|
|
Post by Cranky on Dec 9, 2010 13:20:23 GMT -5
I don't know what to make of Wikileaks. On one hand, I want a light to shine of everything in a democracy. On the other hand, if it puts lives on the line, then this is going to have blood on it's hands.
Am I surprised at any of the leaks? Not even a little. Anyone with a semblance of intelligence knows that American ME hegemony is invited and that Iran is the number one enemy of the region. Most of the rest is nothing more then gossip column stuff.
On the other hand, there seems to be only "American" leaks. Where is Russia and China? They would make American diplomats look like angels.
As for Assange? He is a tool. He speaks of his righteousness of his "cause" but then, targets the US. On top of that, he is not above using blackmail.
What do you think?
|
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Dec 9, 2010 14:20:18 GMT -5
Anything that Wikileaks provides won't surprise me, HA. I think you're right in that he seems to be biased right now. I haven't had the time to really do some digging but I'd ask, does Assange have the same access to Russian and/or Chinese information, as he does with the Americans?
However, I do have a problem with the way recent events have unfolded. The USA asked Wikileaks not to divulge senstive material. Wikileaks ignores this request, starts publishing and all of a suddent the founder winds up in jail.
Co-incidence maybe? Well, after serving 23 years in the service, no, I don't believe in co-incidences for a second. Almost sounds like Don King setting up Mike Tyson to fail and ultimately wind up in jail. Not that any of it can be proven, but that's what this scenario reminds me of.
More to follow later. I've got get back to work.
Cheers.
|
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Dec 9, 2010 16:30:54 GMT -5
Reminds me of Nixon; his calling Trudeau an ass-hole and his destruction of the 18 minutes of tapes.
If you say something and don't want it repeated, "Don't say it."
The people have a right to know who said what so we can vote for politicians based on their true positions and actions.
The fault lies in the leakers, not the reporter.
We have a much more open press than Russia and China. I wouldn't want it any other way.
If the US is planning to nuke North korea, I wouldn't want someone warning them; but the fault lies with whoever leaked the plans, not the reporter.
I abhor the jailing of reporters in Korea, China, Afghanistan and Iran. I don't want to see the same thing done here.
We try not to antagonize radical muslims in order to avoid bloodshed. We let them dictate to journalists in Denmark what can and cannot be printed. That is ridiculous. Freedom of the press is a fundamental freedom. We shouldn't be hiding like Salmon Rushdie. If they are looking for a jihad, let's give it to them!
In times of war, it is acceptable to block news about troop movements and preparations, but the prevailing policy should be only as much censorship as absolutely necessary.
|
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on Dec 10, 2010 1:21:56 GMT -5
I like the concept of wikileaks because I absolutely hate being manipulated and it is so easy to be manipulated by politicians or anyone in power if they only give you certain information. Harper is especially bad for that. Wikileaks or something like that can work against manipulation.
Would the US be in Iraq right now if e-mails had been disclosed that there were obviously not WMD in Iraq? Probably not. And Bush and Cheney wouldn't have won a second round either. Bush's folksiness would have been dispelled.
I can't make enough money in the market either, because I just don't have that inside information you need. We need a stock market wikileaks.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Dec 10, 2010 13:19:22 GMT -5
I'm waiting for those Wikileaks on how Harper files down his horns every morning (just like me) or how he receives his instructions from the devil (just like me) or eats babies for breakfast (not like me, too fatty!).
Let's see where all this plays out. Right now, we have a bunch of hackers and journalist deciding the lives of a lot of people in those communications. Of course, if people die, they are going to claim free speech trumps all.....but not THEIR lives.
