What are your views on the whole business with wikileaks? Is the organization an insane terrorist group trying to spread anarchy through the western world? Or is it just giving the people the information they deserve? I'm not quite sure what to think of the whole business , but the whole 'calling its members terrorists' gets a bit on my nerves, as they haven't done anything (concerning wikileaks) illegal yet.
- I don't like Julian Assange. He is not doing this for a noble reason, he just wants to watch the U.S. burn. - I find the fact that Wikileaks release sensitive information which can very easily lead to deaths of many innocent people disturbing. All of the big leaks could have been done with limited censorship and the quality of the information as a whole would not suffer a single bit. But at the end of the day despite my personal opinion on Julian Assange (which is irrelevant) and the very troublesome fact that (especially with earlier leaks on Afghanistan and Iraq) people might be put in harms way I have to support Wikileaks. The charged against him in Sweeden are laughable. Of course I can't gurantee that he is innocent but it is blindingly obvious that they are lead with the agenda to harm Wikileaks.
If there is information that can save lives by being confidential, then keep it confidential. Yeah, the average man doesn't know the entire goings on with our government, but that's ok sometimes. I'd rather not know and be alive than know and be risking my life.
@imjorman: It's not the lives of the U.S. public that are endangered. It's people like Afghan and Iraqi people collaborating with the U.S. troops or the troops themselves.
I like Julian Assange. Not only does his last name sound to me like a fusion of orange and sausage, he looks smexy when viewed at the right angle. Although his intentions might be ***gotry, I like how he is spreading information to the common people. If people are to be united and live as a species (peacefully), such information should be given out. It is like waving your hand as a peaceful greeting (to show that you are unarmed, etc.) Although, I also partially agree w/ the fact that we should not endanger lives over this. There has to be a better way for the Government to handle this incident, and perhaps make it turn for the better for them.
@higgs I'd still keep my viewpoint - endagerment of any lives because of the release of these documents is enough to keep them confidential.
@imjorman, On the other hand, how would the person who did the thing that endangers people if it becomes widely known by punished if no one knows?
There is obvious documentation of these crimes (i.e. the documents/videos being released), those who have access to these files I would hope review this material anyway and make criminal charges as necessary. Opening files for public viewing isn't going to make prosecution of anything any better. Yeah stuff like Kenya massacre, etc. needs released (very similar to the Nazi regime in the 1940's), but military (of any country) files IMO should be kept private and those matters should be dealt with within the institution. Anything that can protect the lives of people with its confidentiality, imo, should be kept confidential. I think putting people on trial is great (and absolutely needs done), but you don't have to release every detail of the crime including videos that threaten civilian security. Note: there might be obvious rhetorical flaws in my logic, I apologize. I'm on my way out the door and justwanted to post a quick note. I'll come back and edit for clarity/rhetorical thought later cheers.
"but military (of any country) files IMO should be kept private" No. If the military carries out attrocities such as murdering journalists people have the moral responsibility to expose them. I am not asking anyone to allow passing out nuclear codes or even revealing positions of safe houses (which happened during the Afghan leaks) but if putting few people in slightly higher danger in order to achieve fixing foreign policy that will save thousands I believe that it is the moral thing to do.
This I can agree with; it seems we need (and the editors of wikileaks) need to determine wether the information released will save more lives or cost more lives. Collateral damage is an exceptable term to use, I guess. Maximum amount of lives saved it what I'm looking for, ultimately. If keeping documents confidential protects the lives of thousands and only helps protect a few individuals: keep them confidential. However, if documents screw a couple people but will protect multiple thousands, thenrelease them. All of that statement, however, presupposes that once the documents are released that proper measures will be taken to fix foregein policy/bring criminals to justice. If that doesn't happen, then we're justwasting time/resources/and people's security.
Im half an half on this issue. For one, i kinda appluad him for showing the dark hand shakes of govt, but i also dissaprove of how he is going about it. To be honest, im surprised that he has not been snatched up by one of the countries that was in his last leak.
I'm only opposed to the military documentation that endangers coalition/afghani lives. However the extent of the military damage/lives endangered by these leaks has been overstated by some media groups/political groups. I doubt most of what was released is news to most countries, i'm sure alot don't want to admit they already knew it haha. I'd be more interested in corporate leaks though as that could actually make a real difference if say the bank of america was continuing illegal activites from the GFC or just simply we get to look into the mind of their executives. @Gforce Well they have got him locked up in britain so I assume that means the CIA got to him first.
Okay, Palin likening him to Bin Laden and Huckabee demanding the death penalty for him are both so ridiculously over the top that I can't help but lose every ounce of trust in the objectivity of the American government.
