alone, that is a double standard.

---

I'd bet that the Taliban and their supporters think they're are good and the foreign troops in their country are bad.

some comments about a possible charge of Julian Assange:

N.Y. Times:
U.S. Weighs Prosecution of WikiLeaks Founder, but Legal Scholars Warn of Steep Hurdles,

Quote:

---

Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. has confirmed that the Justice Department is examining whether Mr. Assange could be charged with a crime, but legal scholars say that such an effort would encounter steep legal and policy difficulties.

---

further down in thew article it says that if JA is charged it might lead to that media (like the N.Y. Times) that have published the information also have to be charged for publishing leaked information.


Reuters:
Analysis: Hard case for U.S. against WikiLeaks's Assange

Quote:

---

(Reuters) - U.S. authorities could face insurmountable legal hurdles if they try to bring criminal charges against elusive WikiLeaks chief Julian Assange, even if he sets foot on U.S. soil.

---

New York Law School:
http://www.lasisblog.com/2010/11/12/...tted-no-crime/

Quote:

---

Since August, when Wikileaks first published 91,000 classified documents relating to the Afghanistan War, and in October, when they published approximately 400,000 more relating to the War in Iraq,
many conservative commentators have been clamoring for the Justice Department to prosecute Wikileaks for publishing classified information.
But in the United States, generally publishing classified information is not a crime. The sort of information that a news organization can be prosecuted for publishing is limited to:
nuclear secrets (Atomic Energy Act), the identities of covert agents (Intelligence Identities Protection Act), and certain forms of communications intelligence (Section 798 of the Espionage Act).

---

Thomas Jefferson the third President of the United States of America, a principal author of the Declaration of Independence , and one of the most influential Founding Fathers for his promotion of the ideals of republicanism in the United States said:

Quote:

---

"When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty"

---

Quote:

---

“Enlighten the people generally, and tyranny and oppressions of body and mind will vanish like evil spirits at the dawn of day.”

---

Quote:

---

"All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent.”

---

I’m guessing he would not be as welcomed in today’s United States of America with such views.

i think this quotes show that the world really have changed that much the past 200 years.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cooper_S

Thomas Jefferson the third President of the United States of America, a principal author of the Declaration of Independence , and one of the most influential Founding Fathers for his promotion of the ideals of republicanism in the United States said:





I’m guessing he would not be as welcomed in today’s United States of America with such views.

---

No..he would have..because he also understood the basic tenets of the Constitution were good, and didn't require this myth that it must evolve.....

Most of the hard core people on the right in the US take great care to ask for the Constitution to be respected. Most of the changes to US governence have meant more government, not less, and Jefferson was of the opinion a bare minimum of government is also a tenet of good governence.

That said, on this Wikileaks thing, I think it is a lot of noise, but not much of subtance. It is however just a slimy, crappy thing to do.....

When it puts people in danger for some self proclaimed "noble" goal, that is when I get pi$$ed....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

What a shame what was an interesting thread containing some very welcome debate has degenerated into a farce, with almost a whole page of comments — barring those from Mark and Eki — that are barely decipherable and have nothing to do with the matter in hand.

---

There is an effort on my part to entertain and inform you Ben, although it seems I rarely convince you!

Eki's points are valid, except again for the reality that he always defends people who despise his way of life, his right to speak his mind and have no respect for the values HE holds dear. That has always made me scratch my head....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob Riebe

I thought maybe you had been over-whelmed by your naïveté, but having re-read your words, it seems you are just a spite filled blow-hard.

---

Every post by this guy is an insult. Great< you read the post. Now give an articulate answer. There is quite a lot in there to challenge ,if you can.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa

.

When it puts people in danger for some self proclaimed "noble" goal, that is when I get pi$$ed....

---

What people are in danger?

The people in USA? yes because of their politicians behaviour but not because of leaked information about the abysmal behaviour of US/nato forces in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Mr Assange? yes most certainly. Especially since high politicians in Canada and USA wants to see him dead. Several politicians have siad that Julian Assange should be executed.

Reactions like we've seen from US, Canada, Australia and the USA's 51st state Sweden is because they are afraid that the their lies and frauds will be revealed, they are afraid that they cannot "control" the information (=propaganda). The politicians are afraid that their corruption will be brought to surface.