There is an old Spartan saying that no longer has any value in our world....."In Sparta, everyone is held accountable for their words".
|
|
|
|
Post by franko on Dec 10, 2010 13:42:24 GMT -5
 c'mon, HA . . . we're not in Sparta any more. we're in Canada, where rights > responsibilities. I know, I know . . . we've been lied to by the war-mongering military establishment who want to make money from other peoples misery . . . so post the info. but don't tell me that you have a right to do that and that you have a right to block MasterCard etc's sites because you don't like what they are doing . . . they too have rights . . .the right to act how they want. pot . . . meet kettle. |
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Dec 10, 2010 17:17:03 GMT -5
c'mon, HA . . . we're not in Sparta any more. we're in Canada, where rights > responsibilities. I know, I know . . . we've been lied to by the war-mongering military establishment who want to make money from other peoples misery . . . so post the info. but don't tell me that you have a right to do that and that you have a right to block MasterCard etc's sites because you don't like what they are doing . . . they too have rights . . .the right to act how they want. pot . . . meet kettle. I am definately in favor of freedom of the press and if Wikileaks helps the public by giving them information needed to analyze politicians, support or resist military campaigns, catch or avoid the Bernie Madoffs of the world and invest in the stock market with public information; then I'm all for it. A big concern is the promulgation of false information. Some poster on HabsRus can state that Cherry did or didn't run naked through the streets of Kingston and false accusations are imposible to prove or disprove. Even the wqild rumor creates uncertainty. I can say O'Bama supported the Palestinians against Israel and I might be simply advancing my agenda rather than publishing the truth. Believe half of what you see and none of what you hear and disbelieve anything you read on the internet. Let the people beware. In principal I consider all information admissable and I choose to believe the statements I like. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Dec 10, 2010 20:43:38 GMT -5
c'mon, HA . . . we're not in Sparta any more. we're in Canada, where rights > responsibilities. I know, I know . . . we've been lied to by the war-mongering military establishment who want to make money from other peoples misery . . . so post the info. but don't tell me that you have a right to do that and that you have a right to block MasterCard etc's sites because you don't like what they are doing . . . they too have rights . . .the right to act how they want. pot . . . meet kettle. Damn right we are not in Sparta anymore, or the mountain crevices would be filled with the bones of fools.  I want to see the sunshine shed on secrets too, but I can't help but think that twelve year olds grabbed the steering wheel of a nuclear sub and got hold of the keys to the nukes. |
|
|
|
Post by MC Habber on Dec 11, 2010 16:37:44 GMT -5
c'mon, HA . . . we're not in Sparta any more. we're in Canada, where rights > responsibilities. I know, I know . . . we've been lied to by the war-mongering military establishment who want to make money from other peoples misery . . . so post the info. but don't tell me that you have a right to do that and that you have a right to block MasterCard etc's sites because you don't like what they are doing . . . they too have rights . . .the right to act how they want. pot . . . meet kettle. The people who attacked MasterCard are not necessarily affiliated with WikiLeaks. While private companies have a right not to do business with whomever they want, when a bunch of companies refuse to do business with one person because the government puts pressure on them, it's concerning. The fact that so much depends on a few companies, and that those companies are so easily controlled by the government, is a form of totalitarianism. There's absolutely nothing stopping the government, if it wanted, from getting *you* banned from PayPal and Amazon and Visa and... Well, nothing except the potential public backlash against the companies, which is why these attacks may be justified. I think the battle over control of information and the way politicians and media are talking about Assange (e.g. Sarah Palin has called for him to be murdered), is of far more importance than any of the leaked information. As for the leaks themselves, I like the idea of transparent and open government, but I'm really not sure that that means there should be no such thing as private conversations. But as for "targeting" the US, I don't know... they released information that was leaked to them from inside the US government/military. Do people really think that if they got information from inside other countries, they wouldn't release that? In fact, much of what they've released as been about other countries. |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Dec 13, 2010 8:16:40 GMT -5
It's tough getting information out of a place like China. For those who are interested in this, Google "The Great Firewall of China" when you get the chance. The Chinese are trying their best to control what their population is exposed to.
Also, from Canoe.ca this morning:
Assange: Pentagon plans prosecution
By Reuters
STOCKHOLM - WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, who angered Washington by releasing secret cables, said in a documentary on Sunday he faced prosecution by the Pentagon and was disappointed with how Swedish justice had been abused.
Assange has been remanded in custody in Britain after a European arrest warrant was issued by Sweden, which wants to question Assange about allegations made by two women of sexual crimes. He has denied the allegations.
“I came to Sweden as a refugee publisher involved with an extraordinary publishing fight with the Pentagon, where people were being detained and there is an attempt to prosecute me for espionage,” Assange said in an interview in the documentary, aired on Swedish public television.
“So I am unhappy and disappointed with how the Swedish justice system has been abused,” the 39-year-old Australian added in the documentary, which was made before his arrest.
