Wikileaks

DeletedUser

Basically, I believe that a total transparency is not a good thing; because there will always be things that stay behind the curtains. A total transparency is something fictional, it never exists.

The only fact that Wikileaks put the life of a lof of people at risk, this makes me wonder whether he really wants "transparency for democracy".

I just think he wanted to get famous, he wanted to have the light on him, and why not get rich by writing his autobiography.

This is just too much; transparency is good; but giving every single document to every single human being, without trying to divide them between "the documents that will bring something good if diffused" and the other ones, this way of thinking is bad.

At least, this is my opinion.
 

DeletedUser

How would the information be passed out? Wouldn't the government monitor people who have knowledge of top secret information? If the government knew that documents were being leaked, wouldn't they shut down Wikileaks? And if the entire world is being affected, and if peoples lives were at risk, why isn't it shut down?

To answer the OP.
1 ~ Sorry, but I do not know of a Julian Assanges, so unfortunately I cannot answer that.

2 ~ It doesn't have a great impact on World Relations, but the US government I see is boring the brunt of it. Its impact is risking the lives of people, but as far as I know, nobody knows who owns/created Wikileaks.

3 ~ I do not support Wikileaks, due to the fact its actions and concept are disastrous to governments world wide.
 

DeletedUser

1. Julian Assange is the Editor in Chief, spokesperson and largely regarded as the Director of Wikileaks. This also answers your incorrect statement on #2.

2. The allegations of lives being risked has not been verified. The information provided has demonstrated gross falsifications and cover-ups in the U.S., during the Bush administration and following into the Obama administration.

3. Governments consist of its citizens, and its citizens are the people these governments are sworn to serve. When governments lie to their citizens, let the results of public disclosure be disastrous to those corrupt governments.
 

DeletedUser

Sorry Hellstromm, I wouldn't exactly know about these things, because I don't read the news & gossip that much.

Also, at your #3 Hell.

Wouldn't that be possibly related to the other thread I created?

Now to On Topic.

Wikileaks, as implied in the name, is a website full of secrets leaked. Do you not think this would be deleted if it was leaking information to the public? If a countries government does not wish to release information with the public for means that we may not know of, then why would this website be allowed leak this information?
 

DeletedUser

1: in my opinion, the rape charges are a load of crap, 'cos if you look closely you'll see that the swedish authorites want to deport him over to america, where obviously the yanks will make sure he doesn't make any more trouble.

2: not sure on that.

3: yes, i see no reason why Wikileaks is wrong. they have a right to publish the american diplomatic messages, and also, if they manage to get at this 'classified information', it is not their fault, it is the fault of the US government for not protecting these 'files of national importance' with adequate security measures.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top