I don`t think what the governments are doing is right but releasing documents that are bound to make things more delicate and harder for the "governments" to ever get their acts together is also not a good idea. The peaceful, more rational thinking member countries of the world do have real enemies that don`t need to be given inside info. This is not just some guy exercising his freedom of speech. These leaks are private conversations between officials that were appointed to do a job
for their countries the best way they see fit. They were asked to use their judgment and act accordingly. All these leaks are going to do is stir up the pot and stop all officials from getting into their jobs 120% with a passion. And ultimately that will be our loss.
for their countries the best way they see fit. They were asked to use their judgment and act accordingly. All these leaks are going to do is stir up the pot and stop all officials from getting into their jobs 120% with a passion. And ultimately that will be our loss.
|
|
|
|
コメント(18)
Nothing is surprised. Most of cables are easily expected.
People with common sense would imagine those documents and the facts.
Only the difference is official figures wrote those letters unofficially.
The leaks might harm the relationship a bit, moreover, they won't trust much the US intelligent service and their information security anymore. That will actually hurt the US profit.
People with common sense would imagine those documents and the facts.
Only the difference is official figures wrote those letters unofficially.
The leaks might harm the relationship a bit, moreover, they won't trust much the US intelligent service and their information security anymore. That will actually hurt the US profit.
Is the Australian guy making a lot of money out of it?
Or is he just doing that for whatever he believes is justice?
If it's not for money, he must be a very courageous guy.
Going against the super power on a very critical basis is such a brave move. Now his life is at stake.
This world is controled by only a handful of people. It's so true. They always get the lion's share. Maybe he wants to show how unfair this whole world is. But I'm not sure if what he's doing brings us anything good.
Or is he just doing that for whatever he believes is justice?
If it's not for money, he must be a very courageous guy.
Going against the super power on a very critical basis is such a brave move. Now his life is at stake.
This world is controled by only a handful of people. It's so true. They always get the lion's share. Maybe he wants to show how unfair this whole world is. But I'm not sure if what he's doing brings us anything good.
> Mloverさん
He just wants attention. First he claims responsible reporting, now he threatens unveiling raw documents. Possession of stolen items is still a crime.
>#2
Most people cannot see the bigger picture, and these releases put lives at stake. Politics has worked like this since time began, nothings new. All this does is make those who are on edge, fall off. Rational leaders understand, irrational leaders don't.
He just wants attention. First he claims responsible reporting, now he threatens unveiling raw documents. Possession of stolen items is still a crime.
>#2
Most people cannot see the bigger picture, and these releases put lives at stake. Politics has worked like this since time began, nothings new. All this does is make those who are on edge, fall off. Rational leaders understand, irrational leaders don't.
Perhaps more fundamental is this question: how important is the issue of transparency?
With respect to corporate whistleblowing, I believe that if a company is doing something that negatively impacts consumers, and the company is complacent about such an ongoing process, the consumers have a right to know. The same can be said for a company and its investors: if a company is not making sound management decisions, its investors have a right to know--in order to make a decision as to whether they will increase or decrease their stake in said company.
What for the case of a national government? What should people have a "right to know"? National security and other factors must be considered. Under America's Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), people can request disclosure of virtually anything--and often their requests are honored, albeit such information may be redacted. Thus if people had requested specific disclosures with regard to Afghanistan, much of the same information may have been disclosed--minus the names of specific agents and cooperatives, thus protecting people whose lives are indeed on the line.
In Cablegate, I would wager that there weren't many surprises: diplomats, like the rest of us, have two sides, one public and one private. If the American ambassador to Japan said that "Japanese are a politically weak nation" in private, he is expressing a private opinion--disclosure of such an opinion would make him appear extremely rude toward Japanese, no? Even if this is mitigated by his otherwise warm public comments about Japan in other circumstances. I would maintain that even if you suspect someone thinks a certain thing, having confirmation of it would be the thing that undermines a relationship. And that's potentially what this has done.
Now: Assange's site has acted as a conduit through which public disclosure may occur. But is it really serving a valid purpose, or serving more as a playground for trading high-level gossip? Oh, if it were only that simple. When we start seeing the dirty laundry of nations being aired in public, with all players being individually named, it goes from "whistleblowing" to something more dangerous.
3> Rational vs. Irrational leaders... lol.
