If someone illegally sells/steals/shares confidential information, then where does the chain of responsibility/legality stop?
There has always been a tug-of-war between the press and the government about what is and what is not permitted and it is universally recognized that a free press is essential to the functioning of democracies.
The issue at stake here is a complicated one, whether or not wikileaks is part of the press, and even if it isn't whether it should be counted as such.
Governments the world over, from the worst to the best have figured out a loophole in the whole 'free press' business, which is to use 'access' as a coin with which to control the press. In a world where eyeballs govern the budgets of newspapers not having access directly affects a newspapers bottom line. WikiLeaks circumvents the access trick by simply not being susceptible to that kind of leverage and it is exactly because of that that I suspect that they are seen as 'dangerous' by those in power.
The issue I'm concerned with is that this turns people like Manning into heroes.
Freedom of the press was not created to protect classified documents. They didn't exist at the time. It was created to protect the press' right to contradict and/or point out the flaw in the government system, and the people that manage it.
It's meant to prevent government censorship.
And legal or not, I'm just not comfortable with this level of freedom with national secrets. We'll see how it plays out over the long-term, but I don't think it's a fear of Assange you see, but fear of what these documents will do to strengthen our enemies.
I don't subscribe to your fear, or to your suggestion that we have a common enemy.
I've met them. They don't like us.
Oh my!
> If you live in the US, UK, or Eastern Europe and don't believe we have common enemies, then you are sadly mistaken.
I guess I will have to take your word for it.
> I've met them.
In what capacity did you meet the enemies of the West ?
> They don't like us.
Did they specify any reasons ?
There are fanatic idiots everywhere, that does not mean that we can't strive for a more open government, especially not when it has come to light time and time again that our governments and corporations do not just have secrets because we all benefit from them, but for the most part that they have secrets in order to cover up the lies and the corruption.
If it weren't for that wikileaks would not even exist.
I'll take the extra 0.000025% (that's a doubling) chance of dying in a terrorist attack because of that, which is still substantially less than dying of old age in my bed.
Stop being afraid.
I didn't say Wikileaks is or should be illegal...I asked where we draw the line. I don't think Wikileaks is a benefit, that's all. I think it has the potential to do good, but the way he's released documents has been more reckless than intentionally beneficial.
Can't we push for an open government without extremes? I'd say that our electoral process still functions well, as does the legislative one.
Can't we push for an open government without extremes?
Despise is perhaps too strong a word, particularly in regards to "our own people". But regardless, what if there are very good reasons to despise the West? Everything the West does is not ok simply because you and I live in it. A good portion of the enemies you're referring to have very valid grievances with the West. That their tactics for dealing with those grievances are not my tactics (or Wikileaks tactics) does not in any way deter from the validity of their grievances (or mine).
“Hatred is self-punishment. Hatred it the coward's revenge for being intimidated.”
I didn't say we were perfect, but let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater. The truth is always somewhere in the middle.
With what? That there can be valid grievances with Western policies? That anyone could have a valid reason for hatred?
If you killed my brother, I'd have a significant feeling of hatred towards you. You can call me a coward all you want, but my feeling would be 100% valid. Now apply that principle to the tens and hundreds of thousands of families that have had Western gov'ts kill their civilian family members (as collateral damage). Those Western gov'ts may have reasons they consider good for having killed those civilians (or causing the deaths, however you want to think about it), but you cannot expect the surviving families are going to nod their heads and say "OK, I guess it had to be that way".
I think this quote puts it in perspective: “Hatred is self-punishment. Hatred it the coward's revenge for being intimidated.”
It doesn't, really.
let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater. The truth is always somewhere in the middle.
... and an apple a day keeps the doctor away? "Hatred does not cease by hatred, but only by love." The truth is staring you in the face.
One country wants to buy airplanes from another country. It has offered $1 million for the airplanes, but the seller wants $2 million. The country writes an email saying it is willing to pay $2 million, but wants to negotiate. If a newspaper published the email the seller would demand $2 million costing the country an additional $1 million.
Suppose the military had a remote missile launch capability that allowed generals to telephone in and launch a missile. A newspaper gets hold of the phone number and launch codes allowing anyone to launch the missiles.
Under your reasoning, it is right to publish these.