Wikileaks? Are you for or against what they are doing?

[Gandalf]

No, I admit openly that some of the documents have no interest to me. For instance, I am not particularly interested in how the diplomatic service works. The previous releases on Afghanistan and Iraq were more significant in highlighting a number of important things in those wars and I think that was useful, but overall I have learned a lot more from alternative media and magazines like Z-magazine. Independant journalists and writers have been doing their jobs, it's just that those people are not writing for mainstream American newspapers.

In terms of the latest releases, I keep repeating that if you have a problem with it then you must also have a problem with the newspapers that worked with Wikileaks too. A lot of so called news is trivial and I think some of these diplomatic releases, though juicy, are trivial. But others would likely disagree with me. I am actually far more interested in seeing the future releases concerning the Bank of America as the economic crisis is something that I am VERY interested in and think that the banks have been trying to cover up a lot. I am hopeful that we will see some light being shined there.

And let's not forget that these leaks are not only about America, these diplomatic releases make a number of countries look a bit bitchy. It is revealing though and has value, but is just not not neccessarily the kind of information that I myself am looking for.

To be fair to me, I am quite an open person so any diplomatic releases about me would already be known. You all know my views and who I am and there is no secrecy in that regard. But to reveal my bank data or passport number is crossing the line, but I don't think we have been told about the bank details of any diplomats. That is clearly not neccessary. But if I had a diary and my wife in one of her rages decided to release it online, then what could I do? I would just have to live with it, but I would have every confidence that it would be an interesting diary, so I wouldn't mind too much in the end.

Assange is what he is and Wikileaks is what it is. I don't think it is the most important outlet in the world, but in a world where the mainstream media continues to dilute itself, I do think that along with credible media outlets that Wikileaks can be very useful. Whistleblowers can turn to Wikileaks who will protect their anonymity and in turn documents can then be vetted along with other journalists and released to the public. They aren't just turning over everything, it is being vetted and that is a crucial point.

Does the fact that I don't find all the information interesting hurt his cause? I don't think so. Like I say, anything that can enlighten us on what the elite are thinking is a good thing, just because I don't have a particular interest in what US diplomats think about Cameron doesn't automatically invalidate its relevance to someone else.

And for sure Assange is not even a whistleblower himself. He is simply someone that provides cover for others with whistles to blow. And other newspapers have been doing the same here, so unless we want to shut down some papers and put away their editors too then we should give Assange a break. The reaction from the US elite and governments around the world has been far over the top. I think their reactions have simply made more people more interested in and aware of Wikileaks. It has been very counterproductive IMO.

Right no more posting! I've been at it for 2 hours. I need lunch and some cricket.

I think you are missing the point completely Miles. You say that we, the people have a right to know when our governments are behaving corruptly. I agree with you.

But you also acknowledge, that in this instance America has not behaved corruptly.

Yet you see no problem to obtain illegally 250,000 cables and publish them online for the world to read, not to reveal corruption, or for the purposes of whistle blowing, but for titillation.

You are in effect arguing that it is fine for any individual to break into any organisation, obtain any documents of any level of sensitivity and publish them online for the world to gawk at. You see no problem with this

It's really rather extraordinary this viewpoint you hold.

The person who stole them took them illegally. If I am working for the government then I am obliged to keep to a confidentiality agreement that I signed up to. Assange has never agreed to keep anything confidential, so I struggle to see why he is at fault. He has never worked for the US government, so has no reason to keep things hushed. That distinction is sigifiicant.

Are we to force journalists to sign a contract with the government and be forced to say only good things about their country? No they SHOULD be (though usually aren't) independant and be seeking the truth. If that means governments are forced to look foolish at times, then so be it.

I honestly have no issues with these releases whatsoever and encourage them to continue. As I say, I am VERY interested in seeing what the Bank of America has to say about what has gone on over the past 3 years or so. We have a right to know what those within corporations who have bankrupted the worlds economy and have been given free money really think. The diplomacy thing is not so much my bag, but the economy is and I want to know what has been going on behind the closed doors.