Assange faces a fresh British hearing on December 14. His Swedish lawyer has said he will fight extradition to Sweden.
One of his British lawyers, Jennifer Robinson, told ABC News in London on Friday that a U.S. indictment of Assange was imminent, but the report offered no further details or comment by Robinson why she believed charges were likely to be filed.
The U.S. Justice Department has been looking into a range of criminal charges, including violations of the 1917 Espionage Act, that could be filed in the WikiLeaks case involving the release of hundreds of confidential and classified U.S. diplomatic cables.
(Reporting by Patrick Lannin)
===========================================================
Cheers.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Dec 14, 2010 1:56:15 GMT -5
If Wikitool is arrested, watch the whining from the left. It will be about "freedom" of the press, but for Climategate, it was "those criminals who stole the e-mails should be arrested". Why am I not surprised that Wikitool has wrapped himself up in "freedom of the press" while making sure only left wing media get first crack? Or only the US get's shafted? At first, I thought that this was a good thing, but since it seems that this is all about shafting the US, then as far as I'm concerned, the American can torch him. In case anyone was not sure what this is all about...or who the tagrets are.... WikiLeaks' next target is big business, Assange says. In a rare interview, Assange tells Forbes that the release of Pentagon and State Department documents are just the beginning. His next target: big business. www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/World/2010...erview-101201/ |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Dec 14, 2010 1:59:27 GMT -5
The U.S. Justice Department has been looking into a range of criminal charges, including violations of the 1917 Espionage Act, that could be filed in the WikiLeaks case involving the release of hundreds of confidential and classified U.S. diplomatic cables. . Do you really think obami is going to do this? On the other hand, throw him in any American prison and he will need a whoopee cushion and wearing dresses when he gets out. ;D |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Dec 14, 2010 6:30:55 GMT -5
The U.S. Justice Department has been looking into a range of criminal charges, including violations of the 1917 Espionage Act, that could be filed in the WikiLeaks case involving the release of hundreds of confidential and classified U.S. diplomatic cables. . Do you really think obami is going to do this? On the other hand, throw him in any American prison and he will need a whoopee cushion and wearing dresses when he gets out. ;D Or he'll turn to Blues   |
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Dec 14, 2010 15:55:51 GMT -5
Wikileaks can post anything they want. Who is to say that it is or isn't true.
If I post that Asian women spend too much time tutoring their children there is no outrage.
If I say Black women sit at home watching Oprah and eating bonbons there is outrage because some things should be left unsaid.
If Wikileaks posts something about the "State Department" and it is true, there is outrage.
If the accusations are false they are ignored.
When it was reported that Bill Clinton had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky it was an outrageous lie until it was discovered to be true. The people who brought forth the accusations were condemned and ridiculed. The original act was compounded by the cover up.
I don't like to see censorship reach the point where the public is considered too stupid to know the truth, where politicians are insulated from the truth and where the girlfriends of Tiger Woods, as unsavory as they might be are attacked because truth is being witheld for our own good.
Don't know if Assange did or didn't have sex with someone in Sweeden against her will, but it smells of coverup retribution, especially the consensual/nonconsensual interpretations.
