UPDATE: JULIAN ASSANGE Freed!

i get what you are saying Heat... but with government, also comes responsibility... a duty, surely, to acknowledgement, and at least an attempt to rectify known mistakes... but we can see from history, and from a lot of these "leaks", that for many many MANY decades, the wrong people have been making decisions based on adding to their own wealth, decisions at tangential opposites to the wellbeing of humans, globally... some secrets would be expected and necessary perhaps, but not when it completely obliterates any semblance of truth...

transparency is much needed right now! it is likely essential that the world be turned upside down, now that the "duty of care" has been so totally ignored...

like you, i also feel for Bradley Manning..... he may be considered a man, but at 22 (or is it 23?) he is ONLY A BOY!!!! you would think that one of the richest militaries in the world would at least equip soldiers with equipment that would be able to distinguish a gun from a camera, innit.... but i suspect their bloodlust is almost as great as their lust for money....

 

what was it that the U.S. eventually used to imprison Noriega?..or Al Capone for that matter...why should other countries have play fair

using sneaky ways to get things done is how most governments work

 

We are for the most part referring to historical information. If by releasing any documents that could cause further harm to innocents by the release of historical information that will not change the already existing outcome but could potentially cause a backlash against innocents once again.

It is fine to gun for governments but it is people who are in the line of fire, not governments. Innocents.

For example if document A,B,C, all support a government action that did cause military action in the past and those documents show that it was falsified, being proof.

Then we are set for retaliatory. Understandable but not necessarily acceptable.

We can not re-write history.

My actual hope with the whole wikileaks is that if it achieves nothing else, it may make those in power consider how unsecure information actually is. That in turn would lead to more transparency because of necessity not necessarily compliance.

 

As soon as you can explain to me why Bush and Blair have not been tried as war criminals, you will also have the answer to this question you pose to me.

 

There are some mistakes, decisions that there is no way to rectify. There are no ways to make amends for them. It is time people stopped thinking that there is.

To acknowledge, to apologize does nothing to change history. It does not stop it from repeating in another warped pattern. We constantly show as humans just what we are capable of, with the history lessons already there.

With total transparency, even if it were possible it will not change what is history nor will it make it more palatable.

I am not saying that there is not benefit from wikileaks but the benefit has to be the long term from that not the actual leaks themselves.

It is not the Assange's of the world that are going to change it. They are tool in the awareness. Once again the money drives the world but it also made it possible for this group of people to attempt to do what they have by bringing it forward. It takes money and power to do what they have also.

My quandary is that I am not sure I want the "Assange's" of the world to have that much power either. Not as a personal insult to him at all but as a generalization. I use his name in that manner not as a personal attack on him.

 

yes, i agree that it may not change actual history but strongly disagree with you about it not being possible to rectify most things... all things change in time... what matters is the soil in which we all grow and live... sometimes the soil need to lie fallow...

 

So, if a secret from the past comes up that could cause bad feelings and a war, then it should be kept secret?

Think about that...

If we want an open and fair society, trying to cover up the past is NOT the way to do it...

Although I wouldn't swear to it, I think I can make a valid argument against any point you wish to bring up concerning possible ramifications..

Don't want the location of the secret bases and military units hidden in other countries to be released? Don't have secret bases and military units in other countries...

Don't want spies to be identified because it could endanger their lives? Is it okay if Iran sends spies over here? Is spying right? Or is it just right when its other countries?

Don't want Egypt to know that you made backroom deals with Hussein? Stop making secret deals...

Although I appreciate where you come from when you say you aren't qualified to make some decisions... These decisions that you want to leave to others, are ones that decide the life and death of your children and grandchildren... Who is more qualified to decide the fate of your kids? You, or Mr Harper?

 

Right on.

 

I have thought about that, often. If something from the past could cause even far greater harm to innocents than possibly even the original transgression, then the price is too high. There is no excuse for past behaviours and decisions but to knowingly go ahead and then have a situation that could be avoided happen is even more reprehensible.

Those are the situations that require a lot of thought regarding the balance of need to know against wanting to know. Those ramifications for me would not be negotiable. My want to know, if it endangers innocents, is as wrong as the original cover up of facts.

As for the rest, I agree with you. There should be no back room deals, hidden agendas, spy bases and all the rest of the games. In an ideal world that would work.

In our world that is never going to work for as much as governments and countries mouth the words they will not stop doing those things and they will justify it as security because all the "others" still do so therefore they also need to.

As I stated, my sincere desire as an outcome is that because of wikileaks governments feel a little more answerable and comply with more above board dealings and disclosure. Not because they are going to wish to but because they may be left with little choice. That for me is the silver lining with wikileaks.

 

I understand what you mean, but you are missing the crucial point in this... Who decides when the price is too high? If you ask the US government right now, none of these things should have been leaked...

Do we let them go ahead and do the things they do and just worry about it when someone like wikileaks expose it for us?

You can't say that you want the right to know what you need to know, and don't want to know the parts that could harm you... You can't know which is which without knowing, which makes whether you should know or not totally moot...

The whole past thing that sparks a war that could have been avoided... How do honest negotiations and an open relationship come about if the past relationship is secret?

Any relationship that is based on dishonesty WILL fail...

 

Quoted for troof.

"Well you guys just decide which secrets you should tell me, and I'll trust that you're going to be responsible about it, right after you finish knocking over that little government over there and bringing tons upon tons of drugs into our own ghetto over there... And sending that man to jail for life for selling them for you"

*not making fun of anyone in particular, just that whole way of thinking... don't everyone neg rep me at once*

 

Who decides now what is going to be released?

