WikiLeaks

[dfcatch]

It's a poor comparison. He's not worried about embarrassment, he's worried about death.

The principle is the same.

And if he's worried about what might happen to him - well he should have thought about that earlier.

I'm not going to get into the question of whether his "leaks" have posed any danger to others.....that's a can of worms that I'm not going to open.

I'm not a fan - period. I don't believe this has anything to do with freedom of speech, openness and accountability etc etc etc.

Governments are entitled to be able to operate, have confidential internal correspondence etc. As long as they remain within the confines of their legal boundaries (legislation/constitution etc) there is no problem. Just like a corporation needs commercial-in-confidence to do business.

Every western democracy has anti-corruption and whistleblower laws and processes in place. If a government or official is doing something illegal - then there are processes to deal with that. That is what democracy is all about.

Assange is preaching anarchy - not democracy.

Whilst it's easy to jump on the romantic bandwagon of calling for openness.... The problem is that if you go down this slippery slope then the result is that officials and public servants will be too scared to give "frank and fearless advice". The result is a degradation in accountability and performance - not an improvement.

Personally (puts on flame suit) - I feel and hope that Assange's 15 mins are almost up.

 

[sheikeee]

I love how he achieves notoriety by leaking others' secrets to embarrass them, and then cries "not fair" when someone does it to him

I don't think that the dominant purpose of the wikileaks exercise is to 'embarass' the authors -even though it did. I'm not syain that I support what he was doing with wikileaks. I'm saying that as a human being, as like any other he deserves a fair trial. What he was doing with wikileaks and what the 'others' are doing to him are starkly different re intentions. Unlike the government's style of pursuit, he did not publish articles with a vindictive sentiment in fact the articles selected were crudely indifferent of content, origin and authors (of govt release). I think that Yes he should not have had access to these documents, and yes I think it has done more harm than good, but nonetheless this man hunt reeks of what is wrong with the way society is run today.

 

[straitman]

I'm not sure how a discussion about wikileaks has turned into analysis about the Lincoln letters but I'd like to divert attention back to the fact that this man is not likely to receive a fair trial, and the saga will leave a legacy of government conspiracy and contempt on the freedom of speech

It appears that most people (yourself included) have made up their minds which IMHO is why he has no chance of a fair trial :!:

That makes any (possible) government conspiracy irrelevant.

 

[dfcatch]

I'm keeping an open mind on the "man-hunt" against him.....

On one hand.... Innocent until proven guilty, on the other - he may well be guilty as alleged.

As far as the pursuit by the US goes.... There are so many analogies and fables...

Of course in Australia there is a certain saying about not poking the blue-ringed octopus

 

[medhead]

The principle is the same.

It isn't the same principle, the consequences are much greater with death. Embarrass me and I'll embarrass you, nothing like embarrass me and I'll kill you. :shock:

I'm not going to get into the question of whether his "leaks" have posed any danger to others.....that's a can of worms that I'm not going to open.

But that is a very important point if it is considered appropriate for the man to face the death penalty. People are accusing him of treason, people want to kill him, they want him to face the death penalty. All on the basis of what? That he embarrassed someone, or that he has caused danger to others? This can of worms is the key question about the action/conspiracy that is taking place against the man. The fact that it is a can of worms says a lot about the ground that some of the accusers are standing upon. Very shakey.

Whilst it's easy to jump on the romantic bandwagon of calling for openness.... The problem is that if you go down this slippery slope then the result is that officials and public servants will be too scared to give "frank and fearless advice". The result is a degradation in accountability and performance - not an improvement.

Public servants are already too scared to give "frank and fearless" advice. Howard beat that out of them here in Australia and the state government's are currently following that lead.

 

[browski]

The principle is the same.

No, no it is not.

And if he's worried about what might happen to him - well he should have thought about that earlier.

Why, he has not done anything illegal, he has just upset some people in the US.

Every western democracy has anti-corruption and whistleblower laws and processes in place. If a government or official is doing something illegal - then there are processes to deal with that. That is what democracy is all about.

No, actually that is nothing to do with democracy, that is to do with law enforcement. You'll find that in both Australian and US Law, there is no protection for the identity of whistleblowers - that is in essence why Wikileaks exists

Assange is preaching anarchy - not democracy.

No, no he is not, he is preaching transparency. And by the way (although slightly OT), anarchy does not mean the absence of rules, it means the absence of rulers.

The problem is that if you go down this slippery slope then the result is that officials and public servants will be too scared to give "frank and fearless advice".

As long as their advice is the same publicly as it is privately, but alas Wikileaks has exposed this not to be so.

Personally (puts on flame suit) - I feel and hope that Assange's 15 mins are almost up.

Assange will no doubt be jailed/killed, but like Napster, the cause has already been won.

 

[dfcatch]

Interesting points,

Like I said, I'm keeping an open mind.... If he faces death, then I'm sure it will be because it will be shown that his actions have caused harm/risk to others. If he is jailed it is because it will be shown that he has broken the law.

