Slashdot Mirror
Some WikiLeaks Contributions To Public Discourse
Hugh Pickens writes "The EFF argues that regardless of the heated debate over the propriety of the actions of WikiLeaks, some of the cables have contributed significantly to public and political conversations around the world. The Guardian reported on a cable describing an incident in Afghanistan in which employees of DynCorp, a US military contractor, hired a 'dancing boy,' an under-aged boy dressed as a woman, who dances for a gathering of men and is then prostituted — an incident that contributed important information to the debate over the use of private military contractors. A cable released by WikiLeaks showed that Pfizer allegedly sought to blackmail a Nigerian regulator to stop a lawsuit against drug trials on children. A WikiLeaks revelation that the United States used bullying tactics to attempt to push Spain into adopting copyright laws even more stringent than those in the US came just in time to save Spain from the kind of misguided copyright laws that cripple innovation and facilitate online censorship. An article by the NY Times analyzed cables released which indicated the US is having difficulties in fulfilling Obama's promise to close the Guantánamo Bay detention camp and is now considering incentives in return for other countries accepting detainees, including a one-on-one meeting with Obama or assistance with the IMF. 'These examples make clear that WikiLeaks has brought much-needed light to government operations and private actions,' writes Rainey Reitman, 'which, while veiled in secrecy, profoundly affect the lives of people around the world and can play an important role in a democracy that chooses its leaders.'"
Just treat people with respect, you fucking douchebag.
Well, that fills my irony quota for the week.
They say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, but it's not one half so bad as a lot of ignorance. - Terry Pratchett
The difference between individual privacy and government secrecy is that individuals can be directly harmed, while governments (and other organizations, like corporations) can only be exposed, and power shifts hands. Members of an organization need to be informed to make good decisions, and, in the case of a democratic government, the members are the citizens. Secrets and misinformation make an organization/constituency less informed, and more prone to making bad decisions. It's not a matter of privacy, since organizations aren't individuals.
Yes.
Just keep conveniently forgetting that his "political rival" happens to be a dictator that exemplifies all the bad connotations of that word.
What makes you think the other guy isn't? The West has a long history of supporting the 'other guy' because they can't be worse than what they have... only to discover that actually, they are.
Mao, for example, would have been wiped out by the Chinese Nationalists if the US government hadn't prevented them from doing so because they felt the Nationalists were corrupt.
You mean how he stayed in sweeden until they said he could leave?
or do you mean how he then turned himself in to the police in the UK when the Swedish government changed it's mind?
He's one of those rare people who are actually quite justified to assume conspiracy against him given how many of the post powerful people in the world he and his organisation has pissed off.
He could have hidden perfectly fine if he'd wanted to, there was at least one country(Ecuador) which offered him asylum with no strings attached.
Do some fucking research next time rather than parroting fox news as if they're a real news source.
He hid, by turning himself in to Scotland Yard?
Oh, he fought extradition. As was his right. Not the same as hiding, not at all.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
Bears don't believe drawing a picture of them is picking a fight.
Which only proves that Muslims aren't bears. No more, no less.
Hey, we all have our hot buttons. I even know a rather famous tribe somewhere on this globe that has members that consider it a provocation when people burn a piece of cloth. But only if the cloth is painted in a particular pattern with red stripes and a blue decorated rectangle. Most other patterns are fine. Just as with the Muslims, only a few hotheads in this tribe get really angry, but it's still a remarkable phenomena.
As always, there are other people of this tribe that consider that anger silly and stupid, but hey, there are always some hotheads. It also doesn't help when someone stokes the fires by describing the so-called provocation in the most exaggerated possible terms. Despicable, I know, but I'm afraid these people exist, both in Muslim countries and with that famous tribe.
In other words, "damned if you do, damned if you don't."
We chose Mao - and the result is the shitty, slave-labor society called mainland China which boasts such illustrious achievements as the world's worst, most overpolluted city, most dismal human-rights record outside of african juntas, and companies so criminally assholish they cause mass suicides (looking at you, Foxconn).
On the other hand, who would have been leader had the Kuomintang won? Sun Yat-Sen, who was yet another Communist? The path of the nation wouldn't have changed significantly, we'd just have "Chairman Sun" hats instead of "Chairman Mao" hats.
The history of the US intervening in foreign conflicts is rife with this sort of thing. But that's because the history of wars and conflicts and revolutions is rife with this sort of thing anyways. I hate to use a wikipedia list, but it's a handy reference, so here, take your pick of revolutions and do some digging.
British revolutions kicked out corruption to replace it with more corruption - didn't matter whether they were revolting against parliament or following a pencil-dicked king who was angry that the pope wouldn't give him a fifth annulment. French Revolution? See also "bloody war followed by corrupt leaders followed by more revolution." Go back way back, look at Julius Caesar and the general "line of succession" of leaders of Rome. Wander over to earlier China and see what happened with the Han, Yellow Turbans, et al.
It's a sad statement on human nature, but very true: usually, the leaders of a revolution turn out to be just as corrupt as the assholes they overthrew. Why? "Power corrupts..."