The crucial point is that someone is still deciding what is going to be released.

My point exactly. That there is a “insurance or doomsday file” puts it right up there with the control of information. Just someone in a different suit controlling it.

That there is such faith in them doing the right thing is rather amazing to me.

They may be the lesser of two evils but that does not mean that they are any less into the power of the game or self serving.

The bigger picture is future accountability. Hopefully it will happen.

 

I do agree that we need future accoutability. But you do agree, at least sort of, that we can't build new things until we fix what we've got? You can't bury secrets and then decide not to make any new ones, because you're already making the secret that you buried the secrets. To move forward, people must be understanding, and the past must be healed.

 

This is pretty much where I stand- particularly with the redistribution of wealth. Everyone should have the opportunity to earn an honest living. I strongly believe that a certain strength of character is derived from not having things handed to you- there is a base level of mutual respect that builds among perfect strangers united only by a shared willingness to bust their ass in order to put food on the table and a roof over their head. I am deeply suspicious of any entity, government or otherwise, who would try to convince me that I was entitled to ANYTHING I didn't work for.

there's the Bullshit that gets the hard sell through the mainstream media, "news" channels, like Fox or MSNBC where commentary and propaganda gets purposefully mislabeled as news. People need to get unadulterated data about where their country is going and what it is doing because it is in part their tax dollars that are funding every war, every dirty back room political deal, every bribe, every contract killing, every criminal war started on false pretenses. We need to get the fucking truth and our government and news media are refusing to respect our right to know. Wikileaks furnishes some measure of balance.

Belittling as unpatriotic, socialist, or America haters those who are calling the politically motivated smear and malicious prosecution campaign exactly that does little beyond playing into the hands of those who would have us remain ignorant- because an uninformed population is FAR easier to control. BOTH political parties are guilty of plenty in all this and I have no doubt that any proposed legislation dealing with the internet will enjoy bipartisan support because I have very little doubt that there's plenty to hide that would cast every presidency in poor light since the Reagan administration.

So much of the nonsense actually begins to make some sense when it is filtered through the premise that the US federal government is in fact a criminal organization that isn't above creating a crisis in order to further its own agenda... and the murkiness with which the economic situation has been dealt with sets of many alarms with me... not to mention the sheer volume that was written within a handful of weeks of the stock market crashing screams to me that much of it was written before the economy began to sink.

We need more whistle blowers- we need more people who, like Assange, are willing to avail truthful information for the people who are footing the bill in so many ways for what our government does. Attacking his character and deriding those who voice support for him, Manning, and Wikileaks only adds to the credibility in my mind. Discouraging people from seeking out sources of information outside the American sphere of propaganda and deception will simply make it easier for those who are destroying our country from within to successfully complete their task. We need MORE folks finding out the truth and we need a LOT more people rabidly pissed at their government.... regardless of which fucking party happens to be in charge.

 

:2thumbsup:

 

Heat, you are the one who has been arguing that you want to have faith that they (anyone but you) will choose to tell you the right things...

 

See, I disagree with this, and strangely enough stink, I think you do as well if you think it through.

The redistribution of wealth is 100% necessary in a society that is based on a few getting rich of the many.

When you argue against the redistribution of wealth, you are not protecting your interests, you are protecting Gerorge Bush, Dick Cheney, BP, Walmart etc etc, AGAINST the people.

Now, we all know I am in agreement with the perspective that people should not be handed life on a platter, but I most definitely don't agree that you should use survival needs as a club to enforce subservience, which is what our societies (all of them) do right now, using the argument that you just presented.

When you have a few in society that hold the majority of wealth and power while the masses live in poverty, the ONLY way to regain a balance is by redistribution of wealth.

 

You make a good point Tom, but I have some very deeply set views on human nature and being given something without having to work for it- however well intended the gesture may be.

I prefer rendering money meaningless by reverting to a barter system for basics like food, clothing, and shelter.... and patronizing local businesses as much as possible... develop relationships with the business owners. Don't use big banks and bix box retailers that prey on local economies, putting the "Mom & Pop" shops out of business. Instead of relying on some big benevolent entity picking the pockets of the wealthy people need to take matters in their own hands, brush up on educating themselves about local economics and embodying the change that makes obscene wealth irrelevant.

Nobody really grows spiritually by having anything handed to them... and what the hell is the point of a big pile of money when the person earning it has died. Generations of well meaning parents who wanted their kids to have it easier than them had it DEAD WRONG... and their success in paving the financial road and desensitizing their offspring to the process of pulling oneself up from desperate circumstances is in my opinion a huge piece of the puzzle of what's wrong with society. Apathy has been cultivated and ignorance of the process promoted to the point that most who have basically been cheated don't even realize it... and wouldn't care if they were told.

Perhaps the elite need to have their vast wealth seized but I see precious few out there who deserve to be recipients... the money needs to be made available to everyone who is willing to work for and earn it.

This has become a decidedly off topic side bar from the main discussion. If you wish to debate this further you should start a new thread and allow this one to get back on topic.

 

I agree with the point that transparency is the only way to keep governments and politicians honest (since they can't seem to govern themselves). Now that journalism has failed us, an entity like wikileaks is our only hope of restoring democracy.

Generally speaking, secrecy presents a bigger threat of terrorism than exposure.

I recently read that Assange's biggest concern was the possibility of extradition to the United States. Ya think that might have something to do with the fact that torture is now basically legal?

 

Does anyone else find it deeply disturbing that Visa and Mastercard will not process transactions for Wikileaks, but WILL process transcations for the KKK?
Oh humanity...