With respect to corporate whistleblowing, I believe that if a company is doing something that negatively impacts consumers, and the company is complacent about such an ongoing process, the consumers have a right to know. The same can be said for a company and its investors: if a company is not making sound management decisions, its investors have a right to know--in order to make a decision as to whether they will increase or decrease their stake in said company.
What for the case of a national government? What should people have a "right to know"? National security and other factors must be considered. Under America's Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), people can request disclosure of virtually anything--and often their requests are honored, albeit such information may be redacted. Thus if people had requested specific disclosures with regard to Afghanistan, much of the same information may have been disclosed--minus the names of specific agents and cooperatives, thus protecting people whose lives are indeed on the line.
In Cablegate, I would wager that there weren't many surprises: diplomats, like the rest of us, have two sides, one public and one private. If the American ambassador to Japan said that "Japanese are a politically weak nation" in private, he is expressing a private opinion--disclosure of such an opinion would make him appear extremely rude toward Japanese, no? Even if this is mitigated by his otherwise warm public comments about Japan in other circumstances. I would maintain that even if you suspect someone thinks a certain thing, having confirmation of it would be the thing that undermines a relationship. And that's potentially what this has done.
Now: Assange's site has acted as a conduit through which public disclosure may occur. But is it really serving a valid purpose, or serving more as a playground for trading high-level gossip? Oh, if it were only that simple. When we start seeing the dirty laundry of nations being aired in public, with all players being individually named, it goes from "whistleblowing" to something more dangerous.
3> Rational vs. Irrational leaders... lol.
"I would maintain that even if you suspect someone thinks a certain thing, having confirmation of it would be the thing that undermines a relationship. And that's potentially what this has done. "
Exactly... It would be naive to believe that some people would not have personal opinions that conflicted with the official policies they were elected to promote. These are real people that are trying to work together to solve some pretty difficult issues. A certain level of straight talk between them ( including all the nasty little jabs) is just part of the job. We don`t need to see that.
When Assange threatened to release that next wave of classified documents (if his websites were attacked) ended any kind of credibility he might have hoped for in my book.
Exactly... It would be naive to believe that some people would not have personal opinions that conflicted with the official policies they were elected to promote. These are real people that are trying to work together to solve some pretty difficult issues. A certain level of straight talk between them ( including all the nasty little jabs) is just part of the job. We don`t need to see that.
When Assange threatened to release that next wave of classified documents (if his websites were attacked) ended any kind of credibility he might have hoped for in my book.
In the previous leaks about the Afghanistan conflict, Assange had the gall to publicly blackmail the American and other governments by saying he would release the cryptographic keys to tens of thousands of other files, documents far more damning and which presumably would be far more embarrassing, if any government or entity took down his servers. It was when he boldly asserted his self-supposed right to publish any content at-will this that any credibility he'd gained in my eyes went straight out the door.
Meanwhile, yes: these files are encrypted with a 128-digit password. Something he felt next to impossible to crack. It's the same thing that was said about DVD copy protection and Wi-Fi WEP keys, among numerous other crypto algorithms--they're breakable, given time. What he's effectively done is made completely public secret encrypted documents; once an individual or group cracks the code, it'll only be a matter of time before anyone can have access to this material. Smart guy, Assange.
Still, I had to chuckle when Newt Gingrich called what Assange had done "un-American." Hmm. As an Australian, Assange most likely doesn't really cares what is or isn't American...
Meanwhile, yes: these files are encrypted with a 128-digit password. Something he felt next to impossible to crack. It's the same thing that was said about DVD copy protection and Wi-Fi WEP keys, among numerous other crypto algorithms--they're breakable, given time. What he's effectively done is made completely public secret encrypted documents; once an individual or group cracks the code, it'll only be a matter of time before anyone can have access to this material. Smart guy, Assange.
Still, I had to chuckle when Newt Gingrich called what Assange had done "un-American." Hmm. As an Australian, Assange most likely doesn't really cares what is or isn't American...
> あむさん
They have been looking for him for a few weeks, and Assange has been in hiding. It takes time to file an international warrant. Sweden has a very broad sexual crime law, with 3 kinds of rape definitions. Assange is accused of the least one. The accuser said that Assange took off his condom, and that was when it turned from concensual sex to rape.
Assange is a terrorist. By releasing unadulterated stolen documents that seriously puts lives at risk, he is not practicing responsible reporting.
