Julian Assange - Still a Class-A prick

[Trolldor]

I don't believe governments have a right to exist and control/restrict people's lives, so it goes without saying that I think they should be prevented from keeping secrets (by fair means or foul).

I couldn't care less what kind of individual Julian Assange is supposed to be (and I doubt he's anywhere near as bad as many accounts are making him out to be). What matters to me is that he's helped created a system that makes whistleblowing and leaking of confidential information a far easier process.

Ever held your tongue because you know saying something will really piss a friend off?

Give your friend ballistic missiles and that's what international diplomacy is.

My ass nations shouldn't keep secrets.

[Hermit]

I am no romantic absolutist, JimC. "Loose lips sink ships", and all that, but I really will not tolerate any defense of secrecy that relies on the blanket cover of "National Interest". Not while "National Interest" means "What is good for big business (and our cronies) is good for all. Just trust your government on that." And I don't think my attitude is any less realistic than yours.

Also, sorry for the cheap shot. By way of making amends, I will publicly confess to having once owned a cardigan and to having enjoyed actually wearing it.

[Pappa]

I don't believe governments have a right to exist and control/restrict people's lives, so it goes without saying that I think they should be prevented from keeping secrets (by fair means or foul).

I couldn't care less what kind of individual Julian Assange is supposed to be (and I doubt he's anywhere near as bad as many accounts are making him out to be). What matters to me is that he's helped created a system that makes whistleblowing and leaking of confidential information a far easier process.

Ever held your tongue because you know saying something will really piss a friend off?

Give your friend ballistic missiles and that's what international diplomacy is.

My ass nations shouldn't keep secrets.

I don't think there should be nation states, so the rest follows.

[eXcommunicate]

No actual comments on what Assange said? I am disappoint.

[Pappa]

No actual comments on what Assange said? I am disappoint.

In the video? I agreed with everything he said. I think. There didn't seem much point in commenting.

[JimC]

I am no romantic absolutist, JimC. "Loose lips sink ships", and all that, but I really will not tolerate any defense of secrecy that relies on the blanket cover of "National Interest". Not while "National Interest" means "What is good for big business (and our cronies) is good for all. Just trust your government on that." And I don't think my attitude is any less realistic than yours.

Also, sorry for the cheap shot. By way of making amends, I will publicly confess to having once owned a cardigan and to having enjoyed actually wearing it.

Where "National interest" is cynically used to maintain the narrow interests of the government of the day, or powerful interests for self-interested reasons, I quite agree...

However, I contend (as you seem to as well) that there is a core area of true "National Interest" where security is vital. I concede that, in practice, it is can be hard to separate them...

In reality, secrets in this category are unlikely to fall into the hands of WikiLeaks...

And of course you have worn a cardigan on occasions. The fact proclaims itself clearly when one deconstructs the deep narrative within your forum posts...

I don't think there should be nation states, so the rest follows.

Without even commenting on whether it is desirable or not, at the moment such states exist, and we are all members of them. What may be achievable or desirable in a situation where the world no longer is divided into such states does not apply right in the present political reality. Here and now, powerful states will simply not let their deep secrets become part of a WikiLeaks scenario, and I contend it would be dangerous if they did. By analogy, the revelations at the moment are like lancing a boil to let the pus out; releasing secret material at the deepest level would be like an amateur "lancing" a damaged heart...

[Twiglet]

Isn't sending hundreds of thousands of troops to occupy foreign nations and indiscriminately killing huge numbers of civillians "putting lives at risk"?
Hasn't it been acknowledged in the UK, that by joining in the colonial adventurism, more British lives have been put at risk and lost than would otherwise have been?

Our lords and masters and their immediate henchmen in the intelligence community don't like it, but why would they? Must be embarrassing to have to sit next to people they were rude about at the best dinner parties.

Wikileaks has provided an astounding level of detail which substantiates dissident analysis of how US foreign policy functions, but these leaks only disclose how the US has acted. If it is embarrassed by these disclosures then it's actions in the world are to blame. not wikileaks.

Charges that "vital strategic information" has come out, such as the "list of targets" is rubbish in my opinion. Oil. telecommunications and medical supplies are "strategic" - well, no shit. Couldn't have guessed that.

The "secrets" that have been exposed are primarily those that our governments and major corporations have tried to keep from us (their electorates), not from each other.... aside from the gossip column tittle tattle of what whichever ambassador thinks of whatever host.

[Gawd]

No actual comments on what Assange said? I am disappoint.

Me: Assange is a hero.

Ian: We need to protect the sanctity of our beloved leaders.

JimC: I can't make up my mind, ever.

