Wiki Leaks

[ludwig]

What do people think of these leaks - good or bad?

Is it telling us anything we don't already know? - would intelligence documents from any other country look any different, or be any less contemptuous of other countries leaders etc?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/...ld-us-canada-11860435

[jake-the-peg]

No QM

The press try to confuse the public iterest with what interests the public but the legal profession is generally not easilly confused on that issue.

Dismissing the rape and murder of a 14 year old girl by US soldiers as "attrocities will always happen in warfare" is not acceptable.

I'm pretty sure you would have a different view if she'd been British - or maybe not?

[anotheoldgit]

Ups 'knowing'

[joggerjayne]

Broad questions, thrown into the melting pot ...
ment
Do we really believe that those in authority do not conspire to deceive us ??

(please, someone ... say "Yes" so I can have a massive LOL !!)

Do we accept the way that facts are fed from the Establishment to the Media ?

Should we know if those in power are deceiving us ?

What's gonna happen in a few days' time when the really big revelations are published ?

[Quizmonster]

Re public interest, Jake, lawyers for the security services are still, I understand, arguing that the judges got it wrong as regards the inquest evidence, so it's pretty clear that the legal profession IS still "confused on that issue".
I read recently...rightly or wrongly; I'm no lawyer...that the government had the power to stop the inquest and turn it into a public inquiry. Then they could stipulate that certain evidence COULD be heard in camera. That's precisely what I believe they SHOULD do, if they have that power.

[woofgang]

what i found interesting were the leaks suggesting that the heads of other Arab Muslim countries had asked/agreed with US going into Iraq..now if I were the US and getting a tad fed up with being though of as Mr Nasty who goes and pokes his nose in where its not wanted, whatever I said when wikileaks published that, might I not be just a little pleased to see that truth outed?

[KARL]

There are those who advocate secrecy at all levels, none of your business, and there are lots of examples of rather sordid (or worse) things having gone on in the shelter of such an environment. Then there are those who say everything in politics, government, civil service, courts, religious circles, etc. , in fact everything that pertains to society should be puiblicly accessible, as opposed to what is in private among consenting adults (in no way relating to official/work connections) being all that deserves protection under secrecy. Indeed, at least one society I know of operates in essence the latter way and their order has not collapsed, the sky has not fallen in. In between the two are those who clamour for democracy, freedom and all the rest, so long as they can at will observe their particular version of secrecy - to paraphrase, a bit like all should be equal but some ("we") should be more equal than the rest. There will always be those who try to "get away with" something they would rather nobody knew about. It seems to me you either have to accept iniquity or else be fully open because there is no acceptable form of asking some elite to decide what should be hidden and what should not be. It is no good having an outlook/system that basically says either to some or all that it is OK to do/say what you like but that being found out is unforgivable. That is the stuff of so many of the tabloids' successes in generating scandal, news/profit and, frankly, debasing of institutions and dumbing down of social discourse. No secret, no fear of it backfiring.

[eyethenkyew]

Some people on here are confusing genuine need for secrecy regarding a nation's security and clouding it with media and paparazzi tittle tattle which has absolutely zilch to do with this post.

There are many unheralded heroes working within the elite intelligence services without whose dedication and professionalism the safekeeping of our nation would be in serious jeopardy. You won't see them on the front of glitzy magazines or sleazy tabloids. Their precious efforts are only eroded by such scandalous revelations from totally unauthorised sources whose reckless actions could put all of us in real danger.

[KARL]

There are those who see nothing glorious or glamorous about spying or any of the covert activities that secret services (of any colour or nationality) get up to. Wars throw up strange situations, needs and desperations but then there are also those who, without any desire to deny historical events, have absolutely no time or sympathy for any war.of any kind and see many of the rivalries that have arisen between nations as quite small minded. Secrecy tends to be a conservative reaction while full openness is a liberal/radical concept. So far, this batch of leaks looks rather insignificant but embarrassing to some parties - previous leaks through the same channel gave a distinct impression of being of more import and deserving of an airing. The fact is that many (most ?) so-called secrets are rather laughably held as such (if not pitifully), others are sordid and some (but very few) are crucial to two opposing sides. Historically, lethal opposition has often/usually been the product of ideological vanity or posturing rather than any rational necessity. Secrecy tends to create an environment conducive to such attitudes. For the first time in the history of the human race, rather than fostering a culture of ignorance among the masses, now modern communications are throwing light into corners like never before. People power was born through these conditions. Ah, but of course there are those who say the common rabble should be kept in the dark and in their place where there is no danger of them aspiring to things abnove their station.

[naomi24]

I find it quite worrying. It's incredibly irresponsible.

[jackthehat]

Things that 'interest the public' are not the same things as those that are 'in the public interest'........

I, for one, would gladly give up my right to know *any* of the up-coming Wiki-leaks if it preserves the life of anyone put in danger by those same leaks.

[naomi24]

My thoughts precisely Jack.

[joggerjayne]

JTH ...

Statement of Principles from The Guardian ...

1. A number of "leaks" have been edited, to avoid endangering sources or personnel.

2. Some have been restricted to avoid jeapordising active special operations.

3. All published leaks were individually notified to the authorities involved, in advance, to give them an opportunity to advise if they should be withheld for the above reasons (not just to avoid showing officials for the prats they are!).

4. Over 3,000,000 Americans already have access to all of these so-called "secrets".

[joggerjayne]

5. Each of these principles was agreed in advance between Wiki, The Guardian, Le Monde, El Pais, and the New York Times.

[jackthehat]

JJ - I should dispense with The Grauniad and go straight to Wiki-Leaks..........if I really wished to exercise my 'democratic' rights to see blah, blah, blah.............

[123everton]

Amongst the documents released is the suggestion that the U.S knew that Georgia was about to launch an attack on South Ossetia and Abkarzia, why didn't the U.S act to save lives?
Why did the U.S (and Britain) perpetuate the lie that Russia started it?
Do we not have the right to know these things?
Do the bereaved of South Ossetia, Abkarzia, Russia and Georgia not have the right to know why noone acted to prevent this conflict?
My Lai would have been hidden from our gaze too, would that have been right?

[jno]

just so, Everton... jack protests that the release of these documents endangers lives; but if they also reveal how other lives were wasted, could it be said that this balances out? I'm inclined to think so.

[naomi24]

One wrong doesn't negate another.

[horseshoes]

Zeuhl - I've been waiting for Prince Andrew to be outed for the last 15 or so years. What I can't understand, why would anyone's homosexuality need to be hidden these days. I thought we were all far more tolerant and enlightened than that. Really, does it matter? Or in his case, does anyone even care?

[jackthehat]

jno - It would be better that *all* deaths were treated as causes for concern and proper and full investigations into their circumstances were carried out and measures set in place to avoid such deaths in future. I don't believe that they presently are.
However, I don't believe that publishing 'names' will persuade the powers-that-be to do so; and quite to what degree others in sensitive positions will be endangered I really have no idea, but any increase in uncertainty for them, surely, is not to be desired ?

horseshoes - I don't think I have ever heard rumours of Prince Andrew's homosexuality.............there are many unfounded rumours about Price Edward's supposed heterosexuality, though.

[horseshoes]

Yes Jackthehat. There have long been unfounded rumours about Edward. Perhaps red-herrings, perhaps not. I know what I know - and I won't bat an eyelid if it was ever announced about Andrew, but hardly in the realms of Public Interest - more suited to the pages of the trashy magazines.