3 ms·

No matter which side of the fence you're on, it inspires debate about legal process... and that can only be a good thing. While everyone's scrutinizing the lega

No matter which side of the fence you're on, it inspires debate about legal process... and that can only be a good thing. While everyone's scrutinizing the legal process and poring over it with a fine toothed comb trying to find a "side" to be on, there's less opportunity for the legal process to be subverted/perverted and corruption to rule [not to say that doesn't still happen, but it's more likely not to be allowed to go unnoticed]. I don't always agree with Wikileaks stance, however I do believe that for the larger good, releasing information about the corrupt and unjust can only be a good thing. However, that shouldn't be done at the cost of all that is right and just... so it's a bit grey. I believe in the principle for which they stand, I just find it hard to agree with the process they follow. They're kind of like the Boondock Saints for information... except they don't appear to care so much about the innocent that get hurt by the fallout - making them more like the U.S. Government in their "war on [enter trending reason of the day for going to war]"

krapp 12y ago
Arguably, an organization like Wikileaks presupposes that "due process" is already a form of tyranny, as those processes support the corrupt self-interest of the state, as enshrined into law. If we don't trust governments, corporations or individuals to decide for themselves what we deserve to know, and not know, why would we trust Wikileaks to do the same? Then, they only become part of the same apparatus of censorship they exist to undermine. I think that you can have organizations like Wikileaks or you can have personal privacy and the protection of legal due process, but you cannot expect to have both. The former exists to render the latter obsolete.
- balabaster 12y ago
  Well "due process" without the supervision of the populous tends towards the law makers, which have proven at this point unreliable at best. When Government offices can blatantly disregard/subvert/willfully misinterpret the law and perjure themselves in court about that with impunity, it's clear that the existing system is broken. I wouldn't say it's beyond repair, but certainly the legal system needs to be held far more accountable than it is presently - and it's clear that Wikileaks is serving that purpose which is good. However, the manner in which they're doing that isn't beyond reproach.

krapp 12y ago

Arguably, an organization like Wikileaks presupposes that "due process" is already a form of tyranny, as those processes support the corrupt self-interest of the state, as enshrined into law. If we don't trust governments, corporations or individuals to decide for themselves what we deserve to know, and not know, why would we trust Wikileaks to do the same? Then, they only become part of the same apparatus of censorship they exist to undermine. I think that you can have organizations like Wikileaks or you can have personal privacy and the protection of legal due process, but you cannot expect to have both. The former exists to render the latter obsolete.

balabaster 12y ago
Well "due process" without the supervision of the populous tends towards the law makers, which have proven at this point unreliable at best. When Government offices can blatantly disregard/subvert/willfully misinterpret the law and perjure themselves in court about that with impunity, it's clear that the existing system is broken. I wouldn't say it's beyond repair, but certainly the legal system needs to be held far more accountable than it is presently - and it's clear that Wikileaks is serving that purpose which is good. However, the manner in which they're doing that isn't beyond reproach.