Is the wikileaks story fully told?

[JTM]

This is all my personal opinion.

Google "Julian Assange" today and you find several interviews from CNN and other places. As I watch these, he never mentions who he is nor his titles. His interviews focus the information and the leaks themselves. This hasn't seemed to have changed over the past couple of years of interviews he has done.

When I see people criticize him, I see people attacking him. As a human, that's where my main and initial concern came from. Maybe I've been to college and had all the traditional classes, but what really sticks out the most is that exactly.

When I learned about Thomas Payne, Benjamin Franklyn, and the other founding fathers, their main beef wasn't necessarily with who was involved, it was 'what?'.

So I begin to ask myself, 'What is involved here?'

Is our national government concerned with the material involved, or the nature of it? It would seem that they focus on 'Will this compromise 'so and so's life?' but that's not what I've interpreted.... They have focused on THAT it was leaked.

Again I find myself looking into the past. Did the national government of the 1700s appreciate Payne's 'Common Sense?'. No, they absolutely hated it. Now there's a huge correlation for me that I, as a scientist, have a hard time ignoring. The empirical data would seem that it's the distrust of a government and the leaking of information that is a problem. I, as a citizen, will proudly appreciate that as much as they hate it.

It is our duty and responsibility to appreciate that natural distrust of government secrecy that makes our nation so great. Do not confuse yourself. What makes us great is not the unity of 13 colonies or power of 50 states, but the ideas that were realized at that time of our creation.

As our founding fathers had no trust of a king a 1000 miles away that would send national soldiers to protect his ideas (sons and daughters), I have no trust of a tyrant or legislature that would attempt to do the same.

I welcome all thoughts and criticism of what I've said. Game on.

 

[JohnnyFlotsam]

In general, I agree with your observations. Equating Asange and Thomas Payne might be a bit of stretch, but nevertheless your point is valid; the biggest beef people have is that he has embarrassed them. There has been, to date, no release of any truly sensitive information that would have had a negative impact on a tactical level. So we're left with the exposure of "secrets" of people who claim to be acting in our interests, but who, on deeper examination, are often acting in the interests of a very select few. That so few seem to be concerned about that is the truly troubling reality.

Let us also keep in mind that our academic discussion of Asange, Wikileaks, and all matters after the fact, is quite separate from the original theft of data from secured government signals facilities. That theft was a crime unless/until it can be shown that lawful channels via the chain of command for the raising of grievances about crimes documented in that data had been exhausted. That does not appear to have been the case.

 

[jwhoff]

:4:Yes to both posts! Unless there was leakage of highly sensitive technology or deployment all else was embarrassing for officials only. Too, and this is a big point with me, any breaches of the law should expect to be followed by the fullest execution of corresponding penalties. I believe this to be in keeping with Payne, Franklin, and any number of the patriots of this republic.

I learned this as a child who weighed the benefits and the penalties of all tantalizing temptations. Of course, like any self preserving scoundrel of the day, I did immediately throw myself at the mercy of the most favorable court I could muster.

Still ... it is so refreshing to have an adult conversation once in a while.