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

[Kev]

Some of you people are out of your minds. You are seriously suggesting that Michael Moore and Julian Assange should be assasinated? Assasinated for what? For providing us with evidence that the US elite is as corrupt and immoral as I have been arguing for years. You don't like the truth, it's too much for you to handle? So it is perfectly acceptable to start a war based on deceit, but not okay to reveal a few home truths about the dishonest nature of that war? Bush gets a pass, but we want Assange to be put out by a sniper? One man is responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands and Assange is likely responsible for the death of noone.

So in calling for the assasination of Assange then you are obviously advocating the assasination of anyone at the New York Times and The Guardian who were also involved in the vetting process of these documents. How about then assasinating anyone who then goes on to read these said documents. Get a grip. We need checks on unlimited power. Our governments do not listen. We need alternative means of reigning them and the corporate elite in and Wikileaks has been doing that. We should be proud of the work Assange has been doing and should be highly critical of our governments. And rightly so.

And Lyle US party politics is irrelevant to this debate. The only reason that the Republicans have come back is because Obama is a fraud. He has always been a corporate shill whence no public option for health care, huge bail outs for the financial sector, expansion of the war and a watered down financial reform bill. People are dissapointed and their jobs haven't come back, but the only alternative are the Republicans. It will get much worse if they get into power. There is no voting alternative for the American people. You either vote for this party of big business or that one. There is no party looking out for ordinary people.

To be clear, I have not suggested he should be assassinated. I agree with you that would be a gross abuse of power, and would likely make a martyr of him anyway.

But he's no hero. His last 250,000 cables don't reveal any corruption, just 250,000 breaches of trust and theft of personal and confiential documents.

He is a menace to world peace with his irresponsible meddling.

Nonsense, the people who bang the drums for phoney wars are the threats to world peace. The release of data showing corruption and abuses of power in those illegal and immoral wars is a healthy thing. We need more Wikileaks and maybe we won't even be going to war in the first place.

And I certainly do not regard Assange as a hero. I don't know the man, but I do think is articulate and presents his views well. I appreciate the role that he has played in recent years and I would like him to continue doing what he is doing. He is simply doing what the gutted out media has failed to do and in particular I blame the US media. These places have been gutted and good investigative journalism just doesn't seem to exist anymore whence the apathy of the general public concerning what are really significant global events.

Assange does NO investigation though! All he does is go into a house, catalogue all the contents and then put it up on the internet for all to see, irrespective of what the public interest is or whether any crime has been committed.

It's completely unethical.

Actually, I don't disapprove of all the Wikileaks revelations. I thought the video showing the US helicopter crew gunning down a crowd of innocent civilians was in the public interest. It's not that I disaprove of certain crimes or potential coverups being exposed.

But Assange is not doing that. He's just putting everything up on the internet wheter relevant or criminal or not.

How does it serve the public interest in any way (or improve diplomatic relations between countries) for him to reveal that one diplomat thinks one nation's president is a joke?

One particular cable that really annoyed me was the disclosure of certain 'critical sites', designated by America as being crucial to their national security. Many of these sites were not in the US, and were civilian infrastructures.

How is revealing that in any way helpful to peace? How does it serve the public interest? How can you not see the recklessness of such actions in an age of global terrorism. Would you, for example now want to be a worker at the snake anti venom laboratory in Australia, now it's been identified as a critical US infrastructure? Would you not be pretty pissed off at Assange for identifying your place of work as an ideal location for a terror attack?

There is no moral basis for releasing such information, and Assange is just endangering the lives of ordinary people around the world with such reckless disclosures.

He absolutely needs to be stopped imo.

Investigative journalism means to find out the facts about an event. To reveal something that was hitherto unknown. To move beyond merely parroting what the Pentagon is telling you. Sure, Assange is not doing traditional investigative journalism, but his organisation is gaining access to the facts. Wikileaks has sources who provide the information and the information is then vetted and revealed to the public. The recent releases were vetted along with generally respected newspaper publications. There is nothing unethical about this behaviour.

There is absolutely no reason for him to be stopped. Without Wikileaks we will simply have power continuing to act unchecked and have further threats to global peace commited by the leading proponents of state sponsored terrorism.

Here's a few reasons why he should be stopped
1. These leaks are a threat to National security

2. These leaks were state secrets obtained illegally and are therefore to be considered espionage

3. These leaks were released to cause malicious effects and therefore doing so would be considered a form of terrorism and anyone who helped him gain access to such information that is a US citizen should be held for treason

...shall I continue?

1. Which ones?

2. Assange is simply the messenger here. You don't shoot the messenger, he didn't steal anything.

3. Going to war on the pretext of lies was extremely malicious and has has been descibed by some as illegal and against international law. Perhaps we should try Bush for war crimes.

He paid Bradley Manning for the documents. Well more accurately he promised to support him financially to the tune of tens of thousands of dollars for the best legal representation and to provide him with the best defence.

