Quote:

---

Julian Assange was insufferable as he left a London courthouse Thursday.

"During my time in solitary confinement in the bottom of a Victorian prison, I had time to reflect on the conditions of those people around the world also in solitary confinement," he said after posting bail - as if nine days in an English jail fighting extradition to Sweden on sex charges made him a regular Nelson Mandela.

Before Assange motored off to his house arrest at a friend's mansion, one of his lawyers expressed his determination that Assange "will not be going back to that cell once occupied by Oscar Wilde."

Oscar Wilde? Those cheeky Brits. Assange's indiscriminate dump of American government secrets over the last several months - with hardly a care for who might be hurt or what public good was served - can be summarized nicely by a line from Wilde's play "A Woman of No Importance": Nothing succeeds like excess.

I can understand why Obama administration figures want to prosecute Assange for espionage or other crimes. I confess I'd like to throw a cream pie in his face myself.

But prosecuting Assange would give him exactly what he wants: proof that America is hypocritical, that we don't live by the freedoms we preach. Assange would like nothing more than to be a martyr - and President Obama shouldn't give that to him.

The better way to deal with Assange is to make him irrelevant. The only reason WikiLeaks has been a sensation is the absurd secrecy of the Obama administration, in some ways worse than that of George W. Bush. The reflexive classifying has, by creating the perception that the government has much to hide, created a market for WikiLeaks.

In fact, the WikiLeaks disclosures have been generally benign. Vice President Biden said Thursday that he didn't see "any substantive damage" from them. The biggest revelation was that so many supposed government secrets really aren't secrets. (Silvio Berlusconi loves to party - who knew?)

The episode spotlighted Obama's surprisingly poor record on government openness. The administration has already undertaken four prosecutions of government leakers, more than any predecessor, in some cases using the arcane, World War I-era Espionage Act. At the same time, the administration stymied efforts in Congress to pass a "shield law" to protect journalists' confidential sources.

Government-secrecy watchdog Steven Aftergood at the Federation of American Scientists reports that the administration has yet to produce recommendations for the "fundamental transformation" of the security classification system that Obama ordered a year ago. The government in the first six months of this year declassified only 8 million of the 400 million documents it is supposed to release by 2013. Over-classification is so prevalent that even the Pentagon Papers - leaked by Daniel Ellsberg nearly four decades ago - are still classified as Top Secret.

It's little wonder that Ellsberg himself empathizes with WikiLeaks. At a news conference at the National Press Club on Thursday - shortly before going to chain himself to the White House fence in a protest - the 79-year-old Ellsberg said Assange is a hero. Convicting Assange, he said, "would mean that the crown had returned to America . . . and that we're really under a monarchical system of total control of information."

Ellsberg was accompanied by an activist from Assange's Australia, who lectured Americans on free speech. "We thought that America stood firm for the Constitution, for its First Amendment rights," said the activist, Brett Solomon. "If something has changed, then let us know."

That bloke was as insufferable as Assange. But the administration is playing into their hands by trying to keep harmless information secret. On this point, there was bipartisan agreement at a House Judiciary Committee hearing Thursday after Ellsberg's news conference. Chairman John Conyers complained of "rampant over-classification." Rep. Ted Poe (R-Tex.) said he was "very concerned about our own over-classification." Rep. Bill Delahunt (D-Mass.) detected "the trademark of totalitarianism."

Thomas Blanton of the National Security Archive at George Washington University said that between 50 percent and 90 percent of classified material shouldn't be; the result is "vast prairies" of phony government secrets that are impossible to protect.

It achieves little to punish Assange for trespassing on the prairie, either by prosecuting him (as Sen. Dianne Feinstein and other Democrats suggest) or hunting him like a terrorist (as Sarah Palin would have it).

Instead, end the obsessive classification that made Assange possible - and deny him the martyrdom he desires. President Obama: Forgive your enemies; nothing annoys them so much.

Didn't Oscar Wilde say that?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by canttakesky:
I don't know Assange. I can't comment on his character. But I do know I support the work Wikileaks is doing.

But I agree with the article that Wikileaks should become irrelevant. If it does its job right, it should work itself out of a job.

The best way to deal with Wikileaks is to not have secrets to begin with.

Can't Take (my gorram) Sky
------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by canttakesky:
I don't know Assange. I can't comment on his character. But I do know I support the work Wikileaks is doing.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Hero:
You claim to support wikileaks. I don't believe you.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by canttakesky:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Hero:
You claim to support wikileaks. I don't believe you.

---

There is a difference between government privacy or institutional privacy and personal privacy.