In times of war, CNN pictures that show US military positions are helpful to the enemy. That is intrinsically different than pointing out peacetime comments by careless politicians.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Dec 22, 2010 2:16:36 GMT -5
This is so typical of the "do as I say" hypicracy crowd! He is screaming from the top of his lungs when things were leaked about HIM. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Julian Assange, the man behind WikiLeaks, Monday launched a wide ranging series of attacks on both his enemies and allies as he defended his public and private conduct. In his first UK newspaper interview since releasing hundreds of secret diplomatic cables last month, Assange told The (London) Times he predicts the United States will face reprisals if it attempts to extradite him on conspiracy charges. (Bwhahahahahahaha...yes monkeyface, you are going to bring down the US with your bare hands!) He accused his media partners at The Guardian newspaper, which worked with him to make the embarrassing leaks public, of unfairly tarnishing him by revealing damaging details of the sex assault allegations he faces in Sweden. (Oh NO! Leaks about him are soooo unfair. This guy must have a god complex!)He insisted that the women behind the claims were motivated by revenge. [/(Of course they are. You are denying them your presence!)Finally, looking ahead to next year, Assange said he has enough material ready to destroy the bosses of one of the world’s biggest banks. ( I unleash my wrath and strike the unbelievers! SAD....)Read more: www.foxnews.com/world/2010/12/21/wikileaks-assange-turns-friends-foes/#ixzz18ozzqjMo |
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Dec 22, 2010 12:13:09 GMT -5
While private companies have a right not to do business with whomever they want, when a bunch of companies refuse to do business with one person because the government puts pressure on them, it's concerning. The fact that so much depends on a few companies, and that those companies are so easily controlled by the government, is a form of totalitarianism. There's absolutely nothing stopping the government, if it wanted, from getting *you* banned from PayPal and Amazon and Visa and... Well, nothing except the potential public backlash against the companies, which is why these attacks may be justified. I think the battle over control of information and the way politicians and media are talking about Assange (e.g. Sarah Palin has called for him to be murdered), is of far more importance than any of the leaked information. I think that's the larger issue that's being obscured (covered up?) by the battle over Assange's character, or lack thereof. He may be a hypocritical scumbag, but then so was Larry Flynt and his cause had merit too. But then that's just today's world; shoot the messenger, ignore the message. That's how all our politicians get elected these days it seems. Same as it ever was, I suppose. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Dec 22, 2010 12:33:00 GMT -5
the definition of irony, I guess. but how could he not think that something like this might happen?
deflect, deflect, deflect.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Dec 22, 2010 13:18:18 GMT -5
I think that's the larger issue that's being obscured (covered up?) by the battle over Assange's character, or lack thereof. He may be a hypocritical scumbag, but then so was Larry Flynt and his cause had merit too. But then that's just today's world; shoot the messenger, ignore the message. That's how all our politicians get elected these days it seems. Same as it ever was, I suppose. When one takes the mantle of "I am doing it for the greater good" while wallowing in the mud and making it personal, then why are you surprised? He turned Wikileaks into an American business and government bashing personal quest. Calling for Clinton to resign and "destroying banks" is NOT what this is suppose to be all about. The left and particularly the Canadian left took gleefully to his American bashing "revelations" but it turns out he is no hero, not even for them. Well, I give them credit for recognizing a scumbag when they see one. |
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Dec 22, 2010 13:59:29 GMT -5
But again, you’re focusing on the messenger. Sure, maybe his agenda is to bring down the US and destroy banks, and maybe that’s entirely personal and has nothing to do with the good of humanity, blah, blah, blah.
But…
What does the government have to fear? Perhaps more interestingly what do the banks have to fear? The government, sure I can almost understand. National security and all that (though of course that is a fine and murky line to define). But the banks? What do they have to fear? What if the leaks actually show illegal activities? Like they conspired to rob millions of home owners through fraudulent mortgage schemes? Or that they fund illegal groups and/or activities, either at home or abroad? Or that they broke political donation rules? Influenced elections, votes, senate committees? What if they colluded, ignored competition laws, screwed over hard-working and decent people in the name of greed?
What if the leaks show all that? What if they don’t? What level of privacy can a company or government reasonably expect to have in a “free” and democratic society? Should we debate it? Can we debate it?
I think its an easy out to simply dismiss Assange as a raving lunatic, which he probably is. But maybe there is something to that madness that we should be looking at?
