Good or bad?
My Freemasonry | Freemason Information and Discussion Forum
Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Wikileaks
- Thread starter Blake Bowden
- Start date
Bro.BruceBenjamin
Premium Member
I say bad. I cant use flash drives at work because of it. It also caused a policy of limited cell phone use on post.
Frater Cliff Porter
Premium Member
Bad. I understand the need for secrecy. It is a necessary thing and not evil. The government is us and I don't want us exposed. How can we respect secrecy as Masons and despise it when we use it to protect our well being?
I think cowans are cowans...anti-Masonic ones and anti-Americans ones as well
I think cowans are cowans...anti-Masonic ones and anti-Americans ones as well
Bad. It is a clear and present danger to our national security.
JohnnyFlotsam
Premium Member
You can't make a blanket "good" or "bad" pronouncement like that. Much of the traffic is harmless, but much of it is sensitive and it's exposure will, at best, undo things that are in our national interest. Still other "leaks" desperately needed to be made. Hiding criminal misconduct behind "national security" is shameful and un-American.
The soldier responsible for this betrayed a trust and should be punished for his crime, but so should every one of the criminals he has exposed.
The soldier responsible for this betrayed a trust and should be punished for his crime, but so should every one of the criminals he has exposed.
So where do you draw the line, National Security? How much is too much & who should be responsible for the information published? In order to protect NS, that means that the government has to govern the information. Wouldn't that defeat the purpose?
The government can't rule the media, it is unconstitutional under freedom of speech.
The government can't rule the media, it is unconstitutional under freedom of speech.
any time you find a piece of information you think is important to share to the world because it violates some rule or right (or international law in this case), it's your right to do so. i couldn't imagine finding out about some government atrocity and not being able to share it because of "national security."
Agreed.
M
mark!
Guest
I think the release is two fold. It's bad because yes, some relationships have been tensioned because of it, perhaps national security(Probably not near as bad as some say) will be threatened, and other information that shouldn't otherwise be out there will surface. I do however believe it is a good thing because it lets our "government" know that whatever you do, we're watching. I was talking with my wife the other day about more and more politicians get on board with this "give the country back to it's people" stance, and making a stand for our constitution. In due time, there will be plenty of candidates out there that will run for office that hold these values, and we will start getting back on track, becoming the country we once used to be.
Dave in Waco
Premium Member
In this day and time of cutthroat media, I have to say it's bad. Think about the whole Clinton Sex Scandal. It was a media blitz that garnered more attention then the conflict in Bosina. Now think back 30 years before that. Kennedy had so many mistresses, one would need a program to tell who was who, but there was very little ever published about them until after his death.
So leaks can be a good thing, but when news media is irresponsable with that information, it puts the nation at risk. Another example straight out of my area. I'm sure most have heard of the Branch Davidians and the botched ATF Raid. The ATF kept the raid so secret, not even the local authorities who are supposed to be notified knew about it. Who did know about was a local news station. In their zeal to get the story, they showed up before the raid to set up to film. They filmed the whole raid. The ATF, had no idea that their news camera set to film their raid, which was their way of showing the Clinton Administration that was about to slash their budget that there was still a big need for them, had tipped off the Branch Davidians who were already on the phone to 911 when the raid took place. So their raid was botched because of a leak and irresponsible media.
So media has to be responsible with what they report. There are things the government needs to keep secret for our own safety.
So leaks can be a good thing, but when news media is irresponsable with that information, it puts the nation at risk. Another example straight out of my area. I'm sure most have heard of the Branch Davidians and the botched ATF Raid. The ATF kept the raid so secret, not even the local authorities who are supposed to be notified knew about it. Who did know about was a local news station. In their zeal to get the story, they showed up before the raid to set up to film. They filmed the whole raid. The ATF, had no idea that their news camera set to film their raid, which was their way of showing the Clinton Administration that was about to slash their budget that there was still a big need for them, had tipped off the Branch Davidians who were already on the phone to 911 when the raid took place. So their raid was botched because of a leak and irresponsible media.
So media has to be responsible with what they report. There are things the government needs to keep secret for our own safety.
JohnnyFlotsam
Premium Member
I have about had my fill of partisan political pandering now, thank you.
Traveling Man
Premium Member
Both; From Benjamin Franklin...
This being said after these three wisemen opened mail for intel purposes during the American Revolution...
This being said after these three wisemen opened mail for intel purposes during the American Revolution...
Bingo. I think it's a balance between leaders in government trying to keep a secret and the people trying to figure out information and spread it around. I see nothing wrong with having a constant struggle over this and think a solution either way would be a bad thing. It's nothing new, it's been around since time began, and it's the way it should be.
Awesome correlation there. I like it.
Preston DuBose
Registered User
Bad, in that it was a very indiscriminate leak. The majority of the leak thus far doesn't expose wrongdoing. What it does expose are private US diplomatic conversations between and about other nations. The leaks certainly won't improve our country's diplomatic relations with those nations, and in many cases it will reduce trust and discourage candor. We have a right to expect our government to be accountable, but the wikileaks are damaging our diplomatic credibility with very little to show for it.
Preston DuBose
Registered User
I saw this article and was reminded of this thread.
http://www.theeagle.com/local/Dean-weighs-in-on-leaks/
http://www.theeagle.com/local/Dean-weighs-in-on-leaks/
Botex
Premium Member
That link is broken (missing a hyphen it seems). Here is the working link: http://www.theeagle.com/local/Dean-weighs-in-on-leaks-
On the subject of Wikileaks, my observation is that the leaks already occurred at their source, rather than when they were divested by Assange. IF there is any liability, it must fall on the leaker - I don't believe that to be Wikileaks (read Assange) as he never swore an oath to protect the so-called secrets. He merely created the apparatus to collect and eventually disperse the contents. My point is that the leakage had already occurred at the source, because the intent/expectation of the conveyor(s) of the information to Wikileaks was that their submissions eventually would be made widely known.
As to the rightness or wrongness of the actions of the source leakers, I cannot make that judgement because I do not know their mind. Their decision to leak could be evidence of an inability to reconcile duty with conscience. Or perhaps they had made multiple oaths and came to the conclusion that two or more of these were in contradiction to one another. I could speculate further but I don't see the fruit in doing so.
On the subject of Wikileaks, my observation is that the leaks already occurred at their source, rather than when they were divested by Assange. IF there is any liability, it must fall on the leaker - I don't believe that to be Wikileaks (read Assange) as he never swore an oath to protect the so-called secrets. He merely created the apparatus to collect and eventually disperse the contents. My point is that the leakage had already occurred at the source, because the intent/expectation of the conveyor(s) of the information to Wikileaks was that their submissions eventually would be made widely known.
As to the rightness or wrongness of the actions of the source leakers, I cannot make that judgement because I do not know their mind. Their decision to leak could be evidence of an inability to reconcile duty with conscience. Or perhaps they had made multiple oaths and came to the conclusion that two or more of these were in contradiction to one another. I could speculate further but I don't see the fruit in doing so.