The same people that excuses the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan with "we are there to convert them to "democracies" (=puppet states) are now attacking the right of free speech just because it might harm their credibility.

Imo its the obligation of people to reveal crimes committed by politicians and military forces. Just because they are politicians doesn't mean that they are untouchable.

And finally as i wrote in one of my previous posts. According to US laws Julian Assange and WL have not done anything illegal by publishing the leaked information.

It's a shame they did not put as much energy into the of outing Valerie Plame as they are with these Wikileaks.

The danger of her being made a public figure was far greater than what has so far been exposed through this Assange(sic) guy.

Another issue I would like to address is the comments about these "tin pot" or something governments in South America. South America is developing rapidly through co-operation from other countries. No need for leaks there.

The biggest leak they ever had was Milton Friedman and his "vision" that was nothing more than smoke and mirrors and the Ollie , Ronnie boy that destroyed Nicaragua by supplying arms ("we did not supply arms") to the Contras and any other despot in the region.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ghostwalker

What people are in danger?

The people in USA? yes because of their politicians behaviour but not because of leaked information about the abysmal behaviour of US/nato forces in Iraq and Afghanistan.

---

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ghostwalker

Mr Assange? yes most certainly. Especially since high politicians in Canada and USA wants to see him dead. Several politicians have siad that Julian Assange should be executed.

---

As for Assange, no one in government in the US or Canada is seriously advocating his assasination. The fact they are spouting off this way says to me it isn't an option and it is frustration and glibness. No one officially in the employ of the Canadian Government has advocated this even in jest. We don't have the death penalty. Even the political right in this country is measured in their response to what has been released. There is nothing released that is really harmful to Canada. I suggest you discern the difference between US foreign policy and Canada's. They are different....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ghostwalker

Reactions like we've seen from US, Canada, Australia and the USA's 51st state Sweden is because they are afraid that the their lies and frauds will be revealed, they are afraid that they cannot "control" the information (=propaganda). The politicians are afraid that their corruption will be brought to surface.

The same people that excuses the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan with "we are there to convert them to "democracies" (=puppet states) are now attacking the right of free speech just because it might harm their credibility.

---

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. Last I looked, the leaker wasn't given this power by law, he took it upon himself. So he is going to go to jail, and funny, I don't see Julian Assange paying his legal bill. Julian is making money and "prestige" off someone else going to jail.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ghostwalker

Imo its the obligation of people to reveal crimes committed by politicians and military forces. Just because they are politicians doesn't mean that they are untouchable.

And finally as i wrote in one of my previous posts. According to US laws Julian Assange and WL have not done anything illegal by publishing the leaked information.

---

Crimes? Half of what is there is nonsense. What the US Embassy thinks of Canadian culture was some of the stuff relasesed. I read it, and went Duuuuh....like no kidding the CBC doesn't portray America in a good light. That said, it was a private conversation between diplomats that is protected. The principle of diplomatic channels to communicate in private is a legal protection all nation states pay respect to. IF caught spying on another nations diplomats, spys know they are going to be prosecuted. It is just that simple. Assange didn't break the laws? Ya..he did. You can say it is wrong or whatever, but if you print classified information, you likely are in violation of the law. Whether or not the law prosecutes you is another thing. The guy who basically took all this diplomatic traffic wasn't doing it for noble purposes, he was a misfit who is going to see 50 years in jail. I doubt Julian Assange is going to help this chap...

Assange is a leech on the freedoms he proposes to protect. He isn't releasing anything in this last release that is anything but embarassing but much ado really about nothing. That said, he is a slime ball of the first order, because his noterity and high minded rhetoric is built on people who are either misguided or just criminal themselves giving him information. 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.

He is a coward...pure and simple.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ghostwalker

What people are in danger?



Mr Assange? yes most certainly. Especially since high politicians in Canada and USA wants to see him dead. Several politicians have siad that Julian Assange should be executed.

.

---

And what is wrong with the above. He should be popped. Sooner the world starts doing this the sooner this crap will stop. So if you can stand the consequences then go ahead. The private in custody should be waterboarded until we are comfortable he had no accomplice. Freedom does not mean the right to act illegally and get away with it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Roamy

And what is wrong with the above. He should be popped. Sooner the world starts doing this the sooner this crap will stop. So if you can stand the consequences then go ahead. The private in custody should be waterboarded until we are comfortable he had no accomplice. Freedom does not mean the right to act illegally and get away with it.

