| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
 Posted: Sat Nov 27, 2010 12:47 pm Post subject: new WikiLeaks revelations will expose corruption |
 |
|
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1333213/WikiLeaks-revelations-expose-corruption-allies-U-S-warns-Britain.html
| Quote: |
new WikiLeaks revelations that will 'expose corruption between allies'
* 3 million documents set to go online
* Bombshell leak thought to include U.S. assessments of Gordon Brown
* Secret talks on return of Lockerbie bomber to Libya may also be leaked
* Allegations 'include U.S. backing of Kurdish terrorists'
* U.S. diplomats face being kicked out of countries in backlash
* Corrupt politicians expected to be named and shamed
David Cameron was warned last night by America that damaging secrets of the �special relationship� are about to be laid bare.
The U.S. ambassador to London made an unprecedented personal visit to Downing Street to warn that whistleblower website WikiLeaks is about to publish secret assessments of what Washington really thinks of Britain.
...
The bombshell leak is thought to include U.S. assessments of Gordon Brown�s personality and his prospects of winning the General Election, and secret discussions on the return of the Lockerbie bomber to Libya.
Assessments of David Cameron�s election chances and his private assurances to U.S. officials may also be included, Government sources believe.
They fear they will emerge on Sunday in co-ordinated releases in newspapers in Britain, Germany and America.
|
http://edmonton.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20101125/wikileaks-release-canada-101125/20101125/?hub=EdmontonHome
| Quote: |
Washington has notified Ottawa that the WikiLeaks secret-spilling website is about to release some sensitive U.S. diplomatic files that could damage U.S. relations with allies around the world.
U.S. officials say the documents could be released this weekend or early next week. They say the internal documents may contain accounts of compromising conversations with political dissidents and friendly politicians and could result in the expulsion of U.S. diplomats from foreign postings.
Walter Dorn, an associate professor at the Royal Military College of Canada, said the leaked documents could "provide a window into the diplomatic exchanges with Canada and a frank view of how Canadian officials are viewed by the U.S. ambassador and by officials in the U.S. embassy.
They may also "show us how the U.S. tried to keep Canada in Afghanistan," Dorn added.
|
I hope the Americans were rude and vile in their memos. That would help in turning Canadians against the war. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
recessiontime
Joined: 21 Jun 2010
Location: Got avatar privileges nyahahaha
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 27, 2010 6:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| We both know Canada will never turn against the US in any fashion. Canada is so dependent on the US for trade and military support that it can't bear to do anything to compromise that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
schwa
Joined: 18 Jan 2003
Location: Yap
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 28, 2010 3:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
This is going to be huge.
I think I applaud wikileaks for pushing a new transparency, but their method is crude. The news is going to be focussed on international damage control this week & likely for a good while to come. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
murmanjake
Joined: 21 Oct 2008
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 28, 2010 4:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
sounds like the maury show.
What he REALLY thinks of you! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
northway
Joined: 05 Jul 2010
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 28, 2010 5:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I'm not sure we need things to be as transparent as Wikileaks would like them to be. What does this accomplish, in the long-run, besides being an anarchist's dream come true? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
recessiontime
Joined: 21 Jun 2010
Location: Got avatar privileges nyahahaha
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 28, 2010 5:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
| northway wrote: |
| I'm not sure we need things to be as transparent as Wikileaks would like them to be. What does this accomplish, in the long-run, besides being an anarchist's dream come true? |
you are right, let the media decide which stories they decide to cover. It's worked out so great for us so far right? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
northway
Joined: 05 Jul 2010
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 28, 2010 5:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
| recessiontime wrote: |
| northway wrote: |
| I'm not sure we need things to be as transparent as Wikileaks would like them to be. What does this accomplish, in the long-run, besides being an anarchist's dream come true? |
you are right, let the media decide which stories they decide to cover. It's worked out so great for us so far right? |
Governments need to be able to keep some things secret from the public. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
comm
Joined: 22 Jun 2010
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 28, 2010 5:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
| northway wrote: |
| I'm not sure we need things to be as transparent as Wikileaks would like them to be. What does this accomplish, in the long-run, besides being an anarchist's dream come true? |
Better question: why can't I open a web browser and easily access a complete listing of where every federal dollar goes? Wikileaks is crude and probably excessive, but maybe it will make people realize just how much they don't know. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 28, 2010 5:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
| northway wrote: |
| I'm not sure we need things to be as transparent as Wikileaks would like them to be. What does this accomplish, in the long-run, besides being an anarchist's dream come true? |
If the information that is brought to light is genuinely damning, then clearly a lack of transparency allowed for unacceptable abuses, and accordingly greater transparency is the only possible path towards resolution of these problems.
