Wikileaks - your opinion?

But you have no right to murder someone, as that is a direct infringement upon someone else's rights and no one person's freedom can be considered to take priority over another. The legal system we have in place is (mostly) a demonstration of this principle - those who place their own rights above other people's have those rights curtailed in order to prevent harm.

Knowing what your elected authority are doing in your name (that's the important bit, they are taking these actions on your behalf with the power you have granted to them) is a completely different thing from being allowed to get away with murder and any comparison between the two is absurd.
 
This is why I want the word "rights" far more controlled, needs to be seperated into human rights and civil liberties too many people think all their rights are under the same thing. Not saying you do Kuma just a mini-rant
 
Yep - because Joe's an individual acting purely on his own behalf and not as a representative of another person or people. I'm not advocating infringement of privacy for all representatives (although a degree of this, such as expenses claimed on behalf of the people being represented, is needed), but we're not talking about individuals. An organisation which claims to act on behalf of a group of people should not be concealing it's actions from those people.

If you choose for me to represent you, you've then got the right to know anything I am doing on your behalf.
 
As is often the case, the answer is in the question. Some things are personal, some aren't.

I couldn't sue someone for divulging personal information about me beating my wife - in my own home dammit!

(I don't have a wife, and I'd be too scared to hit my girlfriend)

Some things are part of public interest. I've a right not to state my political affiliation, but should elected officials have that same right?
 
Assange is only publishing the information provided to him. I fail to see how he is more guilty than the NYT etc etc who have republished the leaks.


That's just the US media working hard to turn him into the bad guy.
 
How is a government official that different from your bank manager? Both are representatives selected by the people they represent to protect your assets. If my bank manager made charges to my account, witheld information on what the charges were for then claimed that releasing that information would be harmful for me then I'd be looking for a new bank and seeking legal advice.

I realise that there's some differences between the two but I think the point of how we view governments as our bosses instead of working for us is important.
 
Ongoing investigations by law enforcement are acting on the behalf of the victims, but the victims are not made aware of everything that is going on so it does not compromise their investigation. Military operations are not shared with everyone else prior to their execution as they want it to be successful.

I cannot think of one single nation that exists today that allows every and any person within that nation full access to everything they say and do. And there's a very good reason for it. Much like you cannot safely secure a building where you let anyone walk in at any time and do whatever they want, you cannot keep your nation safe if you allow every other nation in the world to know exactly what you're doing at all times.
 
Agreed, there has to be a degree of secrecy, but what these leaks have shown is that the US government has been abusing that secrecy. Many of the Iraq war docs showed that the US military was covering up civilian deaths. I realise that many Americans do not give a hoot about Iraqi/Afghan civilians, but that doesn't mean the military or the government have the right to keep that information from the electorate.
 
Wikileaks is a troublesome issue.

How do you quantify a group of unknown agenda throwing diplomatic curveballs whenever it wants to? I like SOME of what wikileaks is, but not other parts (the feeling that is not neutral, but operating to its own agenda). I'd be far more supportive if a wikileaks-esque organisation was part of the UN*.

It's easy to say that politics needs to grow up and stop being about bruised egos and trust issues... But perhaps embarrassing major players is not a mature or safe way of going about this.


*Obviously, this is silly because the UN has no balls, would reveal all its sources and generally be an obsessively neutral imbecile; but I like the principle.
 
I have questions about wikileaks, who there working for and what there angle is and such but your just regurgitating the propaganda, the truth is a danger to the governments and the rich, the only danger to the people is that they might wake up an get a fright.
 
Unless you're the one who gets woken up by a gun because they leak your name by being careless. No one is suprised by anything thats been released I imagine, none of it was news to me anyway, but to say the only people this stuff could ever effect are the evil world leaders is just naiive
 
So I'm a coward because I value someone's life over hearing some crap about what a diplomat called Kim Jong Il? If these leaks exposed something that was seriously seriously in the public interest and would make a difference like America or France or someone selling ballistic missiles to NK then that would be different but its not. Its just a bunch of useless crap that in some cases is seriously endangering peoples lives and for what? What have we got out of these leaks that we can use? what has this done other than embarass the US with stuff that will be water under the bridge in a couple of months at most?
 
I disagree these leeks are the latest in a long line of evidence that show a contempt for true democracy amongst our world leaders
 
Because the public has a huge interest in diplomacy....

Dude how on earth has it shown that? Oh dear someone said Russia is a Mafia state and said some not very nice things about Burlesconi, I say those things all the time. Yes their not exactly operating in a perfect professional capacity but its the sort of stuff that people say and thats ignoring the US superiority complex. So other than being rude about a few world leaders what has it done to show contempt for democracy?

It just looks to me that you like it because it takes a stab at people in power and thats some ultimate achievement.
 
Then so should Woodward and Burnstein.
It is the US government's job to secure it's secrets not the job of reporters to cover up their lapses. The problem with our world is that there are too many secrets not too few. Look at the number of countries that publicly support Iran but privately have urged and American attack. Now if those countries were honest and open in their views, do you not think it would alter Iranian policy without the need for war.
You just have to look at the items on Prince Andrew and his "great game" comments. These people are spending lives for profit and we are footing the bill. This is YOUR money they are spending. All of this comes out of our pockets so the few can line their pockets. Amazingly the number of people who think that Assange is the bad guy for letting us know that our money is being spent in such a dishonest and cavalier fashion.
Before you go spouting the media line just remember that these guys were supposed to be working for us and yet most of the shocking stuff seems to be about things our governments do against our interest.

The Bear.
 
Having worked previously in military intelligence, I can say there are quite a lot of things that aren't shared for very specific reasons. And though we may not feel it is in our own selfish interests, there is most likely a very sound reason why they do what they do. If you don't have all the information, you won't think it is in your own interest, but if you were aware of the entire situation, in most cases your tune would change.
 
But following the investigation, the bits that rely on secrecy, all information is revealed. Why should it be different in military operations unless there's something to be ashamed of?



Granted - but that's no reason to hide information from people after the fact. The people who are affected will know by then anyway - why hide it from the people that it was carried out in the name of?
 
Nobody is interested in blowing covers or revealing informants which in my opinion should be the only stuff that is not revealed.


The Bear.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

G
The best VPN service for 2024
Replies
0
Views
27
Geek
G
G
Indie developers are trying to make horse games that don’t suck. It’s not easy
Replies
0
Views
31
Geek
G
A
Down Under leaders minimize China spilt, urge virus probe
Replies
0
Views
71
admin
A
A
'Suspicious' blackout strikes Iran's Natanz nuclear site
Replies
0
Views
45
admin
A
A
Business faces tricky path navigating post-Trump politics
Replies
0
Views
31
admin
A
Back
Top