In the first instance, transparency is a matter of public service. In the second instance, privacy is a matter of self-ownership.

Can't Take (my gorram) Sky
------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
Exactly. Tell us all, "Hero" - is Wikileaks posting up the credit card info, names, addresses, and SSNs of individuals?

---

Quote:

---

Today in the United States some people want to bring back sumptuary laws--not for themselves, of course--but for students at school. They have some theories about the value of making all young people conform to clothing styles not of their own choosing. They think that if students are required to wear clothes that are a constant reminder of their subordinate status, they will be more submissive to authority. That theory doesn't hold up in practice. Dress codes are more likely to provoke resentment than promote cooperation. The only reason they worked in King Henry VIII's day is because anyone who bucked authority risked a date with the hangman. This is not the 16th century. And sumptuary laws are not the American way.

---

Quote:

---

To fill the void, self-styled experts with fairly extreme views on the scope of the Muslim terrorist threat are asked to come in and train local authorities, the Post reports....

Virginia's fusion center named historically black colleges as "potential" terrorism hubs; Maryland State Police infiltrated local groups that lobbied for bike lanes and human rights; and a contractor in Pennsylvania writing an intelligence bulletin flagged meetings of the Tea Party Patriots Coalition and environmental activists.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Hero:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
Exactly. Tell us all, "Hero" - is Wikileaks posting up the credit card info, names, addresses, and SSNs of individuals?

---

No. But logically they should.

Otherwise they are making a subjective judgement about the secrets they think should be kept while denying the right of others, such as American citizens, to do the same either individually or collectively through the aegis of their government.

Further, by publishing classified information they are providing direct support for those opposed to American interests regardless of the distinction between healthy international competition or outright armed conflict.

I find it ironic that you would fight so hard for one person's secrets, but disregard those of 300 million other folks held in trust by our govt. You would argue the govt is corrupt and therefor does not represent the interests of the people. My counter is that your determination of the legitimacy of the govt does not matter since its a collective decision on the part of the people that empower it in whatever form it takes.

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you." "I am forced to agree with Hero here."- Chrisisall, 2009.
"I would rather not ignore your contributions." Niki2, 2010.

---

Quote:

---

Public disclosure of private facts arises where one person reveals information which is not of public concern, and the release of which would offend a reasonable person.[13] "Unlike libel or slander, truth is not a defense for invasion of privacy."[14] Disclosure of private facts includes publishing or widespread dissemination of little-known, private facts that are non-newsworthy, not part of public records, public proceedings, not of public interest, and would be offensive to a reasonable person if made public.[15]

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Hero:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
Exactly. Tell us all, "Hero" - is Wikileaks posting up the credit card info, names, addresses, and SSNs of individuals?

---

No. But logically they should.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by canttakesky:
I don't know Assange. I can't comment on his character. But I do know I support the work Wikileaks is doing.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by canttakesky:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Hero:
You claim to support wikileaks. I don't believe you.

---

There is a difference between government privacy or institutional privacy and personal privacy.

In the first instance, transparency is a matter of public service. In the second instance, privacy is a matter of self-ownership.

Can't Take (my gorram) Sky
------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

---

Exactly. Tell us all, "Hero" - is Wikileaks posting up the credit card info, names, addresses, and SSNs of individuals? Is it even doing that for GOVERNMENT employees?

My local police have decided that if you get pulled over, they get to draw your blood and test it. By your example and logic, that means that, since they get to use any evidence found in that blood against a person in a court of law (hence making it part of the public record), that people now have no right to have their medical records and medical history private.

This Space For Rent!

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by canttakesky:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Hero:
You claim to support wikileaks. I don't believe you.

---

There is a difference between government privacy or institutional privacy and personal privacy.

In the first instance, transparency is a matter of public service. In the second instance, privacy is a matter of self-ownership.

Can't Take (my gorram) Sky
------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

---

Exactly. Tell us all, "Hero" - is Wikileaks posting up the credit card info, names, addresses, and SSNs of individuals? Is it even doing that for GOVERNMENT employees?

My local police have decided that if you get pulled over, they get to draw your blood and test it. By your example and logic, that means that, since they get to use any evidence found in that blood against a person in a court of law (hence making it part of the public record), that people now have no right to have their medical records and medical history private.

This Space For Rent!

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by canttakesky:
I don't know Assange. I can't comment on his character. But I do know I support the work Wikileaks is doing.