The law applies to everyone equally whether you like the law or not. That is how civilized society works, if you don't like it, you can exercise your democratic voting rights accordingly or even run for office yourself.
Either way you still have to obey the law. And if he hasn't broken it, then he doesn't need to worry.

Whistleblower protection is about protection, not hiding your identity. Maybe it should, but that's a different argument altogether and there are principles of natural justice.

If government can't operate with the benefit of "closed door" discussions, then democracy suffers as people won't have honest discussion and debate. If they fear that everything they say will be published then they will not engage in genuine scrutiny of proposals etc. That's why cabinet confidentiality is important (as an example).

The principle of hypocrisy which I started with is the same - especially when you are claiming the moral high ground. You can't then say the principle is different because you don't like the potential consequences to you. Perhaps there are more serious consequences to your actions than you have recognized.

As far as anarchy goes, without rulers there are no rules. Without anyone to enforce them, then society breaks down.

Anyway, bored so thought I'd play the other argument

 

[drron]

Interesting points,

Like I said, I'm keeping an open mind.... If he faces death, then I'm sure it will be because it will be shown that his actions have caused harm/risk to others. If he is jailed it is because it will be shown that he has broken the law.
So the courts get it right all the time.

The law applies to everyone equally whether you like the law or not. That is how civilized society works, if you don't like it, you can exercise your democratic voting rights accordingly or even run for office yourself.
Boston tea party,French Revolution,Eureka stockade,Tent Embassy.If the law is an cough surely it is woerse if good men say nothing.
Either way you still have to obey the law. And if he hasn't broken it, then he doesn't need to worry.
Glad you are confident-see first part of answer

Whistleblower protection is about protection, not hiding your identity. Maybe it should, but that's a different argument altogether and there are principles of natural justice.
Whistleblower protection laws are about appearing to be fair whilst offering nothing to whistleblowers.

If government can't operate with the benefit of "closed door" discussions, then democracy suffers as people won't have honest discussion and debate. If they fear that everything they say will be published then they will not engage in genuine scrutiny of proposals etc. That's why cabinet confidentiality is important (as an example).
Such as the Nixon tapes?

The principle of hypocrisy which I started with is the same - especially when you are claiming the moral high ground. You can't then say the principle is different because you don't like the potential consequences to you. Perhaps there are more serious consequences to your actions than you have recognized.
No hypocrisy amongst politicians!

As far as anarchy goes, without rulers there are no rules. Without anyone to enforce them, then society breaks down.
As above it can all break down if the rules are unfair.

Anyway, bored so thought I'd play the other argument

Despite all this i do have some misgivings about Wikileaks though i do feel this current legal action is not about justice.

 

[dfcatch]

Despite all this i do have some misgivings about Wikileaks though i do feel this current legal action is not about justice.

Agree with this

I haven't read any of the leaks...

But do any of them:

A/ constitute actual whistleblowing of illegal conduct??

B/ Or is it all just embarrassing and or politically inconvenient stuff??

If A, then I would be more inclined to support Wikileaks.

But I am under the understanding that it's all been B - hence my lack of sympathy for Assange.

 

[medhead]

Interesting points,

Like I said, I'm keeping an open mind.... If he faces death, then I'm sure it will be because it will be shown that his actions have caused harm/risk to others. If he is jailed it is because it will be shown that he has broken the law.

The law applies to everyone equally whether you like the law or not. That is how civilized society works, if you don't like it, you can exercise your democratic voting rights accordingly or even run for office yourself.
Either way you still have to obey the law. And if he hasn't broken it, then he doesn't need to worry.

Except the laws of the USA do not apply to him. The laws of any country only apply to citizens of that country or people within the jurisdiction of the country. Especially something like treason which can only apply to a citizen. There is no hypocrisy, as they are trying to apply laws that have never applied.

That is the problem with the Sweden thing the USA is possibly attempting to engineer a way to get him into the country and to then deal with him as they see fit. The whole situation highlights a lack of democracy in the USA.

I can only say that you are wrong if you thing public servants have full and frank discussion with their lords and master behind closed doors. IME, albeit limited, the advice is controlled at the interface between public servant and politician.

 

[dfcatch]

Except the laws of the USA do not apply to him. The laws of any country only apply to citizens of that country or people within the jurisdiction of the country. Especially something like treason which can only apply to a citizen. There is no hypocrisy, as they are trying to apply laws that have never applied.

That is the problem with the Sweden thing the USA is possibly attempting to engineer a way to get him into the country and to then deal with him as they see fit. The whole situation highlights a lack of democracy in the USA.

I can only say that you are wrong if you thing public servants have full and frank discussion with their lords and master behind closed doors. IME, albeit limited, the advice is controlled at the interface between public servant and politician.

It is to a degree, yes.

But cabinet for example provides a forum for strong debate on occasions before the united public position is formed, as the 30 year release of documents show.

