yes and Pakistan already has a successful nuclear program....
what about Syria, Saudi Arabia, ,Peru <insert every non nuclear nation here>
Wikileaks - latest leak
- Thread starter ThriceNightly
- Start date
yes and Pakistan already has a successful nuclear program....
what about Syria, Saudi Arabia, ,Peru <insert every non nuclear nation here>
Of course there will be a lot of things that cause issues still. Thats the worst reason ever to keep them locked up. What you are advocating is a system of self regulation by governments that essentially allows them to act as they please as long as they justify it under the umbrella of being "sensitive information."
What deterrent is there to current and future governments if they know their actions will never see the light of day and even when someone does a little digging there will be nowhere near the evidence required to prosecute.
We have been doing things for god knows how many years that are morally reprehensible and all the time we look back to the past and apologise when we are exposed for our past errors. In 50 years time we will do the same here. Marvellous.
Why are we arguing over the Manhattan project? Even if you do not release the technical details, you can still release the diaries, etc ...
As I said, I have no problem for secrecy when it is needed, but you should not employ secrecy to prevent embarrassment
As I said, I have no problem for secrecy when it is needed, but you should not employ secrecy to prevent embarrassment
Associate
- Joined
- 4 Jul 2009
- Posts
- 715
- Location
- Edinburgh mostly
I just feel sorry for the Afgans who will be hurt in the reprisals by the Taliban, who will discover they had helped NATO...
Which comes back to my point earlier, suggest a suitable framework for such a system.
As I said the best way is for people to vote on voting day, but even with huge questionable governments gets back into power. So until you lot convince the public and the huge % of non voters, not much is goign to change.
So you decide when it's no needed, even though you have no idea what the files contain?
When does embarrassment change to problems. International politics is very sensitive and volatile.
Who cares it's nothing to do the the leaks.
I was referring to the above. I assumed that you were suggesting that hanging him in court was going round the houses a little and that if they wanted him gone then they would just princess di him or shoot him. I would indeed have struggled to pull an assassination out of that other post.
Because as I said, if you are going to be embarrassed by your actions then you should not have committed them in the first place.
Embarrassment does not reveal active technological or military details to your enemies
Could not have said it better
From what wiki says the charges were dismissed (without substance) but a swedish politician re-opened the case...hrmm
Now is he really a rapist or does somebody somewhere wish him harm
Considering the amount of fallout from this (and previous wikileaks) its pretty obvious that he has a lot of powerful enemies so i do think it more likely that the charges are without foundation. Sex took place but rape, i dont think so.
I'm very much in favour of these documents being released - its interesting finding out what someone* really thinks of you behind your back and yet to your face are all smiles and handshakes.......
*someone being your apparent close allies and friends.
All relationships are about trust and respect not exploitation and Manipulation.... (which is what these documents seem to reveal...another ugly side of the US amongst other countries.)
As long as that embarrassment doesn't have long ranging diplomatic implications that can lead to an increase in tensions between disparate nations.
The problem is that wiki links is blanket releasing sensitive information with no regard to the implication.
Julian Assange is not a good guy. If he were, he would have remained anonymous and not released some of the documents pertaining to the identities of government agents acting on our behalf.
He does this for his own aggrandisement nothing more.
Many of the documents haven't been said or made by the current goverment. Other documents are for in house use only and are secret for a reason.
Just like talking behind a friends back, fine if they don't find out, but causes a fight if it gets out. Such information has to be discussed, but can be devastating if it gets out.
Associate
- Joined
- 4 Jul 2009
- Posts
- 715
- Location
- Edinburgh mostly
People deserve the goverment they elect (and re elect).
so why quote the other post?
Nope merely pointing out how cT people always choose the most bizarrely complex method and least secure involving the biggest number of people possible.
For example
Really?
About sums up that theory.
It doesn't want other nations knowing them and using them against the very people they are sworn to protect.
Releasing these documents puts people who are trying to protect you at risk.
I know it is a very simplistic view to the world, but that is my opinion as well. If a government is doing things that it is embarrassed about being leaked than maybe it shouldn't be doing it in the first place?
Doesn't matter what government made the document ... for instance, why not release the audio/transcript/minutes of the conversations between Bush and Blair prior to Iraq ... you can blank out any bits that are sensitive to current military activities (such as positions/tactics) ...
The ONLY reason to keep something secret is if it contains military/technological information or identifies/positions/etc of informants.
And even then, such information should be released down the line once it is of no use (ie release info about informants during WW2, etc)