---

I'd bet that's what Stalin, Hitler, Saddam et al thought too.

hey EKI those are all you buddies

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Roamy

And what is wrong with the above. He should be popped. Sooner the world starts doing this the sooner this crap will stop. So if you can stand the consequences then go ahead. The private in custody should be waterboarded until we are comfortable he had no accomplice. Freedom does not mean the right to act illegally and get away with it.

---

Can you specify what crimes JA and WL have commited.
becausde from what i understand WL is protected in the same way as media.

Its not crap, what is the crap is the s*it that the US cowardly forces are doing in Iraq. Killing innocent people for fun and then laughing at them?

The same governments that wants to "Liberate" Iraq, Afghanistan and impose free speech are now cowardly turning the west world in to a dictatorship where people who reveal corruption and war crimes are considered criminals. This have showed that the "land of the free and home of the brave" rather is the "Home of the un-free and land of the corrupted and paranoid". It is nothing different then what dictatorship countries like Nazi Germany, Stalin Soviet, China and Iran were/are doing.
People with information are "removed" because they are "uncomfortable" for the government because their hidden agendas (stealing oil and valuable minerals) might be revealed.

This whole incident has showed the need for someone to reveal the corruption and the filthy a**es of the worlds politicians.

then

http://www.lasisblog.com/2010/11/12/...tted-no-crime/

Quote:

---

But in the United States, generally publishing classified information is not a crime. The sort of information that a news organization can be prosecuted for publishing is limited to: nuclear secrets (Atomic Energy Act), the identities of covert agents (Intelligence Identities Protection Act), and certain forms of communications intelligence (Section 798 of the Espionage Act).
Perhaps lamenting that the U.S. does not have an Official Secrets Act like the United Kingdom, right wing columnists have consistently misinterpreted these Acts, or have cited other provisions of our espionage laws which almost surely do not apply to Wikileaks.
The most commonly cited statute by those who advocate prosecuting Wikileaks is Section 793(e) of the Espionage Act. In August, former Bush speechwriter Marc Theissen linked to this section in an article for the Washington Post when he wrote that Wikileaks is “a criminal enterprise” whose founder, Julian Assange, should be arrested by U.S. forces on foreign soil, international law be damned.
But this provision does not apply to those who publish information.
Section 793(e)reads “Whoever having unauthorized possession of, access to, or control over any document…relating to the national defense…willfully communicates… the same and fails to deliver it to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it…[s]hall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.”
As made clear in the Pentagon Papers case, the word “communicates” was never meant “to encompass publication” or to affect the press. Congress included the word “publish” in three other sections of the Act but intentionally left it out of 793. As the legislative history of this provision states, “Nothing in this Act shall…in any way to limit or infringe upon freedom of the press or of speech as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States.”
Justice Douglas referenced the legislative history in his concurring opinion, when he wrote of Section 793, “it is apparent that Congress was capable of, and did, distinguish between publishing and communication in the various sections of the Espionage Act.”

---

Since WL is juridically considered press a prosecution of it and JA would means that they are violating the same law they say they protect.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Roamy

hey EKI those are all you buddies

---

So? You're my buddy too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa

When it puts people in danger for some self proclaimed "noble" goal, that is when I get pi$$ed....

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa

Eki's points are valid, except again for the reality that he always defends people who despise his way of life, his right to speak his mind and have no respect for the values HE holds dear. That has always made me scratch my head....

---

I can understand Eki, and what he does is simply respect the ones who are and/or think different.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ghostwalker

What people are in danger?

The people in USA? yes because of their politicians behaviour but not because of leaked information about the abysmal behaviour of US/nato forces in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Mr Assange? yes most certainly. Especially since high politicians in Canada and USA wants to see him dead. Several politicians have siad that Julian Assange should be executed.

Reactions like we've seen from US, Canada, Australia and the USA's 51st state Sweden is because they are afraid that the their lies and frauds will be revealed, they are afraid that they cannot "control" the information (=propaganda). The politicians are afraid that their corruption will be brought to surface.

The same people that excuses the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan with "we are there to convert them to "democracies" (=puppet states) are now attacking the right of free speech just because it might harm their credibility.

Imo its the obligation of people to reveal crimes committed by politicians and military forces. Just because they are politicians doesn't mean that they are untouchable.