If, on the other hand, the information brought to light ultimately consists of nothing more than trivialities that other governments either all ready knew or all ready had deduced, then no real lasting harm will be done and the only "problem" is that Americans now have more information about how the government they elected has been behaving.
Either way, I'm sanguine about these releases. I'm sick of my government behaving unethically, both internationally and domestically. If this can even possibly assist in rectifying that to any degree, I'm inclined to be supportive of it. It's time to stop playing games with people's lives, whether the game is "Command & Conquer" or "Cloak & Dagger." I'm not saying we need to be isolationists. I'm just saying we need to stop spending huge amounts of time & money going around the world wrecking nations in a clearly unethical fashion.
| northway wrote: |
Governments need to be able to keep some things secret from the public. |
For example? What is it you want your government to be doing that you also don't feel the general public should be aware of? I'm not talking about things like, "The specifics of the security measures surrounding the President," here either. I'm talking about matters of genuine social import. I know you're trying to assess this matter in what you consider to be a mature and nuanced fashion, but as time goes by, I'm more and more inclined to think that that kind of thinking just results in governments committing atrocity and citizens rationalizing it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
murmanjake
Joined: 21 Oct 2008
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 28, 2010 5:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
But what do revealing US "assessments of Gordon Brown's personality" have to do with stopping corruption?
I'm all for exposing war crimes and increasing accountability.
But this just sounds like tabloid sensationalism. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
northway
Joined: 05 Jul 2010
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 28, 2010 5:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| northway wrote: |
Governments need to be able to keep some things secret from the public. |
For example? What is it you want your government to be doing that you also don't feel the general public should be aware of? I'm not talking about things like, "The specifics of the security measures surrounding the President," here either. I'm talking about matters of genuine social import. I know you're trying to assess this matter in what you consider to be a mature and nuanced fashion, but as time goes by, I'm more and more inclined to think that that kind of thinking just results in governments committing atrocity and citizens rationalizing it. |
Is making a snide comment about Gordon Brown's tie an atrocity? The "embarrassing allegations" stemming from the imminent documents dump sound like they're full of a lot of petty crap that has little or nothing to do with actual governance. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 28, 2010 5:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
| northway wrote: |
Is making a snide comment about Gordon Brown's tie an atrocity?
|
If pithy comments about Gordon Brown's tie are really the deepest and darkest secrets these documents hold (as opposed to trivial tidbits only included for completeness), I certainly don't think any lasting harm will come of them being released at all. I addressed that hypothetical in my original post.
I'll ask you again: what sort of information does a government need to be able to keep from its citizenry in order to function? Surely you don't think political analyst X thinking Gordon Brown's tie is ugly needs to be a state secret in order for our government to effectively function. What does need be? What is it you want your government to do, but also don't feel the average citizen could be trusted knowing about? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
northway
Joined: 05 Jul 2010
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 28, 2010 6:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| I'll ask you again: what sort of information does a government need to be able to keep from its citizenry in order to function? Surely you don't think political analyst X thinking Gordon Brown's tie is ugly needs to be a state secret in order for our government to effectively function. What does need be? What is it you want your government to do, but also don't feel the average citizen could be trusted knowing about? |
There's plenty of national security related stuff that would be better left unpublished. I suppose my issue is that I think Wikileaks will release anything they can get their hands on, even if it were something that really compromised national security. I realize that I'm being really vague here, and I can't think of something very specific that I would want to keep quiet. Ultimately, I don't trust the judgment of Wikileaks people not to publish something stupid, as it seems their goal is more absolute openness than it is reform. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
recessiontime
Joined: 21 Jun 2010
Location: Got avatar privileges nyahahaha
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 28, 2010 6:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| northway wrote: |
Is making a snide comment about Gordon Brown's tie an atrocity?
|
If pithy comments about Gordon Brown's tie are really the deepest and darkest secrets these documents hold (as opposed to trivial tidbits only included for completeness), I certainly don't think any lasting harm will come of them being released at all. I addressed that hypothetical in my original post.
I'll ask you again: what sort of information does a government need to be able to keep from its citizenry in order to function? Surely you don't think political analyst X thinking Gordon Brown's tie is ugly needs to be a state secret in order for our government to effectively function. What does need be? What is it you want your government to do, but also don't feel the average citizen could be trusted knowing about? |
I'm sure he is just parroting the whole 'the gubbermint should be able to keep secrets for national security' speech he heard on television. He doesn't actually have an answer for you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
northway
Joined: 05 Jul 2010
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 28, 2010 6:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
| recessiontime wrote: |
| I'm sure he is just parroting the whole 'the gubbermint should be able to keep secrets for national security' speech he heard on television. He doesn't actually have an answer for you. |
More like a lot of political science literature, but sure. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
