• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Wikileaks

theprestige said:
What makes receiving state secrets different from receiving stolen goods?

What makes actively soliciting state secrets, explicitly for the purpose of publishing them, different from actively soliciting stolen goods, explicitly for the purpose of selling them?

Do you really think that once Wikileaks comes into possession of a secret, they are totally free of any responsibility regarding its publication? Does responsibility for espionage, unlike responsibility for every other crime in the history of crime, stop at exactly one degree of separation from the act itself? Conspiracy, accessory... meaningless?
Click to expand...

Well the alturnative is that goverments can effectively neutralise people at will by leaking classified information to them.
 
geni said:
I understand the USSR thought like that. It didn't work. I would also tend to regard any goverment using such tactics as ripe for removal.
Click to expand...

Entirely possible. And when the government that replaces it continues to do the exact same things...?

I for one just believe that doing bad things for a good reason is oftentimes a necessity. It's not something that anyone ought to be proud of, but again, a necessity.

geni said:
If thats the case there should be no problem with the govement admiting it does such things.
Click to expand...

Except that admitting what is being done would potentially make the next use of those actions less effective. Also, I would prefer to think that those actions are being taken on my behalf somewhat reluctantly. I think most people would find it difficult to personally engage in that activity; as I implied, I personally would be somewhat reluctant to take certain actions I nonetheless feel are necessary for the good of society. I am in fact grateful to those people willing and able to take those steps. If they prefer to remain anonymous, that is their prerogative.

Also, I am under no illusion that my opinions on this matter are popular, let alone in the majority. In a reasonably democratic society, certain unpopular actions may need to be concealed. It's when a society becomes so undemocratic that those same actions can be performed openly, that the society needs to be reformed.
 
Poop happens.

Assange reminds me of the oil spill, in some ways.
More in a good way, though.

Our political system is barely in charge.
They get their power from the non-elected.
 
theprestige said:
What makes receiving state secrets different from receiving stolen goods?
Click to expand...

The law.

What makes actively soliciting state secrets, explicitly for the purpose of publishing them, different from actively soliciting stolen goods, explicitly for the purpose of selling them?
Click to expand...

The law.


Do you really think that once Wikileaks comes into possession of a secret, they are totally free of any responsibility regarding its publication?
Click to expand...

Nope. They're still subject to the law and can be punished appropriately for things like libel/slander.

Does responsibility for espionage, unlike responsibility for every other crime in the history of crime, stop at exactly one degree of separation from the act itself?
Click to expand...

In the case of publication, yes.

This has been well-established internationally in the commercial realm in terms of trade secrecy as well. You and another party cannot make an agreement that binds another person without his/her consent. In the case of a foreign national not subject to the jurisdiction of a nation-state, that nation-state can't bind them in any way whatsoever. As a citizen of Florin, I have no responsibility whatsoever to the kingdom of Guilder, and if Guilder has secrets it wants to keep, keeping them is its own responsibility.
 
Hmmm...nope. I don't participate in, support, or laud the dissemination of classified US military documents. If that makes me some kind of evil nationalist, so be it.
 
Checkmite said:
Hmmm...nope. I don't participate in, support, or laud the dissemination of classified US military documents. If that makes me some kind of evil nationalist, so be it.
Click to expand...

That's cool.

My perspective might be warped.
The U.S. hasn't been in a good war for decades.
Leaked documents could have saved a lot of lives, in many of our silly, violent, and expensive escapades.
 
theprestige said:
It's vigilantism, pure and simple.

I already have a system for deciding when and how to release government information in the national interest. It's called Government. It's not a perfect system, but it does have the advantage of including elected and appointed officials, judicial review, and the consent of the governed.

Maybe Assange thinks he has a better system, but I don't recall electing him. I don't recall any of my elected representatives appointing him. I don't believe he's answerable to the intelligence oversight committee, or the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff of the armed forces, or any other organization I have established and empowered to oversee national security and state secrets.

That said, if he believes that it's worth becoming an outlaw--with all the consequences of that decision--to reveal this information, then I wholeheartedly encourage him to step up and do the right thing. Reveal the information, and accept the consequences. And I sincerely hope he's right.

But I don't assume he's right just because he's donned the sacred ZOMGWHISTLEBLOWER mantle. And I don't see why my hand shouldn't be against him, if he insists on unilaterally crowning himself World Czar of State Secrets.
Click to expand...

theprestige, when did he crown himself "World Czar of State Secrets"? It is my understanding that Julian Assange simply runs a service by which other people can release information that they think should be made public while staying anonymous. If the information is verified by the Wikileaks advisory panel, then it is released.

Kevin_Lowe said:
The people who sent him documents to leak empowered him. Take it up with them if it chaps your backside.

Assange is just doing what good journalists do when they are privy to a story.
Click to expand...

Yes! Exactly this ^^!

drkitten said:
His system isn't any more totalitarian than the New York Post or Penguin Books. He's a journalist; he is presented with material, and he chooses what he wants to publish.

If you don't like that he publishes factual material brought to him that makes your country look bad, I have two suggestions for you.

* Prevent people from bringing material to him
* Stop doing things that will make your country look bad when people who disapprove of those things bring them to him
Click to expand...