But he failed to deliver on his promise. Despite appealing for and receiving donations for Bradley Manning, he didn't hand them over.

Also he has refused to provide finanical details of his funding. It seems everybody's secrets are fair game but Assange's own.

That's your man of principle right there.

[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.

[Kev]

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.

[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.

[El Kabong]

Your ravings about elites and unchecked power just leads me to believe that no matter the cost you consider America a great evil and you want it brought down to size.

I merely state that before you put all your eggs in that basket you consider the alternative to what we have today. Consider Nazi or Soviet rule, Communism and Socialism may be terms you agree to on paper but once again in the real world those forms of government bring nothing good to the table and the elites of those societies are hypocrites of the highest order and corrupt to boot.

These leaks can cause trouble, what happens if he leaks something that draws a military response from a nation like Iran or North Korea. And don't give me that "Iran has had to build its army to make sure its safe" bullcrap, they want Israel off the map, they've said as much and with no leaks needed

[Kev]

Your ravings about elites and unchecked power just leads me to believe that no matter the cost you consider America a great evil and you want it brought down to size.

I merely state that before you put all your eggs in that basket you consider the alternative to what we have today. Consider Nazi or Soviet rule, Communism and Socialism may be terms you agree to on paper but once again in the real world those forms of government bring nothing good to the table and the elites of those societies are hypocrites of the highest order and corrupt to boot.

These leaks can cause trouble, what happens if he leaks something that draws a military response from a nation like Iran or North Korea. And don't give me that "Iran has had to build its army to make sure its safe" bullcrap, they want Israel off the map, they've said as much and with no leaks needed

The way Miles talks about Iran you would think they are the utopian model for peaceful democratic government.

Every other nation in the Arab world is a tinpot dictatorship, Israel are Satan's own spawn. America is the biggest threat to world peace, Britain is it's lapdog.

It seems that Iran leads the world on human rights issues and is the only peaceful and family friendly nation in the world today.

Let's just have another quick look at their avuncular, almost saintly leader.

[Gandalf]

Your ravings about elites and unchecked power just leads me to believe that no matter the cost you consider America a great evil and you want it brought down to size.

I merely state that before you put all your eggs in that basket you consider the alternative to what we have today. Consider Nazi or Soviet rule, Communism and Socialism may be terms you agree to on paper but once again in the real world those forms of government bring nothing good to the table and the elites of those societies are hypocrites of the highest order and corrupt to boot.

These leaks can cause trouble, what happens if he leaks something that draws a military response from a nation like Iran or North Korea. And don't give me that "Iran has had to build its army to make sure its safe" bullcrap, they want Israel off the map, they've said as much and with no leaks needed

I am suspicious of any form of concentrated power. I become extremely suspicious when nations attack other nations without consideration of the legal and moral ramifications. I become even more suspicious when that nation decides to go after an individual who has done nothing more than show some of the dirty linen. So on that basis I think it would do the world a great deal of good to see America cut down to size, to at least force it to become a more reflective and responsible superpower.

I do consider the alternatives. I look at China and am appalled by how they treat dissidents. I am appalled by the lack of basic rights and freedoms, but at the same time I look at the West and am appalled at all the corporations that have gone to China to take advantage of cheap labour. The west has made China what it is and so ultimately we are responsible for that political system. How can we judge them when we were so quick to buy their cheaply made products? In fact I look at America as a state that is rapidly beginning to take on the qualities of a fascist state. Not quite what the Nazi's had, but the way the media colluded to build up the need for war in Iraq was blatant propaganda, the way the government works for the interests of large corporations rather than the general population, the ridiculous homeland security expansion. Freedoms are being stripped away and freedom of thought is being clamped down upon. Anyone who disagrees is either a terrorist or dare I say it a socialist!

Communism and socialism are very nice words on paper, but in practice communism doesn't work. Socialism on the other hand can be and is very successful. Of course Friedman style economists would disagree, but I don't see how you can argue against the benefits of nationalised utilities and public transportation, universal healthcare and a sufficient welfare state. These are not only good things on paper, but the types of things that responsible and reflective states provide to their citizens and they do the world over. Most countries that have been forced to accept Friedman style economic policies have ultimately rejected them. Freemarket capitalism is what has failed and you are seeing it right now in America.

Iran and North Korea are extremely small fish at the end of the day. The biggest threat to world peace is America, so just maybe America should clean itself up and stop being such a bully. Your nation is responsible for the murder of how many people on this planet and you are concerned about what a number of released files might do to provoke a response from Iran and North Korea? Has Iran gone and invaded Israel? Has North Korea gone and invaded the south? And how many people have these released documents killed? A whole lot of shoulda/woulda's, but no actual substance.

[Gandalf]

Your ravings about elites and unchecked power just leads me to believe that no matter the cost you consider America a great evil and you want it brought down to size.