|
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Dec 22, 2010 14:03:13 GMT -5
He accused his media partners at The Guardian newspaper, which worked with him to make the embarrassing leaks public, of unfairly tarnishing him by revealing damaging details of the sex assault allegations he faces in Sweden. (Oh NO! Leaks about him are soooo unfair. This guy must have a god complex!)Well, it really is kinda unfair .... I believe Swedish media black out laws are stricter than here, but he is entitled to a fair trial, a trial where there is no prior influence of the public beforehand. Innocent until proven guilty and all that .... |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Dec 22, 2010 14:11:39 GMT -5
But again, you’re focusing on the messenger. Sure, maybe his agenda is to bring down the US and destroy banks, and maybe that’s entirely personal and has nothing to do with the good of humanity, blah, blah, blah. But… What does the government have to fear? Perhaps more interestingly what do the banks have to fear? The government, sure I can almost understand. National security and all that (though of course that is a fine and murky line to define). But the banks? What do they have to fear? What if the leaks actually show illegal activities? Like they conspired to rob millions of home owners through fraudulent mortgage schemes? Or that they fund illegal groups and/or activities, either at home or abroad? Or that they broke political donation rules? Influenced elections, votes, senate committees? What if they colluded, ignored competition laws, screwed over hard-working and decent people in the name of greed? What if the leaks show all that? What if they don’t? What level of privacy can a company or government reasonably expect to have in a “free” and democratic society? Should we debate it? Can we debate it? I think its an easy out to simply dismiss Assange as a raving lunatic, which he probably is. But maybe there is something to that madness that we should be looking at? You are confusing misgovernment, which are public institutions with banks, which are private institutions. Banks are private business and basically, you want to look into their business. What if someone wants to look into YOUR life and publish everything you ever did? How would you like that? A company should expect the same level of privacy as any individual. After all the word "private" does not stop were your interest start. So what do you have to hide? |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Dec 22, 2010 14:16:33 GMT -5
He accused his media partners at The Guardian newspaper, which worked with him to make the embarrassing leaks public, of unfairly tarnishing him by revealing damaging details of the sex assault allegations he faces in Sweden. (Oh NO! Leaks about him are soooo unfair. This guy must have a god complex!)Well, it really is kinda unfair .... I believe Swedish media black out laws are stricter than here, but he is entitled to a fair trial, a trial where there is no prior influence of the public beforehand. Innocent until proven guilty and all that .... Well, it's kinda of unfair.....to publish information that can lead to deaths of others. There is a whole lot of hypocritical spin going on here. What is unfair to him doesn't seem to enter the equation when it involves others. Why? On top of that, Wikitool has said that there may be blood spilled but he is not responsible for that. I guess he doesn't like it if it is his own blood. |
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Dec 22, 2010 14:33:37 GMT -5
You are confusing misgovernment, which are public institutions with banks, which are private institutions. Banks are private business and basically, you want to look into their business. What if someone wants to look into YOUR life and publish everything you ever did? How would you like that? A company should expect the same level of privacy as any individual. After all the word "private" does not stop were your interest start. So what do you have to hide? I don't have anything to hide. But if I was hiding something, like that I steal from my clients, then yes, I would fully expect somebody to come looking into my business. (And banks are in large part publicly owned and traded) Companies cannot, and do not, expect the same level of privacy as an individual. If I want to smoke, that's my business and (so far) nobody can stop me from doing that in the privacy of my own home. On the other hand, if I want to build children's toys with asbestos... There are rules and regulations that govern business, and frankly speaking after seeing the way the banks contributed ( contributed, not caused) to the last fiscal meltdown then yes, I think they should be closely watched. We are talking about institutions that our society forces people to use; go ahead, try to live without a bank account. Banks, like governments, are entrusted with providing people with security and safety. As strange as it may sound in a free society they need to be watched. Or we go back to the barter system. |
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Dec 22, 2010 14:41:45 GMT -5
Private businesses are not above the law. They're not given a free pass to be involved in illegal activities. People entrust banks to handle the most valuable resource they have....their money. The banking industry touches all facets of the public's financial world. Loans, mortgages, investments, RRSPs, etc.
It's not about right or left wing. Owners of the money/investors/debtors have a right to know what's going on.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Dec 22, 2010 14:45:57 GMT -5
Private businesses are not above the law. They're not given a free pass to be involved in illegal activities. People entrust banks to handle the most valuable resource they have....their money. The banking industry touches all facets of the public's financial world. Loans, mortgages, investments, RRSPs, etc. It's not about right or left wing. Owners of the money/investors/debtors have a right to know what's going on. Who said anything about illegal activity? Why the presumption? Wikileaks is simply dumping the private affairs of banks and other companies. If you agree that a private company should be open tot he glare of public scrutiny, why not you? |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Dec 22, 2010 14:48:04 GMT -5
he should never have posted those pictures on facebook.
seriously . . . how could he expect even an iota of privacy? did he not think the government would go into full-scale attack and destroy? did he not think his whole life would be put under a microscope and every little piece of dirt dug up? he started a war [of information], and shock and awe is the US government's way of doing things.