And this ^^!

theprestige said:
What makes receiving state secrets different from receiving stolen goods?

What makes actively soliciting state secrets, explicitly for the purpose of publishing them, different from actively soliciting stolen goods, explicitly for the purpose of selling them?

Do you really think that once Wikileaks comes into possession of a secret, they are totally free of any responsibility regarding its publication? Does responsibility for espionage, unlike responsibility for every other crime in the history of crime, stop at exactly one degree of separation from the act itself? Conspiracy, accessory... meaningless?

Or do you support Kevin Lowe's implication above, that once one claims to be a journalist, one is automatically above all laws?
Click to expand...

Apparently Swedish law is different to US law.
 
There's an interview with Assange on Aus TV tonight, dunno if you foreigners will be able to watch the online video or not but you'll at least be able to red the transcript. Here's the link ewither way, should be up within 24 hours

And so a group of one-time hackers and activists are trying to build a global truth machine.

They call it Wikileaks.

“We want to create a system where there is guaranteed free press across the world, the entire world..... that every individual in the world has the ability to publish material that is meaningful”.
JULIAN ASSANGE – FOUNDER WIKILEAKS

A hesitant, quietly spoken Australian named Julian Assange has become the global face of a nebulous operation with secret computer servers in a number of countries and aspirations to build an information freedom zone – the leaker’s equivalent of a tax haven – in, where else – Iceland.


http://www.abc.net.au/foreign/content/2010/s2929883.htm
 
I'm all about it. When is transparency in government a bad thing? Who disagrees with that?
 
Yalius said:
Call me authoritarian, but Wikileaks does a hell of a lot more harm than good.

Governments are supposed to do the dirty little deeds that most people wouldn't. You can't have a functioning, effective government or society without taking some morally or ethically dubious actions. Any government that plays completely by the rules and doesn't get its hands dirty at all, is not long for this earth.

Were it up to me, I'd have Assange whacked, and the next guy that creates a site like Wikileaks, and so on and so forth. Eventually, people will learn that certain things should remain secret.
Click to expand...

You are entirely correct. That would be the rational thing to do if you were the state.

Which is why no moral human being should support the continued existence of government or the state. Clearly, it just an avenue through which sociopaths exercise their cruel designs upon the rest of us. It is Evil with a capital E, next to which private criminal evil seems utterly insignificant by comparison.

Why can no one see it?
 
Last edited:
Yalius said:
Call me authoritarian, but Wikileaks does a hell of a lot more harm than good.

Governments are supposed to do the dirty little deeds that most people wouldn't. You can't have a functioning, effective government or society without taking some morally or ethically dubious actions. Any government that plays completely by the rules and doesn't get its hands dirty at all, is not long for this earth.

Were it up to me, I'd have Assange whacked, and the next guy that creates a site like Wikileaks, and so on and so forth. Eventually, people will learn that certain things should remain secret.
Click to expand...

In the same idea, about how not everything is good for the people to know:

http://www.logicallycritical.net/podcast/04 Don_t Be Afraid...Don_t Be Very Afraid.mp3

I agree with him in a way, if people knew half of the things governments know, there'd be alot of panic, and the mob can't handle panic. Transparency is a good thing, but too much of it would be detrimental also.
 
How is this guy any worse than the guy who released Pentagon Papers?
 
Yalius said:
Call me authoritarian, but Wikileaks does a hell of a lot more harm than good.

Governments are supposed to do the dirty little deeds that most people wouldn't. You can't have a functioning, effective government or society without taking some morally or ethically dubious actions. Any government that plays completely by the rules and doesn't get its hands dirty at all, is not long for this earth.

Were it up to me, I'd have Assange whacked, and the next guy that creates a site like Wikileaks, and so on and so forth. Eventually, people will learn that certain things should remain secret.
Click to expand...

Why can you not see that you are giving your government carte blanche to do whatever they want, to whomever they want, with no accountability whatsoever? Sorry, but if you cannot see what is wrong with that, you´re sick.
 
Last edited:
I ask again, how is this guy any worse than the guy who released The Pentagon Papers?
 
Pardalis said:
In the same idea, about how not everything is good for the people to know:

http://www.logicallycritical.net/podcast/04 Don_t Be Afraid...Don_t Be Very Afraid.mp3

I agree with him in a way, if people knew half of the things governments know, there'd be alot of panic, and the mob can't handle panic. Transparency is a good thing, but too much of it would be detrimental also.
Click to expand...

The problem is that we agree on some general "public panic" but we, as individuals, would want to know. Because, as individuals, we would say, "Well, I can handle it." As a skeptic, I think it is less than correct to operate under fictional premises. I think it not only insults us as humans, but just leads to further mistakes down the road. No matter how terrible the truth may be, we need to face it or suffer error by reacting in an environment of pleasant illusion.

Should I tell my nephew that Santa isn't real? I know he will be disappointed and will suffer for it. But the lie demands repair. It is the original lie that causes the problem and governmental lies just breed more of the same. Give me the truth and let me suffer the momentary fear in the hope of long-term resolution. Don't deny me the facts to protect some misconception.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom