- Wikileaks sees documents on the Net from governments, embassies and the like, and throws them to the light. Those are the facts. Everybody must see the facts.
- Once you have the facts people can see governments lie and have opinions about politicians, and they also have strategies to implement their policies. Ambassadors gossip abut presidents and ministers. Banks have done crooked things. They cheat to make more money out of the citizenship.
- Once you get the facts about the lies, one can judge those governments and condemn them. Next time we surely won't vote for them.
- Imagine now that most people realize how wrong those governments are and they vote other options: some they vote for options on the right and others for options on the left.
- New governments take power and now these governments know they must be pure and transparent to their peoples. A new ethics will be established: no lies; everything must be transparent to the public, to Congress and the like. Whatever strategic policy at a national and international level must be clear and transparent to its citizens.
- Thus, a new rationality in politics will be established, which is the same as saying: a new ethics in politics will be imposed.
- That means, if a country wants to spy on another, that has to be approved by Congress and people will know that their country is going to spy on another country. But the spying will have to be done according to decent rules and ethics. Perhaps those ethics will deprive any country the right to spy on others. The world will be free of spying. Nobody will spy on anybody.
- Suppose somebody like Hitler is coming to power in Asia. Nasty Hitler II starts his empire breaking all democratic rules and doing as he likes and best suits his needs.
- Democratic minded countries aren’t allowed to counterbalance Hitler II’s thirst for power with secrecy or devious means. Democratic minded countries have to stick to their pure ethics and transparent politics, in spite of the vulnerability and real danger the bastard is posing to the free democratic world. Whatever wrong or illegal those democratic avowed countries would do against the dictator, they would be denounced by Wikileaks. Whatever illegal activity or secret document or illicit spying it will come out to the public fore denouncing those dirty practices to the world.
- Hitler II gets the message and he won't stop laughing. He will be free to do as he likes and he wouldn't even have to spy: all the information in the free world would be available to anybody. Wikileaks have, for a long time, exposed where all the military bases are, where the remaining bombs are before being destroyed for imperative ethical and rational ethics. No secret whatsoever: the citizen must know everything. Everything to the light: absolute transparency forever and ever.
- Hitler II invades and he imposes his dictatorship to the free world.
- But at least we will be able to tell our children: for once we were really free countries: we always told the truth, we never had any secrets, we were ethically clean.
THE END
To me, there's nothing surprising in this leaks. What I like about it is that a lot of lemmings wake up from their fantasies as a result of this revelations. I see it as a positive. My opinion about politicians has not changed one iota: I always thought they are SCAM, and so are bankers.
ResponderEliminarAny event that causes the masses to become a little bit more enlightened is a welcome event.
Bring on more Wikileaks. I am addicted to truths.
btw Asia has had nothing but Hitlers its entire history.
Kousinsky
Your lack of faith in democracy and transparency is rather sad. You may want to recall that it was the armed might of democracy that destroyed the real Hitler,
ResponderEliminarand the democracies in question (The United States, Great Britain, Australia) managed somehow to maintain their democratic values, held elections and otherwise function
even in wartime.
The fact that Wikileaks is confronting is the wholesale lying to citizens by their governments, which here really started with the Vietnam era (the "credibility gap") and more recently has led to the two colonial wars we are fighting . Had the real opinons of our diplomats been known at that time (and we got a glimpse when Joseph Wilson published his article in the NYT about the false claim that Saddam was buying yellowcake uranium ore from Niger) maybe these senseless, expensive and ultimately useless wars would have been prevented.
Michael
Michael:
ResponderEliminarI've just followed Wikileaks logic and ethical standards. No more no less. Obviuously, that puritanical commitment to truth and transparency, leads to the destruction of Western democracies. We only wish such absolute standards to our enemies. And, I'm afraid to say a lot of the radical left hates the USA more than any other country in the world. I used to share that feeling too. No longer. The USA has a lot of things to polish, but so far this is the only empire in the world (despite its mistakes) to stand for democracy and fight against those fascist bastards called the Taliban.
The argument that we should not change but remain as astute/manipulative/corrupt? as the supposed enemy is a weak one. Wikileaks has published truths. We saw innocent civilians being mown down by guns by soldiers that goes against international treaties on what is acceptable in conflict situations. The horrors which occur on both sides must be numerous yet we are told that our side is the good one and of course there is no hidden interests in these matters. (Prince Andrew 'arrogant twat' talking about the game those people play. WTF)
ResponderEliminarWhy the fear of transparancy? The use of an external 'bogey man' or possible second Hitler is an old weapon to keep people scared. It's the same mentality which sees American citizens with loaded guns under the bed in case the big dark man comes into the house to kill everyone! What's the message? I don't want to but............... I must behave in the same way as the evil guy out there (spying, lying, withholding information, controlling people etc) Although I don't want to, his presence makes me be this way. Of course the Governments in the 'free' world would just love to treat their citizens with a bit of respect and trust BUT.... 'We're doing this for you guys, just keeping you all safe from the BIG THREAT out there'. WE know what's best for you. (1984 and all that) And if the monster don't come then we'll create one for you!
This kind of thinking hasn't worked up till now, has it? Maybe time for a change? Perhaps let people see what's really going on? Why let a group of powerful people become more powerful and control and live above the law and everyone else? Does Hillary or Chelsea Clinton have to walk thru that x-ray machine at the airport? Thought not!
I don't know about a second Hitler out there as I'm too concerned with how easily we are monitored,controlled and manipulated here. Eyes in the sky can look right into my house. Google cars with cameras come down my street. We don't have control of what happens with our computers (why so many updates from microsoft?) Is my online banking
open to those who wish to pry? Why are our own authorities sacred that we may think for ourselves? Why can't someone question without being unpatriotic? Why does Google go hand in hand with the Chinese? Why is Facebook so keen that we become members and put EVERYTHING about us on their website?
Anything done behind closed doors creates an abuse of power. If leaders/politicians/military aren't held responsible for their decisions and actions then where are we? Why keep so much secret from the public? Are they ashamed of some of their actions? Are the general public too stupid to comprehend?
I consider myself a law abiding, tax paying member of the community and not a threat to anyone. I too want to protect and contribute in a positive way the country where I live. However, I don't want to be treated with such contempt and suspicion everytime I fly. I don't want to be on the defensive eagerly willing to fly naked, give up my DNA or stand pleading my innocence because a uniformed man tells me we have to PROVE we are innocent and obedient citizens. Gotta do this because the big bad threat is out there!! We are doing this for you! Bollocks!!!
Perhaps it's time for transparency. Trust in people. It might work. It hasn't been tried yet, but what has isn't working.
It's the anniversary of Lennon's death. He said 'Just gimme some truth'. Why the fear always? Given the chance People just want to live a normal, decent life. Watch out now for the crucification of the Wikileaks man!
B. B. (Liverpool)
B
So, according to the fellow on the link, we will become a perfectly free, ethical, truthful, and extinct country -- or, indeed, civilization. That will be a great consolation to our children living as slaves to the second Hitler!
ResponderEliminarThe WikiLeaks goons are behaving as self-righteous outlaws. They see their "cause" as righteous, and think they are above the law -- any law. Assange's stated intent is to cause the people he's embarrassed to cease communicating, or to self-censor, to such a degree that the "authoritarian conspiracy" they serve will become more stupid and ineffective. But, what or whom does Assange serve? The cause of anarchy? Or the cause of an authoritarian conspiracy of which he is the head? "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss."
These goons are waging a private war on society, just as the jihadi's are. Neither type deserves mercy, and certainly not admiration.
-- Steve (Alabama)
I disagree. The law in the United States that allows such a disclosure is the First Amendment. Remember, Assange is not publishing things he got first hand; they were things
ResponderEliminarthat were sent to him. This is not different than the publication of the "Pentagon Papers" sent by Daniel Ellsberg to The New York Times and perhaps the Washington Post in the 1970's. The authorites are equally upset, but the press was exonerated then and I dare say Assange will be now if they try to bring charges against him for revealing this stuff. The authorities know this; that's why they are trying to get him on a trumped up sex charge that was already dropped once by the Swedish prosecutors.
Michael. (Houston)
So if it were not for whistleblowers and leaks a lot of 'bad stuff' would never come to light and we would continue to see only the false face of some of the people who are considered leaders and who self righteously sermonise to the rest of us. Everyone came to discover the real face of Nixon because of the bravery of the reporters who followed their sources. Isn't Assange doing the same?
ResponderEliminarAlso if people were given the right education both through the school system and tv then we wouldn't have so many 'stoopid' people and maybe they would be able to hold a better opinion. (The education system? There's a topic on its own to discuss!)
I have less faith in those in the know , many of whom get to their positions by way of family connections (Kennedys/ Clintons/Royal family) and NOT by intellect or vocation. Ever heard of the 'gravy train'? I want to know what these people are up to? Their financial gains by privilege of their job and whether the country is going to war for reasons other than the propoganda we are fed by that powerful box that sits in our living room. Transparancy? I'm all for it. Assange seems to have kicked apathy out of the window and a lot of people are starting to realise their own worth and the power of the 'collective'. Why are divisions created and maintained? To make damn sure that your average Joe stays in his individual 'Im all right, Jack' mentality and doesn't suspect that perhaps there's more to all this. BB.
Imagine that Assange and his political party or lobby or "the people" simple and natural but cheated, represented by Assange, reaches power or wields political power any time; or the people under Wikileaks influence vote for a government X that they suppose has to be transparent with everything, and so on….
ResponderEliminarThe question is:
Being the world what it is, and, being the human condition what it is, for how long would the X government transparency last?
It seems we're living in another world; in a kind of bubble where the laws of politics or reality don't work. But if we, ourselves, or the X party wins political power we wouldn't survive a day without applying the shrewdness and intelligence that the use of power requires. And that implies: the secret.
Perhaps our secret will be "good" and "noble", no doubt; but nobody, absolutely nobody in this world exposes himself / herself with that degree of transparency you're talking about. We only demand such transparency to our enemies: it's to our enemies we ask for such a transparency. Wikileaks has given us that satisfaction for a few days or months. It has given us the illusion that we can get full transparency out of political power or power of any sort, but that is just a delusion.
No power whatsoever, whatever democratic they try to be, would perpetuate itself in power without the inescapable and unavoidable use of strategy, and strategy implies the secret.
And we, the ones who tear up our clothes watching the king without clothes-really we didn't know? Which world are we living in? -we would reproduce that power with the same democratic tools Zapatero, Aznar, Obama, Bush, Berlusconi, etc. use. Or, do we really think we're above good and evil?
oot point. Assange does not want to be in power. He's against power or the power. That's precisely the point: governments, by their very nature, are secretive and oppressive: it's up to the citizenry to keep them open and to fight tyranny, either in the courts (that's why the guarantee of civil liberties. i.e., Bill of Rights, is necessary in any constitution) or in the streets. As Jefferson said, "Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty." Wikileaks is doing precisely what it is supposed to do. By the way, I haven't seen any argument against my First Amendment point. That's because there aren't any. He's got the right to publish -like any newspaper or journal, or your blog, for that matter- anything that he wants.
ResponderEliminarMichael (Houston)
To Michael:
ResponderEliminar1) I think Assange should have total freedom to use the Internet to get the information he likes. Not only that, for me he can use that information the way he likes too. No qualms about it.
2) I agree with you citizens should always be vigilant about their freedoms. Governments tend to oppress their citizens, squeeze them with taxes and interfere with civil life. Sometimes they wage unjust wars we need to oppose for moral reasons. I’m fully in favour of civil liberties, Bill of Rights, First Amendment and the Jefferson’s statement about “eternal vigilance.” No qualms about it.