[El Kabong]

The person who stole them took them illegally. If I am working for the government then I am obliged to keep to a confidentiality agreement that I signed up to. Assange has never agreed to keep anything confidential, so I struggle to see why he is at fault. He has never worked for the US government, so has no reason to keep things hushed. That distinction is sigifiicant.

Are we to force journalists to sign a contract with the government and be forced to say only good things about their country? No they SHOULD be (though usually aren't) independant and be seeking the truth. If that means governments are forced to look foolish at times, then so be it.

I honestly have no issues with these releases whatsoever and encourage them to continue. As I say, I am VERY interested in seeing what the Bank of America has to say about what has gone on over the past 3 years or so. We have a right to know what those within corporations who have bankrupted the worlds economy and have been given free money really think. The diplomacy thing is not so much my bag, but the economy is and I want to know what has been going on behind the closed doors.

No one is saying that investigative reporting (if that even still exists, thank you left wing news media) is bad. However revealing state secrets at a time where we're already at war and certain nations (Iran and North Korea) are amping up their military and in North Korea's case going so far as to deliberately attack South Korea (miles) I don't think that airing dirty laundry that may exacerbate things is a good idea in this political climate. Assange says he wants to end all government....the only way I see that happening is via the mass use of nuclear weapons. Will we be a happy world after that?

[Gandalf]

The person who stole them took them illegally. If I am working for the government then I am obliged to keep to a confidentiality agreement that I signed up to. Assange has never agreed to keep anything confidential, so I struggle to see why he is at fault. He has never worked for the US government, so has no reason to keep things hushed. That distinction is sigifiicant.

Are we to force journalists to sign a contract with the government and be forced to say only good things about their country? No they SHOULD be (though usually aren't) independant and be seeking the truth. If that means governments are forced to look foolish at times, then so be it.

I honestly have no issues with these releases whatsoever and encourage them to continue. As I say, I am VERY interested in seeing what the Bank of America has to say about what has gone on over the past 3 years or so. We have a right to know what those within corporations who have bankrupted the worlds economy and have been given free money really think. The diplomacy thing is not so much my bag, but the economy is and I want to know what has been going on behind the closed doors.

No one is saying that investigative reporting (if that even still exists, thank you left wing news media) is bad. However revealing state secrets at a time where we're already at war and certain nations (Iran and North Korea) are amping up their military and in North Korea's case going so far as to deliberately attack South Korea (miles) I don't think that airing dirty laundry that may exacerbate things is a good idea in this political climate. Assange says he wants to end all government....the only way I see that happening is via the mass use of nuclear weapons. Will we be a happy world after that?

I would argue the complete opposite. Revealing state secrets whilst immoral wars are taking place is extremely neccessary as it continues to reinforce the realisation that terrible acts are being commited and being subsidised by taxpayer money. In fact I want to see more leaks and I want these government acts to be shown for what they are and be known by more people. The US government is currently trying to spin that the war in Afghanistan is going according to plan when in fact nothing could be further from the truth. The number of attacks has increased and the number of US troops killed this year has risen significantly. If we were to only listen to government press releases we would be thinking that economic good times are coming back and that the Afghan war is going swimmingly. All utter tosh. In that regard I think the prior releases about the wars were significant and useful.

Iran is amping up its military because of Wikileaks? Iran has been put on the defensive for a number of years now, Wikileaks simply told them that other nations have a vested interest in seeing them destroyed. I don't think it is a bad thing for people to realise the two faced nature of some of these regimes. They will say in private something far different than what they will tell their own populations or what their own populations actually believe to be true. North Korea is nuts, but they didn't shoot those rockets because of Wikileaks.

Like I say, it would be better for all parties if there was no dirty laundry and if there was more transparency in politics. The very fact that the Iraq war was even allowed to happen and the way the US media blindly drummed up support for it shows that there are huge problems with the existing model. Power centres have pretty much been free to do what they want with no checks or balances. Anything that can influence it the other way is acceptable IMO.

These leaks aren't causing the damage, the damage is already being caused by unnacountable elites with unchecked power.