---

So what, in your opinion, has Wikileaks accomplished?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by peacekeeper:
Here's aradical thought.Secrets, no matter how benign or otherwise, are secrets. If you as an individual wish to keep some meaningless piece of informtion secret, then that is your prerogative and piss on the sticky beak tosser who fails to respect that.
If on the other hand, the secret you keep is vitally important that it be kept,then whoever leaks it needs shooting.
Basically, mind your own business, whether that be as an individual or as an institution. Wikileaks, IMO, has no right to blather about anything. If a government wishes to keep somethings secret, so what? It ain't gonna bother you, until you actually fuckin know about it!!!!
I must be in a very small minority who actually think that most western governments are pretty good, compared to what you COULD have.Regardless of your vehemence against them, I still believe that even semi-unpopular decisions are generally brought about for the good of the whole. Let them keep their secrets, just as I will keep mine. Why CARE so bloody much!!!

Peacekeeper---keeping order in every verse!!!

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:
So what, in your opinion, has Wikileaks accomplished?

---

Quote:

---

It is often easy to overlook how fearful of centralized government power they [founding fathers] were, and how much they trusted a free press to be a bulwark against it.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by peacekeeper:
Here's aradical thought.Secrets, no matter how benign or otherwise, are secrets. If you as an individual wish to keep some meaningless piece of informtion secret, then that is your prerogative and piss on the sticky beak tosser who fails to respect that.
If on the other hand, the secret you keep is vitally important that it be kept,then whoever leaks it needs shooting.
Basically, mind your own business, whether that be as an individual or as an institution. Wikileaks, IMO, has no right to blather about anything. If a government wishes to keep somethings secret, so what? It ain't gonna bother you, until you actually fuckin know about it!!!!
I must be in a very small minority who actually think that most western governments are pretty good, compared to what you COULD have.Regardless of your vehemence against them, I still believe that even semi-unpopular decisions are generally brought about for the good of the whole. Let them keep their secrets, just as I will keep mine. Why CARE so bloody much!!!

Peacekeeper---keeping order in every verse!!!

---

So, PK, in your universe, is a government considered automatically "good" if it's a "western" government?

Not to godwin the whole thread, but wasn't Nazi Germany a "western" government at the time? They DID think the concentration camps were "for the good of the whole", I'm sure...

What Wikileaks is trying to expose, as I keep pointing out, is the practice of keeping things secret, NOT because they're of some vital national security import, but because those in charge just don't want to have to answer questions about such practices. For instance, when Dick Cheney was VP, he held "secret" meetings with top energy company officials to set an official government energy policy. One of those officials was Enron CEO (and big-time Bush contributor) Ken Lay. In the aftermath of that meeting, Enron started "fixing" prices on electricity, which led to rolling blackouts in California, and also led to practices which collapsed the entire company.

But you seem to be saying that this was all for "the good of the whole". Tens of thousands of people had their life savings wiped out when the company collapsed. What "whole" was served by the "good" of such secrecy?

This Space For Rent!

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
Yeah, "Hero" here can't seem to draw any distinction between SOME privacy and NO privacy.

Wikileaks's document dumps have, according to the U.S. government and the U.S. Department of Defense, put NO Americans in harm's way and have not materially hurt us in any way.

What they HAVE done is embarrass people. And that's the whole point. He's trying to show that our government - and others around the world - attempts to cover up its nefarious deeds and dubious words by merely declaring such things "state secrets", regardless of whether they have any real bearing on matters of state or diplomacy.

Again, "Hero" - by your own definitions and logic, since a court can obtain my DNA by court order, then ALL of my genetic information should be available to everyone, as should everybody else's. Ditto their bloodwork.



This Space For Rent!

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
PK - if you truly "don't care", why did you bother to weigh in at all?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by peacekeeper:
Here's aradical thought.Secrets, no matter how benign or otherwise, are secrets. If you as an individual wish to keep some meaningless piece of informtion secret, then that is your prerogative and piss on the sticky beak tosser who fails to respect that.
If on the other hand, the secret you keep is vitally important that it be kept,then whoever leaks it needs shooting.
Basically, mind your own business, whether that be as an individual or as an institution. Wikileaks, IMO, has no right to blather about anything. If a government wishes to keep somethings secret, so what? It ain't gonna bother you, until you actually fuckin know about it!!!!
I must be in a very small minority who actually think that most western governments are pretty good, compared to what you COULD have.Regardless of your vehemence against them, I still believe that even semi-unpopular decisions are generally brought about for the good of the whole. Let them keep their secrets, just as I will keep mine. Why CARE so bloody much!!!

Peacekeeper---keeping order in every verse!!!

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
You can't run a representative government that way, it becomes a tyranny in all but name, and that is what we have, a thin fiction, a name pasted over the jackboot.

---