Wikileaks (17 Viewers)

Brandmon

Juventuz irregular
Aug 13, 2008
1,406
But you seem to be loosely basing this difference on the notion that government transparency must be absolute. If that's the case, the name of every anti-terrorist operative would be public domain and they would all be killed in a heartbeat with their covers compromised.

My point of using personal data with Zé T was to show that not everything needs to be, nor should be, public knowledge. And the rules for violating that may not be concrete, but they do cross a sense of legality by any nature of the word.
Agreed that absolute transparency is not practical and shouldn't be sought. Yet absolute secrecy is as bad, if not worse, in a modern democracy.

Ideally, what should be hidden, like the national defence information, the codes for the Nuclear football, espionage details and so on, should remain hidden.

Yet what should be revealed, especially the results of military actions, should be revealed and in a truthful manner; i.e. not replacing "100 Civilians killed" to "100 Militants killed" for the sake of good PR.

I am in the impression that Wikileaks have much concerning the former, yet I have yet to find solid evidence that any information Wikileaks released so far got anyone killed. So far the fuss has been more about what could be released rather about what has been released so far.
 

Buy on AliExpress.com

Raz

Senior Member
Nov 20, 2005
12,218
The US reputation.
Let's say that is true and that their reputation wasn't taited before, what will happen then? What will be the difference in a few years after? What will it change in the end, people will live better or worse?

I think even if it was CIA cables not diplomacy nothing would have changed eather, just more tightening of control from the goverment.
 

Dostoevsky

Tzu
Administrator
May 27, 2007
88,443
Let's say that is true and that their reputation wasn't taited before, what will happen then? What will be the difference in a few years after? What will it change in the end, people will live better or worse?

I think even if it was CIA cables not diplomacy nothing would have changed eather, just more tightening of control from the goverment.
Things can change. The US will be threated differently worldwide.

You simply can't say there won't be anything new now when they are showing bullshit that they were trying to hide.

There's a reason why Hillary is taking pills.
 

Raz

Senior Member
Nov 20, 2005
12,218
I hope you are right, but I wouldn't put much on this change. Give it time and it will be all back to normal with goverments still fucking us regular people without much effort.

I would realy like to believe that things can chage, but sadly I can't see that happening.
 

Eddy

The Maestro
Aug 20, 2005
12,644
I hope you are right, but I wouldn't put much on this change. Give it time and it will be all back to normal with goverments still fucking us regular people without much effort.

I would realy like to believe that things can chage, but sadly I can't see that happening.
It is only the beginning.
 

Salvo

J
Moderator
Dec 17, 2007
61,285
This is fucked up, a wikileak video.

They will end up jailing Assange, they cant kill him it will be far to suspicious.
 

Eddy

The Maestro
Aug 20, 2005
12,644
Julian Assange should be awarded Nobel peace prize, suggests Russia

Russia has suggested that Julian Assange should be awarded the Nobel peace prize, in an unexpected show of support from Moscow for the jailed WikiLeaks founder.

In what appears to be a calculated dig at the US, the Kremlin urged non-governmental organisations to think seriously about "nominating Assange as a Nobel Prize laureate".

"Public and non-governmental organisations should think of how to help him," the source from inside president Dmitry Medvedev's office told Russian news agencies. Speaking in Brussels, where Medvedev was attending a Russia-EU summit yesterday , the source went on: "Maybe, nominate him as a Nobel Prize laureate."

Russia's reflexively suspicious leadership appears to have come round to WikiLeaks, having decided that the ongoing torrent of disclosures are ultimately far more damaging and disastrous to America's long-term geopolitical interests than they are to Russia's.

The Kremlin's initial reaction to stories dubbing Russia a corrupt "mafia state" and kleptocracy was, predictably, negative. Last week Medvedev's spokesman dubbed the revelations "not worthy of comment" while Putin raged that a US diplomatic cable comparing him to Batman and Medvedev to Robin was "arrogant" and "unethical". State TV ignored the claims.

Subsequent disclosures, however, that Nato had secretly prepared a plan in case Russia invaded its Baltic neighbours have left the Kremlin smarting. Today Russia's foreign minister Sergei Lavrov said Nato had to explain why it privately considered Russia an enemy while publicly describing it warmly as a "strategic partner" and ally.

Nato should make clear its position on WikiLeaks cables published by the Guardian alleging that the alliance had devised plans to defend Poland, Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia against Russia, Lavrov said.

"With one hand, Nato seeks agreement with us on joint partnership, and with the other, it makes a decision that it needs to defend. So when is Nato more sincere?" Lavrov asked today. "We have asked these questions and are expecting answers to them. We think we are entitled to that."

Lavrov said his attitude towards the leaked US state department cables was "philosophical". "It is interesting to read, including what ambassadors write to provide a stream of information to their capitals," he admitted.

Dmitry Rogozin, Russia's hardline ultra-nationalist ambassador to Nato, also today voiced his support for the embattled Assange. He tweeted that Assange's arrest and incarceration on Monday at the City of Westminster magistrates' court demonstrated that there was "no media freedom" in the west. Assange's "fate" amounted to "political persecution" and a lack of human rights, the ambassador said.

In London, meanwhile, Russia's chargé d'affaires and acting ambassador in the UK, Alexander Sternik, said relations with Britain had improved since the coalition came to power. He complained, however, about the hostile reaction in the British media after Fifa's executive committee voted that Russia – and not England – should host the 2018 World Cup.

In a briefing to journalists this morning, Sternik said: "While the English bid was technically a strong one, the Russian bid was in line with the well-known Fifa philosophy of opening new frontiers for world football. The vote result was therefore quite logical, and while the disappointment of many in England is understandable, the media outrage was a step too far. It's not cricket, as the English say."
 

Martin

Senior Member
Dec 31, 2000
56,913
While I'm convinced they're just trolling I think it's a good idea. Nobel prizes get thrown around a lot recently, but it's good to highlight how exposing crooked back room dealings can force governments to play more honest and prevent conflicts.
 

Martin

Senior Member
Dec 31, 2000
56,913
To be convinced requires having facts, which you don't, based on that article. So it's only assumption.
You're right, I'm not convinced, I just think that's the most likely explanation. Thanks for having my back and making sure I never say anything inaccurate from now on. :D
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 17)