There is a BIG difference between reporting a fault backed by proof, and releasing stolen private information.
They have been looking for him for a few weeks, and Assange has been in hiding. It takes time to file an international warrant. Sweden has a very broad sexual crime law, with 3 kinds of rape definitions. Assange is accused of the least one. The accuser said that Assange took off his condom, and that was when it turned from concensual sex to rape.
Assange is a terrorist. By releasing unadulterated stolen documents that seriously puts lives at risk, he is not practicing responsible reporting.
There is a BIG difference between reporting a fault backed by proof, and releasing stolen private information.
Pfizer used dirty tricks to avoid payout for dangerous drug trials on children in Nigeria:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/dec/09/wikileaks-cables-pfizer-nigeria
US intelligence forces were responsible for the horrible torture of an innocent german citizen, and put pressure on Germany to silence the prosecution of the agents responsible for this action:
http://www.boingboing.net/2010/12/01/wikileaks-and-the-el.html
The Director of newspaper El Pais explains how US troops killed a Spanish journalist in Baghdad, and its diplomats put pressure on the Spanish government to avoid a trial or investigation:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/09/wikileaks-cables-huge-impact-spain
http://helsinkitimes.org/htimes/international-news/13529-wikileaks-revelations-put-pressure-on-spanish-officials.html
The US government had an inside mole spying and reporting all the moves of the German government to the American embassy:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/10/wikileaks-cables-spy-hunt-germany
Hillary Clinton authorized diplomats to collect biometric data, passwords, encryption keys, credit-card numbers, e-mail addresses, etc. of top UN officials, including Ban-Ki-Moon, in direct violation of UN conventions:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/nov/28/us-embassy-cables-spying-un
A US diplomat persuaded the Obama administration to lobby the Russian Government on behalf of Visa and Mastercard, to ensure that Russian legislation did not adversely affect their interests in the country:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/08/wikileaks-us-russia-visa-mastercard?INTCMP=SRCH
US Navy killed 41 innocent people in a small village in Yemen. To avoid being caught, the government of Yemen claimed that the attacks had been made by its own government, and not by Americans. Other deceptions and lies took place during this time.
http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2010/12/09/what-has-wikileaks-started/wikileaks-shows-that-deception-begets-deception
The Foreign Office stands accused of misleading the public over the plight of thousands of islanders who were expelled from their Indian Ocean homeland to make way for a large US military base:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/dec/03/wikileaks-cables-diego-garcia-uk
Taxpayer money from USA citizens has been used to finance, among other things, parties for Afghan policemen who take drugs and buy male prostitute boys.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/02/foreign-contractors-hired-dancing-boys
US Army charges a 15% "administrative fund" fee on the money that its allies give for Afghanistan support:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/02/germany-us-afghan-funds-wikileaks
The US and China worked together to prevent European nations from reaching an agreement at last year's climate summit in Copenhagen.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,733630,00.html
The US lobbied the head of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to prevent an Iranian scientist taking one of its key roles:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/wikileaks/8185459/WikiLeaks-US-lobbied-UN-climate-head-to-block-Iranian-scientist.html
Bush administration was kept well informed of Sudan's weapons support of Christian rebels, and not only fails to do anything to stop it, they actually contributed to it:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,733775,00.html
-----------------------------
continues....
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/dec/09/wikileaks-cables-pfizer-nigeria
US intelligence forces were responsible for the horrible torture of an innocent german citizen, and put pressure on Germany to silence the prosecution of the agents responsible for this action:
http://www.boingboing.net/2010/12/01/wikileaks-and-the-el.html
The Director of newspaper El Pais explains how US troops killed a Spanish journalist in Baghdad, and its diplomats put pressure on the Spanish government to avoid a trial or investigation:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/09/wikileaks-cables-huge-impact-spain
http://helsinkitimes.org/htimes/international-news/13529-wikileaks-revelations-put-pressure-on-spanish-officials.html
The US government had an inside mole spying and reporting all the moves of the German government to the American embassy:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/10/wikileaks-cables-spy-hunt-germany
Hillary Clinton authorized diplomats to collect biometric data, passwords, encryption keys, credit-card numbers, e-mail addresses, etc. of top UN officials, including Ban-Ki-Moon, in direct violation of UN conventions:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/nov/28/us-embassy-cables-spying-un
A US diplomat persuaded the Obama administration to lobby the Russian Government on behalf of Visa and Mastercard, to ensure that Russian legislation did not adversely affect their interests in the country:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/08/wikileaks-us-russia-visa-mastercard?INTCMP=SRCH
US Navy killed 41 innocent people in a small village in Yemen. To avoid being caught, the government of Yemen claimed that the attacks had been made by its own government, and not by Americans. Other deceptions and lies took place during this time.