3) Someone who is able to get such amounts of secret or discrete information from western governments has already piled up a huge amount of power. How to use that information—or that power by the same token— implies a moral, ideological and political commitment. Assange thinks that information should go public; thus, the public exposure of all this information aims to undermine the secrecy of foreign policy of western governments; but not only that, there’s also a moral lesson to be taught: governments lie to their citizens and they deserve to be put in evidence before the public. In other words, Assange’s uses Wikileaks as a powerful tool in order to show the truth to the world. So called democratic governments tend to be corrupted, they also tend to do things behind our backs; so they need to be punished, exposed, ridiculed and so forth.
4) Doing this Assange thinks citizens will get the truth about their governments and, in the future, eventually; they’ll be more critical about who or what they vote. Also, they hopefully won’t allow any more lies. Politics must be transparent and clear. Nothing must be hidden to the citizens who vote and pay their taxes.
5) This is, I think, Assange’s main reason and motif for Wikileaks:
6) Now, let’s contrast your arguments with mine:
A) You said: “Assange does not want to be in power. He's against power or the power.”
My response: Someone who is able to get such amounts of secret or discrete information from western governments has already piled up a huge amount of power.
B) You said: “./. governments, by their very nature, are secretive and oppressive.”
My response: No power whatsoever, whatever democratic they try to be, would perpetuate itself in power without the inescapable and unavoidable use of strategy, and strategy implies the secret.
C) You said: “Wikileaks is doing precisely what it is supposed to do.”
My response: Good, but these are going to be the self-defeating results:
Try to get the truth from the governments or the state through Wikileaks and you will end up with even more self-enclosed and hermetic governments and states. They will become more immune to whatever future leaking or filtration. There will not be any other chance to get their secrets, and the secrets will be even more secret and more secrecy will mean more power.
As a conclusion:
Wikileaks has given us that satisfaction for a few days or months. It has given us the illusion that we can get full transparency out of political power or power of any sort, but that is just a delusion.
That’s all my argument.
I am amazed at the direction of these comments. Am I to understand that there is no such thing as legitimate state secrets? The writers appear to suggest that the freedom of speech means no limitation on speech. There has always been limitation to speech -- the proverbial shout of fire in a theater, for example. Similarly, speech cannot be used to commit fraud. And the Espionage Act in the US forbids conveyance of information with the intent to interfere with the operations of the armed forces or to promote the cause of our enemies. The Act has been upheld by the Supreme Court.
ResponderEliminarClearly Assange accepted electronic files from an informant he knew violated his security clearances. Clearances are given to those who swear their allegiance to the US. The information was illegal to obtain and illegal to give. What did Assange give or promise to his informant in exchange for the information? Money? Fame? Commitment to an ideology? Is he still St. Assange if he paid for the information or is he an ordinary thief? What if he only offered fame? He then seems to be a master manipulator.
Why does Assange want to put the lives of people in Afghanistan and their families at stake simply because they want to help us defeat terrorism? Why does he want to risk the lives of soldiers who are trying to make the world a safer place? What about any potential Iranian nuclear scientists who might want to seek asylum in the west? Should these scientists be pointed out to the Iranian government before their safety is secured? Exactly how do we determine the line between the neutral sphere of transparency that naive thinkers believe in and what is dark self-aggrandizement at the expense of innocent lives? I suggest we don't trust St. Assange to make our choices for us.
Well, your argument, Nesalem, is a justification of secrecy and opression. Whose side do you want to be on? When the United States was set up, we were set up as a republic, not an empire. You know, Al Qaida hasn't done anything to me: however, my government now- because of the "threat of terrorism" now surveils me, intercepts my e-mail, and in fact, could come into my office and copy everything I've got (when I'm not here) in the name of the "war against terrorism". Before it was "the war against drugs" and the "war against terrorism". These are all false pretexts to threaten our civil liberties. There alway some excuse for what a friend of mine calls the "constabulary" to violate our freedom.