IME, where there is true closed door discussions, it allows people to for example, ask questions which they would not do if it were a public discussion.

I agree with your points about the USA, I was not arguing that. I was just making observation about his willingness to leak about others where (as far as I'm aware) there were no allegations of officials breaking the law, but when someone leaks about him - he gets upset.

And if we're just talking about Sweden, then death is not an issue.

 

[medhead]

But cabinet for example provides a forum for strong debate on occasions before the united public position is formed, as the 30 year release of documents show.

Cabinet is a political process that is informed firstly by the policy of the party in control and then by the position of the senior public servants who are basically controlled by their minister. The technical expert public servants who push a message that is disagrees with the position of the minister is not heard at a cabinet level. They are filtered out but the executive level public servants who risk losing their job if they don't toe the line.

IME, where there is true closed door discussions, it allows people to for example, ask questions which they would not do if it were a public discussion.

Maybe, but those questions and the answer don't make it to the people who make decisions if it does not agree with their position.

I agree with your points about the USA, I was not arguing that. I was just making observation about his willingness to leak about others where (as far as I'm aware) there were no allegations of officials breaking the law, but when someone leaks about him - he gets upset.

And if we're just talking about Sweden, then death is not an issue.

I must have missed something about things being leaked about Assasage and him getting upset.

The suggestion has been that the USA want him is sweden so they can extradite him. Once in the USA then it is death penalty time. As far as I can gather from the reporting about this stuff.

 

[dfcatch]

Cabinet is a political process that is informed firstly by the policy of the party in control and then by the position of the senior public servants who are basically controlled by their minister. The technical expert public servants who push a message that is disagrees with the position of the minister is not heard at a cabinet level. They are filtered out but the executive level public servants who risk losing their job if they don't toe the line.


Maybe, but those questions and the answer don't make it to the people who make decisions if it does not agree with their position.



I must have missed something about things being leaked about Assasage and him getting upset.

The suggestion has been that the USA want him is sweden so they can extradite him. Once in the USA then it is death penalty time. As far as I can gather from the reporting about this stuff.

My understanding is the same from what I've read... I guess we'll have to wait and see how it pans out.

I'm a fan of representative democracy, not committee democracy where all of us are on the committee

Oh well, I think I've stirred the pot enough for one day

 

[straitman]

Why, he has not done anything illegal, he has just upset some people in the US.

How can you accurately come to that conclusion :?:

As I aske earlier, if you and everyone else have come to a conclusion then how can he ever hope to have a fair trial :?:

 

[Alanslegal]

These are one of the topics that you are either for or against it, just like politics and no matter how much argument one can present there is very little to change ones mind

I have a hypothesis that needs testing; I am pro Labor and I'm pro Wikileaks. I am going to deduce that if you are pro Liberal, you will be against Wikileaks.

Anyone willing to prove my hypothesis incorrect? eg. pro Labor, against Wiki or pro Liberal, pro Wiki

 

[medhead]

My understanding is the same from what I've read... I guess we'll have to wait and see how it pans out.

I'm a fan of representative democracy, not committee democracy where all of us are on the committee

Oh well, I think I've stirred the pot enough for one day

sorry about the grammar in my previous post. I guess I'm pretty jaded with the political process, especially how the public service has been neutered by politicians these days. I'm not sure about the UK, but the Australian public service certainly couldn't provide the constancy required to build an empire. Interesting the watch yes minister (yes a comedy) and realise the differences today. (and that is only 30 years ago)

Stirring the pot is good...
Just I don't have your say belief in how our democracy works today in practice, even if it is a good model.

 

[Alanslegal]

Innocent until proven guilty, on the other - he may well be guilty as alleged.

Agreed and hope due process works!

Unlike some extremly crazy comments made by stupid US politicians!

 

[drron]

These are one of the topics that you are either for or against it, just like politics and no matter how much argument one can present there is very little to change ones mind

I have a hypothesis that needs testing; I am pro Labor and I'm pro Wikileaks. I am going to deduce that if you are pro Liberal, you will be against Wikileaks.

Anyone willing to prove my hypothesis incorrect? eg. pro Labor, against Wiki or pro Liberal, pro Wiki

Hands up,the exception that proves the rule-though I think you will find this issue really cuts across political beliefs.

 

[medhead]

Anyone willing to prove my hypothesis incorrect? eg. pro Labor, against Wiki or pro Liberal, pro Wiki

Hands up,the exception that proves the rule-though I think you will find this issue really cuts across political beliefs.

I think it is more likely conservative vs liberal, which doesn't really align with australian politics so much where Liberals may be conservative or liberal.

 

[browski]

How can you accurately come to that conclusion :?:

As I aske earlier, if you and everyone else have come to a conclusion then how can he ever hope to have a fair trial :?:

If he had committed a criminal act in the US, they would have charged him. They have now spent the best part of 3 months trying to invent a charge. Gee, even the coughs at the AFP tried to find a charge against him, but came up with doughnuts.