http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2010/12/09/what-has-wikileaks-started/wikileaks-shows-that-deception-begets-deception
The Foreign Office stands accused of misleading the public over the plight of thousands of islanders who were expelled from their Indian Ocean homeland to make way for a large US military base:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/dec/03/wikileaks-cables-diego-garcia-uk
Taxpayer money from USA citizens has been used to finance, among other things, parties for Afghan policemen who take drugs and buy male prostitute boys.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/02/foreign-contractors-hired-dancing-boys
US Army charges a 15% "administrative fund" fee on the money that its allies give for Afghanistan support:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/02/germany-us-afghan-funds-wikileaks
The US and China worked together to prevent European nations from reaching an agreement at last year's climate summit in Copenhagen.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,733630,00.html
The US lobbied the head of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to prevent an Iranian scientist taking one of its key roles:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/wikileaks/8185459/WikiLeaks-US-lobbied-UN-climate-head-to-block-Iranian-scientist.html
Bush administration was kept well informed of Sudan's weapons support of Christian rebels, and not only fails to do anything to stop it, they actually contributed to it:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,733775,00.html
-----------------------------
continues....
Sorry if all these news are mostly about the US. I 'd put a list here of misdeeds about other countries, if I had more time. These are some of the stories from 1295 cables.
There is more in these cables than just diplomatic gossip. The gossip was released first by the established media, because gossip sells newspapers. Wikileaks did not tell the newspapers which news to release first. It is a consequence of the infotainment media that we have at present. The watchdog press that existed during the time of the Pentagon Papers is but a shadow of its former self.
Wikileaks, in collaboration with the newspapers, has redacted the cables to eliminate sources. Publishing these cables has always been protected by the First Amendment. Why are the NyTimes, and other newspapers, not being persecuted and charged by the same crime that Wikileaks is accused of? Why, in the last years, has the US government multiplied the number of documents that are classified "secret", without any real necessity? Why was their "classified documents" database accessible to about 3 million people? Why do 800,000 people have access to the "top secrets" database? If a secret can be known by a million people, is it really a secret?
Why do people choose to leak, despite the huge threats they face? Only a determined individual can choose to follow this path and overcome the many barriers and dangers that his actions pose. What were the motives of this leaker? Why did the US make it easier for these documents to be leaked through removable media, as compared to the past, when that was not allowed?
Why does Robert Gates proclaim in the open that Wikileaks is a danger to the world, and then goes on to say the exact opposite in a Pentagon briefing?
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/30/gates-on-leaks-wiki-and-otherwise/
Also, taking in account that more than 4000 americans were killed in Iraq, and many other thousands of innocent Iraqis have died as consequence of this war, what legitimacy does Gates have to proclaim that Wikileaks is the one with "blood on their hands"?
Also, it has been established that the American government has used false information to generate a conflict that resulted in the death of many people. If it can be proved that Wikileaks has the agenda of destroying the American government (even though they have published documents from several other countries in the past), is their information false? Is Wikileaks inventing lies to specifically destroy the US? And if so, why are there also cables which show that in some cases, the US has acted in a correct way, according to the morals that it preaches?
There is more in these cables than just diplomatic gossip. The gossip was released first by the established media, because gossip sells newspapers. Wikileaks did not tell the newspapers which news to release first. It is a consequence of the infotainment media that we have at present. The watchdog press that existed during the time of the Pentagon Papers is but a shadow of its former self.
Wikileaks, in collaboration with the newspapers, has redacted the cables to eliminate sources. Publishing these cables has always been protected by the First Amendment. Why are the NyTimes, and other newspapers, not being persecuted and charged by the same crime that Wikileaks is accused of? Why, in the last years, has the US government multiplied the number of documents that are classified "secret", without any real necessity? Why was their "classified documents" database accessible to about 3 million people? Why do 800,000 people have access to the "top secrets" database? If a secret can be known by a million people, is it really a secret?
