3 ms·

I don't see the issue as free press. I don't believe that our press has ever been more free than it is today. The issue I'm concerned with is that this turns p

by nhangen 16y ago

I don't see the issue as free press. I don't believe that our press has ever been more free than it is today. 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.

jacquesm 16y ago
> 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.
nhangen 16y ago
I'm referring to enemies of the West. If you live in the US, UK, or Eastern Europe and don't believe we have common enemies, then you are sadly mistaken. I've met them. They don't like us.
- jacquesm 16y ago
  > I'm referring to enemies of the West. 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 ?
  - nhangen 16y ago
    When I was in Afghanistan in 2008. I could name countless reasons, but you know them already.
    - jacquesm 16y ago
      So, because of your experience in Afghanistan (you were there as an aid worker?) you have decided that wikileaks is somehow illegal. 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.
    - nhangen 16y ago
      I was there as a US Army NCO. I'm not afraid, I'm simply pointing out that there are people that despise the West, and it's bad enough that we have to take it from them...we shouldn't have to take it from our own people too. 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.
      - 0x44 16y ago
        Can't we push for an open government without extremes? I'm not sure that we can. On the one side, we have well intentioned individuals who forthrightly believe that secrecy is the only way to protect our freedoms and way of life, and whom will stop at nothing keep anything detrimental to that goal from being revealed to the public and our "enemies". On the other, you have equally well-intentioned people who, for the most part, acknowledge that there are things that are completely reasonable to keep secret but that most things probably oughtn't. To have an open government balanced correctly, we need transparency extremists. Otherwise, the balance of power is wholly on the side of people who want to keep secrets, leaving us with a less open, less transparent government.
      - OpieCunningham 16y ago

by nhangen 16y ago

jacquesm 16y ago

> 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.

nhangen 16y ago

I'm referring to enemies of the West. If you live in the US, UK, or Eastern Europe and don't believe we have common enemies, then you are sadly mistaken. I've met them. They don't like us.

jacquesm 16y ago
> I'm referring to enemies of the West. 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 ?
- nhangen 16y ago
  When I was in Afghanistan in 2008. I could name countless reasons, but you know them already.
  - jacquesm 16y ago
    So, because of your experience in Afghanistan (you were there as an aid worker?) you have decided that wikileaks is somehow illegal. 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.
  - nhangen 16y ago
    I was there as a US Army NCO. I'm not afraid, I'm simply pointing out that there are people that despise the West, and it's bad enough that we have to take it from them...we shouldn't have to take it from our own people too. 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.
    - 0x44 16y ago
      Can't we push for an open government without extremes? I'm not sure that we can. On the one side, we have well intentioned individuals who forthrightly believe that secrecy is the only way to protect our freedoms and way of life, and whom will stop at nothing keep anything detrimental to that goal from being revealed to the public and our "enemies". On the other, you have equally well-intentioned people who, for the most part, acknowledge that there are things that are completely reasonable to keep secret but that most things probably oughtn't. To have an open government balanced correctly, we need transparency extremists. Otherwise, the balance of power is wholly on the side of people who want to keep secrets, leaving us with a less open, less transparent government.
    - OpieCunningham 16y ago