[JimC]

No actual comments on what Assange said? I am disappoint.

Me: Assange is a hero.

Ian: We need to protect the sanctity of our beloved leaders.

JimC: I can't make up my mind, ever.

Nuanced replies are such a waste of time to you, aren't they...

If you read what I said with even moderate skills of comprehension, you would have seen that I think the WikiLeaks revelations so far have been healthy for the public interest, with some provisos about the types of information which should or should not be leaked...

[Trolldor]

NIce claims Twiglet, can you substantiate?

[JimC]

Isn't sending hundreds of thousands of troops to occupy foreign nations and indiscriminately killing huge numbers of civillians "putting lives at risk"?
Hasn't it been acknowledged in the UK, that by joining in the colonial adventurism, more British lives have been put at risk and lost than would otherwise have been?

Our lords and masters and their immediate henchmen in the intelligence community don't like it, but why would they? Must be embarrassing to have to sit next to people they were rude about at the best dinner parties.

Wikileaks has provided an astounding level of detail which substantiates dissident analysis of how US foreign policy functions, but these leaks only disclose how the US has acted. If it is embarrassed by these disclosures then it's actions in the world are to blame. not wikileaks.

Charges that "vital strategic information" has come out, such as the "list of targets" is rubbish in my opinion. Oil. telecommunications and medical supplies are "strategic" - well, no shit. Couldn't have guessed that.

The "secrets" that have been exposed are primarily those that our governments and major corporations have tried to keep from us (their electorates), not from each other.... aside from the gossip column tittle tattle of what whichever ambassador thinks of whatever host.

Mostly, I agree. I still think some form of international action (including military operations where required) to contain the very real dangers posed by islamic terrorism was and still is needed, but the current strategies seem to be self-defeating in many ways. WikiLeaks revelations have not truly compromised natiuonal security, in the sense I explained earlier. In many ways, it is simply a powerful enabler of the sort of good investigative journalism that is healthy for democracies, if a little painful at times...

[Hermit]

I still think some form of international action (including military operations where required) to contain the very real dangers posed by islamic terrorism was and still is needed

If the aim was to contain the very real dangers posed by islamic terrorism, and the best way to do so was via military operations, US troops and the alliance of the willing would have been sent to Saudi Arabia and Pakistan instead of Iraq, but that didn't happen, did it? It should make you wonder what the real motive of the invasion was.

[JimC]

I still think some form of international action (including military operations where required) to contain the very real dangers posed by islamic terrorism was and still is needed

If the aim was to contain the very real dangers posed by islamic terrorism, and the best way to do so was via military operations, US troops and the alliance of the willing would have been sent to Saudi Arabia and Pakistan instead of Iraq, but that didn't happen, did it? It should make you wonder what the real motive of the invasion was.

I was thinking more of Afghanistan than the murky morass of mixed motives that lead to Iraq... And there is, of course, military action against islamic militants going on in the tribal regions of Pakistan, whether the Pakistan government wants it or not...

But it is somewhat unrealistic to think that direct military action against putative allies such as Saudi Arabia and Pakistan is or was a credible option. Sure, they are hot-beds of support for Islamic terrorism, but they are also countries with huge internal conflicts (particularly Pakistan), whose rulers have as much to fear from the wrath of the fundamentalists as does the West...

Still, an old fashioned carpet bombing of Mecca has a certain twisted appeal... :twisted:

[Hermit]

...it is somewhat unrealistic to think that direct military action against putative allies such as Saudi Arabia and Pakistan is or was a credible option. Sure, they are hot-beds of support for Islamic terrorism, but they are also countries with huge internal conflicts (particularly Pakistan), whose rulers have as much to fear from the wrath of the fundamentalists as does the West...

It's the governments of those putative allies that aided islamic terrorists, so the US attacks a country whose dictator actually suppressed the Taliban and any other fundamentalist movement. With the possible exception of Afghanistan it just doesn't make sense to speak of a "war against terror".

[Gawd]

...it is somewhat unrealistic to think that direct military action against putative allies such as Saudi Arabia and Pakistan is or was a credible option. Sure, they are hot-beds of support for Islamic terrorism, but they are also countries with huge internal conflicts (particularly Pakistan), whose rulers have as much to fear from the wrath of the fundamentalists as does the West...

It's the governments of those putative allies that aided islamic terrorists, so the US attacks a country whose dictator actually suppressed the Taliban and any other fundamentalist movement. With the possible exception of Afghanistan it just doesn't make sense to speak of a "war against terror".

It's the American way: Greedy and nonsensical. Of course, JimC will reply to you trying to take a middle road where there is none.