ResponderEliminarThe fact is that with the laws we had on the books prior to 9/11 we could have caught the terooritsts in the planes just as well as supposedly we can now: they got through because of the incompetence of our FBI and perhaps the CIA and NSA. Indeed, Assange got the info because our "intelligence" services allowed a 22 year old PFC to have access to our diplomatic cables and the ability to download them! It's not my fault -nor Assange's- that the system is run by idiots.
Also, quite frankly, the Arabs, Islamists etc. are a paper tiger. Our real strategic enemy is the People's Republic of China.
Michael
Important arguments the ones laid by the second from the bottom up Anonymous after I post this comment. Shocked and surprised by Michael’s comments about my “justification of secrecy and oppression” in my last intervention. It’s also amazing to read Michael’s arguments which clearly go against all empirical evidence. For many people in the left the enemy--the real enemy-- is the United States of America regardless who rules or how they handle their security. Damned if you do, damned if you don’t. If the US doesn’t take serious security measures, then they must be condemned for their laxity or, perhaps, that laxity has an imperialistic end which is the justification of full oppression. If they allow terrorist attacks for lack of security, that means they will use that vulnerability to enforce oppressive laws to its citizens. Conversely, if they take serious measures, then what the system is doing is to use terrorism as a justification for the evil empire to crack down the freedom of its subjects. There’s no way out of this vicious circle.
ResponderEliminarIt’s kind of amazing to hear that Al-Oaeda or the islamists or Iran are “paper tigers” to justify internal oppression. That proves that for the radical left ideology goes before empirical facts. That picture comes from the idea that the USA must be, for ideological necessity, an evil empire which aim is to exploit the world, and; therefore, third world countries or Muslim countries’ reaction to that exploitation—the reason for terrorism according to this way of thinking—is also used to crack down freedoms at home. Once again we have a vicious circle. Ideology rules against any empirical evidence. This Gnostic-Romantic approach can be summarized like this: We, human beings, are potentially good, but the evil empire (the US) is keeping us in chains. The so called terrorism is just a violent and desperate reaction against this oppression that the evil empire will eventually use against us, the People. The People (the poor, the exploited, the “other”, the Third World, the Muslims, etc) are the potential good one day will rule with total freedom and lack of restrain. Isn’t this myth familiar?
Point 1. Assange & cohorts are thieves and fences -- a fence has no right to sell or distribute stolen property, and can be prosecuted for receiving stolen property and selling it.
ResponderEliminarPoint 2. Free speech gives no one a right to distribute the private communications of others without their permission.
Point 3. The Internet was created under US government auspices and money. No government is going to sit idly by for long and have their systems trashed and abused by cyberthugs. They will institute a policing mechanism to enforce civil order in this new dimension. Calls for such are already around, and will grow more strident as these outrages continue. Assange may love the net, but he'll help kill it as a free space by these self-righteous attacks.
Question: did WikiLeakers set the bombs in Sweden? Sounds like something they'd do -- the ones with courage, that is.
D.E. (Hunstville, Al)
I think your arguments are misdirected, The issue is not whether a democracy can have state secrets. I suppose it can; however, even then they should be subject to close legislative oversight, which quite frankly in the US they are not. However, once these secrets are revealed, the press- i.e. Assange- can publish and reveal them. This is the real Wikileaks issue: First Amendment freedom of the press. Again, I suggest you review the Pentagon paper cases.
ResponderEliminarMichael
And yes, if you do not support effective freedom of press in a democracy, which reveals things that should and do make our government uncomfortable, then in my view you are on the other side: that of opression and censorship
If they really want to take on an "authoritarian conspiracy" why don't they leak some People's Republic of China diplomatic cables?
ResponderEliminarD. E. (Alabama)