Why do people choose to leak, despite the huge threats they face? Only a determined individual can choose to follow this path and overcome the many barriers and dangers that his actions pose. What were the motives of this leaker? Why did the US make it easier for these documents to be leaked through removable media, as compared to the past, when that was not allowed?
Why does Robert Gates proclaim in the open that Wikileaks is a danger to the world, and then goes on to say the exact opposite in a Pentagon briefing?
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/30/gates-on-leaks-wiki-and-otherwise/
Also, taking in account that more than 4000 americans were killed in Iraq, and many other thousands of innocent Iraqis have died as consequence of this war, what legitimacy does Gates have to proclaim that Wikileaks is the one with "blood on their hands"?
Also, it has been established that the American government has used false information to generate a conflict that resulted in the death of many people. If it can be proved that Wikileaks has the agenda of destroying the American government (even though they have published documents from several other countries in the past), is their information false? Is Wikileaks inventing lies to specifically destroy the US? And if so, why are there also cables which show that in some cases, the US has acted in a correct way, according to the morals that it preaches?
Finally, why are US politicians mounting unprecedented pressure on companies that were connected to Wikileaks, just like China does with its dissidents?
Like many others, I do not like Assange's character that much. But there are few alternatives to Wikileaks right now. Maybe Openleaks will make a difference, or other places, with greater professionalism. These cables will not bring the great armageddon that the powers that be are claiming. As the government says while it constantly spies on its citizens: if you have nothing to hide, you don't need to worry. If we can be strip-searched naked on american airport terminals, to the point of causing severe problems to citizens without accountability (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40291856/ns/travel-news/), then why are the citizens not being correctly informed of how terribly their taxpayer money is being wasted?
Assange doesn't care about people's medical records or mistresses. These cables expose wrongdoing in several countries, not just the US. If some people feel offended, maybe its because they don't like looking at their own countries through a mirror.
The efforts to silence wikileaks, and having people calling for the murder of Assange send an interesting message to oppressive governments around the world. They will say: If that's how you do business when you don't like what people say about you, then we are fine with that. Welcome to the club...
Like many others, I do not like Assange's character that much. But there are few alternatives to Wikileaks right now. Maybe Openleaks will make a difference, or other places, with greater professionalism. These cables will not bring the great armageddon that the powers that be are claiming. As the government says while it constantly spies on its citizens: if you have nothing to hide, you don't need to worry. If we can be strip-searched naked on american airport terminals, to the point of causing severe problems to citizens without accountability (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40291856/ns/travel-news/), then why are the citizens not being correctly informed of how terribly their taxpayer money is being wasted?
Assange doesn't care about people's medical records or mistresses. These cables expose wrongdoing in several countries, not just the US. If some people feel offended, maybe its because they don't like looking at their own countries through a mirror.
The efforts to silence wikileaks, and having people calling for the murder of Assange send an interesting message to oppressive governments around the world. They will say: If that's how you do business when you don't like what people say about you, then we are fine with that. Welcome to the club...
> bebioさん
I am not against whistleblowing. But I am against puting lives at stake just to prove point. Responsible reporting and exposing confidential information that endangers lives are different.
You also dont prosecute a criminal by exposing all the evidence to everyone in the world. You do it in court.
I am not against whistleblowing. But I am against puting lives at stake just to prove point. Responsible reporting and exposing confidential information that endangers lives are different.
You also dont prosecute a criminal by exposing all the evidence to everyone in the world. You do it in court.
http://www.adbusters.org/blogs/adbusters-blog/iamwikileaks.html:
The empire of consumerist regimes is circling its wagons, jettisoning the rhetoric of democracy and openly calling for the assassination of those who defy its power. And now, every one of us on the left faces a decision. If we seize this revolutionary opportunity, chances are we can parlay it into a significant blow against the current world order.
Behind Wikileaks is a powerful tactical insight that was best articulated by Julian Assange:
"To radically shift regime behavior we must think clearly and boldly for if we have learned anything, it is that regimes do not want to be changed. We must think beyond those who have gone before us, and discover technological changes that embolden us with ways to act in which our forebears could not. Firstly we must understand what aspect of government or neocorporatist behavior we wish to change or remove. Secondly we must develop a way of thinking about this behavior that is strong enough carry us through the mire of politically distorted language, and into a position of clarity. Finally must use these insights to inspire within us and others a course of ennobling, and effective action." (State and Terrorist Conspiracies)
Already, Wikileaks has made substantial strides in that direction.
