You are my hero. 
The government should be allowed to prosecute people for crimes. Show me the crime that the press committed and I’ll support the case.
We were talking about hypothetical situations. What if the NYT had reported about…I don’t know…the abomb? You know? In the interest of ‘human welfare’?
I think you’ve missed my points.
I’m not taking about revealing cover ups by the government or banks. Sure these should be disclosed, but the release of information is indiscriminate.
I don’t see how for example detailing sites such as underground cable locations between the US and the UK helps anyone.
I state that Assange has little regard for anyone but himself due to words spoken by himself about his views of informants.
I don’t believe he’s the hero he’s been made out to be. Yes some information is valid in the public domain, some isn’t.
Again, show me the actual crime committed and I’ll listen to you. Acting in the interest of public knowledge isn’t a crime, even if it is unwise. You can’t just give the government the power to prosecute anyone they think is doing something against their interests.
Yes, that’s the good part, you seem to entirely ignore the part where they recklessly disclose information that got Iraqi informants and their families killed.
Did they really? I know the government makes claims like that to make WIki unpopular and undermine their position. I am unconvinced. I think overall they are providing a service we need. I do not believe the military and doubt most of what the government says about it.
This is what is known as “making shit up”. What information got what Iraqi informants killed? Just the ones in your head?
Earlier in the thread Whack a mole asked when wiki leaks recklessly released info. Assange released the documents with names. The taliban commander stated that they would kill any ‘traitor’ they located from the documents. Now, you may think killing them is fine. I happen to disagree. However, Assange put peoples lives at risk by leaking the documents with the names still in the docs.
Slee
http://thinkprogress.org/security/2011/06/04/236440/wikileaks-haiti-oil/
Here is an example of Wikileaks that shows the US government exercising control in Haiti at the expense of the people. They broke off Haitis attempt to join an oil consortium with Venezuela and Cuba. It would have made 100 million dollars a year for some the poorest people in the world.
We also interfered in their attempt to raise the minimum wage. Our textile manufacturers didn’t like it.
I don’t think you understand Wikileaks correctly. Their goals and aims are not to inform the public. In fact Assange when questioned why Wikileaks releases information selectively and through media filters has said for all intents and purposes that the general public isn’t smart enough to understand it.
Hmmm, might the government have thought the same as well when they classified it?
Transparency isn’t even the goal, part of the method, but the full extent of that part is reserved for Wikileaks and its media partners.
He isn’t looking to help you judge yourself. He is looking to punish you.
I really have no opinion about WikiLeaks, because so far they haven’t leaked any information that I really care about. Who cares about how many times some alleged terrorist has been waterboarded, or some diplomatic gossip about how Prince William sometimes acts like a total douche?
Dammit! I wanna hear the real dirt about Roswell/Area 51, MK-ULTRA, the JFK assassination, etc…how hard could that be?
Wikileaks explains its mission. They want to open government up. They want the people to know about the dirty dealing of the government, the military and the corporations. They are supplying an important service.
Thank you for supporting my previous point that Wikileaks contends they are in the business of promoting justice and not in the business of providing full disclosure to the public at large. If they were they would publish unfiltered and let the public decide. They are only interested in what they, or they’re media partners, feel is important.
Don’t get me wrong, when I say unfiltered I do not mean unredacted.
Good of him to wash his hands of any potential bloodshed though.
Or not take credit for reforming governments so the people actually know what the government is doing in our name.
Pointing out potential bloodshed ignores that people are becoming aware of government payoffs and indiscretions. The fact that the government can operate without people knowing what they are doing and why, has resulted in many deaths.
Where was Wikileaks when Bush lied us into Iraq? Where was the info that Cheney was fabricating stories about of all things “aluminum tubes”.
Secrecy is anathema to democracy, and the US is absolutely horrible to it’s whistle-blowers, so we sure need something. Don’t much care for Assange, but when OpenLeaks gets running it might be a lot better. Wikileaks, whether it really is or not, acts suspiciously as though it’s a creation and tool of the Anglo-US intelligence services.
How do you know it? Obviously it didn’t stay buried until wikileaks came on the scene.
Where was wikileaks when Nixon lied about watergate?
Where was wikileaks in John Edwards fiasco?
We know an awful lot about both of those.
My concerns with wikileaks may turn out to be all wet. And I’ll be happy if they do. But in the mean time I will remain a bit guarded about an organization that is not a member of the media, is not a publisher nor an investigator of news stories, in fact is little more than a clearing house for stolen documents that is hiding behind freedoms of the press. Certain information must see the light of day. Must be brought to the peoples attention. I just don’t agree that all information must, nor do I feel comforted by Mr. Assange being the arbiter of what information is doled out and when.
If something like wikileaks was central to investigative journalism and had real journalists directing it I would feel better, perhaps not good about it, but better.
The reality is they can’t stay a nonprofit and be effective with the volumes of data they receive now. So they either start dealing under the table in information, which would really make me nervous, or they are going to have partner with news organizations. Why not create their a 21st century version of the Associated Press? They’d have more credibility and a revenue stream. A be on more solid ground legally and ethically.
I have to agree with gonzomax.
I’ve seen other reports of US government controlling business interests. Recently I read about how US government ensured the Norwegian air force would purchase new jet fighters from the US instead of Sweden. It was apparently done through bribery and controlling key parts from being supplied to SAAB in Sweden. Some components of the Swedish jet fighter are imported from the US.
A fair competitive pitch to sell your products is fine, but to manipulate it in your favor by extortion, well, I have to say it reminds me of Mafia tactics.
In any democracy, there needs to be a fair amount of transparency. Too much secrecy is a direct threat to liberty in my opinion.