Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Cannot see how any civilian life has been put at risk,besides the airstrikes going on at present in Afghanistan which in turn create a vicious cycle of revenge on Western targets.
how can one be 100% sure that a civilians life has not been impacted? There is no way. When a terrorist can see what a country thinks their weak spots are, it helps them plan accordingly.
how can one be 100% sure that a civilians life has not been impacted? There is no way. When a terrorist can see what a country thinks their weak spots are, it helps them plan accordingly.
Most groups apart from the most basic backyard wanna be terrorist perhaps,would have pretty clear ideas of targets and people and places of interest.
No real sensitive info would surely be sent in such a way if national security was at stake?
By putting further restrictions on freedom puts Americans in a similar camp to those nations that dispise those rights for it,s citizens,like China and the like.
Oldest trick in the book to cite security concerns to further enrode freedoms.
I still think this will have the opposite effect to what many think. That it will increase secrecy and reduce openness. Not everything is supposed to be out there for everyone to know and read about.
And it all has that tiring, boring anti-US thing going for it. Yeah, we know ... hate the US, boo the US, how horrible that we're allies with the US, .... yadda yadda yadda. And how embarrassing that it's not just Howard who was "licking America's boots". Even Labor appreciates the value of such a friendship .... apparently Arbib should be hung or something ... for espionage, traitor! Booo hisssss. Yeah, like other powerful countries are virtuous and pure of heart.
We are an ally of the US, but it doesn;t mean we have to pander to them
To me, it seems people are after Assange, and not the actual leakers - Pilger has claimed Assange was just doing his journalistic job.
Are we for freedom of speech, or not?
If someone is leaking the documents is the moral obligation not to publicise them? Or should they be made public? Or should a journalist excerise caution?
(just asking questions, I haven't followed this from the get-go and am not up to date with the whole thing ...)
"Anybody who's accusing WikiLeaks of doing anything illegal - it's just rubbish, because if that were true every journalist in Australia would be going to jail every time they got a leak out of government."
Most of it seems to be Embassy Gossip. Big deal. But apparently he's leaked the names of Afghan informers and they might be in danger from the Taliban - is that the sort of "freedom of speech" we need? Seems like he leaks stuff that pushes his agenda. Regardless of the risk to people's lives. So on the one hand I don't see Assange as The Big Evil as some of the outrage likes to make him out to be (good distraction for governments these days), but there's something weird about him too.
I still think this will have the opposite effect to what many think. That it will increase secrecy and reduce openness. Not everything is supposed to be out there for everyone to know and read about.
And it all has that tiring, boring anti-US thing going for it. Yeah, we know ... hate the US, boo the US, how horrible that we're allies with the US, .... yadda yadda yadda. And how embarrassing that it's not just Howard who was "licking America's boots". Even Labor appreciates the value of such a friendship .... apparently Arbib should be hung or something ... for espionage, traitor! Booo hisssss. Yeah, like other powerful countries are virtuous and pure of heart.
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.
It is not necessary an anti USA stance as such,but for a nation that rams down the throat the virtues of freedom to the world,one may just expect they live a little what they preach.
It should change the way such information is managed and to exactly how many people have access to it.
If they want to keep it secret then they need to ensure it is so.
Have a feeling such lapses of security would be far less likely to occur in China or Russia,if the mild stuff that has come to light to date.
Naturally Labor politicians are bought by the Americans,with the offer of various enticements or for idealogical reasons,has always been the case.
The actions of the USA up to this point looks like it is going to ensure further world wide condemnation of their own creation.
Best course of action is to state there were flaws in the system in the past which are in the process of being repaired,eat some humble pie,and conduct themselves in a manner fitting the worlds only demorcratic super power.
Most of it seems to be Embassy Gossip. Big deal. But apparently he's leaked the names of Afghan informers and they might be in danger from the Taliban - is that the sort of "freedom of speech" we need? Seems like he leaks stuff that pushes his agenda. Regardless of the risk to people's lives. So on the one hand I don't see Assange as The Big Evil as some of the outrage likes to make him out to be (good distraction for governments these days), but there's something weird about him too.
I'm not sure freedom of speech means let everything be out in the open. That is too idealistic - even though it is appealing.... (in a sense of liberty etc)
but, these leaks aren't that damaging... are they?!
There is something about the banks though... I think he mentioned a leak about their control or something?
I do remember reading somewhere that there has been no verification that anyone has died due to the leaks....
We are an ally of the US, but it doesn;t mean we have to pander to them
To me, it seems people are after Assange, and not the actual leakers - Pilger has claimed Assange was just doing his journalistic job.
Are we for freedom of speech, or not?
If someone is leaking the documents is the moral obligation not to publicise them? Or should they be made public? Or should a journalist excerise caution?
(just asking questions, I haven't followed this from the get-go and am not up to date with the whole thing ...)
Indeed we do not. The relationship is a two way thing. Not at all impressed with Gillard willing to give up an Australian citizen to a foreign
power so quickly and without a crime being commited.
Think that the Americans are looking the illegalality is in that Assange is not a journalist in the usual manner,as a way of getting their hands on him.
First time i've found a little respect for Australian Foreign Minister Rudd,with his comments today.
Let those folk over there clean up their own back yard before dictating to others.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