And finally as i wrote in one of my previous posts. According to US laws Julian Assange and WL have not done anything illegal by publishing the leaked information.

---

:up:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa

Assange is a leech on the freedoms he proposes to protect. He isn't releasing anything in this last release that is anything but embarassing but much ado really about nothing. That said, he is a slime ball of the first order, because his noterity and high minded rhetoric is built on people who are either misguided or just criminal themselves giving him information. 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.

He is a coward...pure and simple.

---

:down:

How can you call coward someone who's got the balls to take on this world's superpowers?! Isn't that a clear case of contradiction? Just asking.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ioan

I can understand Eki, and what he does is simply respect the ones who are and/or think different.

---

Exactly. Dissidents aren't only in communist dictatorships.

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.

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dylan H

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.

---

They are very naive if they believe that anything is 100% sure.
What I do not understand and I hope someone can explain is why is these secrecy needed?! What is the point and the benefits for our society in having so much secrecy?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eki

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?

---

You're mistaking the direction of US foreign policy which is set by the presidency with the bread and butter work of the American diplomatic core. Diplomats do not set policy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ioan

They are very naive if they believe that anything is 100% sure.
What I do not understand and I hope someone can explain is why is these secrecy needed?! What is the point and the benefits for our society in having so much secrecy?

---

So a Chinese dissident risking his life talking to a US diplomat about what is going on behind closed doors in China shouldn't expect there to be any effort made for secrecy? Right Ok.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dylan H

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.

---

As I've said in previous posts, this is the very aspect of these disclosures with which I am somewhat uncomfortable. But let's not pretend that those countries whose leaderships have been the subject of the leaked comments ought not to have had some idea what others might potentially think of them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dylan H

So a Chinese dissident risking his life talking to a US diplomat about what is going on behind closed doors in China shouldn't expect there to be any effort made for secrecy? Right Ok.

---

And why does that Chinese dissident leaking information seem to be OK for many and Assagne and the Wikileaks be villains when they leak information?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ioan

They are very naive if they believe that anything is 100% sure.
What I do not understand and I hope someone can explain is why is these secrecy needed?! What is the point and the benefits for our society in having so much secrecy?

---

Let's equate the international community to the workplace. Would your work be harmonious if you told your colleagues and associates exactly what you really thought of them? To do so would be unwise, unless one wishes for an unharmonious day-to-day existence. The same goes for diplomatic relations, which is, as I said before, why there should be a degree of circumspection about leaking such things. I agree very much that there is an undue culture of secrecy and non-disclosure on the part of politicians, authorities, etc, in general, but it is probably sensible to keep within certain bounds when making disclosures against their wishes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

Let's equate the international community to the workplace. Would your work be harmonious if you told your colleagues and associates exactly what you really thought of them?

---

Maybe not, but it wouldn't be harmonious with that kind of back-stabbing, gossiping and squealing to the boss about every detail that the Wikileaks have revealed either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

Let's equate the international community to the workplace. Would your work be harmonious if you told your colleagues and associates exactly what you really thought of them? To do so would be unwise, unless one wishes for an unharmonious day-to-day existence. The same goes for diplomatic relations, which is, as I said before, why there should be a degree of circumspection about leaking such things. I agree very much that there is an undue culture of secrecy and non-disclosure on the part of politicians, authorities, etc, in general, but it is probably sensible to keep within certain bounds when making disclosures against their wishes.

---

I always tell people what I think about them and I think it helps on the long term, each of us knows exactly what to expect next time. no secrets no bad surprises.

What society needs to build on is respect and honesty, and secrecy doesn't go well with any of these.

This is my opinion and how I do things.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eki

Maybe not, but it wouldn't be harmonious with that kind of back-stabbing, gossiping and squealing to the boss about every detail that the Wikileaks have revealed either.

---

Exactly. It only equates to a time bomb that on one knows when will get ignited.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ioan

I always tell people what I think about them and I think it helps on the long term, each of us knows exactly what to expect next time. no secrets no bad surprises.

What society needs to build on is respect and honesty, and secrecy doesn't go well with any of these.

This is my opinion and how I do things.

---

I would suggest that you may come across as boorish and rude. In the workplace it very rarely does to utter one's unchecked opinions of one's colleagues, unless one is very lucky and has a uniformly excellent group of co-workers, as I once had.