I merely state that before you put all your eggs in that basket you consider the alternative to what we have today. Consider Nazi or Soviet rule, Communism and Socialism may be terms you agree to on paper but once again in the real world those forms of government bring nothing good to the table and the elites of those societies are hypocrites of the highest order and corrupt to boot.

These leaks can cause trouble, what happens if he leaks something that draws a military response from a nation like Iran or North Korea. And don't give me that "Iran has had to build its army to make sure its safe" bullcrap, they want Israel off the map, they've said as much and with no leaks needed

The way Miles talks about Iran you would think they are the utopian model for peaceful democratic government.

Every other nation in the Arab world is a tinpot dictatorship, Israel are Satan's own spawn. America is the biggest threat to world peace, Britain is it's lapdog.

It seems that Iran leads the world on human rights issues and is the only peaceful and family friendly nation in the world today.

Let's just have another quick look at their avuncular, almost saintly leader.

Not at all, Bilbo. Iran is another example of unhealthy concentration of power in the hands of an elite that is not responsive to the will of the general population. Sound familiar? I will not defend the regime.

And only Israel has moved beyond the rhetoric in recent years, Bilbo....not Iran.

[Kev]

Your ravings about elites and unchecked power just leads me to believe that no matter the cost you consider America a great evil and you want it brought down to size.

I merely state that before you put all your eggs in that basket you consider the alternative to what we have today. Consider Nazi or Soviet rule, Communism and Socialism may be terms you agree to on paper but once again in the real world those forms of government bring nothing good to the table and the elites of those societies are hypocrites of the highest order and corrupt to boot.

These leaks can cause trouble, what happens if he leaks something that draws a military response from a nation like Iran or North Korea. And don't give me that "Iran has had to build its army to make sure its safe" bullcrap, they want Israel off the map, they've said as much and with no leaks needed

The way Miles talks about Iran you would think they are the utopian model for peaceful democratic government.

Every other nation in the Arab world is a tinpot dictatorship, Israel are Satan's own spawn. America is the biggest threat to world peace, Britain is it's lapdog.

It seems that Iran leads the world on human rights issues and is the only peaceful and family friendly nation in the world today.

Let's just have another quick look at their avuncular, almost saintly leader.

Not at all, Bilbo. Iran is another example of unhealthy concentration of power in the hands of an elite that is not responsive to the will of the general population. Sound familiar? I will not defend the regime.

And only Israel has moved beyond the rhetoric in recent years, Bilbo....not Iran.

What nations has Israel attacked in recent years?

[Gandalf]

Lebanon in 2006 and Gaza in 2008 most readily spring to mind. Yeah, yeah, Palestine is not recognised as a country, but it is hardly Israel.

[El Kabong]

Miles you keep saying that governments are run by elites for elites and that no one is tending to the needs of the average ordinary citizen....well please, pretty please with a cherry on top show me a successful government that accommodated the average ordinary citizen and no corporations or elite group had little to no pull.

You won't be able to show me one because its like a unicorn, its a fantasy and that my friend is what liberalism is based on....fantasy

[Gandalf]

An interesting read.

Freed on bail – but US steps up efforts to charge Assange with conspiracy - Americas, World - The Independent

How low will America go to get their man? Manning is the man who stole the files and did so on his own, but the US government is going to go relatively easy on him if he says Assange was behind it too? That is low.

I'm glad to see John Conyers has a bit of sense and I was also pleased to read the comments at the end of the article. Seems that most of the people posting are of a similar mindset to me.

[Oggie]

Your ravings about elites and unchecked power just leads me to believe that no matter the cost you consider America a great evil and you want it brought down to size.

I merely state that before you put all your eggs in that basket you consider the alternative to what we have today. Consider Nazi or Soviet rule, Communism and Socialism may be terms you agree to on paper but once again in the real world those forms of government bring nothing good to the table and the elites of those societies are hypocrites of the highest order and corrupt to boot.

These leaks can cause trouble, what happens if he leaks something that draws a military response from a nation like Iran or North Korea. And don't give me that "Iran has had to build its army to make sure its safe" bullcrap, they want Israel off the map, they've said as much and with no leaks needed

The way Miles talks about Iran you would think they are the utopian model for peaceful democratic government.

Every other nation in the Arab world is a tinpot dictatorship, Israel are Satan's own spawn. America is the biggest threat to world peace, Britain is it's lapdog.

It seems that Iran leads the world on human rights issues and is the only peaceful and family friendly nation in the world today.

Let's just have another quick look at their avuncular, almost saintly leader.

Not at all, Bilbo. Iran is another example of unhealthy concentration of power in the hands of an elite that is not responsive to the will of the general population. Sound familiar? I will not defend the regime.

And only Israel has moved beyond the rhetoric in recent years, Bilbo....not Iran.

What nations has Israel attacked in recent years?

For what it's worth, Assange annoys me and he seems to be a little spotlight happy for my liking, revelling in the power that he finds himself wielding... but I'm happy to know what is going on and how things work behind the doors of the manipulative masters the world over.