In the last few days, we’ve learned of the perversion of American diplomacy and power on multiple levels. And in the coming days, Wikileaks promises to release cables on Israel that could shine a light on the inhumane occupation of Palestine. And in the near future, they will release documents rumored to be taken from the hard-drive of an executive at a leading American bank. Assange says the documents will be as damaging as the “Enron emails” that shook capitalism in 2001. If Wikileaks had existed while Colin Powell was misleading the UN Security Council, perhaps we could have halted the invasion of Iraq.
This is a rallying call to become a revolutionary whistle blower and join the growing legion who have vowed to reveal the corruption, dirty tricks and systemic injustices that our global system thrives on.
Imagine a world where people everywhere, in every company, in every branch of government start copying incriminating documents and revealing the truth in the name of #IAmWikileaks.
The empire of consumerist regimes is circling its wagons, jettisoning the rhetoric of democracy and openly calling for the assassination of those who defy its power. And now, every one of us on the left faces a decision. If we seize this revolutionary opportunity, chances are we can parlay it into a significant blow against the current world order.
Behind Wikileaks is a powerful tactical insight that was best articulated by Julian Assange:
"To radically shift regime behavior we must think clearly and boldly for if we have learned anything, it is that regimes do not want to be changed. We must think beyond those who have gone before us, and discover technological changes that embolden us with ways to act in which our forebears could not. Firstly we must understand what aspect of government or neocorporatist behavior we wish to change or remove. Secondly we must develop a way of thinking about this behavior that is strong enough carry us through the mire of politically distorted language, and into a position of clarity. Finally must use these insights to inspire within us and others a course of ennobling, and effective action." (State and Terrorist Conspiracies)
Already, Wikileaks has made substantial strides in that direction.
In the last few days, we’ve learned of the perversion of American diplomacy and power on multiple levels. And in the coming days, Wikileaks promises to release cables on Israel that could shine a light on the inhumane occupation of Palestine. And in the near future, they will release documents rumored to be taken from the hard-drive of an executive at a leading American bank. Assange says the documents will be as damaging as the “Enron emails” that shook capitalism in 2001. If Wikileaks had existed while Colin Powell was misleading the UN Security Council, perhaps we could have halted the invasion of Iraq.
This is a rallying call to become a revolutionary whistle blower and join the growing legion who have vowed to reveal the corruption, dirty tricks and systemic injustices that our global system thrives on.
Imagine a world where people everywhere, in every company, in every branch of government start copying incriminating documents and revealing the truth in the name of #IAmWikileaks.
> tsさん
Whistleblowing is good. But not all the current methods used are. It is a known fact that Israel is inhumane, one would be ignorant to not know.
I am not saying that I have a solution, but when others play dirty, what can a country do to protect itself other than to take sides and play by the same rules？ Every country has a dark side. Regeim change is done through votes and activism in democratic countries. Those who play by idealistic rules will be trampled by those who don't. But where do we draw the line？
Whistleblowing is good. But not all the current methods used are. It is a known fact that Israel is inhumane, one would be ignorant to not know.
I am not saying that I have a solution, but when others play dirty, what can a country do to protect itself other than to take sides and play by the same rules？ Every country has a dark side. Regeim change is done through votes and activism in democratic countries. Those who play by idealistic rules will be trampled by those who don't. But where do we draw the line？
16> @aznatama: i just got your handle; that's slick yo.
My post in 15 is a copy/paste job from the included URL.
Opacity is a negative because it enables known and existing injustices and hazards to continue. Transparency, however, is a double-edged sword: on one hand, it can lead to accountability; on the other, if certain sources are not redacted, it can endanger lives. Where the line of responsibility is drawn is a great difficulty.
My post in 15 is a copy/paste job from the included URL.
Opacity is a negative because it enables known and existing injustices and hazards to continue. Transparency, however, is a double-edged sword: on one hand, it can lead to accountability; on the other, if certain sources are not redacted, it can endanger lives. Where the line of responsibility is drawn is a great difficulty.
- mixiユーザー
- ログインしてコメントしよう！
|
|
|
|
☆ENGLISH ONLY☆ 更新情報
-
最新のアンケート
