RWTK: Wikileaks, Assange etc. Right? Wrong?

[Rocky]

So the majority of people I speak to believe that Assange is some white knight, bringing truth, transparency and freedom of speech to the people.

It's very interesting to hear the different points of view.

Whilst I acknowledge the importance of honesty, there is a very strong argument against what he has done. If there is someone out there that believes that other countries (referring to the countries that were the subject of the cables) do not have the exact same, if not worse 'private' conversations/opinions/discussions behind closed doors, you are sorely mistaken.

A degree of secrecy is necessary for a country's security, and it's ability to maintain strong relationships. If you don't believe it is, it may be an idea to read a bit about international relations, World Wars, and national/international policy.

It's all well and good to decide he's a great chap, challenging the 'imperialism' with his digital pitchfork, but how many friends would change their opinion of you if they knew everything you've ever said about them. That goes for family members too. That cousin that you think is a wonderful person but is hopelessly overweight? That Aunt that is a little bit crazy and smells like old milk? I know it is a different context, as these people are not responsible for maintaining social constructs, fairness, principles yadda yadda, but surely this makes it even more apposite.

Anyway, love to hear what you think.

Also...



He doesn't look like a rapist
oh wait

[aaargh1]

i think that exposing govt mistruths and coverups kind of like Erin Brockovich style is a good thing, but some things unfortunately are best left to the experts.


all I want him to do is to proove that there is aliens



I do not think he will be a hero for too much longer though. Unfortunately he will become a "legend" and we will be discussing the conspiricy of his death soon.

[Professor Redfern]

there is alrady a thread.

Wikileaks Website shut down, accusations of rape, and now Spy charges.

[Magilla]

On this topic, I do find it hard to think past "gee, I'd love to watch the USA burn to the ground". Therefore, don't expect this post to be overly objective. That now said:

I don't think that the opening of Iraq/Afghan war documents is all that helpful, apart from pointing out human rights abuses, which is important.

What people need in general is more information/less secrecy concerning what their own governments are doing. ACTA is a good example of law being formulated behind closed doors - something that should never happen. Conroys Great Firewall of Australia is a good example of attempted government control and restriction with no review process.

The provision of a platform where information can be made openly available is an important service to humanity, however, I don't really think that what's being put on it at the moment is the stuff that will affect change for the better.

[Mutiny!]

He has a political agenda. When you tell one side of the truth it counts as a lie in my book so, for me, he is not exposing the truth.

He fucked it up from the start, by carrying on about the evils of US foreign policy he lost all credibility as an objective facilitator for the release of information.

If he came accross secret files detailing a credible and convincing (if ultimately false) case of George W Bush believing Saddam had WMDs, would he release it with as much glee as data to the contrary? I have cause to doubt he would. That, for me, invalidates any claim of a goal of openness and accountability. He has lost the moral highground which, in the end, was his only defence.

I hope Wikileaks survives and goes on to become the safe and anonymous whistleblowing facility that it should be. At the moment that is not what it is. I think Assange will get fucked.

[Barfridge]

Mutiny: so you're willing to ignore hard fact due to the lack of opposing material? That's fanciful wishful thinking on your part, the world just isn't balanced like that, no matter how you wish it to be.

Countries are not in danger, politicians are. People have forgotten the distinction between the two. A country is it's people, politicians are of the people, elected by the people and responsible to the people. But somehow a ruling class has developed, supported by big business, and democracy ain't what it used to be.

[Mutiny!]

Mutiny: so you're willing to ignore hard fact due to the lack of opposing material? That's fanciful wishful thinking on your part, the world just isn't balanced like that, no matter how you wish it to be.

Countries are not in danger, politicians are. People have forgotten the distinction between the two. A country is it's people, politicians are of the people, elected by the people and responsible to the people. But somehow a ruling class has developed, supported by big business, and democracy ain't what it used to be.

Imagine a scientist who only recorded results agreeing with his hypothesis. He is not making things up - in each case the event in question actually happened - but his conclusions are not valid.

I'm not saying the information should be ignored, I'm saying that it cannot be trusted. Take something out of context or in isolation and you can make it mean whatever you want. I can't prove that is what has been done, but I do not trust, based on statements by Assange himelf, that he would not only release that part of the 'truth' that supports his world view.

[Barfridge]

The other side of the story is already out there, Fox news etc have been spoonfeeding it to us since the 80's.

Neither side subscribes to the scientific method, but wouldn't that be nice if they did.

[Mutiny!]

The liberal equivalent of the conservative Fox news is MSNBC, they just aren't as good at it. Wikileaks is something altogether different.

I'm not talking about some idealistic world where everyone tells the truth and it is all "fair and balanced". As an information source It fatally damages its cause if it can be seen to be favouring one 'side' over another. It becomes just as bad as Fox news, just in a different way, in that context the release of these documents is indefensible.

If it was just an information publishing service that gave cover to whistleblowers of all persuasions, with no political agenda of its own, I believe it would do massive public service in revealing the evils of, for example, the Bush administration wrt the war in Iraq. As a partisan propaganda unit it is annoying, embarrasing and, ultimately, without credibility.

[Tannhauser]

On one hand, it's exposed war crimes and atrocities committed by Coalition forces against civilians.

On the other hand, the guy's a douche.

I don't know.

[alih]

+1 Rocky

I think it's wreckless and the main thing it has achieved is the worlds diplomats / politicians are going to be to busy spending the next few years smoothing over relations with other countries, people etc. and not actually achieving any progress in other areas like foreign trade and healing their countries from the GFC etc.

People like that inadvertently start wars. For example north and south Korea have been on the verge for a long time and I don't think it will take a lot to set one of them off. You can't rely on all people being thick skinned and moving on.

My 2c

[fatoxious]

i've been a little off the planet lately due to a family issue, and somehow managed to miss all of this. having recently returned to the land of light i found this by one of my favorite authors: Hitchens on Slate
as he generally does, makes a decent (slightly self indulgent) read.
from what i gather though, wasn't all of the documentation obtained legally? through the freedom of speech acts?

and in the immortal words of V for Vendetta People shouldn't be afraid of their governments. Governments, should be afraid of their people
i feel that if politicians are aware that people are scrutinising their work that little bit more closely (or having someone do it publicly, like this) then perhaps there is the vain hope that it could alter the way diplomacy is carried out; for the better.

[D'Artagnan]

1) Need to separate 'he' from 'wikileaks'. The man maketh not the machine...
2) Shoot the leak, not the messenger.
3) If 'leaking' is an act of terrorism, then GW Bush (and most other politicians) needs to be tried as they all do it even contravening their own laws.
4) Hit refresh

wasn't all of the documentation obtained legally? through the freedom of speech acts?

No. A US Intelligence Officer is being investigated.

[Professor Redfern]

It becomes just as bad as Fox news, just in a different way, in that context the release of these documents is indefensible.

Ummm..... Have you ever watched an episode of the Glen Beck show? to think for a second that any one sided or selective release of documents by Assange could be as bad or harmful to the human population as Becks opinions and dribble is a joke.


Beck should be hung drawn and fucked with a shovel becuase he is single handedly taking most of the american population back to the dark ages of human evolution.

[Dragunov-21]

Beck should be hung drawn and fucked with a shovel

Hypocrite

[thro]

If the government didn't want the info out there, they would have made it secure.

[dr00]

id help him out in any way i could if i knew how. there are many reasons i think it is important to allow wikileaks to do what it does. i went to sachsenhausen concentration camp yesterday and a communist museum in prague the other day. we forget too easily how cruel human beings can be if we dont viciously protect every little infringement of our rights.