he should just be glad he isn't Russian [perhaps], Chinese, or North Korean . . . he wouldn't be freely moving around right now.
as to the government people [and bankers] who said or wrote what has been leaked . . . what vacuum/alternate universe do you live in that you think that what you say or do will be ignored?
|
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Dec 22, 2010 14:50:56 GMT -5
You are confusing misgovernment, which are public institutions with banks, which are private institutions. Banks are private business and basically, you want to look into their business. What if someone wants to look into YOUR life and publish everything you ever did? How would you like that? A company should expect the same level of privacy as any individual. After all the word "private" does not stop were your interest start. So what do you have to hide? I don't have anything to hide. But if I was hiding something, like that I steal from my clients, then yes, I would fully expect somebody to come looking into my business. (And banks are in large part publicly owned and traded) Companies cannot, and do not, expect the same level of privacy as an individual. If I want to smoke, that's my business and (so far) nobody can stop me from doing that in the privacy of my own home. On the other hand, if I want to build children's toys with asbestos... There are rules and regulations that govern business, and frankly speaking after seeing the way the banks contributed ( contributed, not caused) to the last fiscal meltdown then yes, I think they should be closely watched. We are talking about institutions that our society forces people to use; go ahead, try to live without a bank account. Banks, like governments, are entrusted with providing people with security and safety. As strange as it may sound in a free society they need to be watched. Or we go back to the barter system. Same thing as I replied to CH. Why do you presume that there is illegal activity? This is simply a dumping of the affairs of banks and private companies and then letting the public decide. I have four companies. I own them and it's nobodies business how I run them or do with them. If you want to leak the contents of something I own, which is personal, then why not you? Leak everything about you and let us decide what you have done is legal or moral. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Dec 22, 2010 14:54:05 GMT -5
he should never have posted those pictures on facebook. seriously . . . how could he expect even an iota of privacy? did he not think the government would go into full-scale attack and destroy? did he not think his whole life would be put under a microscope and every little piece of dirt dug up? he started a war [of information], and shock and awe is the US government's way of doing things. he should just be glad he isn't Russian [perhaps], Chinese, or North Korean . . . he wouldn't be freely moving around right now. as to the government people [and bankers] who said or wrote what has been leaked . . . what vacuum/alternate universe do you live in that you think that what you say or do will be ignored? Amazingly, Wikitool thinks that he is above what he does. If he leaked Rusian'Chinese documents, today, he would be fertilizer. s for bankers and government, well, they should have expected this BUT they still have some right to privacy to deal with their business. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Dec 22, 2010 15:05:20 GMT -5
s for bankers and government, well, they should have expected this BUT they still have some right to privacy to deal with their business. yes they do and no they don't. as soon as they come to the government with their hands outstretched they give up that right to full privacy and agree to full disclosure . . . especially in light of the fact that [it seems] their practices haven't changed and they are still abusing. as long as your business is in your hands, HA, run it as you wish . . . but as soon as you come to HabsRus looking for a bail-out we'll want to know the ins and the outs of the business and Skilly'll start looking into your stats . . . and the fact that sometimes you aren't all that Cranky might come out! |
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Dec 22, 2010 15:06:29 GMT -5
Private businesses are not above the law. They're not given a free pass to be involved in illegal activities. People entrust banks to handle the most valuable resource they have....their money. The banking industry touches all facets of the public's financial world. Loans, mortgages, investments, RRSPs, etc. It's not about right or left wing. Owners of the money/investors/debtors have a right to know what's going on. Who said anything about illegal activity? Why the presumption? Wikileaks is simply dumping the private affairs of banks and other companies. I was going on what you reported in an earlier post: Assange said he has enough material ready to destroy the bosses of one of the world’s biggest banks. If I'm jumping to the "illegal banking activity" conclusion wrongly there....then I'll stop jumping.  But that's what it sounds like to me. Breach of privacy point taken. You're saying that if foul play is suspected, then it should follow the usual channels....not somebody leaking documents. Then again....what about Deepthroat and Watergate? Wasn't that a "leak" (water pun not intended) as well. Access to inside info? I mean, what gets the RCMP to look into things like the Quebec sponsorship scandal? |
|
But that's what it sounds like to me.